Sign in to follow this  
Hard On The Wind

The Pentagon speaks about climate change

Recommended Posts

https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sec_335_ndaa-report_effects_of_a_changing_climate_to_dod.pdf

 

Quote: By Chris D’Angelo and Alexander C. Kaufman

More than a year after President Donald Trump nixed climate change from his administration’s list of national security threats, the Pentagon has released an alarming report detailing how dozens of U.S. military bases are already threatened by rising seas, drought and wildfire.

“The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense missions, operational plans, and installations,” states the 22-page document, which was published Thursday.

The congressionally mandated analysis looked at a total of 79 military installations around the country. The Defense Department found that 53 sites are currently vulnerable to repeat flooding. Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, for example, has experienced 14 inches of sea level rise since 1930. Additionally, more than half of the 79 bases are at risk from drought, while nearly half are vulnerable to wildfire.

These climate impacts are expected to pose a risk to several other installations over the next two decades, and the report notes that “projected changes will likely be more pronounced at the mid-century mark” if climate adaptation measures are not taken.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the Navy will be happy about the 14 inches of extra draft... they might run aground less often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Keith said:

I would guess the Navy will be happy about the 14 inches of extra draft... they might run aground less often.

Yeah, but if they are mobile they can hit other ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a military base get threatened by drought? And half of the 79 at that. Are they concerned the lawns might die off outside the officers mess and make the place look untidy. 

Or is the pentagon looking for a slight increase in budget. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DFG is only 4' above sea level on average and 22' max.

They'll have to use some of that alien tech to raise it up a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much does the US military contribute to AGW? How much fossil fuels do they burn annually? Maybe the rest of need to cut down in a show of support. :ph34r:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Yeah, but if they are mobile they can hit other ships.

And sink more navigational aids...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

How much does the US military contribute to AGW? How much fossil fuels do they burn annually? Maybe the rest of need to cut down in a show of support. :ph34r:   

The pentagon has been researching alternative fuels for a couple decades, for a number of reasons.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG969.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42859.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-green-energy-insight/u-s-military-marches-forward-on-green-energy-despite-trump-idUSKBN1683BL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How stupid are the Chinese building military installations on those artificial reefs? Total dumbasses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gissie said:

How does a military base get threatened by drought

I read a few excerpts/summaries of the report. Aside from the obvious lack of drinking water, lack of moisture in the ground can make the ground settle, affecting utilities that are buried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toecutter said:

How stupid are the Chinese building military installations on those artificial reefs? Total dumbasses!

The operative word in your statement is building.....they will continue to build as sea levels change.

Never underestimate the Chinese and certainly don’t think of them as dumbasses.

The islands are a barefaced land grab but also it’s a strategy in their efforts to reassimilate Taiwan and control shipping routes in the area.

China always plays a long game.

They have recently reneged on a promise not to militarise several artificial islands.

Google “China’s sea control is a done deal , short of war with the US”

A NY Times article it makes for scary reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gissie said:

How does a military base get threatened by drought? And half of the 79 at that. Are they concerned the lawns might die off outside the officers mess and make the place look untidy. 

Or is the pentagon looking for a slight increase in budget. 

Drought is one of their six contributors to regional instability. Depending on the location, it ranks higher or lower. It's obviously not going to be much of a weight with their operations in the Aleutians, but it's usually the single biggest contributor to instability with their AFRICOM operations, for instance.

Yes, the Pentagon always wants more money, but it's a no bullshit problem. Even a mild drought can endanger the stability of a command in an area that is already water-stressed, it can and has destabilized existing treaties to the point of uselessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Drought is one of their six contributors to regional instability. Depending on the location, it ranks higher or lower. It's obviously not going to be much of a weight with their operations in the Aleutians, but it's usually the single biggest contributor to instability with their AFRICOM operations, for instance.

Yes, the Pentagon always wants more money, but it's a no bullshit problem. Even a mild drought can endanger the stability of a command in an area that is already water-stressed, it can and has destabilized existing treaties to the point of uselessness.

So maybe they could just get out of the AFRICOM places and let the residents do what they want. Of course it may let the Chinese buy their way into power. But you guys don’t want to spend enough on bribes to stop them anyway so it could be easier to just walk away. Before the water runs out and makes it uncontrollable and there is no return on the millions already spent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

DFG is only 4' above sea level on average and 22' max.

They'll have to use some of that alien tech to raise it up a bit.

And risk a capsize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gissie said:

So maybe they could just get out of the AFRICOM places and let the residents do what they want. Of course it may let the Chinese buy their way into power. But you guys don’t want to spend enough on bribes to stop them anyway so it could be easier to just walk away. Before the water runs out and makes it uncontrollable and there is no return on the millions already spent. 

 What I know about the AFRICOM operations is that yes, it's a mixed bag of some straight ahead military adventurism, but also solid humanitarian support. Yes, AFRICOM unabashedly promotes U.S. interests in Africa, but that main interest is stability.

As one of the taxpayers who actually pays for AFRICOM, I support it, because it saves lives, and it saves a lot of lives. China doesn't give a rat's ass about stability in Africa, they just use it as an economic and resource larder. And Europe, fuck me dead, we don't even need to go there, the age of European colonial destabilization in Africa was an absolute mess, with Britain, France and Belgium pulling resources from the continent like thieves, as they tried to have the locals murder each other. Europe did in Africa what the USA and the Soviets did in the Cold War in Asia and Latin America.

