Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

The Great Lakes are coming back, but the rising water levels are reminding some Michiganians to be careful what they wish for.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials are predicting that Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie will likely be several inches above their long-term average in June. Lake Ontario's level, which is controlled, should be right at its historic level. Lake St. Clair, which is not part of the Great Lakes, will be 10 inches over that mark.

This is a reversal of fortunes from the past dozen years, when Michigan's boating season outlook included lake levels that fell below their historical average. Those low waters have meant headaches for anglers, marina operators and the shipping industry.

Two years ago, these kinds of problems seemed unlikely. Early in 2013, Lakes Michigan and Huron set the record for the lowest mean average for any month since researchers began keeping track. The mean level for January — 576.02 feet above sea level — beat the March 1964 mark of 576.05.
Conditions since have been on a quick upward trajectory.

"This trend stretches across two years of very wet conditions," said Keith Kompoltowicz, chief of watershed hydrology for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "The spring of 2013 was extremely wet, and we all remember the winter of 2013-2014 with the record levels of snow. And since then, 2014 was a very wet year across the board."

The Army Corps makes lake level predictions six months ahead of time and the estimates for June show:

■Lake Superior will be close to last year's level and five inches above its historical average.

■Lakes Michigan and Huron: 14 inches above last year and eight inches above their historical average.

■Lake St. Clair: eight inches over last year and 10 inches above its historical average.

■Lake Erie: six inches over last year and nine inches above its historical average.

■Lake Ontario will be slightly below its level of last year and right around its historical average.

With no relief in sight from Mother Nature, industry officials had been pushing for the federal government to address a backlog of dredging projects at ports around the Great Lakes. Now, the rising levels are being greeted as a positive, but not a cure-all.
"It's certainly great news if the water levels are going to remain up there," said Glen Nekvasil, vice president of the Lake Carriers' Association. "But there is still the need for the dredging work. Projections have been wrong before, and the lake levels are always fluctuating."

How a rising of the ocean waters may flood most of our port cities within the foreseeable future — and why it will be followed by the growth of a vast glacier which may eventually cover much of Europe and North America.

I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

the MBH (Mann Bradley Hughes) camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only “half-empty”; it is demonstrably “broken”.

I just don’t want to get into an open critique of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively understand what is going on.

Dr. Edward R. Cook
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

xsanguine wrote:I'm curious what the trend was in the 1300's and 1400's. Where's your news articles, LG?

LooseGoose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:
1) that information is so old and outdated.

2) the doctor cited in that article that you listed, I googled him and he's done a lot of current research on the dangers of accelerated climate change. https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2016/11/accelerated-level-of-climate-change-impacting-ecological-processes

There is something 2016 where he is an advocate for curbing emissions.

3) Their forecast past 2000 where they forecast a cooling period is off. There have been record high temps.

It's old and outdated because it's a prediction that actually came true unlike every prediction of the "climate scientists" over the past 30 years.

And your 3 is absolutely incorrect - even the global warming pushers have acknowledged there have been 18 years of steady temps? We've had a pause in the rise of temps since at least the year 2000. Even the IPCC no longer disputes that.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:So cheesy what are you exactly getting at?

GRR Spartan wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:Remember when it was called "Global Warming" until that was disproved and it reappeared as "Climate Change"? No shit the climates changing! Pretty hard to disprove that one.

Its funny. I'll laugh my ass off when a February tornado destroys your home.

Why do some people think science is an ala catre menu. I'll believe science when I take my child to their doctor. I'll listen to the oncologist if my spouse or myself are diagnosed with cancer.

But those climate guys? They don't know shit.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:So cheesy what are you exactly getting at?

It's a population problem...too many humans (among a multitude of issues that causes) need too many animals (IE livestock) and those animals and their flatulence account for the majority of the problem. Not human consumption of natural resources.

xsanguine wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

It's a population problem...too many humans (among a multitude of issues that causes) need too many animals (IE livestock) and those animals and their flatulence account for the majority of the problem. Not human consumption of natural resources.

CheesySpartan wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

LMFAO!

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Goose- even if your screenshots of old internet articles are true (which considering you have a 1906 article about glaciers, before a single person had even set foot on the north pole,

Yale University has been a top contender for fake news, with impressively fraudulent articles like this one claiming autumn in the Arctic was 36 degrees above normal.

In 1901, Knut Angstrom showed that Arrhenius didn’t know what he was talking about with his global warming theories. CO2 absorption is already nearly saturated, so additional increases in CO2 have little effect.

Arrhenius also ignored H2O in his calculations, which produces most of the greenhouse effect. As a result of his “inadmissable” error, Arrhenius overestimated the effects of CO2 by about 96%.

But it gets worse. Peter also appears to be trying to fool his readers into believing a hole in Antarctic sea ice may also be due to global warming. Note the not very subtle placement of the words “clarion call of global warming” next to the Antarctic sea ice graph above. Nothing in his article supports that idea, but his intent to lead the reader towards that conclusion is clear.

Here is the latest satellite map of Antarctic sea ice, showing a large hole in the ice.

The same hole in the ice appeared from 1974-1976 at the peak of the ice age scare.

In January of 1976, Antarctic sea ice almost completely disappeared.

At that time, the Canberra Times was pimping global cooling and the ice age scare.

Antarctic sea ice extent has nothing to do with either fake global cooling scares or fake global warming scares. The ice behaves the same during both. But Peter Hannam gets readers by writing fake climate news articles for the Australian press.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Thank you for proving that we have been talking about climate change for many years Goose. Thank you.

Goose is not a republican.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

The 97% number is and always has been pure bullshit.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them