Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The mystery of Lake Superior's low levels, surging temperatures

JOHN FLESHER

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 1:55 AM EDT 03/08/07

Mystery of sudden combination of severe low water and high temperatures has experts worried ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. James Follwell from Charlottetown, Canada writes: The symptoms of climate change suggest Gaia is ailing. But Gaia will not ail for long because she has instrinsic self healing systems, systems founded in the laws of bio-physics. One wonders at what point Gaia will just set off an immune attack on the pestilence - that is humans, and thereby regain a new equilibrium of eco-health. It could take a few years, a few hundred, a few thousand. But sooner or later, perhaps already, the second law of thermodynamics will be invoked and Gaia will get on with a darned sight few of us. (This can all be represented as a dynamic equilibrium economic process for those of you not comfortable with animating the earth's ecosystems.) Nice warn day here too. And you should see the crops this year!
  2. James Follwell from Charlottetown, Canada writes: Meant to type "Nice warm day here" I suppose "warn" was a Freudian slip?
  3. Dr Demento from Canada writes: More evidence that our planet is warming.
  4. Steven Koning from Bloomfield, ON, Canada writes: Change is a constant. Get used to it. As Urban said: "we won't be able to say whether this warming is of major concern or not.”
  5. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: 4.5 degree farhenheit and then it switches to celsius... it's always more spectacular this way...
  6. martha stewart from Canada writes: Says: "Its average temperature has surged about 4.5 degrees Farenheit since 1979, significantly above the 2.7-degree rise in the region's air temperature during the same period. That's no small deal for a freshwater sea that was created from glacial melt as the Ice Age ended and remains chilly in all seasons."

    Do they not have any record of this lake's levels and temperatures reaching back far further than 1979? They must. And that would provide some significant context to this story. Instead we get almost meaningless "warmest/lowest/whatever that I can remember" garbage.

    In any case, for those now programmed to see the world through Kyoto-coloured glasses, this will no doubt be more "proof" no matter what. LOL.
  7. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: One concern that springs to mind is the shoreline spawning beds for brook trout. They are critical habitat. slated for enhanced protection but decreasing water levels, should they persist, could result in serious problems for the brookies. As anyone who knows brook trout well can tell you, they are one of the most environmentally sensitive species of freshwater fish anywhere.
  8. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Martha Stewart: You don't know what you are talking about on this topic.
  9. harry carnie from Northern, B.C, Canada writes: Steven Koning...Yup.. agree..shut up and adapt. An argument about how much we do... or do not ...contribute to global warming ..climate change or whatever one wishes to call it, is a waste of time.

    We SHOULD be concerned with the toxic chemicals we ARE putting in the environment...but if that eventually bites us in the A$$ so be it.
  10. Dr Demento from Canada writes: martha stewart - just so you understand: when the temperature is rising, it means that warming is taking place.

    Why is that concept so difficult for some people to comprehend?
  11. harry carnie from Northern, B.C, Canada writes: Dr Demento...yes..it the lake is getting warmer...it means the earth`s temperature is also being elevated..............so...............?
  12. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave T - From your comments about brook trout I can see that you are no expert on aquatic life. Compared to other trout (actually char in this case), brook trout are extremely tolerant of low O2 and weedy conditions - makes them ideal for stocking beaver ponds around here. When the levels of beaver ponds fluctuate, they simply adjust where they spawn. Compared to carp or bass one might call them sensitive, but...

    My point here was simply that short term regional changes and long term global changes are not so easily linked, as this story itself confirms. And both you and Dr Demento proved my point about how completely predictable some responses would be. Believe whatever you want to believe - its too nice outside today for me to stay indoors and argue with fundamentalists about religion.
  13. Some Guy from Canada writes: Martha, I think you might want to reread the article. It stated that the current trend to warmer surface water and lower water levels began in 1979 and if it continues into this fall, normal behaviour for a lake in Canada, it will have broken an 80 year old record.

    My guess would be that accurate records go back only a little further than that, when the lake started being used by larger ships, and before that less reliable and spotty records and anecdotal data are available.

    Analysis of lake sediments could help and that is probably happening. The only thing the reporter noticed happening was testing the lake water's CO2 levels. Notice the scientists interviewed were careful not to attribute this definitely to any one cause, it' a surprise for all concerned that water temperature levels are rising faster than air temperature levels. All this is is another data point, not conclusive proof, but it is another point giving the same data as many others.
  14. Tristram Shandy from london ontario, Canada writes: I am fairly certain that there are temperature records going back a lot further than 1979, though I agree, it is too nice a day to go searching.

    I have seen records of lake levels for Lake Huron going back many many more years than 1979, and although I realize that is not the same thing, it would lead me to believe that both figures are available going back many years.

    BTW, Lake Huron's level has been falling over the past few years as well, though I don't recall any reports on temperatures.
  15. Boycott China from Toronto, Canada writes:

    I wonder if all the festering garbage up in Thunder Bay's downtown streets has anything to do with the warming of the lake ; )

    The following videos show garbage piling up in the Thunder Bay's downtown streets, strewn in its gutters and alleys - all within scant yards of Thunder Bay City Hall. Thunder Bay's residents palpably lack civic pride (if not common sense).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O6t1vo5IVA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMSyS6bctk8
  16. Mister Fartleberry from Toronto, Canada writes: So where's the Canadian research? Nice story about Michigan with a stock photo supposedly taken at Pukaskwa.
  17. Dawn Lotus from Canada writes: But martha stewart, do tell us, is it "a good thing."

    Groan.
  18. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: Does this require a name change to: Lake Less Superior?
  19. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: How can the scientists not have a complete and coherent explanation for what is happening? They keep telling us they understand climate and related phenomena perfectly!
  20. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: PS. I bet its those Americans, secretly syphoning off the water somewhere. It couldn't be a lack of rain since "climate models", we are told, predict increased precipitation in this region.
  21. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: On July 22, the G&M reported Robert Shibley, University of New York's Director of Urban Design Project, was lauding The Great Lakes as the best destination for the parched populations of America's southwestern states.

    Today, the G&M raises another alarm, linking Lake Superior's sudden dwindling levels to surging temperatures. All the Great Lakes are under enormous stress from development and global climate change.

    In mid-July, mayors for municipalities surrounding the Great Lakes agreed there was a water problem, but they decided the installation of low-flush toilets should be coupled with their plans for more human population growth and development.

    Low-flush toilets will barely save the proverbial drop in a disappearing bucket. Put all these stories together, and there is only one real solution: population stabilization is essential to conserve the Great Lakes. Rosy unrealistic growth projections must be tamed. The definition of insanity extends to anyone who keeps doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Politicians are insane by this definition ...
  22. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: A few points: 1) the records go much farther back than 1979. The lake levels are lowest since 1926. 2) Martha Stewart writes: "brook trout are extemely tolerant of low O2 and weedy conditions-makes them ideal for stocking beaver ponds around here." That is ridiculous. Are you talking about stocked fish? Hatchery trout? Are you trying to suggest that hatchery trout are the same as native coaster brook trout? That brookies like warm water? What you are saying is nonsense, and now I have to repeat my earlier point as a consequence: the spawning beds of Lake Superior's coaster brook trout are already designated for enhanced protection in the near future. We are not talking about some beaver pond with put and catch poultry. In any case, enjoy your day outside, Martha. I won't be so presumptuous as to tell you, someone I don't know and have never met, whether you are predictable or not. By the way, you should go online and read the recommendations made for the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area on the Parks Canada website.
  23. Some Guy from Canada writes: Beware of the scientific literacy of reporters. The models for GW predict more rain, less snow, an earlier spring runoff, and more evapouration loss. Some areas, particularly coastal ones, will see more total precipitation and interior ones less. The scientist quoted wanted more research before forming a conclusion on the cause.

    No one here (certainly not me) said this was definitely the result of GW and understanding what is happening to one of North America's most valuable lakes is important and worth more research.
  24. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dawn Lotus writes: "But martha stewart, do tell us, is it "a good thing."
    Groan."

    Surely "Dawn Lotus" your heightened state of enlightenment allows you to answer your own questions.
  25. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: On July 22, the G&M reported Robert Shibley, University of New York's Director of Urban Design Project, was lauding The Great Lakes as the best destination for the parched populations of America's southwestern states."

    Being surrounded by unpopulated land unsuitable for farming, local water use is probably not an issue.

    "Today, the G&M raises another alarm, linking Lake Superior's sudden dwindling levels to surging temperatures."

    As well as a 15cm drop in average rainfall in the catch basin. Since the storage/inflow ratio is about 200, the decrease is probably dominated by evaporation as changes to inflow would take much longer to affect levels.

    "All the Great Lakes are under enormous stress from development and global climate change."

    Fortunately, it is not yet a target for supplying irrigation water to the drought-stricken U.S.. Extraction of water by the St. Mary's river is stricktly limited by a 1909 agreement with Canada..
  26. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave T - Just back in the shade for a bit, and caught your post. About brook trout, here in the West where I live the brookies are all introduced and they are the most tolerant trout or char species to warm water and low O2... you are now describing a specific Lake Superior population, which you did not do before, so everyone reading this forum has now learned something - that is, that one cannot jump to grand or global generalizations based on only specific cases. Which was my original point.
  27. martha stewart from Canada writes: Some Guy from Canada writes: "Beware of the scientific literacy of reporters."

    Best post yet! Also important to be aware of their biases which are usually quite evident in their writing.

    Beware also their historical literacy. Thus one had to reread this article to find a hint of the historical perspective, and fortunately others have posted more information on the records for this region. Now Dave T tells us that these levels are at their lowest since 1926 which provides some more meaningful view of today's levels.

    This certainly could be related to global climate change, or not. I do recall that recently some of the Kyoto herd was trying to use the Aral Sea as a poster child, until the real reasons for that lake's shrinkage was better explained. And I do see a lot of changes happening in the Great Lakes basin other than climate change. We shall see...
  28. Red Ensign is our glory! Real Canadian pride! from Canada writes: what sux is the more water that evaporates, the more it concentrates toxins and salinity in the remaining water.
  29. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Extraction of water by the St. Mary's river is stricktly limited by a 1909 agreement with Canada."

    Ian - Not sure what this Alberta-Montana river has to do with this topic. Any chance you could politely inform me?
  30. campbell atkinson from victoria bc, Canada writes: Martha Stewart would agree if you drive north of the Soo, and around Batchawana Bay you see a number off stranded beaches at a variety of levels, So the Lake has shrunk in the past ,after the end of the ice age. Have scientists investigated what happened in each i=of those shrinkage events. You cant blame flush toilets nor population increases for those long ago events. It would help if people would stop trying to explain events that take yeats to happen with this years fad criteria. We are in global warming,yes, but it started millenia ago and low flush toilets wont stop it!
  31. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: martha stewart - I think you've got the wrong St Mary's river. See wikipedia.
  32. martha stewart from Canada writes: Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: martha stewart - I think you've got the wrong St Mary's river. See wikipedia.

    Thanks. Quite the coincidence as there's a similar international agreement brewing into a dispute on the AB/MT one.
  33. martha stewart from Canada writes: campbell atkinson - Your post makes complete sense to me. We live in the bottom of a long gone glacial lake and can still see mountain top remnants of the last Ice Age. "Nothing endures but change" as some famous Greek guy said long ago.
  34. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: martha stewart - If I saved you from an attack by Ian (Potty-Mouth) St John, that's my good deed for the day!
  35. Thomas Price from Canada writes: Low period in precipitation cycle with constant draw-down rate. Where's the mystery? All of the Great Lakes can only sustain their reservoir if the draw-down rate is less than the precipitation on the water shed. The only mystery I can see is "Who is it that's looking for a research grant from the government to study the obvious?"
  36. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Thomas Price - That's what today's science is all about, isn't it?
  37. Dr Demento from Canada writes: Why do so many deny that the planet is warming when the evidence is everywhere?
  38. martha stewart from Canada writes: Andrew Pearson - Yes you did and thank you very much! But now we may both be rudely "corrected"... for something...
  39. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dr Demento from Canada writes: "Why do so many deny that the planet is warming when the evidence is everywhere?"

    You seem to miss the point. First, there is a difference between short term variations in regional climate (and weather) and the kind of global "planetary crisis" the Kyoto herd is screaming about. Second, the evidence is not everywhere, none of it is the kind of "slam dunk" some wish it was, and much of it is contradictory. Third, it is not denial. Denial describes a refusal to accept that which one knows to be true. NOBODY knows what the future climate will be so nobody knows what current predictions are true, period. Finally, why do you need others to agree with your beliefs? Just do it. Just reduce your CO2 emissions, pollution, impacts, etc. One does not need some doomsday scare to make that the intelligent thing to do. On the other hand, if making other people agree with you is most important, best to ask yourself just what that goal is really about. Religion or social engineering?

    Back on topic - speaking of lakes and climate change, ever seen maps of the huge lake that once covered southern MB... or the ice sheets there before that... or, more recently, the dustbowl days of the 1930s... or...
  40. Dr Demento from Canada writes: martha stewart - you do yourself no favours by constantly referring to the "Kyoto herd". Your arguments should stand on their own merit, without referring to something which is superfluous to this discussion.

    That huge lake which followed the Wisconsin glaciation was Lake Agassiz - do you know any REAL climate history "facts"?

    The fact is the vast majority of reknowned climatologists tell us that the Earth is warming and they suspect that the huge increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 200 years is responsible.

    You know better?
  41. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - Not sure what this Alberta-Montana river has to do with this topic. Any chance you could politely inform me? "

    Only be referencing another paper. May the G&M forgive me.
    http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/240907

    Look for..
    "A familiar theory – but all wet, says Scott Thieme, hydraulics "
  42. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Climate models indeed. Chaos theory gives us the flapping wings of a butterly profoundly changing the weather in Africa ( but why does it have a climate then?)... Adjust the model it obvioulsy has an innacuracy.
  43. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Climate models indeed. Chaos theory gives us the flapping wings of a butterly profoundly changing the weather in Africa ( but why does it have a climate then?)"

    No. It says that a butterfly flapping it's wings in Kansas could change the weather in Africa significantly under rare conditions (on the 'cusp' of a knife edged transition). It does not say that every butterfly flapping its wings will change the weather.

    "... Adjust the model it obvioulsy has an innacuracy. "

    No. Modelling is done with many runs with slightly different inputs to ensure that any 'predictions' do not show excessive sensitivity to initial conditions (ensemble forecasting)..

