Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Facts can get in the way.... | |
|
Author: jw |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:47:21 04/18/07 Wed In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" on 05:42:04 04/18/07 Wed You forget to mention that december 06' was the second lowest year ever, and that the low level of 1926 was caused by a drought, whereas now there is a lack of ice coverage in recent years. When a 30,000 square mile lake drops a foot in a year, we have reason to be concerned. The temperatures of lake superior and surrounding areas have reached record highs in the last year, the lack of ice coverage and increased evaporation from the warming waters are a big problem for lake superior and the rest of the great lakes region. Btw, the article i posted was from the chicago sun times, which is a conservative news paper, and they even attributed the near record low levels of lake superior to the lack of ice cover. > >I know the point of your post was to claim Global >warming was lowering the level of Lake Superior. The >chart of Lk Superior water levels that I posted >totally debunks that. It shows that water levels in >the Lake very slightly every year. The highest >December level waqs 183.81 meters in 1981. The lowest >Dec level was 182.92 in 1925. Dec of 2006 was 182.98. >All this proves is some years have more snow cover and >rain than other years. THERE IS NO TREND IN THE >NUMBERS!!!!!! In fact if you graph the numbers, you >will easily see that. I mentioned the polar bears >because your post was just like that story.....totally >untrue....there are many more polar bears today than >just a couple decades ago. Lake Superior is doing just >fine and a wet year will bring water levels right back >up just like has happened many times before. > > > > > > > > >>From the article in my post- >> >> "Lake Superior is within a few inches of its record >>low 599.5 feet deep, set in 1926. It's now about a >>foot lower than last year and projections for this >>summer are that it'll get even lower." >> >> O's observation - >> >> "Note that the overall Great Lakes level was lower >>in >>December 1925 than it is/was in Dec 2006 and also >>lower than the long term average. " >> >> What O left out is that lake superior is at it's >>second lowest level ever, and it is predicted to get >>lower and break the record that was set in 1926. Btw, >>i was able to get the website by clicking on O's link, >>but the link ran a few screens wide. >> >> From O's post, there is a link to this article from >>the business section of the chicago sun times, which >>is essentialy the same article i posted. There are no >>starving polar bear pictures in this article, just >>some hard facts about how the shipping industry in the >>upper midwest is being hurt by the decline of the >>level of lake superior, many ships have to reduce >>their payloads by 10% now. >> >> >>href="http://www.suntimes.com/business/343966,CST-FIN- >L >>ake17x.article">http://www.suntimes.com/business/34396 >6 >>,CST-FIN-Lake17x.article >> >> >> >> In the last year, superior lost a food of >>elevation. If such a trend were to become permament, >>even at a slower rate, it would be a disaster for >>shipping on the great lakes and the regional economy. >>If global warming threatens polar bears, that bothers >>me. If global warming threatens capitalism, that is >>indeed the redemption of man from slavery to greed. >> >> >>>I always like cold hard facts....no fake polar bear >>>pictures from me! >>> >>>href="http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/_plugins/Programs >/ >>H >>>istoricGreatLakesLevels/pages.cfm?page=table&LakeID=1 >& >>Y >>>earID=19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 >, >>3 >>>5,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52, >5 >>3 >>>,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,7 >1 >>, >>>72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89 >, >>9 >>>0,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105, >1 >>0 >>>6,107&MonthID=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12&Max=0&Min=0& >M >>e >>>an=1&CFID=5812714&CFTOKEN=60825872">http://www.lre.us >a >>c >>>e.army.mil/_plugins/Programs/HistoricGreatLakesLevels >/ >>p >>>ages.cfm?page=table&LakeID=1&YearID=19,20,21,22,23,24 >, >>2 >>>5,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42, >4 >>3 >>>,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,6 >1 >>, >>>62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79 >, >>8 >>>0,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97, >9 >>8 >>>,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107&MonthID=1,2,3,4,5 >, >>6 >>>,7,8,9,10,11,12&Max=0&Min=0&Mean=1&CFID=5812714&CFTOK >E >>N >>>=60825872 >>> >>>Note that the overall Great Lakes level was lower in >>>December 1925 than it is/was in Dec 2006 and also >>>lower than the long term average. And I see no zero >>>nada info in the numbers to point to anything that >>>shows the Lakes are dropping. And yes, the Great >lakes >>>are an interconnected series of lakes. Accually, I >>>find it quite surprising that the levels are not >>>dropping with the steadly larger amounts of water >that >>>are deverted from emptying into them along with the >>>increasing amounts that are drawn from them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Just recently he posted how cold it was there in >>>>mockery of global warming. And you know, if it >hasn't >>>>happened to Oro, it hasn't happened. >>>> >>>>> "lake huron rolls, superior sings, in the rooms >>of >>>>>her ice water mansion" (gordon lighfoot, wreck of >>>>>the edmond fitzgerald) >>>>> >>>>> Lake superior's status as an "ice water >mansion" >>>>>is in danger, as ice coverage has been well below >>>>>normal for years, and increased evaporation are >>>taking >>>>>a toll. Even with winter's dramatic comback in >much >>>>>of the eastern and central part of the united >states >>>>>in february and now in april, the greatest of >>>american >>>>>lakes is approaching all time record low levels. >>All >>>>>the other great lakes are fed by superior, and >>>>>superior is about a third of the total area of the >>>>>great lakes, this may be a disaster for the entire >>>>>great lakes region in coming decades. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Lower water means lighter loads, headaches on Great >>>>>Lakes >>>>>Sunday April 15, 2007 >>>>>By EMILY FREDRIX >>>>>AP Business Writer >>>>>MILWAUKEE (AP) When Fred Shusterich looks around >the >>>>>harbor on Lake Superior, he sees things he hasn't >>>seen >>>>>in years little islands poking out of the water. >>>>> >>>>>Shusterich is concerned, like many others connected >>>to >>>>>the shipping industry, about what those islands >>>>>signify off the city of Superior in far northern >>>>>Wisconsin. >>>>> >>>>>``I think it may be another very poor year if this >>>>>drought continues as far as water levels,'' he >said. >>>>> >>>>>Now's the time when harbors along the Great Lakes >>>>>Superior, Michigan, Huron, Ontario and Erie thaw >and >>>>>shipping begins, carrying 10 percent of the >>country's >>>>>waterborne cargo. >>>>> >>>>>But excitement over the shipping season is being >>>>>replaced with frustration over low water levels, >>>which >>>>>is forcing shippers to lighten their loads so they >>>can >>>>>move safely into harbors. >>>>> >>>>>The lighter loads sometimes hundreds of tons per >>ship >>>>>turn into headaches for suppliers that send their >>>>>goods on vessels, shippers and companies whose >>orders >>>>>come up short. >>>>> >>>>>Midwest Energy Resources, the coal supplier where >>>>>Shusterich is president, just sent out its first >>>>>vessel of the season with a load just under 60,000 >>>>>tons, shy of a typical 62,000-ton shipment, he >said. >>>>> >>>>>Shippers don't expect the situation to improve >soon. >>>A >>>>>warmer-than-normal winter this year means more >>>>>evaporation because the lakes aren't protected by >>ice >>>>>cover. They also worry about dredging the process >by >>>>>which sand, silt and other debris are removed from >>>>>harbors. Dredging doesn't solve the problem of low >>>>>water levels. But it does give ships wiggle room to >>>>>carry more weight. >>>>> >>>>>Unfortunately, the federal government, which pays >>for >>>>>most of the harbor dredging, can't keep up with >>>>>demand, said Glen Nekvasil, vice president of >>>>>corporate communications for the Lake Carriers' >>>>>Association, a trade group for shippers on the >Great >>>>>Lakes. >>>>> >>>>>For every inch the lakes recede, ships must reduce >>>>>their loads between 50 and 270 tons, he said. At >the >>>>>end of last season, with waters particularly low on >>>>>Lake Superior, ships lost about 8,000 tons per trip >>>>>about 11 percent of their carrying capacity, he >>said. >>>>> >>>>>``Every ton has an impact. These companies, they >>earn >>>>>their living carrying cargo, so every lost ton of >>>>>cargo is lost revenue,'' Nekvasil said. >>>>> >>>>>Shipping is big business. Last year, a little more >>>>>than 1 billion tons of goods such as iron ore, coal >>>>>and limestone, were waterborne in the U.S., he >said. >>>>>Shippers on the Great Lakes hauled 110 million tons >>>of >>>>>cargo, with more than half of that iron ore. >>>>> >>>>>Back in the late 1990s, shippers hauled as much as >>>125 >>>>>million tons of cargo a year on the Great Lakes. >>Last >>>>>year's numbers are at least partially due to the >low >>>>>water levels, but the steel industry which uses >iron >>>>>ore has been slow, too, Nekvasil said. The coal >>trade >>>>>has been steady and the roughly 70 ships in the >U.S. >>>>>fleet regularly sail, he said. >>>>> >>>>>Water levels have slipped for years and the >forecast >>>>>isn't getting any better. Lakes Erie and Ontario >are >>>>>faring better than the others this year, said Scott >>>>>Thieme, chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' >>>>>hydraulics and hydrology office in Detroit. But >>>>>numbers show they're still lower than last year. >>>>> >>>>>Lake Superior is within a few inches of its record >>>low >>>>>599.5 feet deep, set in 1926. It's now about a foot >>>>>lower than last year and projections for this >summer >>>>>are that it'll get even lower. >>>>> >>>>>It's unclear how long the other areas will maintain >>>>>levels above record lows, because all the lakes are >>>>>connected, Thieme said. >>>>> >>>>>``The lakes are so large that there's such a huge >>>>>volume of water. It takes a long time for some of >>>>>these impacts to move through the system with them >>>all >>>>>being linked,'' he said. >>>>> >>>>>One way to combat it is to dredge so vessels can >get >>>>>in. This year the Corps of Engineers will spend $20 >>>>>million on dredging projects in the Great Lakes >>>>>region, up from $19 million last year. But that >>>>>increase is due to projects on Chicago commercial >>>>>ports, which are not dredged as often, said Angie >>>>>Mundell, project manager for operations for the >>corps >>>>>in Detroit. >>>>> >>>>>Nekvasil's group argues the government should >>>spending >>>>>more. >>>>> >>>>>``This is a major issue for the industry. It's our >>>>>primary focus right now,'' he said. >>>>> >>>>>Grain exporter Chicago and Illinois River Marketing >>>>>isn't waiting for the government to dredge its >>harbor >>>>>in Milwaukee. Richard Blaylock, manager at the >>>>>company's site, said the company spent $200,000 in >>>two >>>>>years to dredge its own spot off the Milwaukee >>>Harbor. >>>>> >>>>>With shipping season just under way, he's not sure >>if >>>>>the company will have to dredge for a third year in >>a >>>>>row. >>>>> >>>>>``Dredging is expensive and I'd like not to have to >>>do >>>>>it,'' Blaylock said. >>>>> >>>>>Iron ore mining company Cleveland Cliffs will >simply >>>>>hire more ships to carry its ore to customers like >>>>>steel plants throughout the region, said Dana >Byrne, >>>>>vice president of public affairs for the >>>>>Cleveland-based company. >>>>> >>>>>The dwindling water levels mean a typical vessel >>>>>carrying between 25,000 and 30,000 tons will have >to >>>>>reduce its load by 1,000 tons per trip, he said. >>>>> >>>>>``We're going to move the tons we need to move and >>>>>we'll just have to do it,'' Byrne said. ``It's just >>>>>going to take more trips and added cost.'' >>>>> >>>>>Shusterich's company, Midwest Energy Resources, >>plans >>>>>to contract to have 450 ships again this year. He >>>said >>>>>it'll continue to serve customers, like electric >>>>>utilities and industrial companies, by rail and >>truck >>>>>when it can. >>>>> >>>>>``When we're running at the levels we're running, >it >>>>>means you need more vessels to carry the same >amount >>>>>of cargo,'' he said. ``But at some point you run >out >>>>>of vessels.'' >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On the Net: >>>>> >>>>>U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes: >>rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>>href="http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes">htt >p >>: >>>/ >>>>/ >>>>>www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes >>>>> >>>>>Lake Carriers' Association: >target=_blank rel=nofollow >>target=_blank rel=nofollow >>>target=_blank rel=nofollow >>>>target=_blank rel=nofollow >>>>>target=_blank >>>>>href="http://www.lcaships.com">http://www.lcaships. >c >>o >>>m >>>>< >>>>>/a> >>>>> >>>>>(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights >>>>>Reserved.) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| LOL!! | Oropan | 06:25:36 04/20/07 Fri |
|
||