Huron River advocates form regional effort to track local effects of climate change
The Huron River Watershed Council is launching a new initiative to explore the impact of climate change on communities within the river’s 910-square mile watershed
And it’s taking the first steps next week, Laura Rubin, the Ann Arbor-based nonprofit’s director, said Friday.
That’s when HRWC officials will sit down with scientists from the Great Lakes regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center and begin to hash out a climate model that would attempt predict the climate up to 100 years from now, probably in half-decade increments.
This spring's record-setting rainfall raises questions about the local impact the region will see from global climate change.
Angela Cesere | AnnArbor.com
The watershed encompasses wet plains, flood plains, rivers and creeks flowing into the Huron River through communities in Oakland, Livingston, Washtenaw, Wayne and Monroe counties. Once its climate model is complete, the HRWC-led group will start discussions with community stakeholders in charge of the natural and man-made systems that drain into the Huron River.
Rubin said the climate modeling committee will aim to help officials make informed decisions around climate change.
“What it is really trying to get at is how it (climate change) will affect the water cycle,” she said.
The committee will try to shed light on a variety of questions to help stakeholders make decisions around predicted changes, she said.
“What size do storm water pipes and detention systems need to be, and what should we be doing about our floodplains or wetlands? Should we be allowing people to build in them? What kinds of infrastructure in our wastewater treatment plan systems do we need? Do we need to start talking about behavior change at the homeowner level?” Rubin said.
Rubin acknowledged that not everyone believes in climate change.
“The rate at which it's changing, people disagree about. We’re projecting what the changes will be in the future (and) we have started to see some trends,” she said. "We’re hoping model will give us more clues.”
For the past couple of years “100 year storms” - storms in which at least 4 inches of rain falls within a 24-hour period - are happening more frequently, she said.
The HRWC wants to help communities adapt so that storm-, drinking- and wastewater systems can handle the extra water and help avoid floods like the ones that occurred in Ann Arbor this week.
Juliana Keeping covers general assignment and health and the environment for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
RayA2
Mon, May 30, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.
Shepard, You must be heavily dependent on oil company profits because I've never seen such emotional denial of the facts. Its if I'm listening to Big Brother when I read your comments. With CO2 in the atmosphere at an unprecendented level and rising, what do you think is happening to all of the sun's energy that used to be refracted back out into space? Your denial of science has created an alternative theory of the earth's warming. Warming that has been measured and observed in many observations of ecological change. Even if, we can accept your dubious alternative theories for some of the change. how can you possible justify that we irresponsibly and recklessly allow CO2 levels to continue to increase? Doing so will certainly cause certain, massive hardship and death in ours and especially our children's future and you and your criminal friends Rupert, the Koch brothers, and the teapublikan drill baby drill party will be directly responsible.
shepard145
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 8:45 p.m.
Lets cut through the confusion and define what we're about: Global Warming Hustlers (GWH) defend Al Gore's fantasies because they either they are being paid to do so (government grants, phony clean energy schemes, collect government incentives, drunk with political power/control over American Voters, etc.) or because they reject the scientific method and "believe" that changes in Michigan consumer activity (smaller car, hybrid car, ride bus, recycle applesauce jars, buy solar panels/windmills, etc.) will result in the earth getting colder, thereby saving the planet from a fate they don't quite understand….except that it's worse then some period in the past when the temperature/weather was "ideal"…but they're not quite sure when that was. But the result of continuing on this foolish path will be vast wasted resources, continued loss of national and global competitiveness, loss of jobs, loss of standard of living but worst of all: NO CHANGE TO THE EARTH'S WEATHER. …the very definition of FAILURE, only unlike past democrat failures, this one lasts for generations. I and the vast majority of American Voters on the other hand, know that the earth's temperature is not controlled by what Michigan Consumers purchase and refer to the Global Warming Fraud (GWF) is the GREAT LIE of our time. We happily acknowledge that the United States market economy is the best economic system in all of human history, resulting in the world's only sustained super power. We know that in order to regain the competitive advantage so damaged by the democrat party, we must utilize our resources as economically as practical and REJECT nonsensical fads like the GWF. The result will be prosperity to those states who refocus first, then improved global competition and a return to prosperity as it spreads across the nation. States like CA and their $86 billion debt and massive job killing regulations may be beyond saving for generations. CHOOSE ONE IN NOVEMBER 2012
Huron 74
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
I have to agree with "G. Orwell". The climate of the Earth has never been as stable as it has over the past few thousand years. This has been stated many times. It's interesting that humans feel some kind of guilt because climates are changing. We may as well keep "growing and glowing" because we can't possibly control the whole thing.
shepard145
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
You keep writing that there is "no scientific debate" over the global warming fraud. Why do you think that? Do you know who declared the "debate over", when and what her qualifications where to make that announcement? Here's a clue for you - her education was similar to Al Gore's. Once the great lie is fully dead and buried, I look forward to seeing if UM eco students who's degrees no longer make any sense sue the university.
