Climate change is likely hampering recovery efforts
Carnegie Institution for Science
Washington, DC– The intensity of summer algal blooms has increased over the past three decades, according to a first-ever global survey of dozens of large, freshwater lakes, which was conducted by Carnegie’s Jeff Ho and Anna Michalak and NASA’s Nima Pahlevan and published by Nature.
Reports of harmful algal blooms–like the ones that shut down Toledo’s water supply in 2014 or led to states of emergency being declared in Florida in 2016 and 2018–are growing. These aquatic phenomena are harmful either because of the intensity of their growth, or because they include populations of toxin-producing phytoplankton. But before this research effort, it was unclear whether the problem was truly getting worse on a global scale. Likewise, the degree to which human activity –including agriculture, urban development, and climate change–was contributing to this problem was uncertain.
“Toxic algal blooms affect drinking water supplies, agriculture, fishing, recreation, and tourism,” explained lead author Ho. “Studies indicate that just in the United States, freshwater blooms result in the loss of $4 billion each year.”
Despite this, studies on freshwater algal blooms have either focused on individual lakes or specific regions, or the period examined was comparatively short. No long-term global studies of freshwater blooms had been undertaken until now.
Ho, Michalak, and Pahlevan used 30 years of data from NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landsat 5 near-Earth satellite, which monitored the planet’s surface between 1984 and 2013 at 30 meter resolution, to reveal long-term trends in summer algal blooms in 71 large lakes in 33 countries on six continents. To do so, they created a partnership with Google Earth Engine to process and analyze more than 72 billion data points.
“We found that the peak intensity of summertime algal blooms increased in more than two-thirds of lakes but decreased in a statistically significant way in only six of the lakes,” Michalak explained. “This means that algal blooms really are getting more widespread and more intense, and it’s not just that we are paying more attention to them now than we were decades ago.”
Although the trend towards more-intense blooms was clear, the reasons for this increase seemed to vary from lake to lake, with no consistent patterns among the lakes where blooms have gotten worse when considering factors such as fertilizer use, rainfall, or temperature. One clear finding, however, is that among the lakes that improved at any point over the 30-year period, only those that experienced the least warming were able to sustain improvements in bloom conditions. This suggests that climate change is likely already hampering lake recovery in some areas.
“This finding illustrates how important it is to identify the factors that make some lakes more susceptible to climate change,” Michalak said. “We need to develop water management strategies that better reflect the ways that local hydrological conditions are affected by a changing climate.”
###
This research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, a Google Earth Engine Research Award, a NASA ROSES grant, and by a USGS Landsat Science Team Award.
The Carnegie Institution for Science is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with six research departments throughout the U.S. Since its founding in 1902, the Carnegie Institution has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.
If we just wait a few weeks, some real scientist will be able to reveal to us the true cause of this severe algal bloom and it will turn out to be something other than the ubiquitous “Climate Change”
So all other factors get put to one side in favour of a tentative link to “climate change”.
Fertiliser run-off is pretty obvious main cause if any of the constituents are the limiting nutrient of algae’s ecosystem which they often are. The effect of 0.1 deg/ decade on growth is very unlikely to change anything in a measurable way.
Instead of doing objective work they are just looking to promote yet another thing they can claim is “linked to climate change”.
Seems to me that MIchalak’s last statement contains the key objective of the study. That being to create a new career path for science degree graduates.
To establish government employed and public sector union organized Water Management or Hydro Algal Mitigators. I see at least a three tiered managment system to administer the crucial work of Yellow Vested Algal Mitigators. Mitigators will be, like alligators without tails and scales
And don’t forget my money.
In the picture above, I’m seeing quite a bit of cropland.
In Nebraska I can verify there has been a huge increase in land under cultivation to produce corn for ethanol… Much of it marginal farmland, previously either lightly grazed or in conservation status, that requires lots of irrigation and fertilizer. Many results including reduced biodiversity. And they are mining the great Ogallala aquifer much faster than it is being replenished.