    Hope that helps.
  44. Alexander Jablanczy from Sault Ste Marie, Canada writes: I have a rock just outside my camp on Lac Superieur which does not mean superior or arrogant or uppity or deepest or biggest or largest or widest or longest or wildest as it is by the way as a minor afterthought but uppermost as in water flows downhill and we are at the uppermost level of lakes which the voyageurs appreciated as they paddled up or downstream, this rock I crossed 15 years ago in my canoe leaving the paint of my canoe on the apex of this granite crag. Now it is way above the highest point of my canoes bow what two feet 60 cm?. Just a few weeks ago it was lower yet but it has refilled a tad say 5 to 10 cm. So seiche fresh water tide rainfall high or low pressure constantly change the level, but on the average the decline has been horrific. Multiply the area of the lake by the thickness of water loss say a metre for easier math and you get several cubic km of water lost to? evaporation, lack of refill, outflow, theft. Even glacial rebound ie if the land is rising the water will empty the basin. Then there is Long Lac where the flow has been reversed by a dam switching arctic and atlantic watersheds. There is simply no doubt about global warming whole glaciers have melted or attenuated in historic times but whether there is any direct connection is not yet certain. Looking over the mostly pristine blue sky often one gets a hideous dirty grey brown smudge above the horizon just as if one were in Vancouver or Toronto in those bowls of industrial effluent and choking horrors as the sun sets not among boreal forest but horrid muck in the air. Does this cause global warming? or low lake levels? What nonsense open your eyes and look at the sunset granted there are few of those in megalopolises. Once I caught a coaster, a rara avis a beautiful silver squaretail with barely visble sky blue specks and pink dots. They come from lakes and streams and end up in this freshwater sea. I forgot to ask it about acid rain and nuclear winter.
  45. Bob Rollheiser from Canada writes: Flush twice, the lake level is dropping.
  46. Some Guy from Canada writes: Alexander Jablanczy, I ran the numbers for my own amusement some hours ago. The .3 m lost this year alone amount to 25 billion cubic metres in one year, 68 million cubic metres/day. If you were to pump this water out in a pipeline (just for the conspiracy theorists) the pipeline would have to be 20 m in diameter and pump at 8 km/hr. This should not happen to big lakes like this on this sort of time scale.
  47. Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: Tell me of what possible use is collecting data on carbon dioxide concentrations in Lake Superior? Studying evapotranspiration or basin analysis I could understand.

    However, the carbon dioxide content of Lake Superior would have no direct connection to lower lake levels but the study would be great for attracting research dollars. This research has all the earmarks of "The effects of global warming on squirrel mating habits".
  48. S Kurtz from Canada writes: It's caused by too many people drinking too much water. Those "eight glasses of water daily" diets are murder on the environment. Not to mention of course the gross over population...
  49. Retired Guy from Canada writes: Here we go again. The G&M's daily global warming scare story. Ho hum. At least it gives Ian St. John from Toronto something to do.
  50. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Retired Guy from Canada writes: Here we go again. The G&M's daily global warming scare story. Ho hum. At least it gives Ian St. John from Toronto something to do. "

    Is this how you rationalize climate change? By calling each new fact reported a 'scare'? Must be terrifying to live in such a world. You have my sympathies.
  51. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: Tell me of what possible use is collecting data on carbon dioxide concentrations in Lake Superior? Studying evapotranspiration or basin analysis I could understand"

    "MTU’s five-year Keweenaw Interdisciplinary Transport Experiment in Superior project (KITES), coordinated by Sarah Green of MTU&8217;s Department of Chemistry. KITES studied a number of processes within Lake Superior, including the cycling of CO2 into and out of the lake. As a result of their studies, Urban says, KITES came to the unexpected conclusion that Lake Superior is a net source of CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere. "

    CO2 is useful in studying lake biological dynamics. It has nothing to do with atmospheric levels so stop jerking your knee..
  52. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Ian St John is also an expert in Inuitism, but stays shy of delivering any GCM atmospheric model so we can have fun." Not my job. I go to doctors for health caree, dentists for my teeth, and climate modellers for climate prediction. However, any climate scientist will tell you that climate is not global warming(proven theory) but is still an 'emerging field'. There are 'rules of thumb' but even the professionals cannot yet attribute climate changes closer than such rules. "All signs are pointing towrd being in fact at the start of a glaciation, not global warming." Nothing shows any such trend. Please show some peer reviewed and publish studies to back this or admit to lying. "What should be backgrounder is not global greenhouse effect theory but sound meteorology understanding!" Climate is not weather(meteorology). Obviously such simple facts strill elude you. Mr Fijne replies to the following truism by Ian St John: "Climate is not weather(meteorology). " How do you then pretend to create computer models representing the proper energy exchanges in the atmosphere if you ignore the very circulation in the atmosphere? How do you pretend to accuratly represent in these models the atmosphere/ocean interaction if you do not know the atmospheric circulation? How do you pretend to predict rain, drought (weather events) and tutti quanti if you do not know how the atmosphere behaves? This is exactly the crucial point Ian St John and your "rule of Thumb" is laughable, especially after hammering those infinitesimal temperature changes spewed out by supercomputers... You repeat like a sheep ad nauseum the IPCC summary for policy makers but you do not get it! What is climate if not the average of the weather over a certain length of time (30 y)? Your proven theory is rotten and your latest wiggling quite pathetic: no more Global soup for you!
  53. Ulan Tantor from Canada writes: Global warming will be repaired by Mother Nature, since man refuses to recognize the problem and to do anything about it.
    The problem is over population which causes excessive GHG emissions.
    How do you expect to reduce overall emissions and consumption, if you are increasing the population.
    The solution is to stop immigration into Europe and North America, since these people consume and emit the most.
    Deny the the cause of the problem and Mother Nature will fix. You may not like her methods.
    Notice Koyto never mentions population, therefore it is silly and not workable.
  54. Ian St. John from Canada writes: Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada replies to the following truism by Ian St John: "Climate is not weather(meteorology). " "How do you then pretend to create computer models representing the proper energy exchanges in the atmosphere if you ignore the very circulation in the atmosphere?" I don't 'pretend to' or 'make' climate models. I merely correct those who continue to confuse climate and weather. "How do you pretend to accuratly represent in these models the atmosphere/ocean interaction if you do not know the atmospheric circulation?" So, your contention (by analogy) is that you must know the entire biochemistry of every liver cell in order for a doctor to diagnose hepatitis? Are you that confused? Models always use 'higher level matjhematical abstractions' of information, not raw data. You can't change models by taking the temperature of your back yard and 'adding' it. "How do you pretend to predict rain, drought (weather events) and tutti quanti if you do not know how the atmosphere behaves?" That would be another "non-sequitur" as there is nothing in studying climate rather than weather that says anyone is ignorant of how the atmosphere circulates. The level of 'detail' is reduced or condensed, that is all. "This is exactly the crucial point Ian St John and your "rule of Thumb" is laughable," Climate models will NEVER forecast tomorrows Probability of Precipitation (i.e. weather/meteorology) but CAN predict changes in average precipitation (such as where precipitation will increase or decrease). "repeat like a sheep ad nauseum the IPCC summary for policy makers but you do not get it!" But I do get it as you do not. The IPCC report specifically lists some 'rule of thumb' results from climate modelling. "What is climate if not the average of the weather over a certain length of time (30 y)? " That is the point. Averages (i.e. climate) can be changed. GW is making somewhat predictable shifts in those averages.
  55. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: You are getting hilarious IanStJohn! How does climate express itself if not in the atmosphere and its interractions with oceans and land which observation is meteorology -not the 6 o clock news weather forecast-? Be at least logical instead of "correcting" those who do not bask into the IPCC orthodoxy! Predicting climate from models representing abstract energy exchanges is a flawed methodology as they are not validated by the observation of reality. Your caricature of my point shows your own confusion about what diagnostic is. In fact it is the modellers you blindly follow who think with little cells, try to sum them up and hope they'll learn something...
  56. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Mr Fijne wins!
  57. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dr Demento from Canada writes: "The fact is the vast majority of reknowned climatologists tell us that the Earth is warming and they suspect that the huge increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 200 years is responsible. You know better? "

