Michigan Lake Levels Not Changed By Global Warming After All

Scratch another one from the list….

Michigan Lake Levels Not Changed By Global Warming After All

Reposted from “The Blog Prof” by Chris J. Kobus, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan

Ice on Lake Superior, March 3rd, 2009

So much for global warming causing the Great Lakes to dry up. Lake levels are back to normal (whatever researchers defines as “normal” I suppose, since the data doesn’t go back that far) after decreasing some for the better past of the last decade. Even though global warming zeolots were quick to point the finger at CO2, the cause for the decrease was in fact – ice dams!

From the Detroit News today: Study: Ice jam caused Great Lake water levels to drop. From the article:

A steady drop in water levels in Lake Michigan/Huron over the first half of this decade resulted from natural causes, not man-made ones, according to U.S. and Canadian researchers, noting that the past 18 months of rising waters could be an indication the lakes are headed back to normal levels.

Researchers working for the International Joint Commission this week released the findings of a two-year study on the St. Clair River and the amount of water running through it out of Lake Michigan/Huron. The study was launched to answer questions by lake shore residents who had watched the steady drop of water levels in recent years.

Critics are already up in arms! I kid you not! Get a load of this:

that’s not sitting well with members of the Canadian environmental group GBA Foundation, which funded its own study in 2004 which put the blame on human activity.”The fact that (the report) completely dismisses such an enormous increase in outflow and recommends that nothing be done about it is very disturbing,” said Roy Schatz, GBA’s founding president, in a press release.

They sure do get angry when humans are not pegged as the culprits, eh? Lastly,

The joint commission looked at changes in the Great Lakes between 1962 and 2006, during which the difference in the water level between Lake Michigan/Huron and the lower-sitting Lake Erie has shrunk by nine inches.

Researchers suggest three contributing factors:

• A change in the St. Clair River’s capacity, or conveyance, most likely created during a monthlong freeze of the river in 1984 that resulted in scouring of the river bottom.

• Changing climate patterns, including greater rain and snowfall in Lakes Erie and Ontario than in the northern Great Lakes.

• Shifts in the Earth’s crust, called glacial isostatic adjustment, that are the result of the planet’s rebound from the melting of glaciers 10,000 years ago.

So we’re still experiencing effects from that ice age 10,000 years ago! Can’t wait for someone from the IPCC to call for the firing of these researchers. Kudos to the liberal Detroit News for even giving this research a fair shake, albeit the News ignores the whole global warming controversy with respect to lake level decreases altogether. As a matter of fact, just two months ago there was resaerch presented in the press hypothesizing that global warming was causing less ice on the Great Lakes, for which I had this response:

Why do I label this as strange? Well, because I just wrote a post not long ago about how 3 of the Great Lakes have completely frozen over this winter for the first time in many years. (MI adds to anti-global warming evidence) The freezing of the Great Lakes happens about once a decade. The last time was in 2003 and before that 1994, according to Ice Service records, and it was 1982 before that. Nothing in the article indicates how these scientists reached their conclusions, or how the measurements were taken. … As for the lake levels, they are back to whatever researchers have defined as “normal:” Global Warming? “Harsh winters push lake levels back to near normal”.

UPDATE: The freep has a corresponding article to the news. Pretty much the same, except that at the very, very end, the freep holds out some hope for the global warming alarmists:

The study is continuing, looking at the long-term effects of climate change. If the upper lakes drop steeply in the coming decades, then it might be time to make man-made changes in the St. Clair River…

UPDATE #2: Here’s an article from the Detroit News in 2008 about how global warming will lower lake levels: Global warming may drop Great Lakes water levels from Thu May 29, 2008. Here’s a snippet from that article:

The report draws on science about global warming to make predictions for the Great Lakes, such as:

• Climate change will boost daily high temperatures between 5.4 and 10.8 degrees.

• Warmer lakes will mean less ice cover and lower water levels of 1 to 3 feet in the next century.

• Biological “dead zones,” where plants and animals can’t live, will spread.

• Intense storms will swamp stressed sewage treatment plants, forcing them to release raw and partially treated sewage into the lakes.

92 thoughts on “Michigan Lake Levels Not Changed By Global Warming After All

  1. Wow that photograph is awesome! It would be quite a sight to see one of these waves forming, but if a person was in the way I think they would be frozen solid!. (Could this be what happened to the mammoths found in Siberia?..)
    It seems that predictions of empty lakes won’t happen soon, speaking of predictions; here is an interesting vintage article: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19oct98_1.htm
    It seems that unlike now, back in 1998 Hathaway’s predictions were spot on!
    So lake levels running low will be scratched off for sure,,but here is something you could add to the list : “Global warming causes solar predictions to go completely wrong, the sun refuses to co-operate; solar rebellion.”

  2. Regarding the photo of the “frozen wave phenomenon”, the photo itself is among many taken at the Antarctic base of Dumont D’Urville by Tony Travouillon in 2002. The idea it was taken at Lake Huron is a hoax. Not that it wasn’t really, really cold this winter, but still, not quite like the Antarctic – yet!
    http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/antarcticwave.asp

  3. This is the problem when you’re so arrogant that you’re sure of something of which you can’t be sure. You paint yourself into a corner you can’t get out of. Then, just to save face, you have to perpetuate the arrogance with another explanation that’s even less credible. Isn’t it just easier to play the science straight up, maintain your credibility and acknowledge you may not know everything?
    Oh, … that might put a cramp in your funding.
    Never assume what you’re trying to prove unless you’re just trying to prove you’re an idiot.

  4. The “frozen wave” photo has been in circulation for some time and is fraudulent, at least in that it is not Lake Huron depicted. The shots were taken, I believe, in Antarctica and are posted on a website showing shots of some scientists’ Antarctic trip.

  5. Hi,
    are you sure that the frozen wave picture was taken in MI? I found a whole bunch of these pictures here, but they say it was Antarctica.
    I read your blog every day, I would not want to see it with an inaccuracy.
    Cheers
    David

  6. I’ve worked for the last 20 years or so for a company that runs boats in Lake Ontario. I can attest that the low lake levels we saw a few years ago are no longer. In fact, in the last few years they are higher than normal. It’s easy to see by the decline/incline of the shore ramps that attach to the boat. A few years back the decline angle from shore to boat deck was close to 35-40 degrees which caused us to drasticly reduce the weight of vehicles we’d load for fear that the weight could cause the boat to decouple from the shore ramp. Now, the decline is probably no more than 5 degrees.
    Back when the levels were low, most of the passengers we’d transport were sure that GW was the cause. We don’t hear a peep out of any of them now.

  7. Nice of them to continue to study while they predict changes only observable/testable 20 years into the future.
    Ah, the warm feeling of endless grant money stoking the fireplace while the denizens freeze to death in perpetual waves of alarming hypnotic suggestions.
    Isn’t there a name for the pre-occupation/obsession with fire?

  8. Alex (09:26:20) :
    It seems that predictions of empty lakes won’t happen soon, speaking of predictions; here is an interesting vintage article: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19oct98_1.htm
    It seems that unlike now, back in 1998 Hathaway’s predictions were spot on!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yeah, right: “They [Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann] expect Cycle 23 to continue until sometime in 2006 when the next cycle, Cycle 24, should begin.”
    If only they had left that last sentence out!

  9. The real underlying problem is scientific hubris caused by the fact that modern scientists compare what we know today compared to what we knew 100 years ago (an impressive increase to be sure) instead of what we still don’t know (a much larger universe).
    They are trying to apply algebra. If X + 2 = 4 then X = 2, and then shout down any idiot as an anti-science denier who dares to question such a painfully obvious truth.
    The real problem is the premise that they really know the proper equation in the first place. Many of us believe the real equation that needs to be dealt with is much more likely to be something like X + 2/3Y – 4Q * Z/B = 2.

  10. Re post-glacial rebound:
    The way I understand this to be happening is that the rebound from the ice age continues but at an uneven rate as you go from South to North as one might expect if you think about it. The regions more to the North had more ice for a longer period of time. Rebound happens quickly at first and slows over time. The Northern regions lost its ice cover last so is currently rebounding at a faster rate than the Southern regions. What this means is that the crust under the lakes appears to be “tilting” or tipping from North to South. As this progresses, the shoreline recedes in the North and advances in the South. This is sort of like taking a saucer, placing some water in the middle and then lifting one edge.
    So even without a net change in water volume, to someone on the Canadian side, the lake level will appear to be dropping but to someone on the US side, the lake will appear to be rising when it is possible that it is doing neither. Given a static water volume, due to post-glacial crustal rebound, the shorelines will recede in the North and provide concrete “evidence” to Canadians that the lake level is “dropping”.
    This is going to be difficult to counter with logic and information because it is hard to convince someone that something they can see is caused by something they can’t see. They can’t perceive the change in elevation but, over the decades, they can directly see the change in shoreline.
    Given the state of our education system these days and the fact that they tend to teach popular “conventional wisdom” over real scientific fact, we are quite possibly doomed. First you “dumb down” the population, then you take advantage of their ignorance in order to gain your agenda. Sad, really.

  11. That doesn’t make any sense. If the St. Clair River is flowing that much more the water would need to go some where and that would be Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie so they would have high water levels. And then the speed the water is flowing is also a factor in how much flows. The water has risen quite high this year although little mention of that. This sounds like more junk science which seems the norm nowadays.
    Just a coincidence that the last years have seen record snowfalls and rain?
    From Windsor, Ont across from Detroit.
    “Windsor just finished its third wettest April on record with 137.6 millimetres of rain and snow.
    The city usually receives 85.1 millimetres of precipitation in April.
    Much of Ontario had a soggy month.
    “Southern Ontario, yeah. Central Ontario, yeah,” Environment Canada climatologist Sandy Radecki said Friday of the wet weather. “It was pretty bad.”
    Radecki said it was the wettest April in Windsor since 1961 when the area got 153.4 millimetres of precipitation.
    The record for April is 172.2 millimetres in 1947. The local records go back to 1941.”

    snip
    http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Soggy+April+Windsor+finishes+record+books/1555264/story.html

  12. “Never assume what you’re trying to prove unless you’re just trying to prove you’re an idiot.”
    I think that’s worth a nomination for “Quote of the Week”!
    Or perhaps it should be reprinted in 6-foot high letters and pasted on the wall above every scientist’s desk.
    Thank you, fellow Skeptic.

  13. I hope this is not too O/T but am having a discussion in a different forum with someone about sea Ice. Most of what I learned is from here.
    This person is using data from the NSIDC that shows declining sea ice extent, although I had another NSIDC chart that shows the ice catching up to the average.
    He’s using this chart:
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure3.png
    Am I missing something?

  14. I’ve been following the progress/regress of the AGW movement for some time, and I can’t say that the name “GBA Foundation” rings a bell. I wonder, from where do they obtain their funding? ;->

  15. I always thought it was funny that even as the level of Lake Superior was falling by a significant amount, the warmies were claiming that the reason that sea level rise was not showing up was because the water was being contained as fresh water behind dams.

  16. The all time low water level RECORDED on Lake Superior was in the mid 1920’s, 1924 I believe.
    I observed the lake level go slowly down for few years and then saw it come back up very quickly. Measured it against boat slips.
    One storm event brought the level way back up in October 2006. Prior to that there had been a three year drought in Superior’s catchment area. Hence the lake level was dropping.
    As the ice cover broke up this year, as in 2006, and the ice floes reached shore they were beautiful to behold. Pale blue/green in color. Absolutely magnificent.
    Now if I was an AGW proponent I would be able to claim both the drought which reduced the level and the storm event that filled it up again as proving my theory wouldn’t I ?
    My take ? Natural variation.

  17. How apropos that this article follows the article about the NY Times mess. A fine example to set for the perhaps soon-to-be late NY Times. It speaks volumes about WUWT that an error is caught, pointed out civily, and quickly corrected; it’s not hidden, ignored, or corrected in a day or two.
    Hey, NY Times, you listening?
    And interesting as well the snopes.com piece about the “ice waves.”

  18. astronmr20 (11:28:10) :
    “He’s using this chart:
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure3
    If I understand that graph correctly, it is only for the months of March; the graph for April (including 2009) will already look different.
    And please note that the ordinate does not start at 0, but at 13 millions sq km2; that has the effect of making the curve look much steeper.

  19. The GBA (Georgian Bay Association) is a non-profit environmental group based out of Perry Sound, Ontario. Their chief spokesperson is Mary Muter, a nurse and environmental activist.
    The GBA paid for a 2004 study that blamed declining levels in Lake Huron (and Georgian Bay) on dredging in Lake Sinclair (the lake between Huron and Erie).
    They are disputing the findings of a report for the IJC authored by the US Army Corp of Engineers (apparently a notorious anti-environmental group funded by Big Oil) that found that lake levels are natural and not influenced by people, but rather by isostatic rebound and dry weather.
    GBA claims the IJC study ignores important data (theirs apparently). As we all know only data from environmental groups is valid.

  20. geo (10:31:08) :
    The real problem is the premise that they really know the proper equation in the first place. Many of us believe the real equation that needs to be dealt with is much more likely to be something like X + 2/3Y – 4Q * Z/B = 2.
    X still equals 2.
    Provided:
    Y = 1
    Q = 2
    Z = 1
    B = 12

  21. The description of “How The Earth Was Made : The Great Lakes, ” on The History Channel :
    “The Great Lakes of North America are the largest expanse of fresh water on the planet. Searching for clues of their formation, our geologists delve deep into an underground salt mine, investigate a fossilized coral reef, climb an Alpine glacier, and dive to the bottom of Lake Superior. They find evidence of an ancient tropical sea, a mighty rift that almost tore the continent in half, and a mile high ice sheet that repeatedly carved its way across North America. And as the lakes settle to their current levels, cascading over Niagara Falls, we find that their evolution is far from over.”

  22. “deadwood (13:01:31) : Their chief spokesperson is Mary Muter, a nurse and environmental activist.”
    She can tune in to The History Channel on Tuesday to see the truth.

  23. jack mosevich (14:07:24) :
    “OT again: Catliners not yet resupplied. When will they start worrying?”
    http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/latestfromtheice
    No worries! I’ve been tracking the last 7 days as they’ve been the tent. They’ve gotten 35.7 km closer to the pole, averaging 5.1km per day. At that rate, they’ll float into the North Pole on or about July 10!

  24. Somewhat OT but Jennifer Marohasey has just posted an interesting piece on the work of Firenc Moskolczi who seems intent on over-turning the current role of CO2 in the green-house effect.
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/?cp=all
    He even makes the claim “In order to progress this research Dr Miskolczi eventually resigned from NASA claiming his supervisors at NASA tried to suppress discussion and publication of his findings which have since been published in IDŐJÁRÁS, The Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service”. Hmmmm…..
    I LIKE his conclusions, but the science is pretty far beyond me and a number of Dr. Marohasey’s commenters have taken serious exception. Comments anyone?

  25. Great posting — There is always hope, then there is change, and then reality intrudes.
    The pretzels these people twist themselves into, must really be painful.
    Why not just stick to the facts … Scientific facts BTW, are provable and verifiable by other researchers. That’s why it is important to be open with all the supporting evidence and data. We seemed to have lost that fact along the way.
    I say we take nothing as fact until the complete dataset(s), methods and conclusions arrived at, are published. Oops, isn’t that what is supposed to happen but doesn’t right now?

  26. jack mosevich (14:05:52) :
    “OT: RSS data out for April. Second coldest April since April 1999:”
    But please remember the AGW (and by extension the MSM) standard for reporting on climate:
    Temperatures down = weather
    Temperatures up = climate

  27. Methinks the AGW wants to glaciate all the data. Scour it away under a mile of alamist fireice. Global warming dries up the lakes, global warming fills up the lakes, global warming controls the news, global warming tucks us in at night.
    Global Warming requires Trillions of Dollars to fix.
    It’s so terribly confused, starving and incredibly insulting.
    It needs rehab.
    Hello, my name is Al. I’m a global warmaholic.
    I’m better now, please continue to send donations to my habit, I mean cause.

  28. “Hello, my name is Al. I’m a global warmaholic.
    I’m better now, please continue to send donations to my habit, I mean cause.”
    It looks like we are al goreing to ecohell in an ecofriendly handbasket…

  29. deadwood (13:01:31) :
    The GBA (Georgian Bay Association) is a non-profit environmental group based out of Perry Sound, Ontario. Their chief spokesperson is Mary Muter, a nurse and environmental activist.
    The GBA paid for a 2004 study that blamed declining levels in Lake Huron (and Georgian Bay) on dredging in Lake Sinclair (the lake between Huron and Erie).
    They are disputing the findings of a report for the IJC authored by the US Army Corp of Engineers (apparently a notorious anti-environmental group funded by Big Oil) that found that lake levels are natural and not influenced by people, but rather by isostatic rebound and dry weather.
    GBA claims the IJC study ignores important data (theirs apparently). As we all know only data from environmental groups is valid.

    So the Army Corps of Engineers authored a report saying that their own dredging of the St Clair river wasn’t the cause of the extra outflow, that’s surprise!

  30. rephelan (14:51:52) :
    Somewhat OT but Jennifer Marohasey has just posted an interesting piece on the work of Firenc Moskolczi who seems intent on over-turning the current role of CO2 in the green-house effect.
    I LIKE his conclusions, but the science is pretty far beyond me and a number of Dr. Marohasey’s commenters have taken serious exception. Comments anyone?

    Some of the constant commenters on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog are trolls whose only science qualifications seem to be the ability to able to google AGW articles and cut and paste.

  31. “Adolfo Giurfa (15:43:53) :
    Unfortunately global warming does not exist:
    Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago
    The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that ”
    Many writers on atmospherics and heating effects are careful to say that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is not related to the heating of greenhouses and state the later is due to lack of convection in trapped spaces.
    Less careful writers even though they know better do not make this distinction.
    Unfortunately due to the math involved it is very difficult to explain the so called “greenhouse” effect to laymen, in addition to the fact that even the mathematical derivations make a lot of assumptions that make things confusing to laymen.

  32. Whether there are changes due to global warming or not, the global warming is not a result of anthropogenic emissions of atmospheric trace gases (CO2 and CH4), nor to Dr. Pachauri’s favorite culprits, bovines (BGW) and farm animals (FAGW) in general for their uncontrolled CH4 production (eat vegetables, ingest Beano).
    ————————————————————-
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/
    We are always hearing about ways that you can “save the planet” from the perils of global warming—from riding your bicycle to work, to supporting the latest national greenhouse gas restriction limitations, and everything in between.
    In virtually each and every case, advocates of these measures provide you with the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) that will be saved by the particular action.
    And if you want to figure this out for yourself, the web is full of CO2 calculators (just google “CO2 calculator”) which allow you to calculate your carbon footprint and how much it can be reduced by taking various conservations steps—all with an eye towards reducing global warming.
    However, in absolutely zero of these cases are you told, or can you calculate, how much impact you are going to have on the actual climate itself. After all, CO2 emissions are not climate—they are gases. Climate is temperature and precipitation and storms and winds, etc. If the goal of the actions is to prevent global warming, then you shouldn’t really care a hoot about the amount of CO2 emissions that you are reducing, but instead, you want to know how much of the planet you are saving. How much anthropogenic climate change is being prevented by unplugging your cell phone charger, from biking to the park, or from slashing national carbon dioxide emissions?
    Why do none of the CO2 calculators give you that most valuable piece of information? Why don’t the politicians, the EPA, and/or greenhouse gas reduction advocates tell you the bottom line?
    How much global warming are we avoiding?
    Embarrassingly for them, this information is readily available.

  33. OT
    I heard a David Suzuki interviewe on CBC radio. One of his primary arguments is that of the pine beetle destruction in British Columbia. He suggests that it is warmth that is causing the beetle to thrive.
    I got to thinking about forests. There have been more huge forest fires as of late due to poor forest management practices that has seen a buildup of old wood. Normally small forest fires keep such fuel to a minimum naturally; however, fighting forest fires aggressively since the 1930s as more people move to wooded areas has resulted in too much forest fire fuel to build up. We have been seeing massive forest fires for the past decade as a result. These same forest management principles also permit more food and habitat to remain for the pine beetles. As well, the fires that would be able to kill many of the beetles and their eggs have not occurred.
    Warmth — or more the lack of -30 C days in winter that normally kills the beetles — is suggested as being the primary factor in the current infestation; however, I think my answer is just as plausible especially considering that the last 10 years has seen the temperature plateau and start to decline slightly.
    If the pine beetles are still a problem though 2008 was cool and this past winter was quite cold — there were more successive days with -30 C in many affected areas like Alberta — then forest management would have to be the primary factor in the outbreak of the pine beetle.
    Does this make sense to you?
    John M Reynolds

  34. Wally (17:30:07) : Air can not hold heat as water does. I have repeated it several times. The volumetric heat capacity of air is 3,227 times less than that of water.
    Your affirmation tells me you are young, you have not witnessed a total sun eclipse and how fast air cools then.
    Of course, if believing in GW and in its prophet makes you feel good, OK. but don´t forget how it will be the final outcome of all this story. Please do not complain then.

