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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Speaking of ice…
From New Zealand comes a study on glaciers that doesn’t quite fit the mold. Seems that glacial advances and retreats are different between the hemispheres. *gasp*
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10569888
How about these upstart scientists that didn’t get the AGW memo and don’t march in lock-step with everyone else.
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
OT: RSS data out for April. Second coldest April since April 1999:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
A show on The History Channel, “How The Earth Was Made : The Great Lakes,” says the same thing, literally saying it is not global warming. The show is scheduled to be on again Tuesday.
the schedule :
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=416540
OT again: Catliners not yet resupplied. When will they start worrying?
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/latestfromtheice
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.”
“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.
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!
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?
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?
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
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.
“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…
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!
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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
This is the same theory for our forest fires in Australia.
“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.
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?”
“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.