Lake Erie's monumental 2011 algae bloom was more likely a harbinger of things to come, according to University of Michigan researchers and colleagues from eight other institutions.

UofM and 8 other institutions! That there conspiracy is sure getting big! How does Gore do it?

Good! Let's find a way to get nutrients out of it (i.e. eat it)
and make fuel out of it. Cold be better than using corn?

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.

@pres68y - unfortunately this bloom was a toxic species.

But it does look thick enough to be potentially harvestable for energy. While poisoning the great lakes for this would be destructive, 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. I would much rather burn pelletized algae that corn.

Mark Twain pointed out "There's nothing unusual about unusual weather."

including blooms that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when the lake was famously declared dead.

So what human induced global warming/climate change occurred in the 60s and 70s pray tell.

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.

What is it about a science site that makes people with a grade 6 education think they can post garbage like this? What stupidity would cause a person to post "natural cyclical shift of highs and lows from region to region" like its some new thing not thought of and discussed on a hundred different sites and in a thousand different papers by people who actually understand how science works?

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?

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
I could understand the Turds who sink to the bottom and in the darkness remain ignorant, but magganusTurd obviously floats continuously at the top and has yet to see the light.
http://water.weat...ge=wtvo1

The light of conspiracy againstseeing? You're right, I think your idea that there is a conspiracy is too stupid to see daylight.

So what do you think you linked to? Can you even begin to explain the meaning of the NWS site you've linked?

So what do you think you linked to? Can you even begin to explain the meaning of the NWS site you've linked?

The link shows the varying crests of the Maumee River over the years. However, for this study, May 26 2011 makes for climate change and global warming bloom and gloom.

Ok, one aspect of several considered by the researchers for this particular incident. The article even says it was the result of "a complex combination of factors". Global warming is one aspect, as are farming practices, and fertilizing practices, and the timing of the storm, and the type of crops planted. So what do you see as the problem?

Good! Let's find a way to get nutrients out of it (i.e. eat it)

The algae are toxic (as noted in the article). Harvesting them for biofuel might be a better option.

if it happens anyway it could be used as practice for farming the oceans.

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.

"IF" we could harvest this algae and "IF" it's not toxic to burn.

Burning gives you CO2 and H2O. There's really no biological matter that will give you much of a toxic substance when burned (properly).

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 via fine mesh nets seems a business opportunity..commercial fisheries might be the way not just in this lake but pictures from china and other parts of this shared planet indicate an abundance of algael blooms available for consideration as source of food/energy/compost etc...

No ideas are banal and why some egos take umbrage at other ideas i'll never understand.

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

Of course you meant to ask, "why did they concentrate the conclusions of their study on this one spring." The answer: because the combination of factors over the spring of 2011, which included a particular day in May that is an example of that springtime trend, gives a good example of the overall trend. Of course, the say that in the article, if you would take the time to READ IT!

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?

Different era, different causes. And it was warming then too, it just wasn't generally recognized.

The human induced change to Lake Erie in the '60s and '70s was phosphates in laundry detergents.

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.

Dispersal by current depends largely on the area of the bloom. Nature's huge ocean blooms stick around for weeks or even months. But huge blooms would be risky to start with, so practicing on an already-blooming lake would be a sensible start.

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. Again an already-blooming lake would be a good place to start.

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.

Blooms tend to decrease oxygen content in the water (dead algae unergo bacterial decay which consumes oxygen).
Even if edible to fish, fish won't survive in the vicinity of a bloom.

Causing a bloom is really not a good idea if you want to keep an evene remotely stable/varied ecosystem alive in the lake.