Rachel
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
Climate naturally changes. No question about that. However, modern day climate change is brought about because of humans. There is no scientific debate about that. Before, people have argued that the climate is changing because of the sun, however, only the lower atmosphere is warming--if it was caused by the sun, the upper atmospheres would be warming instead of vise versa.
shepard145
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:41 a.m.
What you meant to write is that no SERIOUS scientist consider "global warming" anything other then a nonsensical fraud peddled by those profiting by it. These include university faculty who have WASTED hundreds of millions of our tax dollars paid to them in the form of grants over more then a decade. Like most eco hysterics, those writing here miss the entire point of Al Gore's global warming profit machine, which is the GREAT LIE that paying your energy bill and other consumer choices made by Michigan residents every day control the earth's weather. Every nickel channeled into Al Gore's pocket is based on that premise, - what we call the GREAT LIE. You write about the "oil companies" as though the energy that runs the worlds economy is an inconvenience and that those who deliver 138,000,000 gallons of gasoline to the US every day are a problem because they make money. …and are owned by some mysterious investors. ….those mysterious investors are almost everyone with a 401K or pension plan. You seem clueless that the great "oil companies" pay as much money in taxes is they make – does that offend you? LOL The only way this global warming fraud will finally go away is through education of the masses, but while the tax dollars funding the liars keep flowing via slow witted politicians like Granholm and Pelosi, that will be a slow process indeed.
Rachel
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:42 p.m.
Money! MONEY! If Al Gore REALLY wanted to become rich, he could go to ANY oil company and say "I'll never speak another word about global warming if you give me 4 million dollars". He would get that 4 million dollars. If he REALLY wanted MORE money, he could go to ANY oil company and say "I will take back all that I have ever said about global warming and say it is all a lie if you give me 2 billion dollars." He would get that 2 billion dollars. No scientist gets glory for agreeing with the masses. They get glory for producing evidence that goes AGAINST common belief. Start looking at who is FUNDING anti-global warming ads. Look at that, OIL companies, COAL companies. The SAME companies that would have the most to lose if America actually took action on this issue. Is it any wonder they spend BILLIONS of dollars a year funding propaganda that says this issue is a lie? What do scientists get out of this? They are just trying to warn the world before it is too late. I laugh at your naive stupidity, but lament the fact that you have been completely bought out by these companies.
RayA2
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
Shepard, I should just rest my case on your latest comments because they prove my point well enough. In case there is someone out there who sees a whisper of truth in anything your comment said, I offer these questions: If oil companies are not trying to confuse and baffle, why the billions spent on those obnoxious ads about how beneficial the oil and gas industry is? What would teapublikans say if the auto industry did the same thiing? When is the last time a 401K investor cast his vote for the boards of the oil companies? (NEVER) What 401K actuallly owns a significant enough portion of an oil company that they have the power to influence its actions? (None) Where does the majority ownership of oil companies lie? (Saudi Arabia, The Forbes 400, Europe) Shepard, what oil company do youi own?
shepard145
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.
Claiming mysterious "oil companies" have "a strategy to confuse and baffle the public with information supporting them" is hilarious! Do you actually believe that or is that another one of those tales leftists cling to like "FOX lies" or "Rush lies" that you live your lives by but cannot actually authenticate? LOL ..and you worship obama, who has NEVER employed a single man but made business his enemy (therefore jobs are his enemy), yet you think successful business owners "Koch brothers" are "the bad guys"! LOL Oops….except that the "Koch bothers" operate what was the second largest privately held company in the US in 2008 and still employ 70,000 people world wide, 50,000 of them in the US! So you might ask those 70,000 families how "bad" they are. ..and 401K and Pensioners DON'T OWN OIL STOCK? How does that work in your mind? Are oil stocks off limits to all but "eco bad guy investors"? LOL …and pray tell what convinced you that FORCING lower middle class Michigan families to over pay the equivalent of a car payment for their monthly gas/electric bills will cause the earth's temperature will get colder? Is that one of those "facts" you live by Ray? ..and Al Gore's millions in global warming schemes are just WONDERFUL along with his eco private jet and eco three mansions? LOL Has the GREAT GLOBAL WARMING LIE BEEN TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH that you believe it – a victim of your own theory? Many who appear to be irrational supporters of the global warming fraud are completely rational - they are just on the CASH SIDE of this fraud, committed to attempts to keep the lie alive so the money keeps flowing in! …or worse, they invested their own cash - bought the solar panels, windmills,etc. and now it's too late to admit they were suckered?
