Another Alarmist meme bites the dust, though I’m sure they’ll tell us “it could happen!!!!!1!!!” in 50-100 years
(ABC Cleveland) Over the past dozen or so years, there has been a lot of buzz in the media about the Great Lakes water levels. Scientists have made repeated claims that the Great Lakes are drying up due to global warming/climate change/climate disruption.
Back in 2003, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a “fact sheet” stating just that. “Lake levels are expected to decline in Lake Erie as more moisture evaporates due to warmer temperatures and less ice cover,” says the report. “Rainfall cannot compensate for the drying effects of a warmer climate, especially in the summer.”
And, according the Warmists, things get into the Everybody Panic!!!!! realm. But, science!
Lets examine the data. According to the April Great Lakes water level report from the Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Erie’s water level is ABOVE the long term April average.
Yes, I said water levels are above normal.
Lake Erie’s long term (1901-2010) April average water level is 174.22 meters. As of April 1, 2012, Lake Erie’s water level was 174.36. The graph included with this story shows water levels for our shallowest great lake over the past 100 Aprils. Notice the ebb and flow of water levels by decade. Also notice the lowest lake level was back in 1934! We are nowhere near record low water levels.
The writer, Mark Johnson, goes on to show that all of the Great Lakes are above average. But, you know, that’s probably because of climate change, which causes everything.
That’s because global warming is melting the Maine and New Yorkian glaciers causing extra runoff into the lakes.
See, if their water level can rise from glacial melt, then so can the ocean’s levels rise 100 miles from the melting polar ice caps.
Wake up people. Stop using any kind of bag when shopping. Even your non-paper, non-plastic shopping bags require petroleum and carbon to be created. YOU are making GAIA weep!
I remember reading an article a while ago which showed that most of those reusable bags were in some cases worse for the environment than paper or plastic.
well, in all seriousness, it all depends on your point of view.
If you are a tree-hugger, then you favor plastic bags as it saves trees and reduces soil and stream pollution from paper manufacturing. If you believe that trees grow on trees, then plastic bags that don’t degrade in the wild do nothing but create more trash and biological hazards.
Smart money would be on biodegradable bags. These were tried about 10 years ago or so.. but for some reason it never took off. I can’t remember why.
We spend so much time and money trying to mandate expensive, harmful mercury bulbs or paycheck depleting LED bulbs, to outright bans of plastic bags, to city-wide FEES for use of paper bags, to other crazy ideas….. where the most simplest idea would be to make plastic bags biodegrade (like paper).
Or, we could just use paper bags.
Good points. As an environmentalist myself, plastic bags are a concern. I can’t get paper at the store, so I always recycle. Too many end up damaging the Environment in many ways.
Here in Sydney Australia in 2007, we were told by Government advisers that our dams would never have water in them again. Billions of dollars were spent on desalination plants. Today, our dams are full, and overflowing, and the desalination plants are running to fulfill government contracts.
Keep it up. You’re the only reason the seas have not inundated billions of homes around the globe!!!
I forgot to mention that our dams in Sydney are overflowing – not because of the desalination plants, but because we’ve had floods from so much rain.
Yeah, but that rain is in total accordance with the permanent drought that the Labor party Warmists predicted, all because someone drove an SUV to fix a Dingo fence instead of walking a thousand miles with tools.
Here’s hoping that the Labor party sees nationwide what happened to them in Queensland.