    Dr - Not sure what makes a climatologist "reknowned" in your eyes but the key words here are "majority" and "suspect." And contrary to the implication of your statement, nobody is suggesting that the increase in CO2 is solely responsible for current or any climate changes.

    All I know for certain about the future climate is absolutely nothing - nobody knows anything for certain about it. Computer models are only as potentially accurate as their assumptions and inputs and "climatology" is an infant science at best - as in 'garbage in, garbage out.' So why choose to see a doomsday future? Why the obsessive need for others to agree with your beliefs? Religion and/or social engineering? Why not just act on your personal beliefs? One does not need this hysterical fear-mongering stampede to do that.
  58. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: You are getting hilarious IanStJohn!" In your opinion, all science is probably 'laughable'. This says something about you. "How does climate express itself if not in the atmosphere and its interractions with oceans and land which observation is meteorology" You ignore the spacial and temporal definition of climate, which is why you continue to confuse it with meteorology. "-not the 6 o clock news weather forecast-? Be at least logical instead of "correcting" those who do not bask into the IPCC orthodoxy!" Climate is not 'logical'. It is a function of too many things to be thought of as A, therefore B. Enormouse amounts of time are wasted trying to correct such simpleminded claims by the ignorant. "Predicting climate from models representing abstract energy exchanges is a flawed methodology as they are not validated by the observation of reality." The climate models are well validated and don't need any more 'hot aiir' from mitwits like you. "Your caricature of my point shows your own confusion about what diagnostic is. In fact it is the modellers you blindly follow who think with little cells, try to sum them up and hope they'll learn something... " Obviously they have little to learn from the ignorant so I suspect that they will turn down your proposal of 'assistance'.
  59. Dr Demento from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes "All I know for certain about the future climate is absolutely nothing - nobody knows anything for certain about it."

    But PAST evidence shows us that the 42% increase in atmospheric CO2, resulting exclusively from 200 years of fossil fuel burning by mankind, has already been instrumental in raising global temperatures and the change is exponential. The concensus among climatologists is that there is a direct correlation and we need to act.

    If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem that is fine, but mankind as a whole must act to minimize any damage already done. It will not be easy to deal with this situation.

    As far as asking me "Why the obsessive need for others to agree with your beliefs?" - from where I sit it is you and the other deniers who are obsessive. I really don't care what you believe - just let the scientists and their governments do their work without your ignorant criticisms.