RayA2
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 3:34 a.m.
Shepard. You reminded me that, in my comments above. I forgot one other strategy employed by the energy industry and their owners (who are, very funny, not 401K investors, dare I mention those who should not be named, the koch brothers?). A strategy developed by Rush with his ditto head listeners, and copied by the rest of Rupert's mouthpieces, is to repeat whatever lies you want people to believe so often that they take on a life of their own. It is the only explanation for teapublicans holding office.
Rachel
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 10:10 p.m.
"Rubin acknowledged that not everyone believes in climate change." There is no REAL scientists who debate that global warming is real. Everyone on this list has received funding from oil, coal or conservative think tanks. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming</a> While no individual storm, hurricane etc. can be said to have been caused by global warming, scientists predict these events in the future.
shepard145
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
Specific to the eco warriors at HRWC: you are unnecessary busy bodies whose time would be better spent picking up litter along highways. The Huron River is little more then a regional drainage ditch and those of us with experience with real rivers find great amusement with your fascination over this "watershed". LOL
shepard145
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:06 a.m.
So you believe that the HRWC controls flooding along the Huron River? That sounds rather biblical for a bunch of liberals. LOL To the extent that the Huron River is controlled at all, it is done so via civil engineers who design systems in and around it. People can avoid flood damage by not living or building in flood zones along the river and those who do should keep quite when they are flooded. There have been many and vast storm water design errors in Ann Arbor fully permitted by the City that cause many problems ...but again, none of that has a wit to do with HRWC and if you disappeared tomorrow nobody would notice.
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 6:47 p.m.
Well, now that you've put down our river and our HRWC what will you do when there is a real flood because of lack of planning for water shed? You'll complain to the very people you are ridiculing now, that's what you'll do.
shepard145
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
Many of these comments are PRICELESS! LOL A few months ago HRWC's news letter was "dedicated" to global warning's impact on the Huron River watershed. It was the equivalent of eco porn, so loaded with uninformed arrogant gibberish that although the source of many laughs, it could not find the trash can fast enough. THE BIG LIE: If Al Gore makes enough profit and Michigan families pay for huge increases in energy bills every month, THE EARTH'S WEATHER WILL CHANGE. Granholm signed Public Act 295 into law on October 6, 2008 because her staff of eco activists convinced this mediocre lawyer governor that Michigan CONTROLS THE WEATHER. DTE is laughing because they are now guaranteed an 11% profit to build it even as it helps make Michigan BUSINESSES LESS COMPETITIVE NATIONALLY, GLOBALLY and KILLS JOBS. Democrat Granholm's assumption is that if Michigan businesses and families are REQUIRED to overpay for boutique green energy sources (10% by 2015) like wind and solar by Public Act 295 and rely less on traditional economical coal, hydro and nuclear, the earth's weather will change. LIARS. NEWS FLASH: GLOBAL WARMING, is now undergoing rebranding due to inconvenient weather reality contradicting Gore's shtick. Eco Hysterics have now been instructed to refer to this fraud as CLIMATE CHANGE so all weather – hot, cold, , sunny, windy, calm, wet or draught, is covered. One of many problems with Gore's "business model" is that climate has always changed. 2/3 of the earth was under an ice sheet up to a mile (5,280 feet) thick only 20,000 years ago that scraped a mountain range from Michigan. The glacial melt was not that long ago and the results are readily visible looking at maps of Canada. Another problem is that even the nuttiest phoney client frauds have no evidence that action taken by humans controls the earth's weather.
shepard145
Sun, Jun 26, 2011 : 3:42 a.m.
What did the "ozone hole" look like a thousand years ago? When will we know when it "recovers" from man's damage? ....who knows? This claim is all circular nonsense. There is no data showing man has the slightest effect on ozone over Antarctica. ....this is one more mythical man defined "crisis" based on nothing nonsensical faked "science", statistical gibberish and lies.
Rachel
Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:39 p.m.
"On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on CFCs.[6] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes." --Wikipedia. There, googled it.
shepard145
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
Oh really? So the largest on the very very very short record was not in 2006 because the CFC ban fixed the problem in the 1990's? LOL I thought you kids learned how to use Google in public school and hope you wrote that as a result of a knowledge deficit rather then a problem with the truth. ...but of course the truth is that humans never had anything to do with the ozone hole and it's size will always continue to fluctuate by year and season, probably due to magnetism and sunspot activity. The CFC lie was just a warm up for the BIG LIE of the HUMAN CONTROLLED GLOBAL WEATHER fraud.
Rachel
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
The ozone hole is no longer depleting. I see that as a change.
shepard145
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2:44 a.m.
CFC's have been banned for decades but the ozone hole is unchanged. Why? Is the entire CFC claim also a giant fraud like global warming?
Rachel
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 10:29 p.m.
Al Gore's profit is NOTHING to the profits of top oil executives. Look at the salary of the Koch brothers for example (who made their money based upon oil refinement), they fund millions of dollars to spread propaganda claiming that climate change does not exist. If you think environmentalists are doing this for the money, start looking at billion dollar coal CEO's instead. Plus, it was renamed climate change because while earth's AVERAGE temperature will rise (hence GLOBAL warming) some local places will cool. If humans can destroy vast lands of sea (BP, ExxonMobil oil spill), if they can deplete the ozone layer, why can't they change Earth's temperature. Stop being so naive.
Stephen Landes
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
We need to have this group do their planning and studying to know we should not let people build in flood plains? Just watch the news and see the homes all up and down the Mississippi River destroyed because people are a) determined to build in flood plains, and b) seek to build structures to moderate the effects of NATURE. Stop the foolish waste of resources: do the things we already know need to be done.
blahblahblah
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
The bigger issues not being discussed here: - The Great Lakes water levels still low due to loss of ice cover - Western US expansion's water needs - future efforts to divert Great Lakes water supply - Foreign invaders - such as Asian carp The smaller issues the HRWC should continue to focus on: - Stormwater management - smarter development with less impervious surfaces ie: don't build massive parking structures such as Fuller Station right next to the river - Spending more greenbelt funds on watersheds versus farmland - Work with city's within the watershed to identify failing storm sewers and develop financial plans to upgrade those utilities
RayA2
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.
I can not believe how many ostriches there are on this issue. Some ostriches claim that Al Gore makes money promoting global warming science. Even if that were true, who do you think stands to benefit many magnitudes more than Mr. Gore by denying the facts of global warming? The ENERGY INDUSTRY!!!!!! The oil companies are in full control of the teapublican party, remember the invasion of Iraq, the drill baby drill chant, the recent support of continued subsidies to oil companies? CO2 levels have hit unprecedented levels and are rising. Increased CO2 levels cause less of the sun's energy to be refracted back into space. These are undeniable facts. The complexity of the earth's climate makes the effects of this very basic mechanism dynamic and difficult to predict. The basic facts are never argued by ostriches, teapublicans or Rupert Murdoch's mouthpieces. They point to surveys and alternative theories. Sounds so much like the cigarette industry it would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.
Karen
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 1 p.m.
In a totally respectful and constructive way, I would like to request that the HRWC spend my tax money on planning how to handle storm runnoff, not in trying to predict the weather in "half-decade increments" for the next 100 years. No weather authority on earth has been able to PREDICT the weather accurately for 100 years (despite billions of dollars, decades of data, and massive computer programs etc). I doubt Laura Rubin and her group will do any better. A "100 year" storm does not mean "we get one every 100 years and if there are two in 100 years then things are really different". It means that ON AVERAGE that sized storm happened once in 100 years when hundreds of years of historical data were averaged. Since it's a statistical event, it could happen again in a week or in 700 years. I'll bet if someone wanted to check back in the historical record, that sized storm problably happened more than once in 100 years a few times. And probably happened less than once in 100 years. The point is - spend my tax money on necessary reveiw and recommendations for repairs and flood relief plains or other helpful interventions that will be needed by future residents of Ann Arbor. Not on futile climate predications. And by the way Ms Rubin - people not only disagree with "the rate at which it's changing", a vary large number of scientists (25,000-30,000) who actually do work in climate, weather predication, geophysics, geology, exploration have stated categorically that they do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. There are a few hundred who do, and they seem to have the ear of the press (including the Ann Arbor News environment reporter).
Epengar
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
"a vary large number of scientists (25,000-30,000) who actually do work in climate, weather predication, geophysics, geology, exploration have stated categorically that they do not believe in anthropogenic climate change." This is a false statement, though widely promoted by organizations with vested interest in undermining support for science. I wonder where you learned it from?
Johnm
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:43 p.m.
What is the purpose of the Hoax you ask? Simple question - Simple answer. Money. Why was Al Gore pushing Global Warming? He was at the head of the Carbon Credit Exchange set up, and later disbanded. He stood to make a huge pile of money. The scientists, why are they in on it? - Money. They get the funding and grants. Governments get more control over the people, and of course - Money. That is what it is all about.
Pika
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 2 a.m.
Well John, by your reply you do accuse 97% of the WORLD'S climate scientists of being corrupt since 97% of the WORLD'S climate scientists are in agreement with the IPCC consensus. I think you should reconsider your position in light of easily READ science instead of the right wing drivel you are spouting here. The science of global climate change has been known well before Al Gore became famous for it. Al Gore has done an exceptional job of informing people of the situation. Nevertheless, deniers like you misrepresent his heroic position in order to serve your own political ends. Shame on you.
Johnm
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
to Espengar: You call me a conspiracy theorist? Then tell me exactly what in my post you find not to be true? Not every scientist that studies the climate is corrupt. Why would you take my post and extrapolate that? Surely the climate needs to be studied, and I am sure there are great people doing that. You are a reactionary fool to take what I said and make your baseless comments when the information is out there. Reading is Fundamental!
Epengar
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
You know, a number of scientists at the University of Michigan are doing climate science. I work with some of them. They aren't liars, or shills, or cheats. They work hard, and take their work very seriously. They submit their research to review by other scientists around the world before they publish it. Their grant applications are reviewed by teams of experts recruited from across the nation. Your conspiracy theory is ignorant, uninformed, and offensive to your neighbors who actually do this work.
clownfish
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
"We had severe droughts in the 1930's before man was able to impact the climate." Yes, and man helped create the "Dust Bowl" by using poor farming practices.
clownfish
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:36 p.m.
Wow, people still trying the "climategate" ruse? "However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer."-Factcheck.org <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/</a> Note that many don't stop by saying the scientists are wrong, no it must be a global plot to overturn governments! Cabals! Nobody has yet answered a simple question, if climate change (Frank Luntzs term) is a "hoax", what is the purpose of this hoax? Destruction of capitalism by a bunch of socialists (NOIA, NASA and NOAA)? It is well known that NASA is a secret hideout for socialists.
FreedomOfSpeech
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 5:44 a.m.
So much for the html tags working here in the 21st... Let's try again... Irrefutable Facts ! )))-> <a href="http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/</a> <-((( .
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.
All falsifications and obfuscations of the truth about criminal hacking of climate scientists PRIVATE emails. You might actually want to try the truth instead of the hyperbole which fits your preconceived agenda: <a href="http://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm</a>
FreedomOfSpeech
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 5:41 a.m.
Irrefutable Facts ! <-(click here((
Mike
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:24 a.m.
The government spends money on studying everything under the sun. Climate change is big money for a lot of university anf government types. Now they just need to get and energy tax into place to fight off the evil stuff that comes out of your lungs very second or so. The climate is going to change again this weekend so be prepared. Did this in the 1970's also. We had severe droughts in the 1930's before man was able to impact the climate. If man could impact the climate we wouldn't need to have wars, we could just flood our enemies out. Poeple who have been around long enough know what I'm talking about. All of the youngsters get their heads filled with whatever the teachers and media want to tell them and take it as gospel. Whatever happened to question authority? Mindless robots running around bumping into each other...............
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
And the oil company's don't have a vested interest in denying climate change? If you think Al Gore and the climate scientists are getting rich off "global warming" you have been badly mislead by exactly that kind of campaign - but it isn't coming from the scientists. "Mindless robots", yeah, to observe one, all you need do is look in the mirror.
jcj
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:29 a.m.
Exactly Mike! There are lots of frauds making a ton of money off this. Especially Al Gore!
Vince Caruso
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:21 a.m.
The Allen's Creek Watershed Group have been reporting about this for many years. We feel a meaningful watershed study for the Allen's Creek watershed is long overdue to plan effectively. It would be great if the HRWC, city and county would support this effort to get in front of the threat to the community. We are still basing our flood maps on the 1968 flood's anecdotal data (where on the building did you see the floodwater level during the flood). Totally unacceptable. Even the MDEQ has said a meaningful watershed study is long overdue. Several recent studies and reports exist that have predicted more intense rain specifically for the State of Michigan. The Union of Concerned Scientist, the US-EPA and UM-Pelston Labs all report in recent years more intense rain for the state. Faculty the the UM-SNRE now agree the change is already here and are making change in assumptions for studies and efforts. We have has several 100 year and at least one 500 year rain in recent years in lower Michigan. Manistee has two 100 year rains in three days two years ago, we were camping there at the time! Holland area had a massive 500 year rain a year ago that flooded over 1,300 cars in one day and washed out 11 roads and bridges, and flooded homes and businesses. We canceled a camping trip that weekend along the lake because of the warning of very severe weather. Camping along Lake Michigan it seems to us has clearly gotten much more dangerous in the past 35 years. The Allen's Creek can't handle normal rain events and with these changes the economic and environmental effects could be severe and hard to recover from. This week we just had about a 6" rain just north of Ann Arbor and last fall Garden City just to our east, had a 100 year rain.
Mike
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:28 a.m.
Why do you think they call it a 100 or 500 year rain? Because every 100 years or so this happens. What's al the panic about? It's life, deal with it. you can't control everything. It's pretty frustrating for people who make rules to control everything that they can't control the weather. They're working on a rule called cap and trade that will tax every form of energy and put lot's of money into government coffers.....your money
Bubble world west
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:20 a.m.
These people are seeing an increasing weather pattern that should have a 1 percent chance of occurring in a given year (USGS: <a href="http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/100yearflood.html)" rel='nofollow'>http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/100yearflood.html)</a> Loss of spring and fall, less transition between summer and winter. Some areas will see increased drought and some will see increased rainfall, based on what's normal. A place like Michigan gets more rain, since it's normally wet, it gets wetter. Place like Texas has low annual rainfall, but now they get less. Large parts of the West, with drier conditions generally, are in drought. In the meanwhile, it seems to be a little bit wetter lately and storm drain pipes might need to get bigger...
jcj
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:25 a.m.
Funny how the global warming argument changes more than the climate itself. They used to say it will cause deserts to expand. Now they say its causing deserts to shrink.
jcj
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.
"Climate science is evolving and improving fast." I agree but that works both ways. People now think some of the "experts" of the past in science were ignorant. But they were going on what they believed to be true. Who's to say some of the "experts" of today won't be looked at as fools? Money drives the ones at the top like Al Gore. <a href="http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/bid-to-stifle-climate-debate-clouds-history-of-scientific-errors-20110526-1f69s.html?from=watoday_sb" rel='nofollow'>http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/bid-to-stifle-climate-debate-clouds-history-of-scientific-errors-20110526-1f69s.html?from=watoday_sb</a> <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/" rel='nofollow'>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/</a> "It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare." Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
FreedomOfSpeech
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 5:45 a.m.
Club of Rome 1966 comes to mind but hey why look at the facts when most of know it's all about global governance... <a href="http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/</a>
Epengar
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 4:34 a.m.
You're grossly over-simplifying both the past and present predictions, but if even if you weren't your point would fail. Scientific knowledge and understanding improves over time. Medical scientists used to think bad air caused malaria, but they learned more, and improved their predictions and solutions. Climate science is evolving and improving fast.
jcj
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:27 a.m.
Really? Your unwillingness to admit to changes in global warming theories shows a lack of honesty on your part. Jonestown was full of those that blindly followed. "The probability of regions in the interiors of continents becoming desert will increase," says Ronald Prinn, New Zealand-born co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change (JPSPGC) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). <a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_And_Deserts_Are_A_Double_Edged_Sword.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_And_Deserts_Are_A_Double_Edged_Sword.html</a> Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change? <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html" rel='nofollow'>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html</a>
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:06 a.m.
No, they didn't. They have predicted wetter in places and drier in others. By your comment you expose your simplistic misunderstanding of the science of AGW.
leaguebus
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:06 a.m.
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html</a> This URL talks about the GWPP. George O check your facts. I applaud the HRWC being proactive on our changing weather.
Bill Sloan
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 10:37 p.m.
