A Bad Water Day For Ludington

[Willy]

The reason I made this a topic is because of the potential cost for any damage / repairs to infrastructure. If the water continues to rise and there is severe ice damage this winter we may have to open our pockets and add to the tax coffers.

I played hooky today and spent some time taking photos. I first went to Little Sable Point. I fear the light house there is in peril. I would hate to see it damaged or destroyed. Many homes along the Lake are in a serious situation of being destroyed if the erosion continues.

Next I visited the boat ramp parking lot and Ludington Ave beach, then the City Marina. All had issues with high water. The following photos are a small fraction of what I took. I didn't include the new construction at Ludington ave beach because all there was to see is water.

Little Sable Point lighthouse. If this lighthouse does not make it thru the winter we will be losing a major tourist draw and a lot of history. I hope there is something in the works to protect this monument to maritime history.

Boat launch parking lot takes a real beating when water is high because the waves crash against the breakwater instead of scraping the sand bottom. The breakwater can take only so much pounding without significant damage.

City Marina docks and the walkway are being damaged as we speak from high water. If the water doesn't recede then the next problem will be the damage caused by ice which could possibly cost a fortune to repair.

[Du Wright]

Thanks, David.  Yeah .. that's scary.  I don't know details of studies on 0xygen depletion now or historically, but a few programs put on PBS about the plastics the fish and birds are ingesting.  That's heartbreaking.  And our Lakes have suffered chemical infestation which have made the fish contaminated off and on since the 70s at least that I remember.  Cleanup and not dumping from the source has helped at times, but I think it's still an unbearable issue.  I remember as a kid hypodermic needles on Pentwater beach being traced from Chicago Hospitals dumping.

[XLFD]

As somebody trained in the scientific method, I have a hard time reading this Deoxygenation study and attribute scientific rigor to it.  An example found in one of the conclusions: 

"Deoxygenation is an ongoing process and is expected to continue as increasing global temperatures reduces the capacity of the ocean to hold oxygen, decreases the degree of mixing in the upper water column and reduces the ocean overturning circulation. The current understanding of both the causes and consequences of reduced oxygen in the ocean and our ability to represent them in models especially in the low latitudes are inadequate. The reasons for the discrepancies between simulations and observations currently remain unclear."

The first part assumes a certainty of a continued, unchecked warming of the planet, whereas, there has been evidences of a cooling planet in recent years in defiance of that 'certainty'.  Having just skimmed the report, there are a lot of unscientific presumptions and uncertain cause and effect fallacies I noticed.  The latter part shows that reality and modeling are contradicting each other, and this would lead anybody with a scientific cynicism to suspect that the modeling-- which is likely the indicator pointing to crisis-- is flawed. 

First impressions, but it made little impressions on me due to its limitations in modeling and scope.

[Willy]

I agree X. If rising temperatures are causing problems in marine ecosystems then I guess the alternative is to cool everything down to really create "diversity" because according to the global warming myth a warm planet is not a good thing. So, maybe if the mad scientists can mess around with the climate and cause another ice age we will begin to see a flourishing activity of life. The problem with the link below is how schizophrenic it is. It first relates how thriving cold water really is then turns around and wants us to believe in Global warming. I think schizophrenic is a perfect word for Global warming scientists.

Be cool

[XLFD]

David does seem to want to use his position as a 'scientist' as making him an 'expert witness' for climate change, so I will direct a question regarding his credentials.  At the University of Florida in Gainesville, there is a professor of entomology and nematology (essentially studying ants and worms) named David Arthur Carlson who has a history of promoting the climate change agenda; I will presume this is our DAC, I hope he can indicate whether that is correct or not. 

