Lake Powell Up 70 Feet Since Gavin Declared It Dead

Real Climate’s Gavin declared global warming poster child Lake Powell dead as of 2004.

Since then, it has gained almost 70 feet in elevation – with year over year increases during every year except 2010..

Here is what it looks like this morning. Notice the clean coal-fired power plant in the background.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Lake Powell Up 70 Feet Since Gavin Declared It Dead

  1. chris y says:

    This dramatic anthropogenic climate change flooding of 10 feet/year is not unprecedented for the ‘Lake’ Powell region.

    From 1963 until 1974, the same region experienced anthropogenic flooding of almost 22 feet/year.

  2. If it rises, it’s global warming.
    If it falls, it’s global warming.
    And if it stays the same?
    Why global warming, of course.

  3. Traitor in Chief says:

    The remarkable thing this year is how much snow still remains to melt. Thru August, Powell should continue to fill. And some of the snowpack may not melt at all. Isn’t that what causes Glaciers? 🙂

  4. P Gosselin says:

    Let’s hope Gavin keeps making predictions.

  5. Andy WeissDC says:

    It’s all a result of global weirding, jet stream disruption and the new normal. We are all going to die!!

  6. David Appell says:

    What exactly did Gavin Schmidt write? Can you provide a quote, with context? And a link?

    • He wrote a book called “Climate Change – picturing the science” and featured Lake Powell on the cover as evidence of global warming. Feel free to purchase the book and support your favorite cause.

  7. David Appell says:

    Again, what exactly did Schmidt write? Where is your quote? A link?

    Climate change isn’t my “cause.” I’m not an activist. I’m a reporter who tries to present the best science journalism I can.

    • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

      Then start investigating what you are writing about rather than repeating the party line. You act as if you are not really familiar with the GAV and any one with a half interest in the doings of the Chicken Little Brigade are acquainted with the GAV and his boss Big Jim Hansen along with the web site “Surreal Climate”.
      To see what the GAV wrote just visit
      Those of you without a strong stomach, I do not recommend that site and only offered our visitor a link to what he is not familiar with, per his claim!
      I am shocked that a person who claims to write about science does not appear to understand science!

      • David Appell says:

        i understand the science pretty well. I’ve been following it and writing about it for about 10 yrs. I started out a skeptic, in the late ’90s, and there are still a few links to my skeptical comments back then. But I didn’t know much then. Then I started to study the subject in detail and I’ve continued that since. I’ve investigated lots of skeptic/denialist claims, and have always found them wanting. I’ve done the same with pro-AGW claims, and found them convincing.

      • P.J. says:


        I went the other way. I believed in AGW when all I did was listen to the MSM. Once I did some serious research, I was shocked at how thin the “evidence” is for AGW … not to mention how often warmists make hysterical claims about hurricanes, sea level rise, catastrophic temperature rise, etc., based on computer models, and so many scenarios predicated by the word “if”. When I was in high school, the line was that most of our forests were doomed due to acid rain. Then people started talking about global warming and the acid rain issue disappeared. Why? Did we all of a sudden solve it? Or was it nothing more than fear mongering based on junk science that has now been replaced by AGW, which is simply another dead horse to flog? If you find the AGW arguments that convincing, I have some snake oil to sell you.

    • P.J. says:

      “I’m not an activist”

      You sure sound like one.

    • Dave N says:

      “I’m a reporter who tries to present the best science journalism I can”

      Given your subsequent replies, you can’t be doing a very good job. Sadly that’s the case for most science journalists reporting on “climate change”.

      Having said that, you could do worse than hang out here, since Steve makes many posts about information that most science journalists miss, or would rather not repeat, since it doesn’t fit in with their publisher’s agenda.

    • Russell C says:

      “…I’m not an activist. I’m a reporter who tries to present the best science journalism I can…

      Welcome to David Appell. Appearance problems arise with your statement above, though. According to your July 15, 2010 blog ( ), you say “I was once a skeptic about man-caused climate change…. I started to read a lot of books. I read The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan… [and now] The scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has been proven to the extent it needs to be — i.e. that society needs to take it very, very seriously and that it ought to change its methods of energy production.

      Since my narrow focus research is all about the origins of the accusation that skeptic scientists are corrupt (click on my name above for more on that), I’m wondering if you discount such scientists out-of-hand based on what Gelbspan said about them – and if so, whether you are the least bit troubled that the main piece of evidence Gelbspan (and Al Gore, as seen just before the 1 hr 13 min point of his movie) relies on is a 1991 coal industry that no accuser ever shows in its complete context.

      As a reporter presenting the best journalism, wouldn’t that be a red flag worthy of serious investigation?

  8. Russell C says:

    Oops, left out an important word… “is a 1991 coal industry memo…”

    • Russell C says:

      Forgive me for borrowing a phrase made famous but the late Peter Falk, but with regard to David Appell’s ‘presenting the best science journalism’… “Uh sir, I don’t mean to bother you, but there just one more thing…”

      David, in your review of Ross Gelbspan’s 2004 Boiling Point book, you do seem rather enamored with his work ( ), but off to the right side of your page there, it does say “Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.

      Would it be accurate to say you made the effort to ask too many questions about his accusation that skeptic scientists were ‘paid under the table’ by fossil fuel industry executives to ‘reposition global warming as theory rather than fact’? Gelbspan has used those exact words, you see. Did you ever question the veracity of his accusation?

  9. Mark Whitney says:

    I was just there last week. It was rising about six inches per day and wee still have a lot of snowpack. Poor Gavin.

  10. randydutton says:

    We in the Northwest are STILL waiting for summer. NOAA had predicted a warmer, drier summer than average, and after the colder wetter spring, with record 200% snowpack, we were hoping. Alas, NOAA was VERY WRONG. Its in the 60s degrees and wet most of the past week, and predicted with more of the same. There is so much water in the Snake and Columbia Rivers that the very expensive, and taxpayer subsidized, wind turbines are being turned off because of the bountiful and cheap hydro power supply.

    The debate isn’t whether climate changes. It is whether mankind has any SIGNIFICANT impact on it one way or another. Currently, progressive policies are making it WORSE. Progressives are using dwindling taxpayer money to subsidize the growing of food for fuel that not only increases irrigation (water vapor), fertilizer (N2O from fertilizer is 296X worse than CO2), pesticide, herbicide, nitrate runoff into ocean deadzones, corrosion and destruction of engine components from ethanol, increased ozone emissions from ethanol, increased pollution from destroyed catalytic converters (acknowledged by car manufacturers and EPA), and increased pollution from inefficiently running engines not designed for ethanol.

  11. randydutton says:

    Questions for journalists to ask:
    1. Is it better for the planet for America to sell China extremely low-sulfur coal or to let them continue to burn their high sulfur coal? If yes, then why are journalists asking why Clinton really blocked the export of the world’s best clean coal supply at Staircase Escalante? And why isn’t the decision being reversed? China emits 40 billion pounds of non-CO2 aerosol pollutants per year (NASA 2003 data). Would it not benefit us to reduce the pollution by selling them cleaner fuel?

    2. Progressives put use of biomass from national forests off limits in the 2007 Energy Act. Doesn’t a unit of wood left to rot produce more total global warming effect than the same unit of wood burned? Rotting wood generates considerably more methane (28X worse than CO2) than does burning. I’ve asked numerous federal agencies, universities, and researchers, and NOBODY has considered that question or done a study on it. WHY?

    3. Why don’t journalists consider the toxic pollution created by mining and refining the key ingredients for many ‘green’ technologies? Rare earth elements (REE) are 97% monopolized by China and the manner in which China mines and refines REEs is extremely toxic – releasing vast quantities of radioactive thorium into the Yellow River, and thus the Pacific. WHY aren’t journalists covering that?

    I want to know why journalists don’t consider the issues that Progressives doe’t want raised. The cure for the problem is WORSE than the problem – if the problem even exists.

  12. randydutton says:

    This was meant to read “If yes, then why aren’t journalists asking why Clinton really blocked the export of the world’s best clean coal supply at Staircase Escalante?”

  13. Wesley Sugai says:

    Dave, I respect your views of AGW but may I have you check out these C02 numbers?
    Man produces 27 billion tons of C02/year…but what is rarely reported is the denominator in the equation. Our atmosphere has 3,600 billion tons of C02, so the 27/3,600 x 100= 0.75% of all C02 is man made….three fourths of 1% is man made. The greatest greenhouse gas is water vapor…up to 90% of all global warming is due to H20, including cloud effects. The other gases are CH4, S02, SF6, NOx, 03, CFCs, and C02….which is responsible for only an estimated 9-26% of that 10%, or roughly 2 points out of that 10%…..all 3,600 billion tons of C02 accounts only 2% of all greenhouse gas effects. And man’s 27 billion tons contribution…..seems so small. But as we are only 10,000 years or so of getting out of the last 100,000 year ice age, I expect the earth to warm up. I also expect poikilotherms’ metabolism to accelerate, increasing C02.

    And I live on the slopes of Mauna Loa/Hualalai mountains, not far from the NOAA observatory(MLO) where the Keeling curve was created. Its at the 9000 ft elevation and just below it, at the 4000 ft level is the most active volcano, Kilauea. Inversion layers have regularly caused the C02 measurements to shoot off the charts. Kilauea has been erupting nonstop since 1983, and Mauna Loa has has major eruptions too….

Leave a Reply