The climate change issue is a scientific question that can only be answered through scientific investigation. "Beliefs" about climate change are trivial, simplistic and irrelevant. To say that nature has "mood swings" is quite laughable.
E
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 10:29 p.m.
Predicting climate patterns for the next season is difficult, if not impossible. Over the next 100 years is a colossal waste of time and to do so would be the equivalent of gazing into a crystal ball. Do we have an agenda we would like to support?
xmo
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 9:29 p.m.
Why do we have to believe in Climate change? I believe in God because I want to but this is science isn't it? Not Religon? Rubin acknowledged that not everyone believes in climate change
braggslaw
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.
Climate change? Really? I applaud many of the HRWC's activities, but this is a waste of time. Concentrate on dam removal, agricultural run-off, reduction of phosphates. Please stop tilting at windmills.
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.
You will learn how wrong this statement actually is as the years pass. Climate change is a major threat facing our population. To ignore it is ignorance. Planning for it makes sense. Disregarding it is just naive.
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:05 a.m.
What we are seeing this year all over the world is more that "mother nature's mood swings". With 4% more water vapor in our atmosphere as a result of AGW it is not at all surprising that we are seeing record rainfall. We are not alone either. Consider the flooding last year in China, Afghanistan and Brazil.
jcj
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:02 a.m.
Agree with you braggslaw. the 'experts" can not even get the weather forecast right 3 days in advance when they can SEE whats coming! How presumptuous to think they can predict correctly what will happen 50 -100 years down the road. Predictions are easy. Getting them right? Not so much so. I predict people will live to be 150 years old by the turn of the next century! Now prove me wrong!
Epengar
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.
One of the most robust predictions of climate change, one that has been shown to have been occurring since the 50's, is that rainfalls are heavier. Not necessarily that we get more rain (that's a separate issue), but that the rain we get comes in fewer, heavier downpours, instead of more frequent light rains. That is *exactly* the sort of thing thing that river conservationists need to be concerned about.
grye
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 7:40 p.m.
Mother Nature has natural mood swings. She is very unpredictable.
KJMClark
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
The US Global Change Research Program already has regional projections, including one for the midwest. Here's the page for the midwest section: <a href="http://globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/midwest" rel='nofollow'>http://globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/midwest</a> The second "Key Issues" bullet is fitting: "The likely increase in precipitation in winter and spring, more heavy downpours, and greater evaporation in summer would lead to more periods of both floods and water deficits." Their major report was issued in 2000. So you could call this record wet spring "predicted", a decade ago. It's a good thing the city and HRWC are looking at stormwater capacity, since we're likely to set more rainfall records in the future.
Mike
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 3:22 a.m.
Tornadoes can only form if enough cold air is present, which indicates cooling. Al Gore said it was warming. I say there will always be changes in the weather and you can count on it. We don't need to spend billions to study that when we can't even pay our bills. We don't need to worry about climate change, we need to worry about the economic collapse of this country
G. Orwell
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
I believe in climate change. Climate has ALWAYS changed. It is never static. Even before man drove around in SUVs. "Rubin said the climate modeling committee will aim to help officials make informed decisions around climate change." Please make sure no in junk in and junk out. Climate models can spew out any result they want. Just as was done in past models that predicted 20 feet sea levels rises. Clear scare tactic. By the way, over 31,000 scientists do not believe in AGW. At best, a couple of hundred scientists may still support AGW. Most credible scientists have abandoned the IPCC AGW sinking ship. <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.petitionproject.org/</a> Good to plan but please do not twist the facts.
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
Orwell you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The response to your inquiry is in fact trivial: <a href="http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm</a> You might actually want to check the facts before spouting off as if you know them.
G. Orwell
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 4:46 a.m.
Pika, Please name names. How about naming 100 scientists that support AGW. The 97% number is made up. Absolutely no documentation that 97% of scientist support AGW. You may have the numbers backwards. It might be, at most, 3% that support AGW. Again, please name names. I did.
Pika
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 12:03 a.m.
Your post is misleading at best. "31,000 scientists do not agree with AGW" is a very misleading statement based on a survey by climate deniers who included anyone who self reported as "scientist" on their list. No, it is not true that "credible scientists have abandoned the IPCC AGW sinking ship". That is a blatantly FALSE statement. Credible climate scientists agree with the IPCC AGW assessment at a rate of 97% the other 3% work for or are funded by the oil consortium.