Warming could worsen Great Lakes problems

So there will be more storms and flooding...but the lake levels will drop?
They really need to yank their heads out of their butts and get some air.

Michael Corleone wrote:

So there will be more storms and flooding...but the lake levels will drop?
They really need to yank their heads out of their butts and get some air.

usual weather loonies forecast. floods and droughts, sea level rising, no more water, very hot with extra cold weather. Like the forecast for the UK last year - droughts, hottest ever, but in reality, the wettest yet. what a bunch of losers.

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>usual weather loonies forecast. floods and droughts, sea level rising, no more water, very hot with extra cold weather. Like the forecast for the UK last year - droughts, hottest ever, but in reality, the wettest yet. what a bunch of losers.

These clowns really know how to cover all of the bases- but how hypocritical can they get before even the worst idiots think "hey, wait a minute..."

Let us be clear. This was a 'report' by a non-science body called "The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition". There is little science to back it up.

In fact, the Great Lakes may benefit from the change in climate patterns to bring moist wet weather up from the Gulf, as well as the change in the jet stream northward ( it normally forms a barrier to the flow ).

Interesting how some of the same groups that claim that evaporation will lower the lakes don't mention that when discussing the rising oceans.

tina anne wrote:

Interesting how some of the same groups that claim that evaporation will lower the lakes don't mention that when discussing the rising oceans.

I find this rather clueless. No matter how much the sea evaporates, it will return in the rivers so no net change in sea level regardless of evaporation rates.

It is interesting that new dams are though to have 'sequestered' about 3 mm of sea rise during the last fourty years ( IIRC) in their reservoirs.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I find this rather clueless. No matter how much the sea evaporates, it will return in the rivers so no net change in sea level regardless of evaporation rates.
It is interesting that new dams are though to have 'sequestered' about 3 mm of sea rise during the last fourty years ( IIRC) in their reservoirs.

"I find this rather clueless. No matter how much the" GREAT LAKES "evaporates, it will return in the rivers so no net change in" GREAT LAKES "level regardless of evaporation rates."

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
"I find this rather clueless. No matter how much the" GREAT LAKES "evaporates, it will return in the rivers so no net change in" GREAT LAKES "level regardless of evaporation rates."

You always find reality to be clueless. It seems to say more about YOU than reality.

Unlike the sea, the lakes are dependent on the FLOW of water from land to sea so they WILL vary with how much rain falls on them and thus both evaporation rates and wind patterns.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I find this rather clueless. No matter how much the sea evaporates, it will return in the rivers so no net change in sea level regardless of evaporation rates.
It is interesting that new dams are though to have 'sequestered' about 3 mm of sea rise during the last fourty years ( IIRC) in their reservoirs.

Notice that there are several areas that have been experiencing water shortages.

http://whyfiles.org/131fresh_water/2.html
http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.asp...
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm...

Notice all these stories refer to rivers where most of the water in them is not making it to the sea. Also a few well placed pipe lines could move some of the water from where it is currently to other locations would also reduce the amount making it back into the sea.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Notice that there are several areas that have been experiencing water shortages.

Back to changing the subject? Ok. Lets not talke about the sea level and increased evaporation. That said, I don't see any utility in grand engineering feats to move water around. Generally it is a boondoggle and environmentally disasterous. We should NOT propose a return to NAWAPA.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/phys...

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
You always find reality to be clueless. It seems to say more about YOU than reality.
Unlike the sea, the lakes are dependent on the FLOW of water from land to sea so they WILL vary with how much rain falls on them and thus both evaporation rates and wind patterns.

Thank you for demonstrating the babbling idiocy of the AGW crisis peddlers.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Back to changing the subject? Ok. Lets not talke about the sea level and increased evaporation. That said, I don't see any utility in grand engineering feats to move water around. Generally it is a boondoggle and environmentally disasterous. We should NOT propose a return to NAWAPA.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/phys...

As far as the assumption that moving water around via pipeline is enviromentally disasterous, that is nothing more than one groups opinion. Pipe Lines to move Petro Products from the Gulf to New York was completed during WWII. The biggest challange engineering wise would be deciding where to take the water from and where it needed to go, and the route it should take. Similar setups are now pulling water out of places like Lake Mead to send it to California. For the link for the rising sea level and the falling level of the Great Lakes, Where do you think the water in the Lakes would of ended up? It has to go somewhere and if they ceased pumping it out the remaining water would at some point rech a high enought level to reach the sea. Currently that method is via the Saint Lawance Sea Way and other paths.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as the assumption that moving water around via pipeline is enviromentally disasterous, that is nothing more than one groups opinion.

Pipelines will never move the amount of water you need around. NAWAPA used diversion and dams. It would have been ecological nightmare. Most 'megaprojects' like this get dropped even before they get started.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Notice that there are several areas that have been experiencing water shortages.
http://whyfiles.org/131fresh_water/2.html
http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.asp...
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm...
Notice all these stories refer to rivers where most of the water in them is not making it to the sea. Also a few well placed pipe lines could move some of the water from where it is currently to other locations would also reduce the amount making it back into the sea.

All the water returns eventually to the sea, Tina Anne.
http://www.kidzone.ws/WATER/

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
All the water returns eventually to the sea, Tina Anne.
http://www.kidzone.ws/WATER/

At least that web site explains your lack of understanding.

Maybe you could explain how a river flowing into the great salt lake reaches the sea.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
At least that web site explains your lack of understanding.
Maybe you could explain how a river flowing into the great salt lake reaches the sea.

By evaporation. The lake is salty precisely BECAUSE it evaporates and concentrates the salts. The evaporated water then eventually rains on other rivers or over the sea itself.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
At least that web site explains your lack of understanding.
Maybe you could explain how a river flowing into the great salt lake reaches the sea.

What in Heaven's name do you think happens to it? The water flows into the Great Salt Lake and then ... what? It doesn't go anywhere? If it isn't in the lake any more, where is it? Hint: reread the kids website page more carefully.

Lake Superior is 10 inches higher than it was last year at this time, having risen 6 inches just in the month of April.

IDK wrote:

Lake Superior is 10 inches higher than it was last year at this time, having risen 6 inches just in the month of April.

No it is not!
Did you not read the article?
Its clearly says the lake will drop after the floods.
Please do not let some plain facts stand in the way of our precious religion, um, I mean theory.

Michael Corleone wrote:

<quoted text>
No it is not!
Did you not read the article?
Its clearly says the lake will drop after the floods.
Please do not let some plain facts stand in the way of our precious religion, um, I mean theory.

I have info from multiple articles, not just one GW article. Can you explain to me why Lake Superior was at it's lowest level in 1926? Was that because of Global Warming?

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/...

http://blog.midwestlakes.org/08-05/lake-super...

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/g...