patchyfog

BST Users
  • Content count

    21,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About patchyfog

Converted

  • About Me:
    Pseudo-intellectual dirt farmer, fisherman and hunter.
  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    'bout anything.
  • What I do for a living:
    Mostly retired. Will work if necessary or bored (fat chance on bored)

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Cape Codless MA/Binghamton NY

Recent Profile Visitors

4,811 profile views
  1. You don't own a farm, genius.
  2. They look like ambition's toys.
  3. And some guys modify theirs to be a flats boat with casting and poling platforms. I'd go with tin also.
  4. I know, HiLiners are essentially the same Ray Hunt design as the B20, stretched to 22', and I like them. Those are pretty common on the Cape, used by commercial skiff fishermen. A neighbor has one, his second. He redid them as is the local usual...switched from the original I/O to an OB on a bracket, and went from a console to a doghouse. I think they're great-riding. Although I'm not a fan of I/O's, the hull looks prettier with one. Pretty much all the ones I've seen started life as the commercial layout, purely functional. Here's a restore of the recreational model. Watching for a B20 in somebody's side yard or an old gravel pit is just kinda like an Easter Egg hunt for me, since I haven't come across one yet. I think restored B20s bring a lot more money than HiLiners, even though the latter is probably just as good a hull.
  5. But what would I do with my wife outfits then?
  6. Why don't you try reading something before you comment? Here's a summary statement from the Abstract. "Hence, limited warming to 1.5C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible." It's an important piece. Everybody who works on carbon budgets will go through it and there'll be arguing back and forth about their accounting methods. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031.epdf?referrer_access_token=o3aQZSQLVj_91mX4EYGNbdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OhiLdhtid2wIzB9lmkCPRiTpKZ3UAQo2fv12-9gCU-pTXSmA81mvEIq5iu9iXO2tyw4dSYdYjuwcS7pSwhjFeC9NS-QdZLW4H8hYDxV2JKV_-qVjrERzMntwxCyN3v7bfkYAAV6Ui75h5mnpKRsb8SUrXk2rqW-o8aJvNONUEZ3i5FX3AORdqbDKuFS6Br4gS-svvpfpFgC_4xKLBlhQM41yt_mBjL5GnIfDcyqUyYGjG-yzKmyCZjkCp6SVxGR4Jkc4mKldDjaVZE-bTHW2NvwbCaQY9P3sP3yjY-fSjxEzZi1aJga9kbCnRjbcKevlw%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com
  7. Man-made earthquakes in the U.S. are no joke; this is about Cushing. How Man-made Earthquakes Could Cripple the U.S. Economy (from Politico)
  8. Yes, link below. It's from Nature Geoscience. And it's not about what people here are thinking it is (while not even having read it, I'm about positive they haven't). It's about a carbon budget, and tabulating emissions...not the results of modelling per se. Here's a summary statement from the Abstract. "Hence, limited warming to 1.5C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible." It's an important piece. Everybody who works on carbon budgets will go through it and there'll be arguing back and forth about their accounting methods. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031.epdf?referrer_access_token=o3aQZSQLVj_91mX4EYGNbdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OhiLdhtid2wIzB9lmkCPRiTpKZ3UAQo2fv12-9gCU-pTXSmA81mvEIq5iu9iXO2tyw4dSYdYjuwcS7pSwhjFeC9NS-QdZLW4H8hYDxV2JKV_-qVjrERzMntwxCyN3v7bfkYAAV6Ui75h5mnpKRsb8SUrXk2rqW-o8aJvNONUEZ3i5FX3AORdqbDKuFS6Br4gS-svvpfpFgC_4xKLBlhQM41yt_mBjL5GnIfDcyqUyYGjG-yzKmyCZjkCp6SVxGR4Jkc4mKldDjaVZE-bTHW2NvwbCaQY9P3sP3yjY-fSjxEzZi1aJga9kbCnRjbcKevlw%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com
  9. Oh boy, to all of the above.
  10. What he said was on a mass basis. I don't know where the 35 came from , I'm guessing it's over a timeframe, since greenhouse gas potential is based on an atmospheric residence time. It won't, as far as I can see. But if climate changes, everybody will incur costs in terms of u requirements, for costs, etc. Do you think you've personally incurred any costs yet?
  11. Yeah, them. It'd be a riot to fish with them. I'd even play the dumb white guy.
  12. Thanks for the tip, RJ!
  13. Did you read the full article, hamlet?