Global Warming Impacts on Lake Superior Stun Scientists
Photo courtesy of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program office.
I’m a Minnesota Public Radio member, and so I choose to receive a magazine called Minnesota Monthly as my thank you gift (I know I could save them $15 more a year but it’s a really good magazine). This month, I was at first pleased to find an article on global warming, then disturbed to learn about the rapid changes going on in Lake Superior because of the steadily increasing temperatures.
For starters, the lake’s rapidly warming water temperature has baffled scientists. Although they knew it has been slowly heating up, "it went bananas" beginning 30 years ago: about 75 percent of the 6-degree increase in water temperature has happened since 1980.
Scientists at the Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, MN thought they had made a mistake: How could the lake be warming up twice as fast as the climate around it?
Much like the effect scientists are seeing in the Arctic, the lack of ice coverage has caused the lake to warm up faster than expected. The ice normally reflects sunlight back into space and keeps the water cooler underneath. But as warmer temperatures creep in and the average annual ice cover shrinks, the darker open water absorbs the heat and cranks up the lake temperature even faster. The vicious cycle continues, as warmer water temperatures mean less ice, which means more open water…
The spring turnover is also happening much earlier than normal. The turnover happens when the icy surface water warms up and mixes with the rest of the lake, creating a layer of warm water on top. This has been happening 10-14 days earlier than it was 25 years ago.
Last summer, Lake Superior’s temperature broke a record when it was measured at 75 degrees. Typically, it barely got above 60.
So what does this mean for the rest of us? In the states surrounding Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes, rapidly increasing temperatures mean more invasive plant and animal species from the warmer climes. Lake Michigan has already seen sea lampreys almost wipe out its lake trout. Changes to wildlife would also hurt tourism, causing a major economic blow.
It also means big disruptions to the region’s commerce. Lake Superior is at its lowest water level in 81 years, and while scientists say global warming may not be the sole cause of that decline, it is a factor. Cargo ships — some that carry wind turbine parts over from Europe, ironically — must haul lighter loads so they don’t get stranded in port. That means less efficient shipping and transportation of goods around the world.
While landscapes and habitat have changed over the centuries, the swiftness of this latest change has unsettled scientists. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to prepare to adapt to the inevitable changes have begun and take meaningful action to ensure that it doesn’t get worse.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Great article. Thank you for discussing this as well as clearly laying out the causes and the possible reprocussions of the lake’s warming. Very interesting, albeit troubling.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Soon it will be boiling and our children will not be able to swim in in it!
September 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Where to start… First off, I’m glad you didn’t decide plagiarize the entire article.
Let us address one thing at a time. “about 75 percent of the 6-degree increase in water temperature has happened since 1980”: 6 whole degrees the lake has warmed for a short term maximum temp, in only 30 years, this is nothing. It just simply doesn’t matter that Lake Superior is has a higher max temp of 6 degrees for one day a year. Refer to this graph of Lake Superior temps: http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/stat/statistic?region=s&template=stat
What do you notice? Let me help. First there has been no dramatic variation in the YEARLY cycle within the last 6 years. Second, only a month ago the temp of the lake dropped over 11 degrees in a couple of days. What does the high max mean when the lake temp fluctuates so rapidly? Third, since you like to use such short time frames to “justify” lake warming, it looks to me that this year the lake has cooled since years past, could we be headed for an ice age?
Since you like using maximums in this way, I want to know what you think about the FACT that Ann Arbor on September 16, 2007 had a low of 30 degree setting a record low by 9 WHOLE degrees, breaking the old record from 1898. 109 YEAR RECORD!!! Is Ann Arbor going to into an ice age???
You quote temps and ice in the Arctic also… how conveniently you ignore the Antarctic… a record high ice coverage!!!!: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
I could write a book but let us quickly address water levels. Check out this semi-outdated graph, it should have a dip to a near record low at the end now. However, in around 1984 Lake Superior was at a RECORDED TIME record high level… well inside your “global warming” time frame, please explain. If you blame one side on global warming you cannot blame the other unless you want look like a complete retard like these morons: http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=1542
Educate yourself and anyone else who believes this crap:
http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=1775
http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=1725
I also really want to know how the heck warmer water increases invasive species?!?!?!? Do they just appear because there is a warmer max?!?!?!?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Maria, step outside the box for a second and take a gander at AGW’s biggest test, the impending Dalton Minimum-like drop in solar activity. If global warming survives this I will personally donate to Al Gore’s 2012 presidential run…
http://sesfoundation.org/dalton_minimum.pdf
September 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
A 1/4 inch deep wave pool made it to 75 degree for a day before it soaked into the sand…… mark it up to AGW……………………..
September 28th, 2007 at 12:43 am
“Lake Michigan has already seen sea lampreys almost wipe out its lake trout.”
The lamprey were brought into the lakes with ocean going ships that dumped their ballast tanks. This has nothing to do with the lake warming. The lampreys effectively wiped out commercial fishing on Superior and the only reason it slightly rebounded was extensive work to stop their reproduction.
I don’t agree with direfloyd who seems to be basing his weak arguments on misunderstanding the actual research and some satellite images that are being misinterpreted by a local news station, which is actually using the sat photos as “short time frames to “justify”” direfloyd’s poor argument. In fact, you’ll find the research is showing less less pack ice throughout the season that is forming later and melting sooner than in the past. Whether it covers the entire lake for a day or two has nothing to do with the amount of ice pack during the whole season.
Direfloyd’s other points are easily debunked by real science and aren’t worth my time.
Last year, the temp reached a never before seen level of near 75 F . It was an interesting record.
Cheers.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I really enjoy observing how those who accept every study supporting AGW pounce on anyone who references studies that support other theories. The supposition is always that any scientist whose theories run counter to the AGW consensus is without exception a sell-out to big business. Plywood’s quote is priceless:
“Direfloyd’s other points are easily debunked by real science and aren’t worth my time.”
What “real science” exists regarding any of the global warming theories? It seems that the consensus scientists are no better than the denier scientists. The news has hit that even the often referenced James Hansen may have sold out his scientific ethics to George Soros:
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros
Everyone has been telling me that NASA scientists are above reproach and as pure as the wind-driven snow, but I remain skeptical. It seems that my “nobody’s perfect” theory may prove correct again. When will we all just accept that the whole AGW controversy is nothing more than a tool to effect social and political change? The “pure” pro-AGW scientists are funded by one side of the political spectrum, the “denier” skeptical-AGW scientists are funded by the other. Honestly, I wish both sides would just admit what they are doing, so we can move forward the debate of more pressing matters.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Funny how you say ice coverage for a day doesn’t matter, but then you argue temperature does. May I say hypocrite? I always love comments like “Direfloyd’s other points are easily debunked by real science and aren’t worth my time.”…… a humble way to say you don’t know anything… we know, don’t worry!
You post no evidence… laughable… your quote it is a “weak argument” but provide no proof… absurd…
I however provided a graph of temps!!! This year average lake temp made it to a MAXIMUM of 18 degrees C which is 64.4 degrees F. Isn’t how amazing it is that it is nowhere close to 75? The only explanation is that they took it in a sheltered stagnate bay, in front of an outflow of the Duluth power plant, or a wave pool frequented by bear excrement. Maybe it is like this official “climate station” >
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_to_measure_temperature_23.html
or this
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_to_measure_temperature_22.html
WOW, then if you took time to actually read you’ll know the graph I provided is satellite data, however your “knowledge” of “real science” seems to have clouded your judgment of coming across as a typical arrogant self-proclaimed “scientist”… don’t worry, you won’t be the last.
http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/overview/cw-overview.html
“near real-time and retrospective satellite observations”
Next…
Common… someone can explain to me how it at an all-time MAX water level just 21 years ago and now we are at the eve of destruction!!!
September 28th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Plywood - Thanks for the clarification, I should’ve made that clearer. The lampreys in Lake Michigan were supposed to be an example of how an invasive species can take over an ecosystem, not necessarily as a result from global warming.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:09 am
“Funny how you say ice coverage for a day doesn’t matter, but then you argue temperature does.”
Never made that argument. The overall temperature on average over the whole lake for the whole year is on the rise. That’s simply a fact. The average air temperature on average over the whole year is also rising over the MN land. That is simply a fact.
75 F was measured in numerous locations up and down the north shore. I was there. I experienced it in unprotected areas. That is a record for 2006 and not 2007. Like I said it is interesting and nothing more than that. You’ve read too much into my statement, and have tried again to argue with evidence that simply doesn’t address the issue.
“your “knowledge” of “real science” seems to have clouded your judgment of coming across as a typical arrogant self-proclaimed “scientist””
Seems to describe your responses perfectly.
Cheers.