But in 2019, the biggest threat in Africa is exactly what AFRICOM offers stability to treat ... malaria, sanitation, warring factions, cholera, infant mortality.

I don't know what contribution, if any, New Zealand has in AFRICOM, but suggesting that we just high tail it out is like suggesting that New Zealand is actually a corrosive force in Tokelau, Nieue and the Cooks. Good work is good work, and the reality is that these broken, fucked up economies ARE recovering, and there is sufficient stability now that the U.N. and thousands of NGOs can safely operate to address those things like malaria, cholera, sanitation, services and infant mortality.

I'm certain that AFRICOM has already headed off at least one water war on Central Africa by just facilitating the needed water infrastructure. The USA has a good reputation in the AFRICOM domains because we actually seem to help, rather than use those countries the way we do the countries in our damned oil wars.

And yes, we'll need to figure out how to work with China there, because unlike the USA, China is approaching their contracts there the same way that the Europeans were, as a means to bolster insufficient resources at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

Drought is one of their six contributors to regional instability. Depending on the location, it ranks higher or lower. It's obviously not going to be much of a weight with their operations in the Aleutians, but it's usually the single biggest contributor to instability with their AFRICOM operations, for instance.

Yes, the Pentagon always wants more money, but it's a no bullshit problem. Even a mild drought can endanger the stability of a command in an area that is already water-stressed, it can and has destabilized existing treaties to the point of uselessness.

So far, the only empirical data we have on this human caused "drought" is that it has resulted in additional vegetation on the planet to the tune of 2 continental USA's:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

So far, the only empirical data we have on this human caused "drought" is that it has resulted in additional vegetation on the planet to the tune of 2 continental USA's:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

You're confusing climate change with drought.

Argue all you like about how they may or may not be connected. But drought never belongs in quotations the way you did up there. If you knew your ass from your elbow about drought, you would know that it has killed hundreds of thousands of Africans since you were born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You're confusing climate change with drought.

Argue all you like about how they may or may not be connected. But drought never belongs in quotations the way you did up there. If you knew your ass from your elbow about drought, you would know that it has killed hundreds of thousands of Africans since you were born.

All I know is that the data shows that the Earth has 2 additional continental US's worth of vegetation in the last 35 years.

Oh, and no doubt droughts are real and always have been.  They don't have to kill Africans.  How many people in the US die from droughts each year?  Have we eliminated droughts in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jzk said:

All I know is that the data shows that the Earth has 2 additional continental US's worth of vegetation in the last 35 years.

Oh, and no doubt droughts are real and always have been.  They don't have to kill Africans.  How many people in the US die from droughts each year?  Have we eliminated droughts in the US?

There is more green than ever because for the last 60-some years, we're pumping the ground full of fossil waters and we're coating the ground with nitrogen fertilizer and planting lots and lots of crops.

What does that gave to do with drought? And more green isn't necessarily a good thing, we might well be poisoning ourselves by letting vital nutrients bind with all that nitrogen.

Drought can't be eliminated, it's both a natural and a geopolitical result. But it can be planned, prepared and survived. Heck, wasn't that an issue when Moses tried to get the Pharaoh to store grain from the wet years, to survive the dry years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

There is more green than ever because for the last 60-some years, we're pumping the ground full of fossil waters and we're coating the ground with nitrogen fertilizer and planting lots and lots of crops.

What does that gave to do with drought? And more green isn't necessarily a good thing, we might well be poisoning ourselves by letting vital nutrients bind with all that nitrogen.

Drought can't be eliminated, it's both a natural and a geopolitical result. But it can be planned, prepared and survived. Heck, wasn't that an issue when Moses tried to get the Pharaoh to store grain from the wet years, to survive the dry years?

That is not what NASA said.  NASA said it was because of human emitted CO2.  

So how does the US plan, prepare for and survive droughts?  How does modern day China do it?  How did China do it in the 50's and 60's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jzk said:

So far, the only empirical data we have on this human caused "drought" is that it has resulted in additional vegetation on the planet to the tune of 2 continental USA's:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

The OP report , as far as I read,  did not assign a human component. It acknowledges what we all know. The globe is getting warmer, has been for 170 or 270 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Like these guys?

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.    I see the same info and reach  different conclusions then the video.   The Chinese use their construction programs to create Chinese jobs.   They also avoid loss of the investment to corruption, the plague of U.N. programs.    Instead of American foreign policy (weapons sales and occupation) this one does leave behind viable infrastructure.   It is overbuilt, but they do the same thing domestically,    

The video’s assumption is the Chinese are vulture capitalists, siphoning resources.   A footprint of working infrastructure isn’t required for short term profit taking.   Trains and ports imply multi decade exploitation, if not multi generation.  I see a new brand of economic colonialism.   They seek to become the company store, the credit card for nations.   I think they still play the long game.   They have incentive to bring stability, to protect their investments.   In the long run their beneficiaries lose sovereignty, but civil war and genocide fade.   Of course the US showed the last era of colonial powers the potential if a group of colonies to banded together.   But we also have a long tradition of doing the same thing to ourselves.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Lark said:

The video’s assumption is the Chinese are vulture capitalists, siphoning resources.   A footprint of working infrastructure isn’t required for short term profit taking.   Trains and ports imply multi decade exploitation, if not multi generation.  I see a new brand of economic colonialism.   They seek to become the company store, the credit card for nations.   I think they still play the long game.   They have incentive to bring stability, to protect their investments.   In the long run their beneficiaries lose sovereignty, but civil war and genocide fade.  

