including blooms that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when the lake was famously declared dead.
There is no "climate change" it's merely the natural cyclical shift of highs and lows from region to region.
Even the authors of the "global warming" fraud in the UK are beginning to acknowledge this - science is.
Sigh.
And then againstseeing tosses in another dud of complete misunderstanding in some sorry attempt to misdirect the findings set out in the article. Is there something about this site that invites stupid?-- magganusTurd
So what do you think you linked to? Can you even begin to explain the meaning of the NWS site you've linked?
Good! Let's find a way to get nutrients out of it (i.e. eat it)
if it happens anyway it could be used as practice for farming the oceans.
"IF" we could harvest this algae and "IF" it's not toxic to burn.
So what do you see as the problem?
How in god's name can they surmise, from a single day's rainfall and their models:
1] global warming
2] increasing rainfall
3] bloom and gloom
When the historical record show widely varying flow into the lake over the last century and blooms during the 60s and 70s when, going back to my original question, what global warming was happening?
Harvesting the oceans would probably not work, as the stuff disperses too rapidly there. This only works in lakes where there are no (appreciable) currents.
Also blooms of non-toxic species would be better, and in a lake it would be easier to experiment on changing the nutrient mix to produce a species edible by fish.
Maggnus
Apr 1, 2013UofM and 8 other institutions! That there conspiracy is sure getting big! How does Gore do it?