When I go fishing I see algae blooms in most lakes that are river/stream fed. These lakes are fed by runoff from ag and urban areas. Most of this water is stained dark and can have silt. No algae blooms in landlocked spring fed lakes. The landlocked lakes are surrounded by high ridges protecting them from ag runoff, they just get runoff from the ridges. Most of the water in these lakes is gin clear (hmmm…I need olives).
“Geo Rubik October 16, 2019 at 10:39 am
When I go fishing I see algae blooms in most lakes that are river/stream fed. These lakes are fed by runoff from ag and urban areas. Most of this water is stained dark and can have silt. No algae blooms in landlocked spring fed lakes.”
Why do eutrophic lakes have low oxygen?
In eutrophic (more productive) lakes, hypolimnetic DO declines during the summer because it is cut-off from all sources of oxygen, while organisms continue to respire and consume oxygen. … In oligotrophic lakes, low algal biomass allows deeper light penetration and less decomposition.
https://www.google.com/search?q=no+oxigen+in+landlocked+lakes&oq=no+oxigen+in+landlocked+lakes&aqs=chrome.
Cycles; everything goes in cycles, as do algae blooms. Nothing new here.
Kinda my thoughts, too. More fish food, more fish – more fish, reduction of fish food – less fish food, fewer fish – fewer fish, more fish food. Rinse and repeat.
Algae are plants. They make their living with photosynthesis and remove co2 from the atmosphere. Their increased presence on lakes as well as on ice sheets is most likely just part of the co2 driven greening of the earth.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/13/ice-algal/
When I was in grade 7 (many dcades ago) I did an experiment for a science fair where I tried to increase CO2 levels in a beaker of algae/cyanobacteria. I got greater growth but my methods were possibly even worse than in the above study. Teachers in small town BC, for the most part, were and remain scientifically illiterate.
I thought algae was going to be the NEW biofuel of the future! How’s all THAT investment in clean, green, renewable, energy coming along? Which FIRST!? An algae energy future … or Nuclear Fusion future?
In a related story … incidents of flesh-eating bacteria are on the rise … because of Global Warming, of course.
It is already well known: eutrophication, i e increased nutrient supply, either through sewage or agricultural runoff/erosion.
Phytoplankton are almost always nutrient-limited, not temperature limited.
That truth must be sacrificed to protect us all from being the clams at a clambake.
In South Africa, failure to maintain municipal sewage processing systems is leading to raw sewage running into rivers. This in turn leads to eutrophication of water supply dams. Not good!
Too late it has already been done and the most likely explanation is nitrate runoff from farmland.
Here the discrimination between anthropogenic general causes and CO2 increase is essential.
The environmental movement takes a “It must be stopped at any/all cost” approach simply because they are always dealing with spending OPM.
The blooms are almost certainly anthropogenic in cause… that is, nutrient run-offs.
But little if nothing to do with elevated CO2 as casual.
And NOAA’s rural-located CRN stations show little if any warming in the US lower-48 over the last decade.
The study notes “recovery” is slowed by warmer temps.
But again are warmer water temps due to CO2-GW (not likely) or is heightened water temps due to power generation heated cooling water discharge increases?
And then there are obvious cost:benefit problems with these studies.
“Studies indicate that just in the United States, freshwater blooms result in the loss of $4 billion each year.”
What is the benefit-cost of trying to stop them? What are the economic benefits of agricultural fertilizer use and the benefit-cost of alternative strategies to stop agricultural run-offs? Likely they far exceed $4Billion in the aggregate from higher produce costs to diminished agricultural production that far exceeds $4 Billion. If the costs to benefits directly stop these problems exceeds that cost, then alternative adaptation/mitigation strategies are warranted.
This is algal bloom problem presentation is similar to Social Cost of Carbon illegitimate exercise employed by past EPA administrations where no fossil fuel and CO2-benefits were calculated in a trade-off study. Simply all “CO2” costs were one-sided presentations without the enormous benefits of fossil fuel usage or enhanced CO2 fertilization effects.
And while there may be no “up-side” to an algal bloom in a lake, the costs for any proposed remedies to stopping it must be considered.
“And NOAA’s rural-located CRN stations show little if any warming in the US lower-48 over the last decade.”
They ought to look at all the local CRN stations near the lakes studied in the United States. It’s a good bet those local CRN stations will show it has been cooling around those lakes since the 1930’s. In fact, the entire United States has been cooling since the 1930’s. We don’t have a CO2-induced climate change/global warming problem here.
Unfortunately the Keepers of the Temperature Data are bastardizing the U.S. surface temperature chart even as we speak with the aim of turning it into a Hockey Stick.
A stop must be put to this blatant bastardization of the historic and current temperature records. The Keepers of the Data are creating lies with which they hope to fool the people into doing something very foolish and destructive by trying to fix th non-existent problem of human-caused climate change . The bastardizers need to be called out. They need to be required to justifiy the changes they have made to the temperature record. Right now they sit there under the radar and manipulate the data to their hearts content. This should change. Transparency is what we need, and we need it now when Society-shattering decisions are being put forward which depend on the accuracy of this data.
What a plague these bastardizers of data have become on human society! They have caused untold harm already with much more to come if we follow their dishonest lead.
But, the CRN stations near the lake do not measure the temp of the lake water, do they?
So, they musta calculated the “lake water temperature” via the satellite data, …….. right?
Water that runs off concrete or asphalt is going to be warmer than water that runs off grass.
Only on a sunny day.
Shallow lakes with a lot of turbidity also will warm up much faster and contribute to algal blooms.
Wasn’t Florida due to human farming? The red bloom? They always have to add, climate change 😐
Likewise, the degree to which human activity –including agriculture, urban development, and “climate change” – was contributing to this problem was uncertain.
Aus banned all phosphates in laundry detergents many yrs ago
they are the biggest effect o n water issues or so we were told
hell of a lot more towns water sent to lake rivers oceans than the poor farmers fields could manage in a blue fit.
and you have to have heavy rains to flush those paddocks anyway!
Take the lakes that experienced severe `bloom` and believe it may be caused by `climate change` , look backwards at images captured 30 years ago by satellites.
# 1 check the population change in the area
# 2 check the change in farming in the area
# 3 check for changes in recreational use of the lake
# 4 check the water temperature to an accuracy commensurate with the believed climate change over that period
# 5 check the level / size of the lake for any change
# 6 check for cloud cover and precipitation 2 weeks prior to bloom in each area
# 7 find the lakes that were negatively affected in `bloom` and check the water temperature
write a separate report indicating correlation and non correlation between climate change and rate of growth of blooms
did I get the grant money ?
Uh oh! What have we here?: “One clear finding, however, is that among the lakes that improved at any point over the 30-year period, only those that experienced the least warming were able to sustain improvements in bloom conditions.“. There was obviously no clear trend of the lakes that warmed getting more algal blooms, because if there had been they would obviously have said so.
And just how many of the lakes were involved in their “clear finding”? Well, they say: “We found that the peak intensity of summertime algal blooms increased in more than two-thirds of lakes but decreased in a statistically significant way in only six of the lakes“. So the very small part of the sample that they sort of dismiss – – is the same very small sample on which they base their one and only “clear finding”.
I wonder how accurate their analysis of fertiliser use was. Actually, I wonder how accurate the whole thing was, and how much confirmation bias is built into it. And I’d like to know a bit more about those [lakes] that experienced the least warming – how was the lake warming measured; did they measure the lake itself or use a nearby weather station? If the former, could the algae have caused the temperature increase? If the latter, could the station’s UHE (Urban Heat Effect) have the same source as the lake’s warming? It doesn’t look like the study should have had any “clear finding”.
Mike, I fear you have missed the TWO clear findings.
(1) It’s worse than we thunk.
(2) Send more money.
So by my math, they only looked at 18 lakes.
-I’ll be over here dying again…
Allow me to advance a hypothesis.
First, data points I have noticed which suggest the hypothesis:
Point #1
Field ecologists who go out into the field to study ecology tend to find answers to questions which do not involve “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”.
Point #2
Field ecologists who select a study methodology which allows them to stay comfortably indoors, in this case analyzing archived satellite imagery, tend to invoke GW or CC to explain their findings.
Hypothesis:
The probability of a researcher to use GW or CC to explain results is inversely proportional to the amount of time they spend out in the field making observations and taking measurements.
A hypothesis has been advanced, let us begin testing.
Theory guides, Experiment decides.
Heretic!
The lakes which warm most need to have that warming explained, those least warming ditto. It might be that lake warming is caused by pollution that has a side effect of causing plankton blooms – something that lowers albedo while increasing nutrients. Or perhaps increased nutrient and the albedo decreasing factor are a consequence of location – near sewage outfall would be one such situation.
Sewage out falls feed plankton and smooth water surfaces.
The researchers might usefully look at Emeliania Huxleyi blooms in the ocean. Are they changing in number and, more importantly, start date and duration.
JF
They didn’t actually measure the temperature of any of the lakes. They assumed that the lake temperatures must have followed the air temperature trend of the closest recording station. Regardless of how far away from the lake that station may have been.
First Evah study, but it’s getting worse…..Is it just me?
Solve the problem.
Bring oxygen into hypolimnion. Remove phosphorus from the water column.
Help nature do the job:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329557261_Fighting_Blue_Green_Algal_Blooms_Help_Nature_to_Do_the_Job
But, but, those algae are sequestring carbon using solar energy, gobbling up carbon dioxide. What’s not to like?
Ed Zuiderwijk October 16, 2019 at 1:08 am
But, but, those algae are sequestring carbon using solar energy, gobbling up carbon dioxide. What’s not to like
“Reports of harmful algal blooms–like the ones that shut down Toledo’s water supply in 2014 or led to states of emergency being declared in Florida in 2016 and 2018–are growing. These aquatic phenomena are harmful either because of the intensity of their growth, or because they include populations of toxin-producing phytoplankton.”
That phenomena are not to like.
What a tortuous path they take to implicate global warming!
And they utterly ignore all of the local factors that affect their topic.
I note also that they lump everything into a grand total.
They fail to mention algae blooms by month.
They fail to note weather effects.
They fail to note whether this is a sunnier period that recent years; or whether clears skies have allowed more sun to reach placid waters.
They ignore local wildlife populations. Even though freshwater fish, waterfowl and general wildlife populations are near maximums.
They ignore the local drainage changes as urban/suburban land ownership spreads further into the countryside.
Basically, these children did some somes, drew a line between these last few years and sometime in the past; whether satellite instruments were not as capable. The then attributed that calculated algae growth to global warming.
They allege some of the lakes warmed. They’re apparently basing their warming claim on satellite capture of surface temperatures alone. A few surface millimeters, not the lake’s temperature.
Total fail.
I live near a water supply reservoir that has had this problem every summer since it was built in 1969. It is a large pumped reservoir 6 miles round, no catchment, all water pumped. Never known them close it for use, just warn the fishermen and sailing fraternity.
So no agricultural run off to explain things it is just the way it is. My experiment finished.
Lets face it, the really big DEADLY algal blooms are occurring between the ears of the CAGWarmists in general and some recent EXTREME events in the vast vacant spaces inside the heads of Extinction Rebels.
Did they measure the actual temperature of the lakes? Did they get warmer? Some missing reality checks, here.
Yet another “the cat had kittens – it must have been caused by global warming” piece of doggerel.
Hmmmm… 71 lakes out of 117 million. I’m sure it’s fine. It’s not like we have seen a problem like this with glacier studies.
Climate has had zero effect on algal blooms in Florida lakes. It is all about pollution – primarily a combination of agricultural runoff, urban development runoff, and pollution from septic systems, which are the predominant means of wasterwater treatment for most of the residences in the watershed of Lake Okeechobee.
Florida lawmakers have refused to do anything about this pollution – either by imposing more requirements on farms, specifically the large corporate farms especially Big Sugar – which has controlled Florida politicians for many decades now – or on individual homeowners who would face big bills to fund centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems. So between Big Farming and the votes of homeowners, nobody in the Legislature or the Governor’s office has the balls to do anything about anything, except call for more money to be spent on “studies”.
