Naturally, climate change is getting the blame. “We are undoubtedly observing the effects of a warming climate in the Great Lakes,” says Richard Rood, a University of Michigan climate scientist.
But just a few years ago, climate scientists were insisting that a warming climate would cause water levels to decline.
In 2008, Science Daily reported on a study that attributed the decline in Great Lakes water levels to global warming. The researchers who conducted the study said that the drop “raised concern because the declines are consistent with many climate change predictions.”
In 2009, Columbia University’s Earth Institute informed us that “most climate models suggest that we may see declines in lake levels over the next 100 years; one suggests that we may see declines of up to 8.2 feet.”
In 2011, the Union of Concern Scientists said that “scientists expect water levels in the Great Lakes to drop in both summer and winter, with the greatest declines occurring in Lakes Huron and Michigan.”
In 2013, the Natural Resources Defense Council said that “it’s no secret that, partially due to climate change, the water levels in the Great Lakes are getting very low.”
That same year, Think Progress reported that “Several different climate models for the Great Lakes region all predict that lake levels will decline over the next century.”
Since the Great Lakes account for 21% of the world’s surface fresh water, these stories were all wrapped in doom-and-gloom scenarios about the impact on drinking water, shipping, recreation, and so on.
The very next year, however, water levels started rising.
So what are scientists saying now? Simple. They’re now claiming that the fall and rise of Great Lakes’ water levels are due to climate change.
“Climate change is driving rapid shifts between high and low water levels on the Great Lakes,” is the new “cons ensus.”
The truth, of course, is that water levels in the Great Lakes vary over time. And, as a matter of fact, they varied far more in the past than they do now. A U.S. Geological Survey notes that “prehistoric levels exceed modern-day fluctuations.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#227ed37c5cbf
ReplyDelete"It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting."
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree in principle with what the authors are trying to say, I think I would have to call bullshit on that particular assertion. It does highlight that they are comparing reasonably measurable data - hydrocarbon combustion, where consumption can be estimated with some precision - against volcanic eruptions, where the error bars are significantly greater, and where different methodologies can generate profoundly conflicting numbers.
And you base your assertions on what?
DeletePut into perspective. There is appx 6 billion people on earth. There is 24 billion sq ft of land in Jacksonville Florida.
Man's impact on earth is a fleas fart in time.
Straw man argument...the number of people on Earth vs the square footage of Jacksonville is IRRELEVANT to the question of green house gases from volcanoes as opposed to humanity. I agree that the assertion that one volcano puts out more CO2 than all humanity is nonsense. I also don't believe humans have a significant impact on climate compared to other factors, most notably the sun. We can't reliably predict the weather 72 hours in the future. To say we fully understand climate and causative relationships is ludicrous and a gratuitous like.
Delete