    We solved the ozone depletion problem with the Montreal Protocol in which all countries on Earth agreed to a schedule for the elimination of Freon. Let's do the right thing again.
  60. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: Dr - Not sure what makes a climatologist "reknowned" in your eyes" How about the respect of peers and a long publishing history in respected academic journals? Oh, but you were being facetious, were you not? "but the key words here are "majority" and "suspect."' No. The key words are 'warming' and r'responsible'. "And contrary to the implication of your statement, nobody is suggesting that the increase in CO2 is solely responsible for current or any climate changes. " Agreed if you mean 'largely' and 'permanent GHGs of which CO2 is the dominant member' "All I know for certain about the future climate is absolutely nothing - nobody knows anything for certain about it." One can state that you cannot be sure that air will fill your lungs on the next breath, but what counts is not 'playing with words and ideas' but probabilities and consequences. "Computer models are only as potentially accurate as their assumptions and inputs and "climatology" is an infant science at best - as in 'garbage in, garbage out.' " Why change the subject from proven GW to uncertain climate change *from* GW. Are you trying to shift the 'infant science' label over to planetary thermodynamics?? "So why choose to see a doomsday future?" Why indeed. Action to avert it is worthy of a collective response. "Why the obsessive need for others to agree with your beliefs?" No.No. Facts (proven theories included) do not count as 'beliefs' regardless of whether you are 'aware' of them or not! "Religion and/or social engineering? Why not just act on your personal beliefs? One does not need this hysterical fear-mongering stampede to do that. " One needs concerted action if anything is to accomplished. That means educating simple minded fools that cannot read the science. You included.
  61. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dr Demento - The Kyoto herd themselves confess that even if every country meets its targets (impossible for starters) it will barely matter at all - assuming their computer predictions are even remotely close. In the meantime, discussing this with those as "certain" as you is more fun than toying with the Jehovah Witnesses that turn up at the back door to "save" me. The important thing is walking the walk not talking the talk, and we've been living "green" for 30 years.

    But if I publicly agree with you here, convert to Suzukianity, and swear that Kyoto is the only true religion, can I get an all expense paid trip to Bali next December like the rest of those UN/IPCC hypocrites?
  62. martha stewart from Canada writes: Its a democracy. Let's have an election over Kyoto. Let's explain exactly what sacrifices will really be required of each and every citizen to meet those targets, and then vote. All those extra costs for what may or may not happen in 50 years should be welcomed by all, shouldn't they?
  63. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Walarmist-baiting is such fun - right martha?
  64. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Ian St John exceeded his level of incompetence yet again! If as claimed "Climate is not 'logical'. It is a function of too many things to be thought of as A, therefore B" why is it you are constantly plastering us with what your IPCC science to explain it? AND THEN THIS "The climate models are well validated and don't need any more 'hot aiir' from mitwits like you". Validated against what St John since you said Climate is not logical???? And really are these models validated when none of them take in account atmospheric circulation based on observations? If so why did these Environment Canada luminaries need to check 14 of them to come up with the rainman conclusion? No you were not explaining climate nor climate change, you were pushing for AGW, the guilt ridden promote for cupid scientists, envious crowd, boot licking media and fearmongering politicians, regardless if observations and data supported it. "And contrary to the implication of your statement, nobody is suggesting that the increase in CO2 is solely responsible for current or any climate changes." Really Ian St John? So why are you and your cronies constantly blabbing about it and lecturing the "ignorants" about it? Ian St John, your time is up! Your game has been called. Good bye.
  65. Dr Demento from Canada writes: martha stewart - why do you keep bringing up Kyoto? This discussion is about increasing temperatures in Lake Superior resulting from climate change. Listen to what your messiah Stephen Harper had to say in a recent Berlin speech about climate change: "In the interests of time, allow me to focus my remarks this afternoon on the fight against climate change, perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today . . . Obviously, if we really want to stop climate change, all the big emitters need to step up to the plate and must accept real targets. It is urgent that we start work now – and this week’s Summit is the perfect opportunity – to develop a new universal consensus on how to prevent global warming in the post-2012 period . . . Of course, it may not be possible for all countries, or all industries and firms within all countries, to reduce their emissions by the same amount on the same time line. That is why other compliance measures such as carbon offsets and carbon trading are also necessary . . . http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1681 Why it almost sounds as if our right-wing Prime Minister from Alberta is an honourary member of your much vaunted * Kyoto herd * .
  66. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Ian St John exceeded his level of incompetence yet again! If as claimed "Climate is not 'logical'. "

    Of course it is not simple boolean logic. That is why we need climate models. If it were linear math there would be a simple equation that would give a quick answer instead of needing models.

    "It is a function of too many things to be thought of as A, therefore B" why is it you are constantly plastering us with what your IPCC science to explain it? AND THEN THIS "The climate models are well validated and don't need any more 'hot air' from ditwits like you"."

    Their outputs*, given known input data, can be validated against climate records. The inputs are not 'meteorology'. The outputs are not 'meteorology'. It is estimates of climate. It *models climate and we have a record of climate to vaidate against.

    "Validated against what St John since you said Climate is not logical???? "

    Validating that the model can produce the climate outputs when given records of climate inputs. The processes internally are not simple math or boolean logic. They are coupled feedbacks. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
  67. Ian St. John from Canada writes: Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes:And really are these models validated when none of them take in account atmospheric circulation based on observations?" Dear Mr. Moron. I said quite clearly that weather is NOT climate and detailing weather will NOT model climate. As I said, by analogy, you can diagnose liver disease without modelling every cell reaction in the liver. Climate models model climate. They cannot detail meteorology, nor are they related to weather forecasting. "If so why did these Environment Canada luminaries need to check 14 of them to come up with the rainman conclusion?" Climate modelling is not perfect. Different models do well in some areas and less well in others.. Ensembles of multiple models and multiple runs tends to weed out results which are due to model weakness or sensitivity to initial conditions. "No you were not explaining climate nor climate change," We were disciussing climate modelling which you confused with weather forecasting. "you were pushing for AGW, the guilt ridden promote for cupid scientists, envious crowd, boot licking media and fearmongering politicians," Nice hyperbole, but facts remain. Global warming is established fact. Climate models give us a fair glimps into how that will affect us. "regardless if observations and data supported it." The observations and data supporting global warming are pretty clear. What 'observations and data' in climate change are you referring to here. I am not ignoring the study to be done, but we need to wait for it to conclude, don't you think?
  68. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Ian St. John writes: "And contrary to the implication of your statement, nobody is suggesting that the increase in CO2 is solely responsible for current or any climate changes."

    "Really Ian St John? "

    Yes. Attribution of climate change to causes is still in the 'hypothesis' stage. Papers and studies are being done, but attribution is at the 'rule of thumb' stage. We have a long way to go to get even a complete set of hypothesis to test and nowhere will you find a 'theory of climate'.

    "So why are you and your cronies constantly blabbing about it and lecturing the "ignorants" about it?"

    Because you get it wrong. Like confusing weather and climate or regional vs global. Even you understanding of climate modelling is laughable. Frankly, I post rebuttals mainly because of the persistent level of hysterical bullsh^t coming from posters like you.

    "Ian St John, your time is up! Your game has been called. Good bye. "

    Fact never go out of fashion and you can't shut them out. You have not demonstrated an ability to understand even the simplest science so any time I find you repeating the same nonsense, I will post a rebuttal.
  69. Ian St. John from Canada writes: I've changed my mind. I just watched the documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", and I was wrong about everything. If there is any global warming, it's natural and not caused by humans.
  70. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Dr Demento from Canada writes:Why it almost sounds as if our right-wing Prime Minister from Alberta is an honourary member of your much vaunted Kyoto herd .

    I hardly think so. Kyoto is a scam created by Mo. Strong and co. that prefer to rule the world with regulations by unelected UN burecrats. Harper knows this and so do many Canadians. As well deniers are a minority, many of us want to see the black and white proof , not some summary for policy makers statement that changes what the scientists really wrote. The UN wants to regulate CO2 simply because it is a great way to transfer wealth to the 150 member countries that want the wests money.

    Global warming is nowhere close to what has been predicted by the doomsayers however they would like it to come to be.

    Now polluted water, smog, oil spills, chemical and garbage, deforestation, hunger, disaese, war. These are some great thing to work on with all that kyoto cash instead of giving the Ukraine a 10's of billions of cash for hot air that won't even do it's intended goal of reducing C02. But don't let my skeptic nazi denier head in the sand viewpoints get in the way of your beliefs. St. Gore wouldn't like it at all.
  71. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes: Yes. Attribution of climate change to causes is still in the 'hypothesis' stage. Papers and studies are being done, but attribution is at the 'rule of thumb' stage. We have a long way to go to get even a complete set of hypothesis to test and nowhere will you find a 'theory of climate'.
    ---------
    So you should be like the rest of us deniers. Demand proof before we start a 1 trillion dollars experiment of killing the west and stopping growth in developing countries. Be like me, take care of what you can right now and reduce your energy use as much as possible, just in case and to save a few bucks. But to want us to commit economics suicide based on hypothesis and computer models is plain wrong and in my opinion treason. My kids deserve a chance to have a economically rewarding life as long as its a responsible one. Technology will provide a way for us all to have our cake and eat it, but by pushing useless UN garbage at us will help no one except your own guilt of being human. In fact kyoto has created a backlash at the cause because it is a economic treaty and not an environmental one. I'd say to the ol' boys at the UN club house, go back and try again- this time get it right.
  72. martha stewart from Canada writes: Andrew Pearson - Yes it is. As noted, like Jehovah Witnesses at the door (who seem to show up frequently out here in the country). Not out of cruelty but for entertainment. Gives the missionaries a chance to practise too and, who knows, could actually make everyone think. But there's only so much one can rationally debate with people who are so absolutely certain about the unknowable. Ain't fundamentalism wonderful!

    Wonder what will get "corrected" here...
  73. martha stewart from Canada writes: Mr. Fijne - Some confusion beginning with your 8:14 post. The statement "And contrary to the implication of your statement, nobody is suggesting that the increase in CO2 is solely responsible for current or any climate changes." actually came from me (5:49) not Ian SJ... he quoted it (7:04) when "correcting" my foolish thoughts but he didn't seem to notice that and automatically "corrected" you anyway. I'm shocked as I did not think he could ever make a mistake about anything.
  74. Dr Demento from Canada writes: martha stewart; the fact that you chose to ignore the statements that Stephen Harper made regarding the validity of man-made climate change, the establishment of emissions targets and other compliance measures such as carbon offsets and carbon trading, indicates that you are speechless.

    Sounds pretty much like a re-negotiated Kyoto to me.

    I must say that I'm not surprised that those who have a vested interest in the oil economy (mainly Albertans) are the most ardent deniers of the obvious.

    The tobacco moguls still deny that smoking increases the risk of cancer.
  75. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: Mr. Fijne - ..and automatically "corrected" you anyway. I'm shocked as I did not think he could ever make a mistake about anything."

    Nope. I'm human.

    But you assume his 'mistake' was accidental. I usually find that posters like Mr. Fijne add such 'red herrings' by choice. I reply to each clair regardless of souce attribution. After all, according to the 'identity theft' post of 11:51 "Ian St. John of Toronto" said some rather nonsensical things. I have to wonder, who would be so immature..
  76. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: So you should be like the rest of us deniers. Demand proof before we start{killing..stopping..commit economics suicide..treason.} So, finally it comes out. You don't deny global warming. You just want to scare people into inaction? Pure fear mongering? Global warming will not stop without serious action and it is guaranteed that whether we can precisely say how it will hurt, modern economies are based on replacing infrastructure over decades, not year by year. The economic cost of such 'adaptation' would be crippling regardless. "My kids deserve a chance to have a economically rewarding life as long as its a responsible one." And they won't do it because you insist trhat 'buggy whips have a future" Denial of the consequences of GW will not stop the effects of GW from damaging their future and 'the ostrich option' is a cheat so that *you* don't have to care, not them. "Technology will provide a way for us all to have our cake and eat it" Oh, that logical error again. Technology cannot 'save us' without a motivation. Technology didn't stop WW2. Men fought and died using technology to make bigger and better ways to kill people, not to stop wars. The old 'deus ex machina' excuse to sit and vegetate doesn't hold water. "go back and try again- this time get it right. " We have it right. We know that 'twisting the tail' of climate will have real world consequences. It hardly matters whether they are a slow steady change in 'habitable' zones or global superstorms. Disrupting the 'life support' machinery of 'spaceship earth' will have much higher costs than reducing the cause. Now grow up and take responsibility like an adult. Saying 'no. no. no. no. like a return to the 'terrible two's is not a pretty sight.
  77. Retired Guy from Canada writes: Okay, suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is global warming taking place. So what? The earth has been warmer before and will be warmer again. Canada would be a lot better off. It's so arrogant to assume that we humans are causing it or can do anything about it.
  78. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Gettting back to the matter of Lake Superior, the warmer surface temperature of the lake means that in November and perhaps even December, for communities along the lakeshore, the precipitation that might otherwise fall as snow will fall as rain or freezing rain when the warmer air carries the precip. off the lake. Which means shorter winters.
  79. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Martha Stewart: As a point of interest regarding brook trout, when they were introduced into the western provinces shortly after the 1900, they were taken from the Nipigon River, which is a major river system flowing into Lake Superior. The CPR built a special holding tank boxcar that contained a holding tank in order to facilitate the transfer, and the fish were netted and removed under the direction of a man named McKirdy, who was like a Fish and Game ranger. Of course, the river where they took the fish from is also the the same river where the world record brook trout was caught.
  80. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Martha, I know it was in your post but it fitted my reply so well that I had to borrow ISJ retraction to illustrate my points.
  81. Dr Demento from Canada writes: Retired Guy from Canada writes "Okay, suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is global warming taking place. So what? The earth has been warmer before and will be warmer again."

    Most of those warming/ cooling cycles occurred before humans populated the Earth to any great degree and certainly before we had strained the Earth's resources to barely provide for the 6 billion of us who exist today.

    If you believe that the consequences are going to be trivial, think again.
  82. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Retired Guy from Canada writes: Okay, suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is global warming taking place. So what? The earth has been warmer before and will be warmer again."

    Taking off on your claim that it doesn't matter as long as it happened before.. to illustrate how stupid this claim is...The surface of the Earth has been molten before and will be molten again ( in about 5 billion years) so it is all right if it melts today?? Not going to be a problem eh?

    While we are not likely to have to deal with a meltdown of the continents for a very long while, global warming is a real and present day problem. And it has to be discussed in terms of it's effects on current reality. With 6 billion people living off the environment and competing for its resources, we don't have a lot of room to 'fiddle' with our life support systems.
  83. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: for communities along the lakeshore, the precipitation that might otherwise fall as snow will fall as rain or freezing rain when the warmer air carries the precip. off the lake. Which means shorter winters. "

    And, let me see. Less spring irrigation as the snow will already be 'melted away' by early rainfalls. Hotter and drier summers... fewer winter activity days. More violent lake storms ( and Superior is not noted for it's calms ). Restrictions on boat sizes ( lower levels). More construction of docks as the lake levels shift. More cabin fever. etc. etc.
  84. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Ian St. John. Wrong. 1) The pattern has been winters arriving later and staying later. 2) Communities along the lakeshore get the rain. Farther inland there is as much snow as ever. 3) The other scenarios you allude to "restrictions on boat size, cabin fever" aren't worth responding to. 4) There are many people who post comments who would respond to them anyway.
  85. Retired Guy from Canada writes:
    Dr Demento from Canada wrote:

    "... and certainly before we had strained the Earth's resources to barely provide for the 6 billion of us who exist today.

    I don't believe that we are straining the earth's resources yet. We are better off now than we ever have been. Food production is way up (e.g. India is self-sufficient), and we have more sources of energy than we can use.
  86. Retired Guy from Canada writes: