The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that Great Lakes water levels are up from this time a year ago. Lakes Michigan and Huron are up 12 inches, Lake Superior two inches and Lake Erie five inches while Lake Ontario is unchanged. Even Lake St. Clair is up nine inches. Erie and Ontario (and St. Clair) are between two and six inches above long-term monthly averages for June. Superior, Michigan and Huron are only 6 to 7 inches below long-term averages for June. While this change in the water levels is pronounced, it is not unusual. The Great Lakes have a history of considerable fluctuation in water levels.
(more ...)
12 comments:
Are we losing water or common sense?
Comments by Sinbad deleted for violating stated standards. ("The presumption of goodwill is to be granted to all authors and commenters, and comments that violate this principle will be deleted.)
The public can verify facts by doing a Google search themselves on "Great Lakes water levels." The facts speak for themselves-not what we want them to be.
Thanks Sinbad for abiding by the forum rules. Needless to say we disagree on this one (and doubtless on much more), but we can do so without me accusing you of being a fascist control freak or you accusing me of being a bought-and-paid for stooge of corporate money interests. In fact, I honestly believe that are both motivated by wanting the best for all our fellow inhabitants of this rock.
On this issue, yes indeed, look at the actual records, both historical and archeological/geological. Here's a good article that Mirs News has given me permission to post:
MIRS, 2/1/05
"Lake Level Study, A Deep Topic"
A study released last week that claimed the long-term average level of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron has been dropping at an "alarming" rate since 1962, sparked articles and headlines in cities across the Great Lakes basin.
The six-month $200,000 study was conducted by the Canadian engineering firm W.F. Baird and Associates. It was commissioned by The Georgian Bay Association, a Canadian organization that basically asked W.F. Baird to try to determine whether recent low water levels were simply the result of cyclical high and low water level fluctuations.
In conjunction with the release of the study, news outlets quoted John PEPPERELL, president of Georgian Bay Association, as saying that The Army Corps of Engineers had "effectively opened a bigger drain hole in the Great Lakes."
Based on its study, the conclusion W.F. Baird reached was that it is likely that the lake levels are lower because dredging has created a faster-flowing St. Clair River, which is now carving a deeper and deeper channel on its own.
Last week MIRS interviewed Todd THOMPSON in regard to the W.F. Baird study and subsequent published articles. Thompson is an associate scientist with the Indiana Geological Survey, an institute of Indiana University.
MIRS has interviewed Thompson, who is a sedimentologist specializing in the Great Lakes basin, for previous articles on Great Lakes levels. (See MIRS Apr. 7, 2003, Jan. 2, 2002, Nov. 15, 2001 and Sept. 12, 2000)
Thompson maintains that the Great Lakes have high and low water level cycles that average approximately 33 (28 to 37) years. He argues that these cycles can be demonstrated historically, through recorded measurements, (also in the past century and a half of newspaper accounts) and prehistorically through geological evidence.
A couple of years ago when the low lake levels were causing concern, Thompson insisted that, according to his data, they were in sync with the regular, generally predictable cycle.
“The range variation the Great Lakes are showing is not atypical,” Thompson told MIRS in September of 2000. “The fall in lake levels from the high levels of 1986 are the same as in the last couple of fluctuation cycles.”
Last week when MIRS interviewed Thompson he said he had “looked over” some articles on the W.F. Baird study, and glanced at the study description.
“My interpretation of what the study's conclusion is that when the lake levels are high, they're about 30 inches lower than where they'd be had it not been for the dredging, and when they're low, they're about 30 inches lower as well,” Thompson said. “But I guess the one thing I would ask is whether you can establish a mean (medium) water level for the Great Lakes based on just 160 years of records. I think that may be problematic.”
continued
MIRS, 2/1/05
"Lake Level Study, A Deep Topic"
continued from preceeding post
The W.F. Baird study appears to be based on 160 years of recorded data. Meanwhile, as a sedimentologist, Thompson has studied the Great Lakes level issue from the standpoint of its full, approximately 4,500-year, modern-era history.
According to Thompson, individual beach ridges are created by the (28-37) year fluctuation cycles. Typically, four to six ridges are grouped together, which suggests that there is also a longer-term fluctuation of about 160 years. Within this 160-year cycle, there may be four to six of the shorter-term (28-37 year) fluctuation cycles.
Thompson was reluctant to dismiss the W.F. Baird study results out-of-hand.
“Listen, I'm certainly not an expert in hydraulics,” Thompson said. “So there's a lot involved here that I really couldn't comment on.”
A key point about the W.F. Baird study is that it acknowledges the Great Lakes water level cycles, but claims the impact of the dredging is lowering the lake levels within those cycles. In fact, it claims the effects of the dredging were masked by the high lake levels of the 1980s and 1990s, when the high end of the natural cycle was in play.
The alleged 30-inch loss the W.F. Baird study supposedly uncovered in Lakes Michigan and Huron was based on those lakes' level relative to the level of Lake Erie, which receives the outflow from Lakes Michigan and Huron.
