Anthropogenic Influences On Lake Ice Coverage; Ice Breakers, Waste Heat, Dams, etc.?

Image Credits: NOAA Great Lakes Surface Environment Analysis (GLSEA)

By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

Per the images above, on February 13th, 2014, Great Lakes Ice Coverage was 88.4%. On February 14th, Ice Coverage dropped to 80.2 %, and has expanded only slightly to 81.4% in the two days since. The reason for this drop in Ice Coverage does not appear to be related to temperature, as it has remained below freezing over the Great Lakes during the period in question:

Robert Hart, PhD. – CoolWX.com – Click the pic to view at source

The most likely cause of the decrease in Great Lakes Ice Coverage is wind, which compacted the Lake Ice, thus decreasing coverage. However, anthropogenic influences may also have played a role. Let us take a look.

Icebreakers:

“Sections of the lakes, which hold nearly one-fifth of the freshwater on the world’s surface, harden almost every winter. That freezing keeps the Coast Guard’s fleet of nine icebreakers busy clearing paths for vessels hauling essential cargo such as heating oil, salt and coal. But over the past four decades, the average ice cover has receded 70 percent, scientists say, probably in part because of climate change.”

“For Coast Guard icebreaker teams, it’s all business. They’ve logged four times more hours this season than the average for the same period in recent years, said Kyle Niemi, spokesman for the agency’s Cleveland district headquarters.

The 240-foot-long Mackinaw began its duties Dec. 16 – several weeks earlier than usual – and worked nonstop until Feb. 8, when traffic slowed enough to allow a break.”

“A 35-year Coast Guard veteran who has spent 12 years on the lakes, Davanzo said this winter is the toughest he’s experienced because the ice came so soon and is so thick and widespread, and the weather has been constantly bitter.

The Mackinaw, commissioned in 2006 to replace an older vessel with the same name, is designed specifically for duty on the Great Lakes. It’s propelled by two “Azipod” thrusters that can spin 360 degrees and fire jets of water at adjacent ice, weakening it. Sometimes the crew will drive the ship’s bow onto an ice sheet to crack it with sheer weight. Or they’ll go backward, chopping up ice with the propeller blades.

When the going gets tough, there’s the battering-ram option – hurling the reinforced hull directly against walls of ice that can be several feet thick.”

“The workload typically drops sharply after navigational locks on the St. Marys River, the link between Lakes Superior and Huron, close in mid-January and most large cargo haulers dock for winter. But the ice was so thick this year that a number of freighters were still struggling to complete final deliveries days later. Even now, demand for road salt and heating oil in the Midwest is keeping some icebreakers busy.”

“If the weather stays like this,” he said, “we could be breaking ice all the way to the middle of May.” AOL

If you look at the following image from Feb. 6, 2014 of Lake Huron facing towards Port Huron, Michigan on the right, and Sarnia, Ontario on the left, you’ll note the icebreaker/ship trail on the left side of the image:

Carlos Osorio – AP Images – ABC News – Click the pic to view at source

It appears that the icebreaker/ship may have created a weakened portion of the ice, which may be more susceptible to breakage and movement due to winds. Additionally, in the background of the image you can see steam rising from industrial production and you can see that lake ice hasn’t formed in the inlet and areas along the coast. This leads us to our second potential anthropogenic influence, i.e. waste heat.

Waste Heat

“Many large thermoelectric power plants were built on the shores of the Great Lakes because the lakes provide easy access to the large volumes of water require for plant cooling. Thermoelectric power generation is the largest use of water in the Great Lakes basin (72% of all water use in 2005), with the majority used as cooling water.” “Most Great Lakes coastal power plants use once-through cooling technology. Plants withdraw water using large underwater pipes, sometimes located up to 1000 meters offshore, circulate the water through their plants, and then discharge heated water back to the lake.” Great Lakes Mapping

Great Lakes Mapping – Click the pic to view full size image

“Our analysis includes 114 coastal power plants located within 2 km of the Great Lakes shoreline on the assumption that these plants draw water directly from the Lakes or from major tributaries just upstream of their confluence with the Lakes.” “”It is evident that apart from heat discharged with combustion gases from a coal-burning plant and any difference in thermal efficiency which affects the amount of heat to be dumped in the cooling system, there is no real difference in the amount of water used for cooling nuclear power plants, relative to coal-fired plants of the same size.” World Nuclear.org

Great Lakes Mapping – Click the pic to view full size image

“Cooling to condense the steam and discharge surplus heat.” “If the power plant is next to the sea, a big river, or large inland water body it may be done simply by running a large amount of water through the condensers in a single pass and discharging it back into the sea, lake or river a few degrees warmer and without much loss from the amount withdrawn. That is the simplest method. The water may be salt or fresh. Some small amount of evaporation will occur off site due to the water being a few degrees warmer.” “The amount of water required will be greater than with the recirculating set-up, but the water is withdrawn and returned, not consumed by evaporation. In the UK the water withdrawal requirement for a 1600 MWe nuclear unit is about 90 cubic metres per second (7.8 GL/d).”

“Any nuclear or coal-fired plant that is normally cooled by drawing water from a river or lake will have limits imposed on the temperature of the returned water (typically 30°C) and/or on the temperature differential between inlet and discharge. In hot summer conditions even the inlet water from a river may approach the limit set for discharge, and this will mean that the plant is unable to run at full power. In mid 2010 TVA had to reduce power at its three Browns Ferry units in Alabama to 50% in order to keep river water temperatures below 32°C, at a cost of some $50 million to customers. This was the same week when Rhine and Neckar River temperatures in Baden-Wuerttemberg approached the critical 28°C, and nuclear and coal-fired plants were threatened with closure. In August 2012 one unit of Millstone power station in Connecticut was closed because the seawater in Long Island Sound exceeded 24°C.”

“In France, all but four of EdF’s nuclear power plants (14 reactors) are inland, and require fresh water for cooling. Eleven of the 15 inland plants (32 reactors) have cooling towers, using evaporative cooling, the other four (12 reactors) use simply river or lake water directly. With regulatory constraints on the temperature increase in receiving waters, this means that in very hot summers generation output may be limited.*

* For instance at Bugey, the maximum increase in water temperature in summer is 7.5ºC normally, and 5.5ºC in summer, with maximum discharge temperature 30ºC (34ºC in summer) and maximum downstream temperature 24ºC (26ºC allowed for up to 35 summer days). For plants using direct cooling from the sea, the allowed temperature increase offshore is 15ºC.”

Dams

“Dredging in the St. Clair River has increased the flow capacity out of Michigan and Huron. There are also three man-made diversions that manipulate the amount of water entering and the leaving the Great Lakes, the most notorious of which is the 113-year-old Chicago canal, which carries the city’s wastewater into the Mississippi.” “But the water lost from the Great Lakes at Chicago is more than compensated for by two Canadian diversions that channel water out of the Hudson Bay watershed and into Lake Superior.” Journal Sentinel Online

Journal Sentinel Online – Click the pic to view full size image

In terms of the impact of dams and reservoirs on water temperatures, “the altered chemistry of reservoir water affects the ecology of a diminished river for many kilometers downstream, leading to greater climactic ramifications. When the Krasnoyarskaya Dam (one of the world’s most powerful at 6000 MW) was built on the Yenisei River, its designers predicted that warm water releases from the reservoir would prevent the river from freezing for about 20 kilometers downstream. However, the unfrozen stretch of water extends 200-300 kilometers from the dam, which in the depths of the Siberian winter, causes thick freezing fog to cloud the city of Krasnoyarsk.” Pacific Environment

Conclusion:

While there is no definitive evidence, there appears to be circumstantial evidence that there may be anthropogenic influences on Great Lakes Ice Coverage. What do you think, are there anthropogenic influences impacting Lake Ice Coverage? If so, which anthropogenic influences do you think have a significant impact?

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roy Spencer
February 17, 2014 3:53 pm

Great Lakes ice breakers used to pass within a couple hundred yards of my house…their path is absolutely miniscule. Same with any warm water from generating plants (some of those plants you show are hydro…don’t generate heat). Wind dominates all other effects when the air remains cold enough to freeze the lake surface. Anthropogenic effects can be ignored.

ossqss
February 17, 2014 3:59 pm

Nice job JTF!
It would be of great interest to see the trend line of ice breaker activity in the Arctic over the last 50 years. Let alone trends in river water temps from upstream manufacturing etc.
One cut makes two when the winds shift.

David L. Hagen
February 17, 2014 4:21 pm
4 eyes
February 17, 2014 4:27 pm

Virtually all energy consumed ends up as waste heat ultimately. That is a mind-boggling amount of waste heat dumped directly in to our environment.

February 17, 2014 4:28 pm

During the geophysical year(?) there was a two-year massive study in the arctic with countless research vessels and ice breakers zig zagging all over the place. I asked the obvious question back then and was told it had no effect.

Roy Spencer
February 17, 2014 4:30 pm

4-eyes, not nearly as mind boggling as that available naturally. Been computed many times before…a small fraction of a Watt per sq meter area averaged, versus hundreds of watts per sq. meter for the sun.

Steve from Rockwood
February 17, 2014 4:39 pm

There are no measureable anthropogenic factors keeping Lake Ontario from freezing. The last time it froze over completely was 1934. Go back to the natural drawing board. Ontario is different from the other Great Lakes. It is the last lake in the series, sits at a lower elevation and is fueled by the world’s largest water fall (in terms of water volume).

Scott
February 17, 2014 4:41 pm

Its been windy (and cold) the last couple weeks on the west side of Lake Michigan. Just like in the Arctic, the winds really make a big difference with ice coverage … Perhaps the ice volume is increasing at the same time but I don’t think this is measured.
As for anthropogenic influences on Great Lakes ice, all the road salt may have some influence on near shore ice coverage here and there, at least where my wife works they have conductivity sensors in the sewers in case they have some sort of unplanned discharge, and much to her annoyance the road salt sets them off in the spring. Also, there is sometimes a haze over Lake Michigan that seems to come from the coal plants, this is very noticeable in the summer and not so noticeable in winter because of the clouds, perhaps with precipitation that haze settles out on the ice and helps to melt it.

Michael D
February 17, 2014 4:45 pm

When Michigan was 80% iced-over, much of that ice was very thin. Thus as you note when the wind changed direction it was easily crumpled and compacted to make thicker ice over a smaller area. However when the water surface is thus opened up by the wind, the lake cools faster thus creating more ice (though not necessarily more ice coverage).

kenin
February 17, 2014 4:48 pm

ice breakers ,road salt, urban heat islands like Toronto must have some effect; how much ….really who knows.

Steve from Rockwood
February 17, 2014 4:50 pm

You could make the case that ice-breaking actually promotes ice growth. If the air mass is much colder than the underlying ice-covered (insulated) water, then exposing the water to the colder air mass would increase heat loss from the water and accelerate ice growth. I recall some Inuit hunters in Labrador complaining about ice breakers. They break the ice, it closes very quickly, but the healed crack can reach several meters higher than normal making snowmobiling dangerous (especially when everything looks white).

Paul Coppin
February 17, 2014 4:51 pm

This time of the year there is sufficient energy in solar insolation to afford a degree of black body heating. The lake temp is at or below freezing only at the surface. Thin ice and light snow cover can melt where there is a darker albedo on the lake. These contractions and expansions will become more active as we move into March and begin typical spring patterns and the gradual thawing of the lake surface. Wind direction and strength will also impact the flow of sun heated warmer water in the euphotic zone.

Paul Coppin
February 17, 2014 4:54 pm

Lake Ontario is pretty deep. Lots of latent heat capacity compared to, say, Lake Erie.

Steve from Rockwood
February 17, 2014 4:57 pm

justthefactswuwt says:
February 17, 2014 at 4:50 pm
————————————————–
I would take that Lake Stressor map with a grain of Windsor Salt. Lake Ontario didn’t freeze in the 1970s when the other lakes did. It hasn’t froze since 1934. Given the stress would be highest most recently (introduction of nuclear power, more intensive farm use, greater urbanization, etc) you would have to eliminate the historical tendency of the lake not to freeze.

Paul Hanlon
February 17, 2014 4:58 pm

@4 eyes
I did a small back of an envelope calculation on the amount of energy created by humans and it amounted to 0.032W/m² or about 32 milliwatts compared to an average of 170W/m² from the sun over the day-night cycle. The energy at the surface of the Earth from its own core is about 48milliwatts. The total amount of energy produced by humans in a year would drive a hurricane for about twenty minutes.

Jimbo
February 17, 2014 5:02 pm

In related news we have this from the LA Times. They use science to debunk the sceptics with great success I see.

LA Times
Ice storm paradox: It’s colder because the Earth is warmer
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-ice-storm-paradox-20140212,0,7056061.story

But the LA times forgot to mention THIS [warmer winters predictions] and THIS [IPCC milder winters]. They think they can keep changing their contradictory batshit and we will not notice.
How can this be possible? Fully grown and maybe matured adults come out with such BS is quite astonishing. The key is this: they think people are not paying attention. Will the LA times address the 2 links I have provided? The first link has climate scientists telling us to expect MILDER WINTERS. Now the LA times tells us that in fact they meant colder winters. BS throughout.

Jimbo
February 17, 2014 5:10 pm

When we get milder US winters what will they say then? The climate models predicted it, we said it all along (while forgeting their last position of colder winters caused by man’s greenhouse gases). THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. This is climate voodoo. Even Pachauri must agree.

Jimbo
February 17, 2014 5:14 pm

I will start compiling a list of climate scientists telling us t expect colder winters caused by global warming. I already have a list of them saying the opposite. It should make interesting reading – compare and contrast homework.

February 17, 2014 5:18 pm

When an icebreaker breaks ice and makes it more susceptible to wind..its human caused
When human caused warmer temps in the arctic weaken ice and make it more susceptible to wind…its wind caused.

Paul Jackson
February 17, 2014 5:29 pm

4 weeks ago, I’m driving to work thinking it’s bone chilling cold for a month and there is open water on the lake, what’s going on; then one good nor’easter and the ice is piled up 6 feet high to the horizon. Wind gets my vote. We’re going to have one seriously sloppy wet spring, better get that flood insurance before then.

D.I.
February 17, 2014 5:31 pm

What a joke this Is,a magical 8% reduction of Ice In one day with surface temperatures below zero,
where did all the heat come from? was It the sweat from Government ‘Hiding The Decline’ and rapidly making adjustments?
I would like to see real Aerial photographs rather than Government Agency ‘Cartoon Images’.

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights