Pond Boss
Posted By: azteca The future of our Ponds. - 01/03/22 02:50 AM
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+
Posted By: FishinRod Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/03/22 04:55 AM
2021 was cooler than 2020.

2021 was cooler than the 5-year average from 2016-2020.

It is tough to speak much more truth - without the thread becoming hopelessly politicized.

Personally, I enjoy reading about all of the novel projects you pursue on your ponds and your aquatic residents!

I hope you keep chasing those dreams!
Posted By: anthropic Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/03/22 07:21 AM
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!
Posted By: gehajake Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/03/22 06:48 PM
We had a warmer then average Dec, actually the second warmest Dec on record, the warmest was in 1889, I guess global warming was rampant even back then.
Posted By: RAH Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/04/22 11:03 AM
I think that the predicted changes in climate will move slowly enough for most fish to do OK in the short term. However climate scientists have predicted more sever weather events, and more records are being set over wider geographic areas. The same attributes that are suggested to help with severe weather events should help with climate change too: deep ponds, good emergency spillways, nutrient control, etc.
Posted By: esshup Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/04/22 03:23 PM
Originally Posted by azteca
Hello.

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

Does our pond will have to be deeper. If it's planned properly in the beginning, no need to be deeper.

Plant trees to reduce the heating of water to the maximum. Some shade is nice, but you also have to watch how many leaves it drops into the pond, which will add to the nutrient load over time and shorten the life of the pond. Nutrient build up and muck accumulation.

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

Are there other things we can do.

A+
Posted By: azteca Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/05/22 07:43 PM
Hello.

HA HA HA there are sceptic here, me too a bit.

Last night it was close to minus 28c and we expect other night around minus 25c and more.

I can tell you that the aeration holes of my ponds are very small.
A+
Posted By: gehajake Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/05/22 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by azteca
Hello.

HA HA HA there are sceptic here, me too a bit.

Last night it was close to minus 28c and we expect other night around minus 25c and more.

I can tell you that the aeration holes of my ponds are very small.
A+

You may be enjoying palm trees and orange plantations in Quebec before you know it!
Posted By: anthropic Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/06/22 01:54 AM
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! grin
Posted By: Dave Davidson1 Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/07/22 01:38 PM
As usual, I’ve had very little rain either last year or this year. My couple of acres pond is down 5 ft and the 1/4 acre one is really hurting. Smaller water holes are all dry. Such is West Texas.
Posted By: esshup Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/08/22 05:07 AM
Dave:

We normally have around 24" of snow by now. We have had between 2" and 3"......... A well is looking like it's going to have to happen.
Posted By: Bobbss Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/08/22 06:02 AM
Tomorrow will make 2 years since I had what I would call a big run off event, and the first and last time my pond was almost full. So far I've had my best run off events in Jan. and Feb., while the ground is frozen. I'm hoping I'll get lucky again this year.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/08/22 08:21 PM
Very little rain this fall. My big pond's 13 acres at full pool, and at the midpoint, I would feel comfortable walking across it right now.
Posted By: anthropic Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/09/22 04:44 AM
Wow, hate to hear that, Al. Do you plan on doing any work to take advantage of low water, like habitat enhancement or dock repair?
Posted By: RAH Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/09/22 10:53 AM
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.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/10/22 02:38 PM
Originally Posted by anthropic
Wow, hate to hear that, Al. Do you plan on doing any work to take advantage of low water, like habitat enhancement or dock repair?

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.
[Linked Image]

1 porcelain tree stump
[Linked Image]

2 slightly rotund ruminants helping remove foliage.
[Linked Image]




Attached picture IMG_0947 copy.jpg
Attached picture IMG_0945 copy.jpg
Attached picture IMG_0908 copy.jpg
Posted By: azteca Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/10/22 04:21 PM
Hello.

Melting glaciers are expected to raise the water table.
A+
Posted By: Bobbss Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/10/22 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by azteca
Hello.

Melting glaciers are expected to raise the water table.
A+
I think they will have to melt a lot to give me more water unless it increases rain fall. Wells are over 600' deep in my area. lol

But I do hate for the glaciers to melt.
Posted By: azteca Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/10/22 06:50 PM
Hello.


600 feet deep, for how many gallons of water per hour.
A+
Posted By: azteca Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/10/22 07:49 PM
Hello.

It is not good to have trees near the pond, but 100feet should be OK.

I have Vernal-pool Wetlands in my woodland about 100feet from my pond.

Those humid media that act like giant sponge, absorbing rainwater and letting the water slowly evaporate.

Wouldn't that be good way to moderate the effects of drought on our pond. And keeping the water table high.

For those who can have a little wood.
A+
Posted By: anthropic Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/10/22 11:31 PM
Holy cow, Al! You are waaaaay ahead in the game. I've felled a few pine trees -- that's all I have in close proximity to the pond -- but didn't try trimming the tops. Good for smaller fish, not so good when you hook a big one near the tree. cry
Posted By: FishinRod Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/10/22 11:37 PM
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.
Posted By: esshup Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/11/22 05:18 PM
Al, that was some expensive Mallard food! LOL.
Posted By: Bobbss Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/11/22 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by azteca
Hello.


600 feet deep, for how many gallons of water per hour.
A+
I'm not sure, I don't live on or have a well on the property yet. I called a guy about drilling a well for me and he told me how deep wells are in my area, then I talked to a couple of people that live across the street from my property and they told me their wells are over 600' deep.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/11/22 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by esshup
Al, that was some expensive Mallard food! LOL.
We're still considering some french rouen drakes.
Posted By: anthropic Re: The future of our Ponds. - 01/12/22 12:26 AM
Originally Posted by FishinRod
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.

Reminds me of coral atolls in Indo-Pacific oceans. They grow to the surface, so as waters rise they build up. Recent surveys show that the vast majority of larger islands are growing in extent, including mangrove islands. Of course, they've experienced much higher sea levels in the not too distant past, roughly 6,000 years ago, so are well adapted to change.
Posted By: Hirsch56 Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/02/22 03:03 PM
My complaint with Climate Change is the inability to hang a deer! 30 years ago, I could shoot a deer in gun season, and hang it in the barn to age the meat before butchering it. The temperature never got above 40F. Not any more. The temperatures in late Nov/early Dec these days routinely reach into the 50's. Now I pay the butcher and freezer do the same job. (not to mention, it's a LOT of work to butcher a deer, and I'm not so gung-ho at this age.)
As far as pond cooling goes, any little shade helps, so leave the boat in the water, float some logs, expand the dock, let the shoreline grow tall, ... If possible, bury the aerator supply hose or air-condition the supply air, so you're not bubbling 90F air through the water.
Posted By: esshup Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/03/22 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by anthropic
Originally Posted by FishinRod
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.

Reminds me of coral atolls in Indo-Pacific oceans. They grow to the surface, so as waters rise they build up. Recent surveys show that the vast majority of larger islands are growing in extent, including mangrove islands. Of course, they've experienced much higher sea levels in the not too distant past, roughly 6,000 years ago, so are well adapted to change.

Sea or water levels were higher even 300 years ago. The monks sailed up some rivers in So. Cal to their monastery (specifically St. Luis Rey River in Oceanside, Ca) and now the "river" is only maybe 24" deep.
Posted By: RAH Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/03/22 03:01 PM
You of course realize that the reduced San Luis River depth has nothing to do with sea level or climate changes, but rather reduced flow due to human activities like damming and water use from the river?
Posted By: jpsdad Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/04/22 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by esshup
Originally Posted by anthropic
Originally Posted by FishinRod
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.

Reminds me of coral atolls in Indo-Pacific oceans. They grow to the surface, so as waters rise they build up. Recent surveys show that the vast majority of larger islands are growing in extent, including mangrove islands. Of course, they've experienced much higher sea levels in the not too distant past, roughly 6,000 years ago, so are well adapted to change.

Sea or water levels were higher even 300 years ago. The monks sailed up some rivers in So. Cal to their monastery (specifically St. Luis Rey River in Oceanside, Ca) and now the "river" is only maybe 24" deep.

Have you guys ever heard of plate tectonics? To make these conclusions you must rule out uplifting from this influence. Very few in the scientific community, (if any), think higher ocean levels were present within that time period. They consider these kind of arguments as disinformation. Go here to learn more about how plate tectonics explains why coral islands are above the surface. As for Oceanside, sedimentation is sufficient explanation, something that has been accelerated by human influence through agriculture. It is also tectonically active and is near a plate boundary where the plate resisted subduction and so has been uplifted.
Posted By: FishinRod Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/04/22 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by jpsdad
Have you guys ever heard of plate tectonics? To make these conclusions you must rule out uplifting from this influence. Very few in the scientific community, (if any), think higher ocean levels were present within that time period. They consider these kind of arguments as disinformation. Go here to learn more about how plate tectonics explains why coral islands are above the surface. As for Oceanside, sedimentation is sufficient explanation, something that has been accelerated by human influence through agriculture. It is also tectonically active and is near a plate boundary where the plate resisted subduction and so has been uplifted.

I have heard of plate tectonics. I have an Earth & Planetary Sciences degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. I have also studied Sedimentary Basin Analysis (tectonics) at one of the most prestigious engineering universities in the U.S.

The wikipedia article you linked is so bad, that it is not even wrong.

"While isostatic response is important, an increase in the mean elevation of a region (bold mine) can only occur in response to tectonic processes of crustal thickening (such as mountain building events), changes in the density distribution of the crust and underlying mantle, and flexural support due to the bending of rigid lithosphere."

It appears that this has been edited by a smart person, but that person DOES NOT have a strong background in the subject matter. This is a common malady on Wikipedia.

The entire Hudson Bay region is still exhibiting isostatic rebound from the last glacial period. I believe the current rate is still over 1 meter/century.

The wiki article should have been written to say that: no crustal tectonic plate can exhibit an increase in mean elevation for the entire plate without being subjected to some tectonic uplift process.

At least 2.5 million square miles of land in Canada is currently moving upwards, primarily due to isostatic rebound. I consider the unit of a "region" to be smaller than almost the entirety of the second largest country in the world.

The wiki discussion of coral islands farther down is just a mess. It poorly describes the tectonic environment for a single type of coral island and then implies that condition applies to the general case.

That conclusion is demonstrably untrue. There are a multiplicity of tectonic environments that contain islands with carbonate deposits above sea level. Including islands that exhibit carbonate deposits above current sea level AND are located in tectonic environments that are currently undergoing subsidence.

Among those islands, fluctuating sea levels exert a powerful control on carbonate deposition. However, there are several other geological processes affecting sedimentation. Some of which enable deposition above sea level.

It is possible to find modern deposits of marine creatures above sea level. These carbonate-based marine fossils ARE NOT in situ, but have been emplaced as storm deposits and then subsequently cemented with carbonate minerals that were demonstrably formed in a freshwater vadose zone or phreatic zone.

However, the biggest reason that I spent the time to type this reply, is that there are also modern MARINE carbonate sediments that were deposited above the current sea level in non-uplifting tectonic environments!

There is abundant evidence of a global sea level highstand earlier in the Holocene!

Below is a link to over one hundred peer-reviewed publications documenting the previous sea level highstand.

Holocene Sea Level Studies

Some of these studies document the equivalent of walking up to a sandy shore at your pond and observing depressions and bowls in the sediments of the pond filled with spawning BG at depths of 1' to 4'. You then notice similar depressions in the sand that are located ABOVE the current water level. This is not PROOF that the water level was previously higher in your pond, but it is highly suggestive.

If another researcher can document rabbits making similar depressions adjacent to ponds and above the water level, then the elevation of existing depressions CANNOT be used to determine prior water levels. However, speculation about rabbits IS NOT sufficient to overturn the use of depressions as an indicator of prior water levels of the pond. Calling such a hypothetical BG study "disinformation" based on speculation is a disservice to science and the scientific method.

The studies in the link above show different values for the previous sea level because the determination of eustatic sea level is exceedingly difficult to calculate based on all of the local influences on relative sea level. However, many of the studies clearly document evidence of higher sea levels in areas that ARE NOT experiencing tectonic uplift.

If anyone is interested, the link below goes to a good paper studying ONLY TWO FACTORS on marine carbonate deposits. You will quickly be able to discern for yourself that any "scientist" giving simplistic, one-dimensional answers on this topic is either uneducated or is attempting to deliberately mislead you.

Influence of Water Depth and Wave Energy on Marine Carbonate Deposition

I personally get extremely worried when scientists dismiss other rigorous research as "disinformation" and then proceed without addressing the evidence presented. That is the domain of ideologues. True scientists must integrate all of the data when presenting an accurate representation of the actual physical world.

[I do not intend this post to step on anybody's toes, or to insult anyone's firmly held beliefs. However, any discussion that implicates "global warming" to any degree almost inevitably devolves into two dissenting camps influenced by political beliefs. I wish to avoid the outcome with all of my good friends on Pond Boss.]

Best wishes to all,
FishinRod
Posted By: jpsdad Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/04/22 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by FishinRod
[I do not intend this post to step on anybody's toes, or to insult anyone's firmly held beliefs. However, any discussion that implicates "global warming" to any degree almost inevitably devolves into two dissenting camps influenced by political beliefs. I wish to avoid the outcome with all of my good friends on Pond Boss.]

Best wishes to all,
FishinRod

If it's a matter of politics then it can only be because of economic interests. With regard to global warming, sites like the one you referenced, are there for sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming. In most every case, the authors of those papers would disagree that their findings do that. Most are being presented out of context to make arguments the authors wouldn't agree with. This is reminiscent of leaded gasoline, Freon, and emission control. Without government policy and it becoming a "political issue" nothing would have been done about it. None of the fear monger's threats of what would happen if something was done about it ever came true. Only the advocate's predictions were actually realized. Lead levels in blood decreased substantially, air quality in population centers improved and are much better than then even with more cars on the road, the ozone is replenishing. It's no different now but the stakes are higher and slower to evolve.

For me it isn't a political issue. We know that we are driving the accumulation of greenhouse gases but we've only begun to see it's effects accumulating. It's a train we can't stop on a dime and if we wait to reverse the trend the damage that will accumulate will be greater. I'm a long way from the coast, but I still care. I have interests in Oil & Gas. But I still care and I hope we are up to this challenge. In the end, I can assure you that Pierre L. Gosselin will not be remembered as any kind of visionary ... but those that innovate the solutions will of course be. That's a prediction you can take to the bank wink
Posted By: FishinRod Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/04/22 10:21 PM
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
Posted By: jpsdad Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/04/22 11:18 PM
FishingRod,

I'll look deeper into the theory of decreasing sea level. Only a fool can't have his mind changed. If such is true, there must be a explanation for it, for example, the accumulation of ice through out the same period. That trend seems to be reversed now anyways.

As for the Oysters in Thailand. How many sites were examined? Is this formation widespread? Just one location isn't reliable. There are many examples of oyster middens worldwide for example. But even so, I am willing to entertain the idea and with other kinds of corroborating evidence I could change my mind.

Usually when one with interests is trying to prevent something from happening, they fabricate stories about how great the status quo is for everyone. Like Pierre Gosselin's likening the rise of CO2 as a greening of the Earth. Laughable really. 50 years ago we couldn't agree on whether rising CO2 would cause warming or cooling. I remember that distinctly. But only half of the argument was science. The half that claimed it would warm the Earth were the scientists and the half that claimed otherwise were just obstructionists that are now resorting to arguments like "it doesn't matter", "that effect is caused by something else", and "it's actually going to be good for us".

Hey I won't be around long enough for it to cause me any harm. When I would be troubled about something my father used to say, "One hundred years from now it won't matter." Meaning, of course, that it won't matter because I won't be here to worry about it even as a memory. I know global warming will not do me any harm ... I am just not convinced that means it doesn't matter.
Posted By: anthropic Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/04/22 11:23 PM
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.
Posted By: RAH Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/05/22 01:15 AM
If you need a conspiracy to support your point of view, you may want to take a couple steps back. As a scientist, it is sad how folks have lost trust in science. It's all about what tribe you belong to these days. I guess we have evolved very little. Just makes me sad.
Posted By: Theo Gallus Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/05/22 07:35 PM
[Linked Image from accuratereloading.com]
Posted By: teehjaeh57 Re: The future of our Ponds. - 04/05/22 11:39 PM
No political or religious references and engage others with courtesy. Third time I’ve deleted responses in this thread. Please observe forum rules of engagement or aim your angst elsewhere.

Thanks in advance.
© Pond Boss Forum