I think that's spot on, actually.  I don't think the Chinese as interested in 'extracting' wealth as the Europeans - that was more of a colonial thing.  From everything I've ever read of Chinese history, change is often violent and unpredictable so they tend to put a huge premium on stability, and one of the major friction points with the USA.  They just don't do creative destruction very well whereas the average American rarely thinks about where they're going to be 6 months, 12, months, or 20 years from now.  Just different cultures.

That being said, there is a certain 'turn and burn' attitude to the modern China that I think may be a newish thing, brought on by the incredibly fast industrialization.  I was reading about the 'empty cities' that the Chinese have built - the half-million unoccupied condos and such.  One of the hard truths is that apparently, much of this construction isn't uninhabited because of lack of demand - it's uninhabitable.  The buildings were created using paper/straw fillers, design changes were never analyzed for structural integrity, materials were substandard, many of the buildings don't actually have wiring or plumbing, etc.  The goal was to get the buildings up and flip the paper to someone else.  Smoke and mirrors that would make the most aspiring American slumlord blush at the audacity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we are really capable of grasping the rate of change in China - we've never seen anything remotely like it. Maybe the construction of the interstate highway network in the 50's & 60's came close.

A friend deals in heavy equipment built in China. A number of years ago he was there on business (Shanghai I think) and there were two major bridges spanning the big river that divided the city. He went back 5 years later and there were seven.

If it was here they wouldn't even have been done with the environmental impact studies for the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

I think that's spot on, actually.  I don't think the Chinese as interested in 'extracting' wealth as the Europeans - that was more of a colonial thing.  From everything I've ever read of Chinese history, change is often violent and unpredictable so they tend to put a huge premium on stability, and one of the major friction points with the USA.  They just don't do creative destruction very well whereas the average American rarely thinks about where they're going to be 6 months, 12, months, or 20 years from now.  Just different cultures.

That being said, there is a certain 'turn and burn' attitude to the modern China that I think may be a newish thing, brought on by the incredibly fast industrialization.  I was reading about the 'empty cities' that the Chinese have built - the half-million unoccupied condos and such.  One of the hard truths is that apparently, much of this construction isn't uninhabited because of lack of demand - it's uninhabitable.  The buildings were created using paper/straw fillers, design changes were never analyzed for structural integrity, materials were substandard, many of the buildings don't actually have wiring or plumbing, etc.  The goal was to get the buildings up and flip the paper to someone else.  Smoke and mirrors that would make the most aspiring American slumlord blush at the audacity.

 

I’ve read the same thing.   I attributed it to the quick buck mentality that pervades Chinese knock off or throw away mercantilism.   The empty buildings may be unusable, but their infrastructure merely exceeds near term demand (and sometimes foreseeable demand).   Their high speed rail shows the ability of the government to build quality high tech industrial projects that rival Japan’s.    From what I’ve read, the African railways are also the real deal.  I’m not sure about track tonnage ratings, but they seem to be infrastructure BNSF or NS would be happy to own.    Their port upgrades in Greece are similar.   I tend to attribute Chinese government and government controlled industry actions to strategy, even though their billionaire class seems to think with time horizons similar to our own.   It may be a false dichotomy, but in so much as they are competition at least as much as a vendor, it never pays to underestimate one’s opponent.   If they are merely vulture capitalists the implosion will be entertaining, and here will be a fire sale on high end infrastructure around the world.    

Edit.   My view is biased by a fascination of Chinese martial arts movies.   Newer ones since Hong Kong was reclaimed show a Soviet style political message as the backdrop,   Their memory of colonialism from the boxer rebellion era is strong, and they don’t want their own people to forget it.   As you said, they aren’t recreating the European model.   They are inventing the VISA model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

The OP report , as far as I read,  did not assign a human component. It acknowledges what we all know. The globe is getting warmer, has been for 170 or 270 years.

So you believe the last ice age ended?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could there have even been an ice age if the world is only 6000 years old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

How could there have even been an ice age if the world is only 6000 years old?

I knew Lake Erie was fake.   Since mankind cannot affect climate in @Saorsa world, it stands to reason we aren’t responsible for that green color either.   In the absence of human influence, there is no way a real lake would be leprechaun green.   Therefore the ice age souvineer we call Lake Erie (and Saint Claire) are fake.   

A17EE013-62E7-4CDE-B7B4-4859B50CE7ED.jpeg

1D343BED-C6EF-42DC-8E77-F5A755BBFD2B.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lark said:

I knew Lake Erie was fake.   Since mankind cannot affect climate in @Saorsa world, it stands to reason we aren’t responsible for that green color either.   In the absence of human influence, there is no way a real lake would be leprechaun green.   Therefore the ice age souvineer we call Lake Erie (and Saint Claire) are fake.   

A17EE013-62E7-4CDE-B7B4-4859B50CE7ED.jpeg

1D343BED-C6EF-42DC-8E77-F5A755BBFD2B.jpeg

The 2nd law of thermodynamics also disproves evolution!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amati said:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics also disproves evolution!  :)

And bumblebees can't fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

And bumblebees can't fly.

This is fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

How could there have even been an ice age if the world is only 6000 years old?

We are in one now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

We are in one now.

Are you trapped in your refrigerator again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Are you trapped in your refrigerator again?

Let's start with Wikipedia, and then we can go from there if your pea brain can handle it.  Works?

"An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

So you believe the last ice age ended?

