Great Lakes ice coverage falls 71 percent over 40 years

Great Lakes ice coverage falls 71 percent over 40 years

usnews.msnbc.msn.co m

Great Lakes ice coverage declined an average of 71 percent over the past 40 years, according to a report from the American Meteorological Society.

The amount of decline varies year to year and lake to lake, according to the report's lead researcher, Jia Wang, an ice research climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Wang’s report said that based on Coast Guard scanning, satellite photos...

(visit the link for the full news article)

This report comes from the American Meteorological Society; the lead researcher is Jia Wang, an ice research climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

The report's results are astounding - and do not even include this winter, which was exceptionally mild.

The study doesn’t include the current winter, but satellite photos show that only about 5 percent of Great Lakes surface froze over this winter, the Detroit Free Press said. That’s down from years such as 1979, when there was as much as 94 percent ice coverage. On average, about 40 percent of the surfaces freeze over, the newspaper said.

Whatever the cause, somethings cooking. [Us.] Certain parts of the planet at least are warming, big time - like the Arctic and the Great lakes. Something responsible needs to be done to address the obvious implications and predictable problems.

Unfortunately, our global system relies on private business and the profit motive - for running prisons, waging wars, educating our children - and dealing with this crisis is no exception.

Hopefully, our global corporate government will quit warring between themselves long enough to save humanity - although that's obviously not on the priority list.













usnews.msnbc.msn.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)

good thread
being here and having the oral history at hand from hundreds of years
the ice coverage like the water levels
changes cyclically

the lakes are a moderator of weather and if the jet stream does this, the ice does that.
I understand currently there is a standing wave in the weather pattern and the cold is SKIPPING over us (thats us as in us) here and clobbering the north eastern US ( thats US as in them) instead

lol
at one time we were under two miles ( Im pretty sure thats the amount ) of ice

wow Suns out this mourning I am going to walk down to Tims, get a large triple triple and sit in the sun at the town dock, and I am going to watch the ice melt for a while.

I can't wait for the Ice to melt so I can get back to boating


SandF agin Crow

PS
back in the sixties/seventies winters were colder here and icier, we used to skate without shovelling on the bay for two three weeks before it even snowed....
We used to put what snow we could find in the tagalongs to lubricate the new fangled slider suspensions on the sleds so they didn't weld themselves to the tracks while crossing the ice to the islands...
LOL...those were the days
not since the seventies though as you point out


now there is a real incerease in the use oif "scoots" enclosed airboats with great honkin airplane engins on them
but they cross ice and open water and do a buck sixty with a tail wind

reply to post by Danbones


That's interesting. Which lake are you on? Normally Michigan is frozen from the shore (or quite near it with chunks of ice or a sort of slush from the waves breaking them up) to at least as far as the Chicago water intake cribs which are 2 to 3 miles out. Gets hard to see the extent of ice beyond that point.
This year though, no ice. All the people that dry dock their boats could have saved their money this year. There have been quite a few boats in the marinas all winter, which I can't recall happening before.

Peculiar winter here.

Somehow, I think they are more scared then we are. Since they most likely haven't the slightest clue what to do about it.

I kinda think all this is part of earth's natural cycle relating to solar positioning.

We've only been influencing the earth for the past 112 years, significantly via release of extra carbon.

It could also be from all of us Gas bags too, burpin and passin gas... to save the world, we may ave to implode.

At one time The Great Lakes didn't even exist. They only do because of the Ice Age.

I have a question that I believe is relevant:

How does the Great Lakes ice coverage of this winter compare to the ice coverage 1,142 winters ago?

I'm from Michigan and been ice fishing the Great Lakes for 30 years. I've studied these lakes and thier ice up close for years. I measure my ice fishing seasons by when the lakes freeze and how far out I can walk and when it starts to thaw. We had almost no ice this year. 1997 was identical to this year. Between 1997 and 2012 my ice fishing seasons have shorter then they use to be from the late 80's to early 90's. We also don't get as much snow as we use to.

I live on an island on Lake Ontario. Apparently there used to be no need for a ferry in the winter months as most islanders would drive across the 5km stretch of ice to make it to the mainland. That was until about 15 years ago when cars started falling through. In comparison, the 7 foot deep bay in my back yard only froze for a couple of weeks this year.

The past five winters here in northeast Texas have been exceptionally COLD.

This year, though, we um....well...
we DIDN'T HAVE WINTER.
lol
seriously though,
we had about a week- collective total- of high temps in the 40's/lows in the 30's- no ice, no snow, a decent amount of rain (thank goodness, because we didn't see a dang drop for FOUR months- NOT ONE!)

But the five years prior, we've gotten significant snow, LOTS of freezing rain/ice storms, etc....

The earth works in cycles- fact is we're OVERDUE for an ice-age.

Are humans contributing?

After a lot of research on the matter, and speaking personally with several experts on the subject,
Honestly, I think the human impact on global warming has been GROSSLY exaggerated.
Another ice age will happen. It's inevitable- Unless we somehow miraculously evolve overnight into some class III (Kardashev scale) or class 5 (Freeman Dyson Scale) civilization with the necessary technology to divert one,
I suggest we hold on tight to our acorns!

I grew up on the edge of lake Superior and can say that the climate around the lake, and also northern MN has changed a lot over the last 30 years. It is dryer, and the winters are much milder than just 15 years ago. I remember several blizzards growing up, and have only seen one or two in the last 10 years.

reply to post by ltinycdancerg

fact is we're OVERDUE for an ice-age.

Are humans contributing?

Whether we are or not, human civilization is threatened globally - it has been developed and situated to serve economics and industry in the most vulnerable locations.

Our world is run by corporations for profit - educational materials and priorities, prison facilities and personnel, war machines and private troops, you name it.

Climate change is no different - corporations are setting the priorities, deciding the responses, controlling the information flow, choosing the survivors. ...Time to hold onto our acorns indeed!

reply to post by butcherguy

I have a question that I believe is relevant:

How does the Great Lakes ice coverage of this winter compare to the ice coverage 1,142 winters ago?

It's only a relevant question in the context of comparable human settlement and endeavor. ...What's important is that we've got a helluva lot more to lose this time around - not just in terms of human lives, which I do consider to be important, but also in terms of infrastructure.

Civilization as a whole really is threatened and consequently, on the table. I for one do NOT want a bunch of corporate "persons" making the kinds of decisions that WILL be made, and determining the course of my life and future.

reply to post by soficrow

It's only a relevant question in the context of comparable human settlement and endeavor. ...What's important is that we've got a helluva lot more to lose this time around - not just in terms of human lives, which I do consider to be important, but also in terms of infrastructure.

I believe that my question is relevant in this respect: You are asking me to believe that something has happened climatically in the last forty years. If you can tell me what the changes amount to when gauged to a period of say, 1,000 years ago, that might give us an idea of a trend....no?

Now, if you could give me an idea of what the ice coverage was 1,142 years ago, I would be surprised.... But I wouldn't be finished. I'd ask you what the ice coverage was for a forty year period before or after that date.

Then maybe we could begin to see a trend that actually means something. I am supposed to come to a conclusion about what is happening long term with Great Lakes ice coverage from what has happened inthelast forty years?

RealSpoke made the great point.... The Great Lakes were formed during an Ice Age.

It wasn't the first Ice Age... And it won't be the last.

reply to post by LuckyLucian


Im north of TO
on Georgian Bay on the east side of Lake Huron
30,000 islands 30 Million shoals

I have to agree with the "go with the flow the only constant is change" crowd
Im metis decended from "Bark eaters" and the farmers "never plant next year based on last years weather"

Its just a good idea to pay it safe and put up some acorns in the fall
look what one little ice storm did a couple years ago in Quebec
And a couple years ago TO, which was always mild in the cold years I mentioned in my first post, had to call out the army to help after one multiday snow squall.....

then there is Barrie Ont, half way from here to TO, its in its own little "snow belt"..
it can get clobbered and the rest of us a few mile north and south don't even know its winter yet

hey, one little mount penetubo (sp?) and wammo! instant mini ice age...or not

reply to post by butcherguy


The trends are well-enough established that populations are being displaced in the millions already.

Corporations get their info from actuarial reports, directly and through re-insurance corporations - they started relocating decades ago, out of vulnerable regions and countries and into more stable locations. Sure, the pitch says it's all economic, due to free trade, but when have we ever been told the whole truth?

The trends are recognizable to global corporations - who've already moved to protect their assets - but our governments require more than actuarial reports to protect human assets? ...I don't think so.

The trends are well-enough established that populations are being displaced in the millions already.

reply to post by soficrow

Please post a link.
I'll read it, then admit that your are right. (make sure it shows about millions being displaced, please)

People are not aware that we are still thawing out from the last ice age. Its still melting. The North American continent saw ice sheets miles high. This enormous weight has depressed the ground. To this day the ground is rising from the ice age. Also, the warming the melted the ice is the same warming that is taking place. Its quite natural and cyclical.

reply to post by butcherguy


Gahh! I come here to relax, not work! lol.

Originally posted by butcherguy

soficrow
The trends are well-enough established that populations are being displaced in the millions already.

Corporations get their info from actuarial reports, directly and through re-insurance corporations - they started relocating decades ago, out of vulnerable regions and countries and into more stable locations. Sure, the pitch says it's all economic, due to free trade, but when have we ever been told the whole truth?

The trends are recognizable to global corporations - who've already moved to protect their assets….

reply to post by soficrow

 

Please post a link.
I'll read it, then admit that your are right. (make sure it shows about millions being displaced, please)

Global corporations' activities to protect their assets and reduce liability from climate change is FAR more indicative of the climate change reality than anything else. Reinsurance terms are telling too. The so-called "debate" is fueled and directed by corporate interests who have already covered their butts and protected their assets.

From GC CapitalistIdeas:

2009: Climate Change, Part IV: (Re)Insurance Industry Response

As the debate on climate change has progressed, the (re)insurance industry has not stood by as mere observers. Although agreement on the issue is far from universal, the matter is being addressed, including an adjustment to catastrophe modeling, the creation of new (re)insurance products, and the construction of defenses against climate change-related claims.

Modeling

The process of actuarial prediction is grounded in the notion that studying the frequency and severity of past losses can provide some indication of what the future may hold. If conditions are changing, either through natural or manmade causes, however, the reliability of historical events is eroded. But actuaries have compensated with assumptions drawn from evidence supporting climate change in order to model more accurately for the future.

As a result of including warmer ocean temperatures and recent flooding data in the modeling of property risks, (re)insurers have been able to better assess and price the risk of catastrophe-prone regions. The results have provided justification for carriers leaving regions where premium-cost restrictions compared to the newly modeled risk make writing policies bad business. (Re)insurers have also become more attuned to the various threats of potential climate change and the corresponding ambiguity and uncertainty that increases risk across nearly all lines of business.

…A March 2009 decision by the U.S. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) mandates (re)insurer disclosure of financial risks due to climate change and actions taken to mitigate them, the world’s first such climate risk disclosure requirement. This policy is likely to encourage further understanding of the risks of climate change as well as inspire consequent product and service development. The continued release of new models, investments in climatological research, and innovative risk-transfer vehicles will continue to empower carriers to take control of their portfolios in the face of climate change likelihood.

The cost of natural disasters, including floods, droughts, and storms, is on the rise in both developing and wealthy nations. ...(re)insurers may face increased losses in existing catastrophe-prone regions, the emergence of newly vulnerable locations, as well as changing liabilities — including decreases in catastrophe exposure — elsewhere.

The possible increased intensity and occurrence of cyclones, tornadoes, hailstorms, floods, storm surges, mudslides, and wildfires in those regions already prone to such disasters could affect losses and the way policies are written for an array of business lines. The portfolio risk assessment of health, life, property, flood, business interruption, and crop insurance business may need revision. ....

….In an economic report sponsored by the British government, the cost of climate change was estimated to top the equivalent of 5 percent of global gross domestic product each year. Should the risk and damages swing to the more extreme end of the forecasts that could increase to 20 percent. With costs even estimated in this range, the financial responsibility of accounting for the potential impact on the (re)insurance industry grows.

more....

reply to post by butcherguy


Part 2

2010. World Catastrophe Reinsurance Market: Part III

The increasingly complex nature of the reinsurance industry and the growth in alternative risk transfer instruments such as catastrophe bonds have reinforced the importance of catastrophe models and data management platforms in the risk management process. Such innovations have allowed (re)insurers to improve their understanding of natural perils while accurately estimating potential catastrophe losses to their portfolios and managing their exposures.

Munich Re reinsurance links on climate change policies, research, etc. Munich Re is convinced that, along with other factors, climate change is already contributing to increasing losses due to weather catastrophes.

The following link provides comprehensive information on natural catastrophies and weather-related events, their risks and related economic losses since 1974. The observed increase in economic losses is due to various factors, including increases in wealth and infrastructure and more frequent extreme weather events. According to climate projections, it is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. The economic and social costs of those events will increase, and these increases will be substantial in the areas most directly affected.

As far as your challenge goes, . As I'm sure you know, there is no currently accepted definition for "environmental migration" - hence, no stats. There IS however, absolutely a big problem - just no agreement on how to categorize and distinguish one type of refugee from another, never mind prioritising the causes in those with multiple stressors.

The International Organisation for Migration proposes three types of environmental migrants:

Environmental emergency migrants: people who flee temporarily due to an environmental disaster or sudden environmental event. (Examples: someone forced to leave due to hurricane, tsunami, earthquake, etc.)

Environmental forced migrants: people who have to leave due to deteriorating environmental conditions. (Example: someone forced to leave due to a slow deterioration of their environment such as deforestation, coastal deterioration, etc.)

Environmental motivated migrants also known as environmentally induced economic migrants: people who choose to leave to avoid possible future problems. (Example: someone who leaves due to declining crop productivity caused by desertification)

….
climate change could also uproot people by provoking conflicts over increasingly scarce resources, such as water.

“Climate change is today one of the main drivers of forced displacement, both directly through impact on environment – not allowing people to live any more in the areas where they were traditionally living – and as a trigger of extreme poverty and conflict.”

...As climate change, a global economic slowdown, conflict and persecution fuelled each other, it would be increasingly hard to categorise those on the run.

...The task is also hindered by the legal distinction between refugees, who flee across borders … and internally displaced persons (IDPs), who flee their homes but remain in their home countries. In 2007 there were estimated to be 26 million of them, …

more.....