Lake/River Water Levels

June 30th, 2012 at 8:13 pm by under Bill's Blog, Weather

  Lake Michigan sunset by Ted Swoboda.  The water level of Lake Michigan/Huron (they are connected up by the Mac Bridge, so for level purposes, it’s one big lake) is unchanged from one month ago.  However, the lake level is down 7 inches from June 30, 2011.  The lake is 19″ below the century average, but still a foot higher than the low water point of 1964.  The highest water level Lake Michigan has had in recent decades was in the fall of 1986.  From 1964 to 1986, the lake level rose over five feet.  Lake Superior picked up a lot of water from the system that dumped 9″ of rain on Duluth in just 48 hours.  Lake Superior added 2″ of water in 24-hours (that’s 1.1 TRILLION) gallons).  Superior is 5″ in the past month and is 2″ above the level of one year ago.  Superior is still 7″ below the century average.  Lake Erie is down 3″ in the last month and is now 15″ below the level of one year ago.  The lake is 6″ below the century average.  Lake Ontario is down 1″ in the past month and is 15″ below the level of one year ago.

39 Responses to “Lake/River Water Levels”

  1. Brad says:

    Water levels falling, temperatures soaring, Bill’s summer forecast limping :-) .

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      Water level of Lake Superior is rising. A couple months ago Lakes Erie and Ontario were well above average (those lakes fluctuate quite a bit in the short term). Lake Michigan rose over 5 feet from 1964 to 1986 – I suppose that was caused by CO2? Global temperature slightly below average for the year:

      1. Brad says:

        LOL…I wasn’t throwing out climate bait. That said, I already provided rebuttal to your Policlimate (= Politics plus climate) charts that use a 1981-2010 average (thus using Ryan Maue’s TRICK to HIDE the increase in temperature).

  2. Bill Steffen says:

    You look foolish not accepting the standard 30-year climate average that is used by NOAA, NASA and everyone in the weather/climate business: No scientist that I am aware of questions the data at Dr. Maue’s website, or questions the use of the current 1981-2010 averages. You can get the raw data and look at it yourself.

    1. Brad says:

      Bill, it’s just stupid to use the 30-year average to assess a trend in temperatures. It’s a cheap trick for those who want to HIDE the INCREASE in global temperatures by relying on a shifting average- after every warm decade, the new “average” obfuscates some of the warming. This is beneath you.

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        It’s not my decision or your decision. I prefer stations with the longest period of record that have a consistent environment. This graph from a study done by the State Climatologist of California shows the effect of urbanization on the climate record: You should object to the “adjusting” of temperatures to help “The Cause”. Remember what Dave the biologist, a man with an open mind had to say about that:

        Dave | February 26, 2011 at 11:37 am | Reply

        “I also have to agree with Jim West. My firm ‘belief’ in AGW had already been undermined by some extremely bad papers about mosquitoes, arthropod borne disease, and the effect a warmer Earth on wildlife (I am a biologist). But, I assumed these were just opportunists jumping on the gravy train and that the problem was with the journal review process, not AGW.

        But the Climategate emails made it all too clear that there was no science at all in ALL these famous papers in Nature and other ‘prestige’ journals. Rather, all the sound and fury appeared to be generated by an unscrupulous cabal eager for grant money, fame, and lots of CO2 generating trips to warm and pleasant spots where they could regurgitate their story to a corrupted press and conniving politicians.

        As far as I can tell now, many of the assumptions of AGW appear to be false, nothing that one reads on climate change from Nature to Drudge is reliable.”

        1. Brad says:

          A quote from a biologist does not impress me. Is doubt your product, Bill?

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          That’s because you’re so closed-minded. Dave, the biologist came to the discussion with an open mind…saw the lack of scientific foundation to alarmism and adjusted his view accordingly. Politically-driven zealotry prevents you from considering those who have recently changed their minds:

          And this from Dr. Judith Curry of the BEST group at Berkeley: ‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

          Read more:

        3. Brad says:

          Bill, it’s an inconvenient truth that your “open” mind perchance wraps itself in dogma.

        4. Bill Steffen says:

          Name-calling is a pretty weak response to the links I posted above. I’ve shown you 3 scientists who have objectively looked at the science, the evidence and the facts. Can you find me a reputable scientist who has changed his mind from skeptic to alarmist? It’s true in the scientific community and among the general public ( and even among politicians ( Alarmism is ebbing under the weight of fact and data.

        5. Brad says:

          You quote-mined a few scientists. Big deal. Do I need to sign in to my library account and flood you with papers written by actual climatologists who *cough* research *cough* climate change? By the way, I can’t, as the blog restricts users from posting multiple links. And this song and dance isn’t honest, anyway, as I have observed over the years. You can impress the lightweights but the heavies are unconvinced.

        6. Bill Steffen says:

          Then quote-mine one who has moved from skeptic to alarmist! Go ahead. “heavy”. Good luck with that and foisting your $5 on the middle class and the poor, the elderly, those on fixed income, minorities and the disabled.

        7. Brad says:

          I prefer $6 or $7 per gallon.

      2. Brad says:

        BTW why no links to the current state of the Arctic ice cap? It’s been months since you posted that link. I can post it again if you would like to see it.

        1. Jack says:

          Where ya get those ?? Al Gore……Possibly.?

        2. Brad says:

          LOL! You link-mined different sites than your favorite April link. You can’t go around cherry-picking sites and forgetting old INCONVENIENT ones and claim you have a coherent argument. Is this why the science crowd left the blog?

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          Another weak reply…”the scientific crowd left the blog”?? LOL!!!! And all that’s left is the unscientific brad…desperately wishing for $5 a gallon gasoline. I stand for the middle class in opposing draconian gasoline prices and skyrocketing utility rates. Stand with me people! Stop the rich elitists from destroying the economy with “European gas prices” and “skyrocketing” utility bills.

        4. Brad says:

          Rich elitists, like Sheldon Adelson, or the Koch brothers? Just HOW MUCH will the billionaires spend to buy the government?

        5. Brad says:

          “Now, Mike M.! now, Randy! now, Paul and Dan!

          On, INDY! on Sandy! on, BruiseViolet and IrishCoffee!

        6. Brad says:

          How much is Soros donating to the Obama campaign?

        7. Bill Steffen says:

          Obama will get a lot of help from the groups that Soros supports (like the so inappropriately named Think Progress).

        8. Bill Steffen says:

          Devoid of logic and science…brad moves on to cartoons!

        9. Dan says:

          Can anybody say “Class Warfare?” If the shoe fits, where it Brad. Do you also believe that the laws don’t apply to everybody? No real substance and/or opposing point of view, is that the only thing you can do is call Bill names? Pathetic! You throw around words as if to confuse the issue and to provide a smoke screen for yourself, Brad.
          I have never seen you post a forecast. Why is that? Yet, you come across as you can do better it. PROVE IT!
          $6 or $7 dollars for a gallon of gas is, in a word is, ridiculous. Will that help the current economic situation?

  3. fixxxer says:

    lmao @ this crap.

    1. Brad says:

      LMAO at Bill’s summer forecast…let alone his winter forecast, which was never revisited, BTW!

        1. Brad says:

          Incorrect. Again, you’re using a recentered average temperature, and you know it, but hope the me-toos who lack scientific acumen will buy it. Dishonest. Evil.

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          More name calling…now you’re calling the entire climate community, NOAA and NASA “evil” for using the current 1981-2010 climate normals! Everyone in the biz. is using the 30-year climate normals:

        3. Brad says:

          Bill, nobody uses the 1981-2010 “average” to assess temperature trends. Don’t lie. It’s evil!

        4. Bill Steffen says:

          You use the 1979-2000 average for Arctic sea ice. The point is that the predictions made in the 80s have failed. Look at global temperature in the past decade: (global HadCrut data).

          Again, Dr. Judith Curry of the BEST group at Berkeley: Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

          ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

          Read more:

          Don’t be “unfortunate” brad – don’t cling to outdated theories that have been proven wrong. You’re left with nothing but political zealotry leading you to try to hang on to old, hoped for schemes. We’ve moved on. The people of Wisconsin have moved on: The poll said “72 percent of Wisconsinites favor “increasing the amount that government employees contribute to their own pensions from less than 1 percent to 6 percent of their annual salaries”. “71 percent favor “increasing the amount that government employees contribute to their own health care from 6 percent to 12 percent of the cost of their health care.” Times are changing. Wisconsin is going to have two Republican Senators.

      1. whatBillwantstosaybutcant says:

        Brad, i can’t help myself.

        1. WhatBillwantstosaybutcant says:

          Please click on the link and listen to the clip. And for anyone who looks at that and says to themselves “there is no way i am going to waste three minutes on that”! Just keep in mind you ALL have wasted hours reading fixxers stupid posts. As an added unplanned bonus look in the discription of the vid. And if you have two more seconds to waste click on that. I laughed outloud. Sorry Brad… i said i could not help myself. I might have to change my blog handel to WhatBillShouldsaybutcant.

        2. INDY says:

          Yupp lots of stupid post is right ….INDYY..

  4. Travis (Lake Odessa) says:

    Say what you want about Bill, but honestly, he is the only Meteorologist that i will watch/read. It has to be tough forecasting whole seasons due to the changing climate. I dont see you making any accurate predictions Brad. Bill is doing what he does best. Using accurate records kept by great Meteorologists before him. I can tell that weather is his passion, his life. He can be wrong 100 times…and i would still trust him. He has way more experience with Michigan weather than you BRAD! ;)

    oh…and by the way…what kind of dumb @$$ would want gas to ever reach $5.00/gallon. Just throwing that out there…that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

    Go BILL!!

    GO OBAMA!!



  5. Bernie (At da Lakeshore) says:

    Imagine how fast Lake Michigan could rise if that warm front was 50 miles more to the north. So far this summer reminds me of 1986. The ring of fire rules!
    A trip down memory lane…

  6. INDY says:

    Brad what a 80″s name so lame!!!!!! INDYY…

Leave a Reply