 

Seems to have....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jzk said:

That is not what NASA said.  NASA said it was because of human emitted CO2.  

So how does the US plan, prepare for and survive droughts?  How does modern day China do it?  How did China do it in the 50's and 60's?

Do you have a link for that?

I know of a GISS paper that studied it, but I suspect you didn't read it, if you came to that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, mikewof said:

There is more green than ever because for the last 60-some years, we're pumping the ground full of fossil waters and we're coating the ground with nitrogen fertilizer and planting lots and lots of crops.

What does that gave to do with drought? And more green isn't necessarily a good thing, we might well be poisoning ourselves by letting vital nutrients bind with all that nitrogen.

Drought can't be eliminated, it's both a natural and a geopolitical result. But it can be planned, prepared and survived. Heck, wasn't that an issue when Moses tried to get the Pharaoh to store grain from the wet years, to survive the dry years?

 

7 hours ago, jzk said:

That is not what NASA said.  NASA said it was because of human emitted CO2.  

So how does the US plan, prepare for and survive droughts?  How does modern day China do it?  How did China do it in the 50's and 60's?

JZK unfailingly jumps to erroneous conclusions because he looks for black and white in a gray universe.  Many struggle to make reality match their belief system, some convince themselves they have succeeded.    

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-skeptics-want-more-co2/

There have been multiple studies, including plants grown in CO2 enriched environments.  Plants do benefit from CO2 to a degree.  With the aid of sunlight and water, it becomes cellulose.   They won’t soak it up though to maintain a homeostasis near current levels.   Vegetables grown in a high CO2 environment are less nutritious,   More carbon doesn’t mean they have more minerals or micronutrients to incorporate into their structure.    

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/forest-growth-cant-keep-u/  in real world forests CO2 isn’t the rate limiting step.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-carbon-dioxide-grows-tropical-trees-do-not/  CO2 doesn’t even result in increased forest growth.  

More concerning, botanical zones are currently shifting.   Pino vineyards need to switch grapes or relocate.    Crop production in the grainbelt can only be maintained to a degree, as heat stress exasperates aquifer depletion.   Trees of course have trouble migrating to more appropriate environments.   The temporary increase in plant growth may not be sustained, and will not necessarily benefit those that depend on plants (all of us).   We can adjust as a species over centuries.   In the short term those that foolishly bought property in Florida, California, or Texas depend on federal bailouts.   The western grain belt will be next as they face heat and drought stressed plants.   They will draw on federal crop insurance more often.   Odd that conservatives love placing themselves in need of federal subsidies, but so much about American conservatism is irrational.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lark said:

heat stress exasperates aquifer depletion.

I'm telling Meli you said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

Let's start with Wikipedia, and then we can go from there if your pea brain can handle it.  Works?

"An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age."

Since you can apparently only process one sentence at a time, would you like me to finish the quote?

Quote

An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.[1]Individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or, alternatively, "glacials", "glaciations", or "glacial stage", or colloquially "ice ages"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials", with both climatic pulses are being part of the Quaternary or other periods in Earth's history.[2]

In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next ice age, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.[

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I'm telling Meli you said that.

If it makes her horny, I’m running to Amish land where the Internet can’t find me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lark said:

 

I’ve seen this.   Also a buggy broken down on he side of the road with a dead horse.   

37D7C486-FCC6-4BC7-91D9-55C39DA6EA63.jpeg

Outboard motors are kosher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Outboard motors are kosher?

Sure.   Depends on the bishop (whose name is pulled out of a Bible, so he may not be the most religious member of the group when chosen by god).    Some run tablesaws with lawn mower motors and a belt.   Fishing and hunting are providing for the family, so they aren’t wasteful leisure.    The surprising part is the use of air filled tires (maybe fix a flat foam?).   Like other religious groups, they make odd compromises for their faith,   One group would use pumped water and a hose to water the crops for their fruit stand, but not the livestock.   A friend saw a small self powered combine being towed by a team of horses.    They seemed about as varied as Protestants to me.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lark said:

Sure.   Depends on the bishop (whose name is pulled out of a Bible, so he may not be the most religious member of the group when chosen by god).    Some run tablesaws with lawn mower motors and a belt.   Fishing and hunting are providing for the family, so they aren’t wasteful leisure.    The surprising part is the use of air filled tires (maybe fix a flat foam?).   Like other religious groups, they make odd compromises for their faith,   One group would use pumped water and a hose to water the crops for their fruit stand, but not the livestock.   A friend saw a small self powered combine being towed by a team of horses.    They seemed about as varied as Protestants to me.   

Truth.  The foundation of the eschewing technology tenant is the idea that God has provided you with what you need to excel and  through personal effort, sacrifice, sweat, and blood, you honor that gift.  That can take on a wide range of interpretation.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
50 minutes ago, Lark said:

 

I’ve seen this.   Also a buggy broken down on he side of the road with a dead horse.   

37D7C486-FCC6-4BC7-91D9-55C39DA6EA63.jpeg

Outboard motors are kosher?

That looks a lot like my old skiff and pretty darn similar to the 1961 Johnson it had when I was a kid.

I think it would be OK with the Amish since it was so seldom capable of internal combustion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

 

 

JZK unfailingly jumps to erroneous conclusions because he looks for black and white in a gray universe.  Many struggle to make reality match their belief system, some convince themselves they have succeeded.    

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-skeptics-want-more-co2/

There have been multiple studies, including plants grown in CO2 enriched environments.  Plants do benefit from CO2 to a degree.  With the aid of sunlight and water, it becomes cellulose.   They won’t soak it up though to maintain a homeostasis near current levels.   Vegetables grown in a high CO2 environment are less nutritious,   More carbon doesn’t mean they have more minerals or micronutrients to incorporate into their structure.    

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/forest-growth-cant-keep-u/  in real world forests CO2 isn’t the rate limiting step.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-carbon-dioxide-grows-tropical-trees-do-not/  CO2 doesn’t even result in increased forest growth.  

More concerning, botanical zones are currently shifting.   Pino vineyards need to switch grapes or relocate.    Crop production in the grainbelt can only be maintained to a degree, as heat stress exasperates aquifer depletion.   Trees of course have trouble migrating to more appropriate environments.   The temporary increase in plant growth may not be sustained, and will not necessarily benefit those that depend on plants (all of us).   We can adjust as a species over centuries.   In the short term those that foolishly bought property in Florida, California, or Texas depend on federal bailouts.   The western grain belt will be next as they face heat and drought stressed plants.   They will draw on federal crop insurance more often.   Odd that conservatives love placing themselves in need of federal subsidies, but so much about American conservatism is irrational.   

Cripes, you explained that clearly, completely and briefly.

Maybe if science communication were done like that, there wouldn't be so many scientifically-illiterate people.

The scientists didn't fail, the public didn't fail, the science communicators failed. I was one of them, and I had my head up my ass in trying to be compelling, rather than just trying to be clear, complete and brief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

That looks a lot like my old skiff and pretty darn similar to the 1961 Johnson it had when I was a kid.

I think it would be OK with the Amish since it was so seldom capable of internal combustion.

The horse-buggy-boat reminds me when Old Man Scheere used a Silverado with the 350 to pull a POS 15 foot camper, and then a Boston Whaler behind that, headed to Lake McConaugy every summer.

His punk son Eddie got the bright idea that the 350 still had sufficient power to pull a pair of jetskis as a fourth rider, so he spent a week rigging up a homebrew tow rig for the boat trailer. He didn't even make it out of the cul-de-sac before an amused Denver cop laughingly told him that four was too many to be legal.

Anyway, the old Evinrude 88spl that I had was similarly disdainful of internal combustion, perhaps due in part to having inhaled a bunch of Styrofoam pellets from the fuel intake, which had dissolved off of an ill-advised gas tank gauge float.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lark said:

Thanks for the link.    I see the same info and reach  different conclusions then the video.   The Chinese use their construction programs to create Chinese jobs.   They also avoid loss of the investment to corruption, the plague of U.N. programs.    Instead of American foreign policy (weapons sales and occupation) this one does leave behind viable infrastructure.   It is overbuilt, but they do the same thing domestically,    

The video’s assumption is the Chinese are vulture capitalists, siphoning resources.   A footprint of working infrastructure isn’t required for short term profit taking.   Trains and ports imply multi decade exploitation, if not multi generation.  I see a new brand of economic colonialism.   They seek to become the company store, the credit card for nations.   I think they still play the long game.   They have incentive to bring stability, to protect their investments.   In the long run their beneficiaries lose sovereignty, but civil war and genocide fade.   Of course the US showed the last era of colonial powers the potential if a group of colonies to banded together.   But we also have a long tradition of doing the same thing to ourselves.

you might find this piece interesting https://nb.sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in it's from august 2017, written by an Aussie,  I think it's aging well (as does the newsletter author who republished). The argument is that Xi Jinping & the CCCP are carrying on the legacy of Stalin & that conflict with the liberal west is inherent to their worldview.

For your first paragraph? The Chinese infrastructure abroad projects rely on local corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“We know this document is authentic because the Chinese journalist who publicised it on the internet, Gao Yu, was arrested and her child was threatened with unimaginable things. The threats to her son led her to make the first Cultural Revolution-style confession of the television era.”    I find it a logic error that the negative article must be true to generate reprisal.   Interesting read otherwise.   So the paper argues modern China is an ongoing revolution without a cause, as their income inequality rises and they become their enemy?   The Maoist revolution’s endpoint is to become Dynastic China with crony capitalism?    I can see the leaders having an interest in the dynastic heritage as a tool to maintaining power, but the claim they feel pure to Maoism at the same time feels hypocritical even by political standards.    

Chinese projects abroad rely on local corruption?   You mean an incentive to accept the loan?   I don’t doubt it.   But unlike traditional African infrastructure projects, there is a working result at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

heat stress exasperates aquifer depletion.  

Heat stress can be exasperating, I agree but I think it only exacerbates aquifer depletion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
9 hours ago, Lark said:

heat stress exasperates aquifer depletion.  

Heat stress can be exasperating, I agree but I think it only exacerbates aquifer depletion.

Although if the Florida Aquifer is exasperated, it's pretty understandable.

I'd be pissed if someone injected me with radioactive waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lark said:

I knew Lake Erie was fake.   Since mankind cannot affect climate in @Saorsa world, it stands to reason we aren’t responsible for that green color either.   In the absence of human influence, there is no way a real lake would be leprechaun green.   Therefore the ice age souvineer we call Lake Erie (and Saint Claire) are fake.   

1D343BED-C6EF-42DC-8E77-F5A755BBFD2B.jpeg

I've never said that mankind was not part of climate change.  I do believe that our contribution is overemphasizes and proposed 'solutions' that do not directly address the problems are pointless.

Your bottom image is  interesting.  Where is that location?  I see algae in abundance but seems worse on the right side from the siltation making it more visible.  The green on the bottom is definitely flow toward the drain lower left.  The major source seems the outflow center right.

We have a lot of politicians in FL now who ran on stopping red tide.  FL cannot do that.  Red Tide and algae blooms are natural occurences.  Their severity in FL depends more on the wind direction at an particular time.  We have a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that begins at the Mississippi Delta where all the nutrient rich runoff from the watershed coupled with the mixing of fresh and salt water.  The solution is not reducing CO2 or increasing taxes though.  And in the case of the northern Gulf, FL alone can do nothing to solve the problem.  If FL wants to do something then outlawing a lot of commercial lawn chemicals would be a really good start.

Humanities biggest contribution is simply a growing population that requires food and fuel to maintain it's existence.  How many folks do you want to die to solve the problem which doesn't actually bother the earth at all.

But it isn't the  worlds only dead zone.

Aquatic_Dead_Zones.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world's single largest contributer to AGW wants to lecture us about AGW? You can't make this shit up, folks! Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Heat stress can be exasperating, I agree but I think it only exacerbates aquifer depletion.

Noted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lark said:

 

 

JZK unfailingly jumps to erroneous conclusions because he looks for black and white in a gray universe.  Many struggle to make reality match their belief system, some convince themselves they have succeeded.    

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-skeptics-want-more-co2/

There have been multiple studies, including plants grown in CO2 enriched environments.  Plants do benefit from CO2 to a degree.  With the aid of sunlight and water, it becomes cellulose.   They won’t soak it up though to maintain a homeostasis near current levels.   Vegetables grown in a high CO2 environment are less nutritious,   More carbon doesn’t mean they have more minerals or micronutrients to incorporate into their structure.    

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/forest-growth-cant-keep-u/  in real world forests CO2 isn’t the rate limiting step.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-carbon-dioxide-grows-tropical-trees-do-not/  CO2 doesn’t even result in increased forest growth.  

More concerning, botanical zones are currently shifting.   Pino vineyards need to switch grapes or relocate.    Crop production in the grainbelt can only be maintained to a degree, as heat stress exasperates aquifer depletion.   Trees of course have trouble migrating to more appropriate environments.   The temporary increase in plant growth may not be sustained, and will not necessarily benefit those that depend on plants (all of us).   We can adjust as a species over centuries.   In the short term those that foolishly bought property in Florida, California, or Texas depend on federal bailouts.   The western grain belt will be next as they face heat and drought stressed plants.   They will draw on federal crop insurance more often.   Odd that conservatives love placing themselves in need of federal subsidies, but so much about American conservatism is irrational.   

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Meanwhile, 2 additional continental US's worth of vegetation.  I guess those plants didn't read your studies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Since you can apparently only process one sentence at a time, would you like me to finish the quote?

 

Did you happen to read what you posted?  

Keep reading:

"There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's history (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age, and the current Quaternary Ice Age). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice free even in high latitudes.[34][35]"

We are living in the Quaternary Ice Age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Ice is the anomaly, the planet has been ice free for most of its existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

 So the paper argues modern China is an ongoing revolution without a cause, as their income inequality rises and they become their enemy?

socialism with chinese characteristics has a place for billionaires - Jack Ma is a member of the party after all - but that companys, markets, serve the partys interest. the point I was taking away is more the party exists for struggle, conflict. we forget because it was very long ago that the Soviet Union saw us -and the west - as an enemy which they could never coexist with. "leaving the west alone" was not part of their worldview.

yes, bribes to get the contracts. But the locals don't always get to keep the infrastructure - Sri Lanka had to give up the chinese built port in Hambantota for example. And said "port" might prove in the longer run a better naval base than a port.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Yep. Ice is the anomaly, the planet has been ice free for most of its existence.

The planet doesn’t care if there is ice or not, nor if there are humans or not. So thanks for that profundity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mutt hasn't made the leap to realizing the planet has been human free for even more of its existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I've never said that mankind was not part of climate change.  I do believe that our contribution is overemphasizes and proposed 'solutions' that do not directly address the problems are pointless.

Your bottom image is  interesting.  Where is that location?  I see algae in abundance but seems worse on the right side from the siltation making it more visible.  The green on the bottom is definitely flow toward the drain lower left.  The major source seems the outflow center right.

We have a lot of politicians in FL now who ran on stopping red tide.  FL cannot do that.  Red Tide and algae blooms are natural occurences.  Their severity in FL depends more on the wind direction at an particular time.  We have a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that begins at the Mississippi Delta where all the nutrient rich runoff from the watershed coupled with the mixing of fresh and salt water.  The solution is not reducing CO2 or increasing taxes though.  And in the case of the northern Gulf, FL alone can do nothing to solve the problem.  If FL wants to do something then outlawing a lot of commercial lawn chemicals would be a really good start.

Humanities biggest contribution is simply a growing population that requires food and fuel to maintain it's existence.  How many folks do you want to die to solve the problem which doesn't actually bother the earth at all.

But it isn't the  worlds only dead zone.

Aquatic_Dead_Zones.jpg

 

You are quite right.   Those Canadian bastards appear to be poisoning Lake St Clair, and dumping it into Erie.   I googled Erie but got distracted by the work phone and posted the wrong lake.   I cheated and claimed both lakes were imaginary, congrats on catching me.    If you look at Erie images it appears the Maumee River, draining north east Indiana and north west Ohio into Toledo and the Sandusky river are the biggest cause.   The lake is very shallow there, and calmer, so there is little mixing or dilution.  The watershed drains a lot of cornfields (corn requires a lot of fertilizer) and back yards.   Studies show a buffer zone of uncut grass/brush would do a lot to protect the water, but there is no incentive to waste valuable land just so somebody else can benefit.  Where rules exist they don’t seem to be enforced.   The bias is to protect land rights.  

I’m still happy to blame the Canucks.   Indiana is content to ignore it since Erie isn’t their lake and their drinking water is safe.  I heard a bit on the radio about Iowa courts deciding farming and farm runoff couldn’t even be regulated, from an author interview on a local broadcast out of a nearby former hippy town called Yellow Springs.   I think we could regulate it, but that would go against current political trends.   The sport fishing industry is big money,  so the politicians listen to them a little.  The photo was a boat show this summer at small town Huron harbor/marina on Erie, where I launched.  (The DeVos yacht was cast adrift from the outer wall of this marina, but it’s a cool town despite the occasional undesirables).  It’s not just the oligotrophic fish zone, we do see dogs poisoned from blue green algae (Cyanobacteria) by drinking the water or even cleaning their paws.   It’s hard to tell when the algae is producing toxins and when it’s just sucking the oxygen as it dies.   Wildlife is also poisoned, but nobody cares much.   I don’t know much about your red tide, I just remember it from toxicology class once upon a time.  Our blue green allergy is clearly fertilized.   https://www.weather.gov/cle/LakeErieHAB.    https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/10/lake_erie_harmful_algal_bloom_2.html.  This year it apparently got shaken up and diluted by the rest of the lake.   Probably that wind storm on my last day of vacation. 

When the scale is small and the time frame condensed into a season it is easy to see human influence.   The same economic and societal factors are at play for climate change, but every scale is much larger.   The large time scale makes it easy for people to wash their hands of guilt and continue as usual.   Why should they pay so future generations don’t suffer from their actions.   Just as the farmers blame the fertilized lawns and both object to costly regulations that would help other people who play on Erie, we object to climate change solutions that will only benefit our bratty snot nosed grandkids or unimportant islanders on the other side of the world.

F3062225-6662-4612-9857-FBAB52706435.jpeg

E6065C93-CAC2-45F0-9918-91BD5702FB4A.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jzk said:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Meanwhile, 2 additional continental US's worth of vegetation.  I guess those plants didn't read your studies. 

Last Updated: Aug. 6, 2017
Editor: Karl Hille
Do you happen to have a version from before the Trump administration took over?   Their heavy handed editing of science stuff to suit their reality is well known, and their view of the truth a subject of entertainment around the world.  I’d be interested to know what was changed on this article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lark said:

You are quite right.   Those Canadian bastards appear to be poisoning Lake St Clair, and dumping it into Erie.   I googled Erie but got distracted by the work phone and posted the wrong lake.   I cheated and claimed both lakes were imaginary, congrats on catching me.    If you look at Erie images it appears the Maumee River, draining north east Indiana and north west Ohio into Toledo and the Sandusky river are the biggest cause.   The lake is very shallow there, and calmer, so there is little mixing or dilution.  The watershed drains a lot of cornfields (corn requires a lot of fertilizer) and back yards.   Studies show a buffer zone of uncut grass/brush would do a lot to protect the water, but there is no incentive to waste valuable land just so somebody else can benefit.  Where rules exist they don’t seem to be enforced.   The bias is to protect land rights.  

I’m still happy to blame the Canucks.   Indiana is content to ignore it since Erie isn’t their lake and their drinking water is safe.  I heard a bit on the radio about Iowa courts deciding farming and farm runoff couldn’t even be regulated, from an author interview on a local broadcast out of a nearby former hippy town called Yellow Springs.   I think we could regulate it, but that would go against current political trends.   The sport fishing industry is big money,  so the politicians listen to them a little.  The photo was a boat show this summer at small town Huron harbor/marina on Erie, where I launched.  (The DeVos yacht was cast adrift from the outer wall of this marina, but it’s a cool town despite the occasional undesirables).  It’s not just the oligotrophic fish zone, we do see dogs poisoned from blue green algae (Cyanobacteria) by drinking the water or even cleaning their paws.   It’s hard to tell when the algae is producing toxins and when it’s just sucking the oxygen as it dies.   Wildlife is also poisoned, but nobody cares much.   I don’t know much about your red tide, I just remember it from toxicology class once upon a time.  Our blue green allergy is clearly fertilized.   https://www.weather.gov/cle/LakeErieHAB.    https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/10/lake_erie_harmful_algal_bloom_2.html.  This year it apparently got shaken up and diluted by the rest of the lake.   Probably that wind storm on my last day of vacation. 

When the scale is small and the time frame condensed into a season it is easy to see human influence.   The same economic and societal factors are at play for climate change, but every scale is much larger.   The large time scale makes it easy for people to wash their hands of guilt and continue as usual.   Why should they pay so future generations don’t suffer from their actions.   Just as the farmers blame the fertilized lawns and both object to costly regulations that would help other people who play on Erie, we object to climate change solutions that will only benefit our bratty snot nosed grandkids or unimportant islanders on the other side of the world.

F3062225-6662-4612-9857-FBAB52706435.jpeg

E6065C93-CAC2-45F0-9918-91BD5702FB4A.png

I won't check real deeply but WI does have many "run off" regulations in place. You can ameliorate storm run off pollution pretty well with a little planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, warbird said:

I won't check real deeply but WI does have many "run off" regulations in place. You can ameliorate storm run off pollution pretty well with a little planning.

Of course you can, but why would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, warbird said:

I won't check real deeply but WI does have many "run off" regulations in place. You can ameliorate storm run off pollution pretty well with a little planning.

Wisconsin did seem to enforce regulations better then Indiana.   I don’t know if your short season corn requires less fertilizer as well.   You also have the advantage of deeper and colder lakes, and a prevailing wind that blows your junk across the lake.   There is a bathtub ring of plastic in Michigan downwind from Chicago and Milwaukee.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Saorsa said:

We have a lot of politicians in FL now who ran on stopping red tide.  FL cannot do that.  Red Tide and algae blooms are natural occurences.  Their severity in FL depends more on the wind direction at an particular time. 

There are records of red tides since the Spanish arrived and oral history much further back. We've always had red tide.

We haven't always had red tide every single year, nor 18 consecutive months.

That's new since the 1990's. People my wife's age who grew up here remember having a red tide every few years, not every year.

Algae blooms are natural but we're fertilizing them and that's also new.

I think both are exacerbated by ag runoff and to an extent by lawn and golf course runoff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

There are records of red tides since the Spanish arrived and oral history much further back. We've always had red tide.

We haven't always had red tide every single year, nor 18 consecutive months.

That's new since the 1990's. People my wife's age who grew up here remember having a red tide every few years, not every year.

Algae blooms are natural but we're fertilizing them and that's also new.

I think both are exacerbated by ag runoff and to an extent by lawn and golf course runoff.

Lotsa dead end canals with northern lawns in Cape Coral which seemed to be a big area of concern.

People might want to read the warning labels on all the pesticides and herbicides in regard to use near water.

Roundup for example

Precautions

The Roundup label forbids its application directly to water surfaces or in areas where the product may drift or run off into aquatic ecosystems with threatened or endangered species. When spraying plants near open water, spray them enough to wet the foliage but not so that the product drips or runs off from the leaves and into the water.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Lotsa dead end canals with northern lawns in Cape Coral which seemed to be a big area of concern.

People might want to read the warning labels on all the pesticides and herbicides in regard to use near water.

Roundup for example

I think the blue green algae thing is related to runoff and red tide is too, but probably to a lesser extent since it originates in the Gulf. It may be sticking around longer because we're feeding it.

Or...

It may be sticking around longer because winter used to kill it and hasn't.

I have blooms on my mango trees that are up beyond the protection of my sprayers. The cold used to kill those and hasn't.

It's cold right now but with a high of 82 tomorrow I expect it will be hot in my truck. AC still broken.

The 10 day forecast projects we will get through January with a low in the upper 30's as the record cold here. The cold used to do a lot of damage to various tropical fruit trees and hasn't.

On this day in 2009, for example,

lycheeice12209w.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lark said:
Last Updated: Aug. 6, 2017
Editor: Karl Hille
Do you happen to have a version from before the Trump administration took over?   Their heavy handed editing of science stuff to suit their reality is well known, and their view of the truth a subject of entertainment around the world.  I’d be interested to know what was changed on this article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

The paper is dated 4/25/2016.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

The paper is dated 4/25/2016.  

Yes, I saw that.    The White House has a history of deleting science based web pages that don’t fit party doctrine.   This one was updated,    Were there changes in content?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lark said:

Yes, I saw that.    The White House has a history of deleting science based web pages that don’t fit party doctrine.   This one was updated,    Were there changes in content?   

Seems like the report about the paper was updated.  The paper itself is in the link I gave you.

More life on Earth as a direct result of mankind's activities.  Win-win.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lark said:

Wisconsin did seem to enforce regulations better then Indiana.   I don’t know if your short season corn requires less fertilizer as well.   You also have the advantage of deeper and colder lakes, and a prevailing wind that blows your junk across the lake.   There is a bathtub ring of plastic in Michigan downwind from Chicago and Milwaukee.   

The Sport fisheries are important here, tourist dollars. The DNR monitors runoff carefully. All construction/excavation sites have containment fences or berms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, warbird said:

The Sport fisheries are important here, tourist dollars. The DNR monitors runoff carefully. All construction/excavation sites have containment fences or berms.

You enjoy the advantages of Wisconsin's legacy as a former swing and even union blue state.  

I may reread the rules in Indiana if I get bored.   From canoeing, I know the Indiana reality is there is generally about 5 feet of trees lining the rivers, then field.   Sometimes the tree line is as narrow as 2-3 feet, or nonexistent.   They leave just enough to minimize bank erosion, but no more and dislike mature trees that cast shade on the corn.   Suburban sprawl owners often have manicured green  grass extending right to the undermined bank, allowing them the best possible view from the house.   

Ohio loves to allow counties jurisdiction to make their own rules, taking states rights to the smallest possible level.  Counties lining Lake Erie often require reasonable buffers.   Counties upstream have reason to minimize the buffer, since it hurts revenue within the county just so their neighbor to the north can enjoy tourism dollars.   Again, the climate change argument writ small.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, warbird said:

The Sport fisheries are important here, tourist dollars. The DNR monitors runoff carefully. All construction/excavation sites have containment fences or berms.

And fortunately, with a Dem governor, they will likely still be there in 4 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites