4 of the 5 Great Lakes about to freeze over

Is this more evidence we are on the cusp of the next grand minimum?

Watts Up With That?

Composite image of the East and West NATICE products for the Great Lakes, see links below for originals Composite image of the East and West NATICE products for the Great Lakes, see links below for originals

Corky Boyd writes:

The latest NATICE graphics show Lake Erie totally covered with 9/10+ ice, Lakes Superior and Huron are nearly totally covered with 9/10+ and Ontario about 80% covered with 7/10+.  It is likely Superior and Huron will join Erie with total coverage of 9/10+  in today or tomorrow’s report.

It is possible Ontario could do the same as it is experiencing near or sub-zero temperatures tonight.

The NATICE daily reports are posted about 5:00pm EST.  Link is here:


If you have trouble pulling up the ice charts, here are direct links to the West and East areas for Feb. 18:


It is an unusual event for 3 of the lakes to freeze over, which only happens once every 6 to 8 years.  Four or more freezing is…

View original post 16 more words

6 thoughts on “4 of the 5 Great Lakes about to freeze over

  1. rishrac February 23, 2015 / 12:24 pm

    More global warming???? Oh that evil co2 molecule!!! Very insidious freezing over the Great Lakes again!! (sarc)

    • Russ Steele February 28, 2015 / 8:36 pm

      Thanks for the link John. A very interesting read.

  2. rishrac April 15, 2015 / 10:28 pm


    In Discovery magazine May 2015 page 9 by Leah Shaffer, ” Making Oxygen out of thin Air” . Evidently strong UV breaks down co2 in a single step into O2 + C , about 5 %. Which got me to thinking about co2 levels being about 270 ppm before the Industrial revolution or 240 ppm, take your pick. Ok, maybe the 5 % is a little high, how about 1 %? that’s at a min of 2.4 molecules decrease. Still too high, half that at 1.7 ppm. Why is that important? because the year over rate of man made co2 they claim we are adding is around 2 – 2.5 ppm. Where is that much carbon coming from that allows the system to be stable at 240 ppm or 270 ? We added last year 9.9 billion metric tons of carbon (multiply by 3.67 to get co2) All of our output barely moved the increase? Which also got me to thinking that if the current co2 level is 400 ppm then at 1/2% converts 2 ppm to O2 + C.
    Now, I was trying to read into the numbers a little deeper. For the year 2010 I have what I think is enough data to work with. They (NOAA) has it 18.4 billion metric tons was retained by the atmosphere and the other half by the land and sea. I have to do more math, and of course I can be wrong. That’s why I am asking you to look at it. I did this initially by weight and the weight of the entire atmosphere. I know I went to the high side of estimating the weight. However, the 18.4 billion tons is over by 5.62 billion metric tons of co2. It gets worse if I lower the entire weight of the atmosphere. My next attempt to look at this as time allows, is do a percentage of the different gasses and the molecular weight. ( I just thought to do the calculation to see how much more ppm the 5.62 billion would create. I don’t won’t to loose what I’ve written here. Later I’ll do that)
    It’s not just the carbon cycle sans man.
    So I was attempting to pull apart the man made and the apparent natural signal of co2. The issue that’s causing me alarm is, if this is true, how close we were to going out from a lack of plant life. The climate issue becomes minor at this point. Unless it starts to get cold, then we have no plant life loss and a need to eat more.
    Additionally, if the physics of converting co2 is accurate, then it hanging around for extended periods is wrong. Anywhere from 20 years to 200, all of the co2 in the atmosphere, if there were no plant life, would be gone. Which is an amazing thing when you think about what the heck is putting that much co2 in the environment on a consistent basis.

    • stefanthedenier April 15, 2015 / 11:02 pm

      Please let me join the conversion. You are back to front with your theory… a] CO2 is insufficient at 270ppm for prosperous crops and trees. CO2 has being decreasing, by getting buried into limestone and buried algae on the bottom of the sea. Then the good Lord gave bigger brains to people, by rubbing two sticks the created deserts BUT simultaneously released more CO2 for the remaining vegetation. More organic matter washed into the sea and cemented carbon. Bigger brains was given people to use fossil fuel and release the essential carbon. Then the carbon Bashers arrived…

      rishrac, if the Warmist were interested in the truth; they wouldn’t be monitoring CO2 in Hawaii, where are active volcanoes, but should be on Ester island.
      3] if you are interested where is your ”missing carbon” get a gadget that monitors the co2 amount in the air! You will see that: 1] in the city is more than outside 2] at night is more than at midday 3] before the rain is more than after rain. Water is made to wash things – cold CO2 increases condensation / is a rainmaker – farmers will tell you that: by 2 inches of rain, crops are more prosperous than by same amount of irrigated water. b] if is too much co2 in the rainwater -> sinks deep into the soil and creates mineral water / carbonated water. Get a gadget and prove the warmist wrong – instead believing their lies, 390ppm and similar is bullshine produced exclusively for skeptic’s consumption, not to inform. So: during the day co2 goes up, because every CO2 molecule has 2O atoms – the carbon atom warms up the 2 O atoms more than surrounding O2&N2 -and they lift him up, to spread it and at night to bring to every tree and crops, the most essential element, carbon.

      Don’t be scared from CO2 – it’s a miracle molecule, tastes good also – did you ever drunk flat beer or champagne? shake a bottle of beer or champagne or soda water and see how much co2 is in. I’ll have another bottle of beer, because I’m a ”carbon sink”

      • rishrac April 16, 2015 / 5:28 am

        Your missing the point. I’m looking at this particular time the physics and chemistry of co2 in the atmosphere. The limestone and sinks are part of the natural carbon cycle. For the year 2010, the stated release of 9.9 billion metric tons and the division of it, the amount that is suppose to be in the atmosphere is, according to my very early math (however I can work forwards and backwards with it) is 5.62 billion metric tons short .. or pretty close what the government is projecting this year the rise in co2 at 4 ppm. Given that the 5.62 billion tons of co2 were out there somewhere, for 2010 the level rise would have been 3.48 ppm, it’s not it came in at 2.4. That is 30% less. What’s the reason for that? Did the ocean sink swallow up 20% more and the land 10% ? That would put the sinks at 80 %. I’m sure that AGW has overestimated the sinks at 50%. My goal was to find out how much the UV from the sun was converting co2 in to O2 + C. Additionally, since the sun is in the active part of the cycle, is there an increase in the UV that facilitates this.

        I’m not concerned about whether there is co2 here, but the lack of it. Don’t assume that I’m a CAGW person. I need the process to be verified. One of the things that AGW has stated is that the co2 stays around in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. It may not, and that is a concern.

        If you want to do something constructive find the correlation between negative temperature departures from norm, how much co2 was produced, the increase in co2 and what the sun was doing. First, it’s a lot of work, and second, just because I say so doesn’t mean squat. But it will if a number of people say so. Don’t be condescending, I already know what co2 does. Without co2, we live in a dead world.

        Don’t you find it strange that the departure from 0 is negative at a time when co2 production was ramping up? That’s that graph’s from NOAA. About 1937 something changed. What was that?

        Do you think the IPCC is going to come out and say ” hey we’re short every year about 5 – 6 billion tons of co2 in the atmosphere in the carbon budget, possibly more ” ? I don’t think so. Or god forbid the count goes negative?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s