Proponents of the W.F. Baird study conclusion argue that the relative difference in levels between Great Lakes should remain constant. If, for example, Lakes Michigan and Huron go down 12 inches, so should levels in Lake Erie. They claim the study shows that the difference in the levels between Lakes Michigan and Huron and Erie appears to be shrinking on an annual basis.
In previous interviews Thompson has predicted that lake levels will be back on the rebound over the next several years, which appears to be already happening, as the cycle comes out of its low period and moves back toward the cycle point where high water levels become the concern.
MIRS asked him last week if he's still predicting the higher levels.
“Oh, yes,” he said. “I don't see any reason to believe that there would be a change in that. But that may not reflect on this (the W.F. Baird) study.”
Geologists say that Lake Michigan's water level was very high 4,500 years ago, more than 12 feet higher than the long-term historical average. At that time, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron had two outlets, one at Port Huron and the other at Chicago.
Between 4,500 and 3,400 years ago, the lake level fell nearly 15 feet, with most of that fall occurring within 500 years. The lakes appear to have stopped dropping when the level of Lake Michigan fell below the level of the Chicago outlet. At this time, when the outlet at Port Huron began handling the entire discharge of the Great Lakes, the modern phase of the Great Lakes began.
According to previous interviews with Thompson, his data shows that from 3,400 years ago to the present, the upper limit of the lake level reached an elevation of 1.5 to 3.5 feet above and about 1.5 feet below the historical average. Two prominent highs occurred from 2,300 to 3,100 and from 1,100 to 1,900 years ago.
The lowest lake levels of the modern lake phase occurred about 1,000 years ago, corresponding with the medieval warming period, which occurred roughly between 800 AD and 1200 AD.
The International Joint Commission first approved a navigational dredging project in the St. Clair River in 1917, with the stipulation that the Army Corps install a water-slowing weir to reduce water losses from Lakes Michigan and Huron.
MIRS, 2/1/05
"Lake Level Study, A Deep Topic"
continued from preceeding post
Dredging projects were undertaken in the river in the 1930s and in 1962. However, the weir was never built. Monday's report argues that the three dredging projects, combined with riverbed sand-mining operations in the late 1800s, have led to a total drop in the long-term average levels for Lakes Michigan and Huron of about 30 inches. That, the study claims, is the equivalent to about one-fourth the volume of Lake Erie.
If the study's conclusions are eventually found to be even partly true, some experts have suggested that the construction of a weir, or even a dam at the St. Clair River might be a solution to the situation.
However Army Corps' engineers have argued that the shrinking disparity in levels between Lakes Erie, Michigan and Huron could simply be due to the fact that the weather patterns in the Lake Erie area have been wetter in recent years. They say more studies are needed and that the issues involved are more complex than the W.F. Baird study indicates.
The W.F. Baird study appears to be based on 160 years of recorded data. Meanwhile, as a sedimentologist, Thompson has studied the Great Lakes level issue from the standpoint of its full, approximately 4,500-year, modern-era history.
According to Thompson, individual beach ridges are created by the (28-37) year fluctuation cycles. Typically, four to six ridges are grouped together, which suggests that there is also a longer-term fluctuation of about 160 years. Within this 160-year cycle, there may be four to six of the shorter-term (28-37 year) fluctuation cycles.
Thompson was reluctant to dismiss the W.F. Baird study results out-of-hand.
“Listen, I'm certainly not an expert in hydraulics,” Thompson said. “So there's a lot involved here that I really couldn't comment on.”
A key point about the W.F. Baird study is that it acknowledges the Great Lakes water level cycles, but claims the impact of the dredging is lowering the lake levels within those cycles. In fact, it claims the effects of the dredging were masked by the high lake levels of the 1980s and 1990s, when the high end of the natural cycle was in play.
The alleged 30-inch loss the W.F. Baird study supposedly uncovered in Lakes Michigan and Huron was based on those lakes' level relative to the level of Lake Erie, which receives the outflow from Lakes Michigan and Huron.
Proponents of the W.F. Baird study conclusion argue that the relative difference in levels between Great Lakes should remain constant. If, for example, Lakes Michigan and Huron go down 12 inches, so should levels in Lake Erie. They claim the study shows that the difference in the levels between Lakes Michigan and Huron and Erie appears to be shrinking on an annual basis.
MIRS, 2/1/05
"Lake Level Study, A Deep Topic"
continued from preceeding post
In previous interviews Thompson has predicted that lake levels will be back on the rebound over the next several years, which appears to be already happening, as the cycle comes out of its low period and moves back toward the cycle point where high water levels become the concern.
MIRS asked him last week if he's still predicting the higher levels.
“Oh, yes,” he said. “I don't see any reason to believe that there would be a change in that. But that may not reflect on this (the W.F. Baird) study.”
Geologists say that Lake Michigan's water level was very high 4,500 years ago, more than 12 feet higher than the long-term historical average. At that time, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron had two outlets, one at Port Huron and the other at Chicago.
Between 4,500 and 3,400 years ago, the lake level fell nearly 15 feet, with most of that fall occurring within 500 years. The lakes appear to have stopped dropping when the level of Lake Michigan fell below the level of the Chicago outlet. At this time, when the outlet at Port Huron began handling the entire discharge of the Great Lakes, the modern phase of the Great Lakes began.
According to previous interviews with Thompson, his data shows that from 3,400 years ago to the present, the upper limit of the lake level reached an elevation of 1.5 to 3.5 feet above and about 1.5 feet below the historical average. Two prominent highs occurred from 2,300 to 3,100 and from 1,100 to 1,900 years ago.
The lowest lake levels of the modern lake phase occurred about 1,000 years ago, corresponding with the medieval warming period, which occurred roughly between 800 AD and 1200 AD.
The International Joint Commission first approved a navigational dredging project in the St. Clair River in 1917, with the stipulation that the Army Corps install a water-slowing weir to reduce water losses from Lakes Michigan and Huron.
Dredging projects were undertaken in the river in the 1930s and in 1962. However, the weir was never built. Monday's report argues that the three dredging projects, combined with riverbed sand-mining operations in the late 1800s, have led to a total drop in the long-term average levels for Lakes Michigan and Huron of about 30 inches. That, the study claims, is the equivalent to about one-fourth the volume of Lake Erie.
If the study's conclusions are eventually found to be even partly true, some experts have suggested that the construction of a weir, or even a dam at the St. Clair River might be a solution to the situation.
However Army Corps' engineers have argued that the shrinking disparity in levels between Lakes Erie, Michigan and Huron could simply be due to the fact that the weather patterns in the Lake Erie area have been wetter in recent years. They say more studies are needed and that the issues involved are more complex than the W.F. Baird study indicates.
There's no use in calling anyone a name which they may or may not be. Personal voting perfeneces aside-my country is what I'ved have fought for and gave of myself, but it's not about me or these posts. Can the information
posted here be trusted, as it seems to be slanted even based on your on writing, not through corporate donations?
The facts are what they are, even reading the posts here on your site by your authors, the words may, after a review, ect.
What the facts are water levels are down and down considerable amounts; would can say it is due to global warming, cows, carbon those are other issues-and are not proven.
What is also a fact, empirical data clearly shows this-with people attempting to explain whhy this is taking place.
Sinbad, you say "lake levels are down." "Down" is a relative term - down compared to when? IOW, the subject is more complicated than it appears, and the "simple facts" aren't really so simple. I posted that Mirs article because it explores in more detail some of the factors. Here's another: "Great Lakes Levels in Constant Flux," www.mackinac.org/9117
As for whether we are "slanted," pasted below what our former president said; he was responding to someone who, unlike you, condemned based on point of view, not the facts. As I suggest above the facts here are more ambiguous than either of us may prefer and we may have to agree to disagree about their meaning - that's OK, we can do so agreeably and with mutual respect.
Are We Biased?
By Mr. Lawrence W. Reed
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7494
How loaded a single word can be!
In a vain attempt to dismiss hundreds of studies and commentaries and thousands of ideas and recommendations, a well-known community figure in a nearby town recently said of the Mackinac Center, "They’re biased."
A moment’s thought shows that such a statement hardly constitutes a refutation and is itself probably an indication of a bias. Nonetheless, it’s an accusation that our opponents occasionally raise, and it therefore deserves some attention.
In this instance (and probably most others as well), the accuser’s remark should be translated this way: "The Mackinac Center comes to conclusions I don’t agree with."
The best way to prevent anyone from ever accusing you of bias is simply to keep quiet. Don’t take a stand on anything. Examine the evidence and pronounce that it tells us nothing. Act as if we live in the Dark Ages, where the sum of study and experience leaves us as much in the dark as ever.
An intellectual shrug of the shoulders won’t offend anyone, but it can hardly inform them either. We believe in certain core principles and have always been candid in saying so: Limited, representative government is preferable to monarchy or dictatorship. Free people are more productive than unfree people. Market economies work better than command and control ones.
Those notions were not always widely embraced in the past, but they are now approaching settled truths. For the most part, the people who dispute them are peddling self-serving agendas, or they are impervious to evidence.
Informed by core principles, the Mackinac Center endeavors to demonstrate when and how free markets and free people can solve problems. We don’t ignore evidence to the contrary, cook the books or make unsubstantiated claims. Our research and conclusions should be assessed on their merits.
The fact that they stand up to scrutiny is why opponents often dodge any serious challenge and simply toss out the "b" word. Those who claim to approach every issue with a blank slate are often uninformed of what research and experience have shown — or are less than honest about their predilections.
If "bias" means we have an informed perspective, then we’re guilty. But when I hear that charge, I immediately want to know what’s flawed about the data or our interpretation of it. Where are the errors of fact or judgment? Our studies carry a "Guarantee of Quality Scholarship" that invites critics to identify mistakes of substance. In 10 years, I can count such findings on one finger.
So if you hear someone pontificating that the Mackinac Center is biased, ask them to explain what their bias is.
We hold some truths to be self-evident, but we test their implications rigorously.
#####
Comments by "Muskegon" and "Waterfolk" posted one minute apart on 8/2/09 removed by a blog administrator for being exact duplicates and presenting false information about links in the Current Comment.
Post a Comment