Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 222 posts

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#201

Post by robbrown451 »

jltsiren wrote: post #189
robbrown451 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but it is all arbitrary. If there was an island twice as big as Greenland, what would it be called? And why is Europe considered a continent when it is more accurately just a peninsula off of Asia? And if we are talking seas, why is the Caribbean a sea when it is just a region of the Atlantic ocean? Even moreso for the Sargasso sea, which is a region right out in the middle of the Atlantic (it doesn't even have…

It's fuzzy rather than arbitrary, because the universe resists categorization. Australia is the dominant landmass on its tectonic plate, and it's relatively far away from other major landmasses. Greenland is a lesser landmass on the North American Plate, and it's much closer to the mainland. Europe, Asia, and Africa are names people gave to the major regions surrounding the Mediterranean long ago. Later generations g…

It can be fuzzy and arbitrary at the same time.

It's certainly arbitrary that the Gulf of Mexico isn't considered a sea. (or various other "parts of the ocean" referred to as "gulfs" or "bays")

"The main difference between a sea and a lake is that a sea is a part of the ocean."

Ok, so you have decided that the Caspian Sea isn't actually a sea? Well I guess all bets are off if you can do that.... :)

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#202

Post by ARandomerDude »

Aeronwen wrote: post #178
renewiltord wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will desalinate in CA before we’ll come for the Great Lakes but if we came (and the United States must have ended) then that would be a petty resistance. Pipelines can’t be defended but canals are harder to break and then, once the pipeline is over friendly soil, breaking it will still only shed water into the West.

If you want to build the midwest a new sewer system, go ahead.

Or sell a poop-derivative from your midwest sewer for $17 a bag. Honestly, it's amazing fertilizer.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Milorganite-32-lbs-Slow-Release-...

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#203

Post by Retric »

engineer_22 wrote: post #21
blakesterz wrote: post #10

"They hold more than a fifth of Earth’s unfrozen fresh water" I read quite a few stories about the horrible drought in the west, and here I am sitting on a good part of all the usable water in the entire world. I can't help but think at some point a bunch of people are going to come for that water, in one way or another. Either by moving here, or trying to move it there. Some ideas have been floating around about tha…

Water from the Great Lakes cannot leave the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Compact prevents construction of any water withdrawal that will move water outside of the watershed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact

Not really a deal breaker.

Due to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin v. Illinois, the State of Illinois is not subject to certain provisions of the compact pertaining to new or increased withdrawals or diversions from the Great Lakes.[4]

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#204

Post by jltsiren »

robbrown451 wrote: post #201
jltsiren wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fuzzy rather than arbitrary, because the universe resists categorization. Australia is the dominant landmass on its tectonic plate, and it's relatively far away from other major landmasses. Greenland is a lesser landmass on the North American Plate, and it's much closer to the mainland. Europe, Asia, and Africa are names people gave to the major regions surrounding the Mediterranean long ago. Later generations g…

It can be fuzzy and arbitrary at the same time. It's certainly arbitrary that the Gulf of Mexico isn't considered a sea. (or various other "parts of the ocean" referred to as "gulfs" or "bays") "The main difference between a sea and a lake is that a sea is a part of the ocean." Ok, so you have decided that the Caspian Sea isn't actually a sea? Well I guess all bets are off if you can do that.... :)

The Caspian Sea is usually considered to be the world's largest lake by surface area. It's also considered a sea in specific contexts, where the underlying motivation is clear. For example, a recent treaty defined it as a sea, dividing it into exclusive economic zones of the coastal states. As a lake, most of the offshore oil and gas reserves would have been shared equally between the coastal states.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#205

Post by maxerickson »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #103
throwaway894345 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is true ("only b/c of melting ice sheet; will dissipate in next few thousand years") then wouldn't we expect water levels to be continuously dropping? Seems more likely that they exist because rain/meltwater makes its way to the basin and keeps them filled (irrespective of whether or not they were originally filled with meltwater from the ice sheet 15kya).

I believe a lot of it is ultimately fed by hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of smaller lakes upstream. The Canadian Shield is dotted with gazillions of lakes, it's crazy to fly over it. And I think it's safe to assume most of those lakes are glacial remnant water, not sure if they're fully refreshed by rain and snow.

The watershed(s) aren't crazy huge: https://project.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/watershed.html

(Like just as a gut check, much of the border of Wisconsin and Minnesota is a tributary of the Mississippi River)

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#206

Post by rustybelt »

ceejayoz wrote: post #66
bell-cot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politically brighter Congressmen might see such a repeal not as a one-off special event, but instead as a precedent for further "inter-state resource raids". Some of which raids could target their own states. So - support for that repeal might prove scarcer than you'd think, from just looking at a map of drought-plagued areas of the U.S. Also - burning needs for water tend to be sudden & immediate things. Vs. designi…

> Politically brighter Congressmen might see such a repeal not as a one-off special event, but instead as a precedent for further "inter-state resource raids". You could say the same about Texas's abortion private bounty hunting bill. Doesn't seem to have stopped them.

State vs Federal laws, though. Totally different game. States are much more limited in their ability to pass laws that affect residents of other states.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#207

Post by rustybelt »

duped wrote: post #134
ceejayoz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By act of Congress, not Constitutional amendment. It could be repealed in a matter of weeks if Congress saw fit.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and New York have 97 votes in the house and 12 votes in the Senate. Good luck passing any legislation that sees major diversion of water out of these states.

You're forgetting Pennsylvania and Indiana.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#209

Post by ceejayoz »

rustybelt wrote: post #206
ceejayoz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Politically brighter Congressmen might see such a repeal not as a one-off special event, but instead as a precedent for further "inter-state resource raids". You could say the same about Texas's abortion private bounty hunting bill. Doesn't seem to have stopped them.

State vs Federal laws, though. Totally different game. States are much more limited in their ability to pass laws that affect residents of other states.

The fundamental point is "legislators of all levels make short-sighted decisions that will bite them in the ass later".

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#210

Post by bsuvc »

andrew_ wrote: post #34

Grew up in Michigan and I always describe them to people as "inland oceans." People in the south understand what it means to be 30 miles offshore in the Atlantic or Gulf, and it blows their mind to know that the lakes are so big you can travel far enough out in them to lose sight of land. They're "Great" bodies of water indeed, disrespect them while on their waters at your own peril.

> disrespect them while on their waters at your own peril.

For sure. There is a long list shipwrecks, the most famous being the Edmund Fitzgerald.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks_in_the_Gr...

Post reply on HN