To be clear, this deal still needs to go through a debate and amendment process and more 60-vote thresholds to pass the Senate, and then it must pass the House. There's still room for constituent pressure.

Appreciate it but this lifelong democrat is DONE. Can’t believe Durbin et al caved. I’m now for a third party that knows when it is frigging winning

A

Follow the $$$. OR Senator Wyden has been investigating Epstein's $ flow - who gave to him, who he gave to, and the passthroughs. Troops to Portland are a distraction -

Ouch on so many fronts

That’s why I was thinking stiff soils would be the best bet. Greater difference in impedence? Full root masses would easily meet the 0.5 m criteria

The problem would be getting a clear signature with multiple generation of trees - so maybe (total hand waving here) best chance would be in recently deglaciated areas- with soil developing.

I'm not a shallow geophysics person at all so take this all with a grain of salt- it will depend on what kind of resolution you could get with the seismology but in stiff clays I would expect you could see some vertical compression from trees in the wind. Even better in compact frozen soils.

@moreorloess.bsky.social thanks for the shout out- and beating me to the answers 🎄. @andydoggerbank.bsky.social - we were just talking about something similar at a paleoseismic site -methinks it would be hard to distinguish frost heave/mixing from trees in the paleo-record depending on the soil age

So the old guard rules. Sorry about your and Adam's session.

I also am for a name change - and the survey when I was on the social media committee. I saw the survey but never saw the results. I also feel like the division doesn't really have a way of engaging students in the same way that AGU EPSP does - despite trying.

Thanks for spreading da joy! 😅