  35. “The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. ”
    Which reminds me of another mechanism that is missed when people consider atmospheric greenhouses. An atmosphere rich in CO2 would tend to moderate daytime high temperatures and lessen the day/night difference in temperature. In other words, it would moderate both the daytime high and nighttime low temperatures.
    The sun radiates more in the infrared than in the visible spectrum. This would heat an atmosphere more that has a higher CO2 content, the heated air would rise and radiate the heat back into space.
    At night, the atmosphere would again trap long wave radiation, it would also rise but some of that gets re-radiated back to the ground on the way.

  36. jmrSudbury (17:48:13) :
    There have been more huge forest fires as of late due to poor forest management practices that has seen a buildup of old wood.
    Does this make sense to you?
    John M Reynolds

    This is the same theory for our forest fires in Australia.

  37. “Adolfo Giurfa (18:08:13) :
    Wally (17:30:07) : Air can not hold heat as water does. I have repeated it several times. The volumetric heat capacity of air is 3,227 times less than that of water.
    Your affirmation tells me you are young, you have not witnessed a total sun eclipse and how fast air cools then.
    Of course, if believing in GW and in its prophet makes you feel good, OK. but don´t forget how it will be the final outcome of all this story. Please do not complain then.”
    I was just pointing out that many writers do in fact acknowledge that the effect that warms greenhouses is not the effect that warms the atmosphere. This has nothing to do with water. Even those like Ferenc M. Miskolczi who do not believe the so called greenhouse effect still believe the atmosphere leads to a warming of the earth’s surface. It also gets colder at night, I’m not sure what your point about eclipses is, although I have in fact observed one.

  38. Wally (17:30:07)
    Unfortunately due to the math involved it is very difficult to explain the so called “greenhouse” effect to laymen, in addition to the fact that even the mathematical derivations make a lot of assumptions that make things confusing to laymen.
    If I were in a mood to be uncharitable I’d be inclined to read that as “Why don’t you ignorant prols stay in your place and mind your betters?”

  39. “Unfortunately due to the math involved it is very difficult to explain the so called “greenhouse” effect to laymen, in addition to the fact that even the mathematical derivations make a lot of assumptions that make things confusing to laymen.”
    You don’t have to be any kind of expert to realize that servitude is planned for the workers of America. Our children and grandchildren have already been placed under the yoke of a moral and righteous government.

  40. We are always hearing about ways that you can “save the planet” from the perils of global warming—from riding your bicycle to work, to supporting the latest national greenhouse gas restriction limitations, and everything in between.
    But, alas, not one peep about how Industry X or Corporation Y is cutting back on energy consumption or conserving. Not one word about how “they” are doing thier part to use the energy “they” burn in the most efficient manner.
    It’s you.
    You are the problem. You caused all of this. It’s your fault.
    You bought those bad products. You used them.
    You worked for “us” and made those bad things.
    You made us rich. You are destroying the planet.
    You made the sun go to sleep.
    Now, you must save the planet while we get rich.
    We’re not doing anything, because it’s all your fault.
    And just to show you we mean business, the price of that bicycle just went up 3 fold.
    Repent, and we’ll give you a carbon credit with your new bicycle.
    And we’ll report your carbon credit income to the IRS on Form 1099AGW.
    Riiinnnnnggggg….riiiinnnggggg.
    Honey, get up, it’s time to go to work.

  41. Wally (18:26:50)
    And that eclipse you observed, what was the temperature drop over that time span?

  42. “rephelan (18:28:35) :
    Wally (17:30:07)
    Unfortunately due to the math involved it is very difficult to explain the so called “greenhouse” effect to laymen, in addition to the fact that even the mathematical derivations make a lot of assumptions that make things confusing to laymen.
    If I were in a mood to be uncharitable I’d be inclined to read that as “Why don’t you ignorant prols stay in your place and mind your betters?””
    Not at all. I am just saying that if you do not have the math background and the will to use it the papers involved (that provide detailed explanations) can be hard to follow. I have some background in math (graduate level) but seldom have the will to go to the trouble of reading a paper with lots equations close enough to tell if the author is making mistakes or not. It most cases you need to know, besides the math, the background of the methods used, what assumptions are made, how valid are those assumptions etc. so in the end either you have to do a lot of work to get acquainted with the body of work involved or you rely on the opinion of experts you trust. One can only advanced to the expert level in very few subjects. That does not mean the experts always get it right, and experts often disagree.

  43. Steve Moore (13:52:48) :
    geo (10:31:08) :
    The real problem is the premise that they really know the proper equation in the first place. Many of us believe the real equation that needs to be dealt with is much more likely to be something like X + 2/3Y – 4Q * Z/B = 2.
    X still equals 2.
    Provided:
    Y = 1
    Q = 2
    Z = 1
    B = 12

    ==========
    AHA! Here is a learning example, Steve. Instead of provided , we must use AGW terminology:
    X still equals 2
    If we assume:
    Y = 1
    Q = 2
    Z = 1
    B = 12
    However, careful measurements show:
    Y = 2
    Q = .707
    Z = 4,000
    B = 1
    But, the robust models suggest these flimsy and unproven measurements must be wrong, so they are adjusted!
    See how it works?

  44. “Robert Bateman (18:44:35) :
    Wally (18:26:50)
    And that eclipse you observed, what was the temperature drop over that time span?”
    Couldn’t really say. i did not have a thermometer with me, plus it was a cloudy day so I’m sure the effect was muted compared to observing one on a clear day but still really spooky.

  45. Mike Bryant (18:40:51)
    The common man knows it, too.
    They know that if they even get a chance to work under the AGW plan, it’s going to be a most painful experience.
    We used to laugh at condos being fancy cardboard boxes.

  46. Haven’t there already been substantial “man-made changes in the St. Clair River” by dredging it, thus contributing to anthropogenic lowering of lake levels (Huron, Michigan) above it? Or has my memory gone bad?

  47. WARNING! The Dirigistes have decided to Change The Rhetoric. [This is getting more like a George Orwell novel every damned day.]
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html
    READ THIS ARTICLE. It’s the most frightenng I have read yet in the whole AGW morass. Apparently, the FACTS are not important; AGW has now transmogrified from a ‘scientific” issue into a pure unadulterated political and marketing issue.
    Most of us knew this was inevitable, but now that it has seeped out into the open, I find myself shockingly incensed, livid, bilious, gen-you-inely pissed off.
    I may have to carry this ine around in my wallet like some disgruntled old guy.

  48. Nenana Ice Classic: May 1, 2009, 8:41 pm. About 32 of about 90 years or so. On the early, but not very early, side.

  49. CANADIAN LONGSHOT WINS KENTUCKY DERBY – I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING
    (had to get on-topic somehow))
    Mine That Bird pulls off upset in Kentucky Derby
    Long shot beats 50-1 odds
    SportsTicker
    Published: Saturday, May 02, 2009
    Bob Baffert
    LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Calvin Borel was in a familiar place, along the rail and urging Mine That Bird to fly through the mud. Trainer Bennie Woolley Jr. was someplace he never imagined – the Kentucky Derby, with his horse in the lead.
    Together they pulled off one of the greatest upsets in 135 years of America’s most famous horse race.
    “It was a Street Sense move,” Borel said Saturday, referring to the same rail-hugging ride he gave that colt to win the Derby two years ago. “They can only go so fast, so far. When I hollered at him, he just went on.”
    Sent off at 50-1 odds, Mine That Bird pulled away in the stretch to score a 6 3/4-length victory at Churchill Downs, the second-biggest upset in Derby history.

  50. Mr Wally said: “if you do not have the math background and the will to use it the papers involved (that provide detailed explanations) can be hard to follow. I have some background in math (graduate level) but seldom have the will to go to the trouble of reading a paper with lots equations close enough to tell if the author is making mistakes or not. It most cases you need to know, besides the math, the background of the methods used, what assumptions are made, how valid are those assumptions etc. so in the end either you have to do a lot of work to get acquainted with the body of work involved or you rely on the opinion of experts you trust.”
    To an extent I agree, but only to the extent that analysing mathematical papers sheds any light on the single issue arising in the whole debate.
    There is only one issue.
    We can happily concede that increased carbon dioxide production by naughty human beings increases the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and you can define atmosphere any way you want).
    We can happily concede that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is likely to increase surface temperatures somewhere across the globe, be it on land or at sea or both.
    We can happily concede that naughty human beings are directly responsible for that increase, wherever and to whatever degree (no pun intended) it happens.
    But none of that gets anywhere near what the alarmists claim. They claim there are magical qualities, to date unobserved in nature, that will cause an amplification of temperature increases beyond those calculable by established “greenhouse gas” analyses.
    The single issue is whether that claim is sustainable. Unless they either confirm that claim or provide a credible challenge to it, no number of scare stories or debunking stories or mathematical analyses sheds any light on anything of relevance.
    There is a great danger of being side-tracked into debate about whether there is or is not a warming trend and whether there is or is not evidence of a current rise in average sea levels. None of that matters because the question is not whether things are changing, the only thing that matters is whether there is evidence for the amplification theory. I stress “evidence”. Theory written on a piece of paper and then pumped into a sausage machine computer is worthless without evidence.
    Evidence consistent with either warming or lack of warming tells us little, if anything, about the amplification theory. It is easy to think that evidence of lack of warming debunks the theory, but it doesn’t. Nor does evidence of warming support the theory unless it goes so far as to provide at least prima facie evidence of amplification, which even the most ardent warmists have not yet claimed.

  51. As usual, FatBigot has zeroed in on the central question, and shown that the alarmists have come up short.
    There is no real world evidence that increases in a minor trace gas will lead to runaway global warming. We are being asked to take it on faith.

  52. Sagi (19:47:42) :
    Haven’t there already been substantial “man-made changes in the St. Clair River” by dredging it, thus contributing to anthropogenic lowering of lake levels (Huron, Michigan) above it? Or has my memory gone bad?

    You’re right, apparently the US Corps of Engineers believe that their efforts weren’t very effective.

  53. This whole farce about drawing on science about global warming to make predictions is exactly what the new head of NOAA is all about.
    Yeah Dr. Lubchenco will be busy forecasting daily higher temperatures, lower water levels, dead zones and intense storms near sewage treatment plants.
    Jane Lubchenco, now head of NOAA, was a founding director of Climate Central, a Web site that went online last year with what she calls “credible and nonadvocacy” information on global warming.
    Dr. Lubchenco said, one of her goals at NOAA is to establish a climate information service modeled on the National Weather Service, which is part of the agency. Dr. Lubchenco believes climate models are now sufficiently “robust” to help scientists start to do the same with climate, to help businesses, elected officials and regulators make good decisions on issues like where to put buildings or roads or wind farms.
    “It is no longer enough to know what the wind patterns were for the last hundred years,” she said. “You want to know what they will be for the next hundred years — and they undoubtedly won’t be the same.”
    Dr. Lubchenco makes things up. She made up a link between ocean dead zones and AGW where none exists even when her own research group cautioned that they were not certain of the extent of a link, if any.
    Dr. Lubchenco has made up the robust climate models that can predict wind patterns 100 years out.
    Stay tuned, she’ll now be making up many more things as the head of NOAA. Including predictions of lake levels.

  54. I agree with Mr. FatBigot, that there is no evidence as yet. But, the AGWers have cleverly conditioned their claims around imminent tipping points, and dire predictions of doom and drowning. Mr. FatBigot, as a lawyer, will know that imminent harm is a legal basis for demanding relief.
    Their tactic is, as some have described it, to use the Precautionary Principle to provoke action. The harm they predict is so great, that modern mankind is urged, no, required, to act not only now, but in massive ways to greatly alter our ways of life.
    To not act in the way and at the time they prescribe is to subject this generation and all future generations to living in an unbearable world.
    The EPA adopted similar language in their recent Proposed Finding on CO2 as harmful to humans.

  55. Robert Bateman,
    Here is one company, Du Pont, that claims to have made 70 percent reduction in GHG emissions.
    “. . . let me note that DuPont has been a global leader in greenhouse gas emission reduction, having begun systematic reduction of emissions from our operations in 1991, and accomplishing over a 70% reduction on a global basis by 2004. We are proud of that record, but aware that such reductions
    reflect a unique mix of process and energy emissions that cannot be readily replicated by most companies or institutions.”

    The quote above is an excerpt from their letter in support of AB 32 in California. Link below.
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/comments/dupont1_15_08.pdf

  56. There’s one more key piece to add to FB’s post. Mann’s hockey stick is -the- crucial piece allowing the implication of carbon dioxide. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are fatal to that process – since they don’t show up as expected in the carbon dioxide records. So the hockey stick marginalizes them as ‘regional’ and flattens them out of the record. And the math and methods for the hockey stick are eminently understandable. And bogus.
    Historians have articles discussing the breadth and depth of the LIA & MWP over easily half the globe. But they don’t provide the actual numbers, and they’re focused on their own regions.
    But you can back your way through Mann’s math.

  57. astronmr20 (11:28:10) :
    “He’s using this chart:
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure3”
    The chart shows March extent, usually when the sea ice extent is maximum. So, the AWGers point to this as proof that the Arctic ice is declining. What they also claim is that during the same time frame, CO2 kept rising. This is a classic example of correlation but no causation.
    What should be stated is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was in its warm phase during all that period. If we had earlier data, for example back to 1940, the sea ice extent would likely show a growing trend. The next few years will likely show a growing trend as the PDO shifts back into a cool phase.
    This is my understanding of the state of affairs.
    Probably won’t read any of this on an AGWer page.

  58. Re the imminent tipping points, what is it, 800 ppm CO2? Roughly a doubling of the 385 ppm now? (I rounded off to one significant digit).
    I would like an AGW proponent to please explain why we should be concerned with 800 ppm, when in the past the atmosphere had more than 1000 ppm CO2. No tipping point.
    And please explain how the Earth made it through the 2000 ppm period, without a tipping point.
    And the 4000 ppm period, again with no tipping point.
    How exactly did the ice ages occur after all those CO2 concentrations measured in the thousands? I am led to believe by the AGWers that a mere 800 ppm will cause an irreversible and inevitable runaway in global temperatures, in an increasing manner. What is different this time, that only 800 ppm will cause the tipping point?

  59. John Reynolds,
    Although it’s not about Lake Michigan, the Mountain Pine Beetle ( MPB) story is another instance of a phenomenon incorrectly attributed to global warming.
    MPB (dendoctronus ponderosae) is to be found in forests from Belize to Alaska.
    There have been, in the last couple of decades, very striking infestations in many of the pine stands in western North America.
    Just about every article you can read will tell you that winter temperatures of -35C for several days are required to keep the beetle in check. It has never been -35C in Belize and, historically, in many parts of British Columbia that have lost all their pine it has rarely been -35C.
    It’s also worth noting that the beetle plague has not progressed from south to north, following a climate gradient. In BC it has tended to move somewhat south and east, from areas with colder winters and cooler summers towards milder winters and hotter summers.
    In Alaska, the infestation by MPB and his buddy, dendroctonus rufipennis (spruce bark beetle), is often attributed to milder summers.
    There is plenty of evidence of previous outbreaks over the last couple of centuries.
    I don’t buy the GW explanation, but I wouldn’t rush to embrace the forest fire story, either; it might just be more complicated than that.

  60. barbara m (20:09:19) :
    I read the article. So they want to want to overhaul their entire vocabulary because people aren’t listening to the current one. It looks like to me they’ve been crying wolf and people have stopped listening. So now they think that crying wolf with a new set of words will change their fortunes. I can only imagine that it won’t make much of a difference. The new message will still smack of the old message. But they want to have a new push anyway.

  61. ” Al (21:57:12) : But you can back your way through Mann’s math.”
    Apparently Steven Chu likes Principia Mannmathics too. He, like Al Gore, is a Nobel winner. Scratching my head over this Nobel necessity.
    Richard Fenyman wasn’t too thrilled with the Nobel either.

  62. Adam from Kansas: You asked, “What is the difference between the map he uses and the one used by the NOAA, his map data shows the South Atlantic as off the charts warm, but the NOAA map shows a giant blue spot in the middle of it with a few little orange and red spots to the south of that. Which map is right?”
    The one I posted in my monthly update for April 2009 is also from NOAA. Monthly update:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/april-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
    It’s from the NCDC’s NOMADS system.
    http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=
    Under “Control File” select “monoiv.ctl” for “Monthly”. Under “Plot Type” select “Map”. Click “Next Page”.
    Under “Field” select “ssta” for anomalies. The month should be at the current default of April 2009. Click on “Plot”. The map will appear in a new window.
    What’s the other map you’re discussing??

  63. Love this article MSU-Oakland is DW’s alma mater. her pop’s farm was just down the road.MIchiganders are like Russians-they know cold when they see it…

  64. To add to those who have commented above and who have first-hand experience wrt Great Lakes water levels, the lakes go up and the lakes go down.
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=749#comment-36188
    But if catastrophic AGW proponents want to expend a lot of energy on Great Lakes water levels, I guess it keeps ’em off the streets.

  65. hareynolds (19:55:48) :

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html
    READ THIS ARTICLE. It’s the most frightenng I have read yet in the whole AGW morass.

    I see a more a look into the marketing of a movement. Done by both sides for all time. One can stay above the fray but benefit from the attention brought by the zealots. I try to do that, I think Anthony does that too. A lot of people here are here because they got fed up with groups like RealClimate. I really like this quote:
    … said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”
    If “Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement” are that out of touch with the world, I think they’re more likely to embarrass themselves than advance their cause.

  66. The other map is this one
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.4.30.2009.gif
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
    You see a big difference with South Atlantic anomalies between the map you use and the map NOAA makes available.
    Notice the big blue spot in the South Atlantic, while the NCDC map shows above average anomalies throughout virtually that entire area and your charts saying it did another big warming jump rather than cooling back down like it has done dependably through the entire period, but I look at the NOAA charts I linked to from the beginning of April and I didn’t really see that big a warming since then.
    I look at these because they’re easy to access and they have pretty colors, NOAA’s charts seem reasonably good for ocean temperatures despite the somewhat broken Ice Sensor.

  67. Adam from Kansas: The SST anomaly map I posted is the average for the month of April. The ones you linked appear to be SST anomalies for a given day, or for a few days centered on the given day.
    They should all be based on the same satellites. The NCDC OI.v2 data also uses buoys and ship measurements and corrects for known satellite biases at high latitudes. I’m not sure, however, if the OSDPD makes those high-latitude corrections, too.
    Here’s a link to the most recent weekly OI.v2 SST anomaly map. It should be more in line with the daily anomaly maps. If the link doesn’t work, you can access through the links in my preceding comment and select “oiv2.ctl” which is the weekly data.
    http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=map&var=ssta&level=1&day=22&month=apr&year=2009&proj=default&plotsize=800×600&dir=
    Regards

  68. George M (18:56:02) :
    ==========
    AHA! Here is a learning example, Steve. Instead of provided , we must use AGW terminology:
    X still equals 2
    If we assume:
    Y = 1
    Q = 2
    Z = 1
    B = 12
    However, careful measurements show:
    Y = 2
    Q = .707
    Z = 4,000
    B = 1
    But, the robust models suggest these flimsy and unproven measurements must be wrong, so they are adjusted!
    See how it works?
    WONDERFUL!
    I’ll save that one.
    ——————————————————–
    ON ECLIPSES:
    Wally (18:56:44) :
    “Robert Bateman (18:44:35) :
    Wally (18:26:50)
    And that eclipse you observed, what was the temperature drop over that time span?”
    Couldn’t really say. i did not have a thermometer with me, plus it was a cloudy day so I’m sure the effect was muted compared to observing one on a clear day but still really spooky.
    Well, the only total eclipse I’ve witnessed was February 26, 1979. We drove upriver to the Stonehenge replica near Maryhill — a really cool place to see an eclipse!
    A bright, clear, sunny day. A little warm for February.
    Had no thermometer, but the temperature noticeably dropped when the shadow hit us.

  69. Reappearing Islands in India make Hollywood AGW Celebrity Alarmists look like asses.
    The Islands were responsible for the first climate refugees in the world but the climate had nothing to do with the matter.
    One thing is for sure, this is another blow to AGW.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4352475.cms
    Link from another excellent article from Philip Stott
    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/5/4_Excellent_New_Comment_from_India.html

  70. Dakota James wrote it, and I believed it. Namely, that Lake Michigan would dry up by the late 1990s (“Greenhouse: It WILL Happen in 1997!”) opening up new land to speculate on, right adjacent to the northern lakefront in Chicagoland. Oh man, now … what a financial hangover … if only I’d invested in pork belly futures! / s

Comments are closed.