That is how I see it too, good comment!
Another master class in snatching a bad news story from the jaws of good news.
CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere is responsible, although needless to say it is not mentioned.
In post modern activist led science, what could CO2 possibly have to do with plant growth? Didn’t David Attenborough already tell us that plants don’t use CO2 for photosynthesis anymore? That it is as toxin only?
Since climate change effects on a local level can be quite variable, it occurred to me to see how the temperature has actually changed around Okeechobie. In searching, I came across this site from the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Studies at Florida State University:
https://www.coaps.fsu.edu/
This center appears to be trying to do real science–keeping climate hype at arm’s length.
I can’t seem to find a direct URL for this, but if you google “lake okeechobee weather station ushcn”, you should find a link to a report titled “Global Climate Change in Florida?…” Slides 15-17 seem to attribute weather changes around the lake to land use changes. Worth taking a look at, IMHO.
There is much to discuss when it comes to Lake O.
Fot instance, it happens to be in a naturally phosphorous-rich area. It is shallow and receives lots of FL sun. There is lots of agriculture (away from fruit farms and now cattle instead) and development growth (i.e., greater wastewater discharges) upstream.
The notion that climate change is the issue is just plain goofy.
Prime example of rent seeking.
Anna is very cool sort of person
it appears she has been researching algal blooms and computer models for many years , mainly lake Erie and for many years, her 2013 paper :-
“Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions”, and a later paper linking blooms to Phosphorus
I love the `consistent with the future` bit
Are all fish & lake creatures carnivorous ? Kind of does not lead to a food-chain if all species feed on other species.
I’m not a specialist but it seems that there must be something eating algae. Logically that “algae eating something” is having a party.
Turning itself in abundant meals for the upper food-chain and so on.
Bottom line, are algae really that bad ?
1984 to 2013. So the hiatus in latter years was evident since warming was key to non-recovery of lakes?
I wonder if anyone checked the hypothesis that the algal blooms caused the lake warming, whether the water absorbed more solar energy due to greater turbidity due to the presence of algae. We have this problem with CO2 also, that nobody wants to recognize that throughout geologic history climate changes lead CO2 changes, not follow. You’d think that single uncontested historical fact would drive a stake through the heart of this AGW frenzy but this hydra just grows a new head, from nuclear winter to acid rain to ozone holes to global warming to climate change; like a Terminator robot it just keeps getting back up. Would the possibility that this was never about climate explain that?
And, like CO2, is algae bad? We have had programs in Canada where shores of reservoirs are fertilized specifically to increase algal development in the lakes in order to prompt development of a fish culture, often Kokanee salmon, which in turn supports a population of Lake and Rainbow trout. Nobody died.
Some algae is toxic to humans–so what? Even water is toxic to humans in too large a quantity, both by ingestion and immersion. Is the amount at all dangerous?
I’m not scared yet. They might need more money to change that.
I have a house on the Chesapeake Bay. It is a very large body of water that varies in salinity and has some exchange with the Atlantic. The largest supplier of fresh water to the Bay is the Susquehanna River draining 27,500 sq miles. Unfortunately the river carries huge amounts of nutrients from agriculture and poorly maintained septic and sewer systems that empties into the northern Bay. Additionally agricultural runoff comes from the Potomac, Rappahannock, York and James Rivers which drain almost the entire state of Virginia.
Algae is a huge issue in the Bay and ebbs and flows with the weather. When the watershed gets a lot of rain, nutrients come in fast and the water quality changes. When the area is dry, fewer nutrients come in and the oysters and other filter feeder help clear it out to some extent. Regardless, every summer there are large areas of water that are so oxygen depleted, nothing can live in it. The creeks along the Bay are green.
Water temperatures are pretty much the same over the course of the year. In the summer it gets very warm and in the winter the northern Bay freezes. But how much algae is dependent almost entirely on nutrient levels. Efforts to introduce oyster farming are helping somewhat in certain areas but the only way to get better water quality is to clean up the rivers feeding the system.