Wacka Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 All the Great Lakes are getting shallower. Not because of global warming, but because the land is still rebounding from the weight of the glaciers from the ice age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) All the Great Lakes are getting shallower. Not because of global warming, but because the land is still rebounding from the weight of the glaciers from the ice age. I thought it was the water draining out? Causing the ground to "rebound." The elevation of TOR is getting higher. Ontario (Lake) is static because it is controlled out the St. Law at the structures there. Superior is controlled too at the Soo. Dredging on the St. Clair (@ Detroit) has made it possible for about 20+ (that is drop in water elevation) inches of water to never be recovered out of Huron and Michigan... Dredging in in the 1850's, 1900, 1933, and 1960s. They claim it slowed down when the Corps went below hard material (1960's Seaway dredging to 27' project depth) and silt started blocking the head of the St. Clair? Anyway, there is dispute... Many in Michigan like the lakes low (more property) and many in Georgian Bay hate it. Detroit is the only area that goes unchecked. Why? Power production at the Falls. If they close the Welland Diversion (canal) down.... Lake Erie will raise by 6"... Lake Huron by 2"... And Lake Michigan by 1"... Just by closing down that one canal. They would never build a structure at the middle lakes (@DET)... Think of @ what mercy the hydro production would be to that structure. Wintertime is lower water time @ Lake Michigan, they cut/hold water from the Soo (among other things like weather, ice, etc...). Edited March 21, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I think you missed Wackas point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I saw that on an episode of "How The Earth Was Made" on cable which explained about the Great Lakes. As the lake bottom rises, less water is in the lake, and the land is rising faster. They showed evidence that the lakes are feet shallower (since they were formed) in the upper Great Lakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 :rolleyes: Again, everything is black and white with you... Isn't it? You make Mr. Spock seem irrational. You're welcome to explain to me how someone can claim to predict what's universally considered to be a random event, and *I* have "hubris" for laughing off his hypothesis. I mean, who's hubristically claiming to have the "all-encompassing understanding of plate tectonics" here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Stop it guys your freaking me out...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 No earthquake - day 1 of the week (nor midway on day 2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I saw that on an episode of "How The Earth Was Made" on cable which explained about the Great Lakes. As the lake bottom rises, less water is in the lake, and the land is rising faster. They showed evidence that the lakes are feet shallower (since they were formed) in the upper Great Lakes. I saw that one, very interesting. I think very few people understand the northern US was under a Glacier a mere[on a geology scale] 12,000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I saw that one, very interesting. I think very few people understand the northern US was under a Glacier a mere[on a geology scale] 12,000 years ago. !@#$ing SUV's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 A 2.9 scale in Chesterfield, SC today, just read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 You do realize you contradicted yourself all over the place here, right? Moron. Speaking of misplaced hubris, here's Tom. Who's the bigger moron? The one who is open to the possibility that there are planetary forces we don't yet comprehend or the moron who thinks he knows everything? You're welcome to explain to me how someone can claim to predict what's universally considered to be a random event, and *I* have "hubris" for laughing off his hypothesis. I mean, who's hubristically claiming to have the "all-encompassing understanding of plate tectonics" here? A) I didn't hear the guy "predict" anything; simply claim that a convergence of multiple factors may signal an increased chance of activity within a certain time frame. B) It used to be universally considered that the world was flat by genius' like you who already knew everything. C) You claimed to be laughing at the clockwise graphic that the suit was referring to and insisted you didn't watch the rest. Now you're ridiculing the geologist you didn't even watch by attributing stances to him he never made as an excuse to establish your imaginary superiority. D) But yeah, you're the brilliant one and everybody else is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Gee thanks for posting this. My nerves are already on edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I saw that on an episode of "How The Earth Was Made" on cable which explained about the Great Lakes. As the lake bottom rises, less water is in the lake, and the land is rising faster. They showed evidence that the lakes are feet shallower (since they were formed) in the upper Great Lakes. Very interesting Wacka... I see your point now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Gee thanks for posting this. My nerves are already on edge. If the earthquake spares you, I'd be happy to stop by and rock your world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 If the earthquake spares you, I'd be happy to stop by and rock your world A 2.6 is hardly going to rock her world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 A 2.6 is hardly going to rock her world. You made a funny! Good job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 You made a funny! Good job Well I have lived in CA for 28 years so I do know my earthquakes. And BTW my tsunamis are unprecedented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 A 2.6 is hardly going to rock her world. Yeah, I've been through a few 5s so can you beat that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yeah, I've been through a few 5s so can you beat that? Before breakfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts