Pond Boss Forums Thread Like Summary - The future of our Ponds.

Hello.

At the start of 2022, with global warming, I am asking myself a few questions.

Does our pond will have to be deeper.

Plant trees to reduce the heating of water to the maximum.

Make sections where snow accumulates rather than being sweep by the winds.

Are there other things we can do.

A+

We had pretty dry spells during the summer months for the last 2 years which enabled me to finish my 4th pond and attached wetland. We are fortunate to have good water running through our place in the way of springs and an artesian shallow aquifer. My 4th pond was about 2' down from full pool before last night's modest rain (still dark here). It seems to be continuing to inch fuller (no real direct watershed - similar to my 3rd pond and a 1/4 acre wetland/sump that we built to get the dirt for our barn pad). I feel for those who have been in bad droughts. They predict more extreme weather events in the future but I think that overall, the Midwest is supposed to continue getting good rainfall. Time will tell. Not really sure how good the climate science has progressed on predicting mega trends, but at least in my area, they do a much better job predicting weather than when I was young. Keep in mind that a couple weather events does not make the climate. One may not be able to predict with certainty if it will be warmer next week, but its a pretty safe bet that next summer will be warmer than this winter.

azteca, in my view deepening is good whether the climate gets hotter, colder, or stays the same. Last year we had an unbelievably bad spell of record-low temps in my neck of the woods, but my fish did fine. Heck, even the warm-loving CNBG survived in my 1/8th acre forage pond, probably because it is deeper than it should be.

My main BOW has 25-26 foot depths near the dam and a very large area of 15 plus foot depths. Unlike every other pond I saw in the area, it never froze over, just had a bit of ice in the shallows. I ended up hosting just about every Canada goose within ten miles!

Fish are very adaptable and thus we have different strains, species, and sub-species. Some, like Florida bass, CNBG, tilapia, brown trout, can take higher temps better than others, such as Northern bass, walleye, and brook trout. Recently researchers discovered, to their surprise, that oceanic fish flourished during a time when ocean temps soared abruptly. Odds are good that you'll come through whatever happens with flying colors!

You may be enjoying palm trees and orange plantations in Quebec before you know it!

This thread got me to wondering what the impact would be on Quebec if the global warming emergency crowd turns out to be correct. A whole catastrophic 2C warming if we (or more accurately, China) don't repent our sinful carbon ways!

Average temp in Quebec 5.4 C. After the climate apocalypse, all the way up to 7.4C -- which happens to be New York state's average. Sounds pretty survivable, actually, though I wouldn't invest in orange groves!

Well, since you asked. Water's currently around 3'-4' low.

6 cedar brush piles reloaded. Each is about 8-10' in diameter, and should be completely under water this spring.


1 porcelain tree stump


2 slightly rotund ruminants helping remove foliage.

Attached Images

There has been no significant rain on our farm or in the watershed of our creek for 10 weeks. However, the water level in the creek has risen substantially!

We have sandy loam soils that transmit a lot of groundwater in the top 6-8' as springs. The tallgrass prairie has evolved roots that easily reach to that level.

When the grass goes dormant in the late fall, the water in the creek goes up as the groundwater flows can finally outpace the transpiration of the plants!

It is an impressive ecological system that has certainly adapted to survive pretty significant droughts.

jpsdad, I am pretty sure you and I agree on a lot of things! One of which is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.

However, not causing great hardship to the world's poorest of the poor is probably also another thing we agree upon. Right now, approximately 25,000 people starve to death every day. That dwarves the "climate change" deaths from all other putative causes combined.

I believe it is easy to demonstrate that the current temperature of the earth is colder than the optimum for hominids. (Look at the geographic distribution of hominids, ex humans.) I also believe that the atmospheric levels of CO2 are suboptimal for the production of cereal grain crops across the globe that feed humanity.

I truly do not understand this statement you made,

"With regard to global warming, sites like the one you referenced, are there for sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming."

There is no science of "global warming", there is just science.

In a previous post you said,

"Very few in the scientific community, (if any), think higher ocean levels were present within that time period."

This was in response to two different discussions about historical sea level changes over two different time periods. My comment refers to the testable hypothesis that global sea levels have been previously higher, specifically during the period approximately 9,000 to 5,000 thousand years ago, referred to as the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

I think, for example, oysters cemented in situ above the current sea level in Thailand in an area that is currently exhibiting subsidence with no indication that the region has been subjected to a tectonic reversal is evidence that sea levels were higher in the recent past.

"Global warming" scientists call this disinformation? Rebut the evidence, that is the only valid method of science. Are the oysters not there? Were they planted by activists? Is the dating method in error? Is this area experiencing tectonic uplift? If so, then there should be a large gap in the preserved deposits where the ocean was too deep for the development of oyster shoals.

That is just a single, simple example that can be understood by people on the forum without a deep technical background.

The compiled studies are literally from all over the world. Which is exactly what you would expect to see as a response to global eustatic sea level fluctuations in the geologic record.

There is no such thing as "consensus" science. There is no such thing as scientific "disinformation". There certainly are existing examples of scientific fraud. I even agree that "cui bono" is the basis for a LOT of fraudulent or shoddy science that has been performed by commercial entities. However, there are a lot of massive financial interests that exist on the side of promoting alarmist climate change predictions and actively stifle healthy debate and scientific inquiry on the issue.

Best wishes to the Earth and to humanity,
FishinRod

What's interesting is how often the beneficial effects of CO2 on the biosphere are ignored. Greenhouses often run CO2 levels at double or triple ambient levels to encourage growth. Indeed, experiments show that by reducing the time plants must open their stomata, higher CO2 levels correlate with greater resistance to drought and air pollution. Satellite observations reveal substantial greening of the planet since CO2 has increased in recent decades.