The recent Arctic blast that gripped much of the nation will likely contribute to a healthy rise in Great Lakes water levels in 2014, new research shows.
But the processes responsible for that welcome outcome are not as simple and straightforward as you might think.
From the University of Michigan
Great Lakes evaporation study dispels misconceptions, need for expanded monitoring program
ANN ARBOR—The recent Arctic blast that gripped much of the nation will likely contribute to a healthy rise in Great Lakes water levels in 2014, new research shows. But the processes responsible for that welcome outcome are not as simple and straightforward as you might think.
Yes, extreme winter cold increases ice cover on the Great Lakes, which in turn reduces evaporation by preventing water vapor from escaping into the air. But this simplistic view of winter ice as a mere “cap” on Great Lakes evaporation is giving way to a more nuanced conception, one that considers the complex interplay among evaporation, ice cover and water temperature at different times of year.
In a report released today by the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center (GLISA)—a federally funded collaboration between the University of Michigan and Michigan State University — a team of American and Canadian scientists notes that while ice cover affects evaporation, the reverse is true as well: evaporation rates in the autumn help determine the extent of winter ice cover.
High evaporation rates in the fall can nearly offset water-level gains that result from extensive winter ice cover, complicating efforts to forecast Great Lakes water levels, which have declined in most of the lakes since the late 1990s, rebounding somewhat during a wet 2013.
The newfound appreciation for evaporation’s varied roles reveals gaps in our current understanding of fundamental environmental processes and highlights the need for sustained funding for the project’s Great Lakes evaporation monitoring network, said John Lenters, the study’s lead investigator and a senior scientist at Ann Arbor-based LimnoTech, an environmental consulting firm.
The binational group’s network of five stations is one of the few sources of direct, year-round observations of Great Lakes evaporation.
“It’s our hope that we will soon have the funding and infrastructure in place to maintain—and even expand—the network well into the future,” Lenters said. “This will be extremely important for improving Great Lakes water-level forecasting and for understanding the long-term impacts of climate change.”
The study by Lenters and his colleagues is the first coordinated effort to study evaporation across the Great Lakes. In addition to Lenters, the research team consists of Christopher Spence of Environment Canada, Peter Blanken of the University of Colorado, John Anderton of Northern Michigan University and Andrew Suyker of the University of Nebraska.
By piecing together the results from several studies, Lenters and his colleagues showed that years with high Great Lakes ice cover require a large amount of heat loss from the lakes in the preceding autumn and early winter to cool the water enough to form ice. And one of the most effective ways for a lake to lose heat is through evaporation, which means that extensive ice cover is actually an indicator of high evaporation rates prior to a high-ice winter, according to co-author Blanken.
Team members used funding from a 2011 GLISA grant to integrate their independent efforts, underway since 2008, to monitor and understand the impacts of climate variability and change on Great Lakes evaporation. The 11-page white paper released today highlights a few of the results.
“No two years are alike when it comes to Great Lakes evaporation, ice cover and water temperatures, but the recent documented changes in the lakes’ water balance are aligned with predictions associated with climate change,” said Environment Canada’s Spence.
“That’s why these new measurements over each of the Great Lakes have been so valuable to better understand these seasonal, inter-annual and long-term variations,” he said.
The recent cold spell, blamed on an errant polar vortex, provides a striking example of how Great Lakes evaporation sometimes defies expectations.
While examining meteorological data from an island on Lake Superior, Lenters found that evaporation rates during December 2013, a cold month, were about 60 percent higher than they were in December 2011, a much warmer month.
“Most people would find this counterintuitive,” Lenters said. “Why would a lake evaporate more rapidly during a colder month? The answer, it turns out, lies within the lake itself.”
Relative to the air, December and January water temperatures can be surprisingly warm in deep lakes like Superior. In early January 2014, the lake was 30 to 40 degrees warmer than the overlying air, according to Lenters. That large temperature contrast caused a steep moisture difference which, in turn, led to high evaporation rates, he said.
So what does all this mean for Great Lakes water levels in 2014?
Although the recent cold spell has led to high evaporation rates this winter, the extensive ice cover is likely to stick around longer into the spring than is typical. That may lead to cooler summer water temperatures and a later start to the 2014 Great Lakes evaporation season.
“Together with high spring runoff from this winter’s heavy lake-effect snowfall, it would be reasonable to expect a healthy rise in Great Lakes water levels this year,” Lenters said.
In addition to funding from GLISA, the investigators received support from the International Upper Great Lakes Study through the International Joint Commission. The co-directors of GLISA are Don Scavia at U-M and Thomas Dietz at Michigan State University.
“A new understanding of the impacts of climate variability on Great Lakes evaporation is emerging as a result of this GLISA-funded project,” said Scavia, director of the Graham Sustainability Institute, which oversees the GLISA program at U-M.
“In light of these new findings, continued long-term monitoring of Great Lakes evaporation and related hydrological processes is paramount for understanding and predicting the future impacts of climate variability and change on Great Lakes water levels.” “Understanding how lake levels are changing is very important to our region,” said Dietz, a professor of environmental science and policy at Michigan State. “This affects shipping, recreation and infrastructure on the lake shore.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The reduction in great lake water levels is mostly dues to the dredging of channels for shipping and the increased erosion of the waterways due to the greater current flow and disruption of the channel cause by the dredging and is little to do with climate.
Ho hum.
