…Climate Hysteria and Flooding in the Great Lakes…
Once again, the Great Lakes are cited as proof of climate change. This time because of high water levels. A few years ago, it was because of low water levels.
One article from the National Geographic a few years ago was titled, Down the Drain, The Incredible Shrinking Great Lakes, with the notation:
“The Great Lakes hold a fifth of Earth’s surface fresh water, and they’ve shrunk dramatically. If it keeps up, shipping and fisheries could be left high and dry.”
Now, a Wall Street Journal article infers high water levels are because of climate change. High waters are hurting homeowners, but, contrary to the WSJ article, it’s not because of climate change. Quoting the WSJ:
“Rising Great Lakes Pose Peril”
The article quotes a professor: “Drew Gronewold, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability. He said the warming climate is exacerbating both precipitation and evaporation, the two main forces affecting lake levels.”
Actually, the professor is wrong. The historic record, maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proves there have been periods of equally high water levels and abrupt water level changes in the past… Long before the first climate change report in 1979, i.e., The Charney Report.
A quick glance at the accompanying record for all the Great Lakes from 1918 to 2019, proves this to be a fact.
And the changes from high-to-low water during two earlier periods, between 1929 and 1934, and between 1952 and 1959, were virtually the same as the “abrupt” change cited in the WSJ article for the years between 2013 and 2019.
The accompanying table of when earlier high water levels occurred also shows that high water levels were spread across multiple years. (Levels in feet)
Why didn’t the reporter research the record to see whether the current levels were historically unusual?
More importantly, why didn’t the WSJ editor insist that the reporter do the research to be certain the article was accurate?
. . .