Back in 2012, Hurricane Sandy had a bit of effect on the upper eastern coast of the US.  David wrote a letter to the Gainesville Sun saying:  "I think that New Yorkers and their neighbors might consider that they have experienced the “War of the World.1”. So Global Climate Change is an invention of corrupted scientists, eh? Do some of you folks maybe want to reconsider that? And good luck with that excess salt water, my children.  David A. Carlson, Gainesville

Here's an up-to-date listing of hurricanes courtesy of Wikipedia, and their effect on coastal states.  Since 1991, the only hurricane to hit NY was Sandy, and it was a weak category 1 by that time.  During the decade 1951-1960, three hurricanes hit NY (category 1,2, and 3) at a time where global cooling was taking place, at least according to our respected scientists of the 1970s.  Hurricane Donna (1960) had sustained winds of 100 mph on landfall, Carol (1954) had gusts exceeding 120 mph in NY.  Sandy was 70 mph at landfall, and gusted up to only 100 mph),

DAC 'scientifically' wanted to prove man-made global warming was a proven fact because of this one anomalous windstorm hitting New York.  That's about as scientific as me saying that global warming is disproved because Michigan experienced a bad snowstorm in November... to which I'm sure DAC would say some meaningless hogwash like 'weather extremes happen more frequently during this crisis of climate change, global warming is real my child'.  

[David A. Carlson]

From DAC.  Sure are a lot of bizarre opinions here of what I think... that have not been actually thought of or stated by me.  Sorry about not being your straw man.  

[Freedom Seeker]

So, DAC, are you the UF Professor?  What do you know about the carcinogenic effects of EPS styrofoam?  (Comment in latest blog on Floracraft).  And how do you feel about the biodegradability of it affecting global warming?  P.S.  you haven't answered question on how to help our local flooding issues.  Shall we stop driving cars in Ludington and heating our homes?

[XLFD]

Well then let me assume that you are not the scientist from the University of Florida that shares your name, lives in Gainesville like you claim to, and has an eerily similar writing style to yours, David A Carlson. I will accept I made a mistake in believing that may have been the case.
Can you then look at some of these well known scientists and politicians making drastically wrong predictions about future weather and climate conditions and declare their theories were fallacious as well?

[David A. Carlson]

Anyone can look up my research on Research Gate.  It includes a couple of hundred publications in formal, top-of-world-science journals, including 4 in Science that I personally wrote, and 2 in Nature, and ~14 US and foreign patents.  I can defend all of this insect biochemistry done for the personal protection of American citizens against blood-seeking insects..biting flies, mosquitoes and trypanosomes.  So--trash away, folks.   

[Freedom Seeker]

So thank you DAC and I appreciate hearing your views.  So what do you think of Ko Barret's comment at the Madrid Conference which basically said don't lose hope, there is time to reduce gases to stop global warming?

[XLFD]

David,

Your first couple of posts were effectively claiming that man-caused global warming was hitting us back, you brought up CO2 levels, and you've generally been a bit difficult to understand-- not because of your jargon or extent of your knowledge, but because you seem to rely on dogmatic assertions rather than scientific ones. 

I've got an MS in mathematics, minored in science during my undergrad times, did some spots of research in my younger days, yet I wouldn't call myself a scientist, or somebody that could prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theories, even after conducting experiments.  I think it's the same with you; you have your own specialty that may be influenced by weather and/or climate, maybe your research gets easier with AGW assumed.  

I had a sophomore level weather & climate class with NMU professor Sten Taube, I'm amazed he's still fogging the mirror, because he seemed on the old side when I was a teenager.  This was the early eighties when climate science wasn't politicized and Professor Taube was a firm believer in the scientific method who would find the term 'climate change' a bit of a misnomer, because he taught that weather changed, climate was very static by its definition.  He was not accepting global cooling which was in vogue at the time, and I doubt he would embrace global warming without trying to prove or disprove it himself. 

And since I am pretty sure that with what I've seen from both sides, AGW will remain both unprovable and un-disprovable, except to those who mix science with politics and get something ugly as a product.   

[XLFD]

David,

Climate Nostradamuses are getting wilier, they will tell you to a tenth of a degree how much the temperature will rise by the end of the century if we don't take action right now.  These guys will brilliantly tell you in great precision what happens by the end of the century, but can't predict what the trend will be the next 1-5 years with any accuracy, because predicting weather in 2100 is not science, it is faith-based religion. 

Another bit of your dogma debunked:  Temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have no direct correlation, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today.  You can find a lot more contraindicators looking at this graph plotting historic global average temperature versus CO2 levels:

[stump]

    Global warming is attributed to using data from the 1800's taken with instruments of the time . Now we have more accurate instruments to monitor temperatures . So would a 1 degree change be significant or due to more accurate instruments?