They almost had me thinking they knew what they were talking about until the brought up global warming. With that, I know they were just after more funding.
Somewhere in all that verbiage is the watermelons’ new refrain “warm makes cold”……
“…reveals gaps in our current understanding of fundamental environmental processes and highlights the need for sustained funding for the project’s Great Lakes evaporation monitoring network…”
Translation: “We don’t know, but we want more money, so as to make our ignorance more accurate.”
And varying precipitation in the watersheds feeding the Great Lakes is unimportant? There is a large direct precipitation correlation, and all else (summer evaporation, winter ice extent) is rounding error.
Would not humidity levels affect evaporation rates as much (or more) than temperatures? They make no mention of that.
Get a load of the fallacious reasons they give for more funding : they claim knowledge of how the lakes’ water levels change is important because of the value of the lakes etc etc. Now exactly why do these folks believe that more knowledge will enable anyone to do anything about future
changes in water levels?
Sounds like this could lead to more Mid west flooding this spring. Sometimes I’ve wondered why some sort of flood pipeline system couldn’t be developed that could move water from a flood area to a drought area? We can pipeline oil, Water wouldn’t be an environmental issue like the keystone pipeline.
Just throwing it out there…..
R Abbott @ur momisugly 7;04am has it correct, especially for Huron / Michigan. Here’s a link to check the water levels c/w historic averages;
http://www.waterlevels.gc.ca/c&a/bulletin_e.html
Translation: The purpose of all words previous to this was to secure funding for “monitoring” of the lakes because we can’t just have water levels wandering around on their own unmonitored.
So. Too warm raises sea level. Too cold raises lake level. Do I have that about right?
Too cold (or early cold in this case) causes ice to form earlier in the season, thus reducing evaporation, leading to higher lake levels. As a side benefit, early ice also reduces or eliminates lake effect snow, which is good news for the west coast of Michigan.
blame it on anything but the cold…
…now it’s because it was too warm before the cold
Evaporation of Lake Michigan is conventionally thought to be ~30% of total loss.
Roderick, Michael L. and Graham D. Farquhar (2002). “The cause of decreased pan evaporation over the past 50 years”. Science 298 (5597): pp. 1410–1411 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5597/1410. Bibcode:2002Sci…298.1407D. doi:10.1126/science.1075390. PMID 12434057.
Brutsaert, Wilfried (2006). “Indications of increasing land surface evaporation during the second half of the 20th century”. Geophysical Research Letters 33 (20): pp. 1410–1411. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3320403B. doi:10.1029/2006GL027532
Providing the water level does’nt fall to a critical level, what does it matter what level it is, and what can they do about it if they do find out what causes the level to fluctuate? Some of these research guys seem to have a very easy ride after they have persuaded some charitable funding body to part with their cash.
There was a Quebec? engineer, some years ago, who did some calculations on damming off 1/2 of Hudson Bay and diverting the fresh water south.
To assuage the great fear of that time, that the Great Lakes were vanishing.
I have forgotten all the good details, as in name, where published and so on, but the compelling case the man made lingers on.
I skimmed the above posting, I saw no mention of the obvious effect of ice cover, that it restricts the out flows from the lakes.
Ice encrusted river beds are able to flow less water.
A frozen Niagara Falls helps the local hydro conserve water.
100 ft of 1 ft thick surface ice in a 100 ft channel is 10,000 cubic feet of blockage.
Up north here this blockage of the lake outflows is countered by the near complete freezing of the inflows so lake level drop under the ice.
In the south more surface water continues to run off so lake levels may rise.
All I can say as a native Michigander – a rise in the lake levels would be very welcome.
It was climate change that brought the lakes into existence.
John Robertson, you beat me to it! But you had the same thought as I did when I first saw this story – increased ice in the system is just like putting flow restrictions in a pipeline. The more restriction, the less flow, and the more the water backs up. It’s just fluid mechanics.
George Lawson says: January 22, 2014 at 8:30 am “Providing the water level does’nt fall to a critical level, what does it matter what level it is, and what can they do about it if they do find out what causes the level to fluctuate? [ … ]”
Well, an anecdote, my community of ~700 just backed a $5 Million grant to dredge our harbor channel for a private ferry company. To a logical first approximation, plug the holes in a leaky vessel to make its level rise.
There is a lot of ice cover on the Great Lakes so far this year:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/glcfs.php?lake=l&ext=ice&type=N&hr=00
Again the weakening polar vortex ad hoc BS…
Yes, it can be seen that Lake St. Clair is 100% and the Lake Michigan system is filling. So let’s put the plug back in the St. Clair River – while the dollar has value enough to still afford the effort.
“No two years are alike when it comes to Great Lakes evaporation, ice cover and water temperatures, but the recent documented changes in the lakes’ water balance are aligned with predictions associated with climate change,” said Environment Canada’s Spence.
I’m sorry – at this point, what exactly isn’t aligned with predictions associated with ‘climate change’?
@ur momisuglyPeter in MD,….Lake Levels could rise several feet and it’d have no effect on flooding.
@ur momisugly George Lawson…Lake levels are most critical for commercial shipping and boating. The lower the levels, the shallower the channels are. This means the freighters have to carry much less. So you’re left with 2 options, ship less via the lakes OR make a lot more runs. Recreational boating takes a major hit as well (a big part of Michigan’s summer economy) because as Doug Huffmann points out, marinas will dredge so they can keep putting boats in.