City March 9, 2010 3:27 PM

What Would the Niagara River Look Like Without an Ice Boom?

What Would the Niagara River Look Like Without an Ice Boom?
Article By Nate Drag, Great Lakes United:

As my dog and I walked on Squaw Island on a chilly afternoon last month, I was able to get an up close look at the Niagara River. At that spot, nearly twenty percent of the world's fresh surface water flows from the four upper Great Lakes, funnels together and eventually flow over the Falls and than onto Lake Ontario. With the significance of this location in mind, I considered the consequences of clogging up the point where Lake Erie meets the Niagara River with a man-made ice boom.

Last month, Great Lakes United featured a post exploring the current presence and future of the Niagara River Ice Boom. As hoped, the post stirred conversations and reflections in many people. One man in particular has been thinking about the impact of the Ice Boom for over ten years. Joe Barrett, the creator and advocate of the "Ice Boom Theory" had plenty to tell me about his ideas on the Boom, which gave me an opportunity to consider our role as a community within this remarkable Great Lakes bioregion.

The Ice Boom was designed and installed in the early 1960's to prevent large chunks of ice flowing in the River from clogging up the water intakes for the hydroelectric facilities in Niagara Falls. Despite operating for decades prior to the ice boom, the demand for increased power production deemed early efforts, such as tugboat removal of ice chunks, as too inefficient. For Barrett, the design and function of the Ice Boom straddle the line of arrogance and ignorance. "Disrupting two entire Great Lakes and the Niagara Rivers ecosystem to protect two intake tunnels has to be the biggest example of overkill since a pyramid was built to bury a king," states Barrett. Human modification of the Niagara River, however, does not begin or end with the Ice Boom. Beginning with the diversions of water for hydro power, which in turn severely affects the amount of water flowing over Niagara Falls, to the 'shutting off' of the Falls themselves in the late 60's, American and Canadian efforts to reshape, control, and conquer the Niagara River is nothing new. Is the Ice Boom just another example of this hubris?
   
If the Ice Boom is not necessary, or even damaging as Barrett claims, what negative consequences have the ecosystems and communities along the River suffered? I asked Barrett about the role ice chunks might play in shoreline replenishment or erosion. "While walking along a stream one spring, I could hear a low rumbling sound but was unable to identify it. It grew louder and seemed to surround me. Finally, around the bend came a wall of ice chunks that looked like a horizontal avalanche. An ice dam had formed and then broken up stream from where I was. What I heard was the ice grinding on the bottom of the streambed.  It came at me and I scrambled up the bank. Huge chunks of ice were pushed up on the shoreline rather evenly dispersed. It was the most amazing sight. The ice chunks were heavily embedded with gravel and sediment. The lighter organic matter was swept along in the water.  I could see that when that ice melted it would leave the solids up on the banks.  And this has been going on for thousands of years."

Barrett claims, the increased rates of erosion on Strawberry and Grand Islands are due to the lack of ice naturally replenishing gravel and sediment. "There are newly forming sand and gravel bars that extend hundreds of feet outward and downstream. That is Grand Island washing away. There is no more pushing back action by the ice. By boat, the three must see-it to believe-it areas are all around Strawberry Island, particularly down stream from it."

Strawberry-Island-Buffalo-N.jpg

Barrett also feels that the accelerated erosion of these islands is impacting the aquatic species of the River, specifically spawning areas. Barrett describes the sight of many shorelines along the Niagara. "They are covered with dead weeds and silt, unusable to any life forms.  Just past the Holiday Inn (on Grand Island) and for hundreds of yards beyond Burnt Ship creek, the entire current spawning flats are buried in 2 feet of ooze. The shoreline has receded and the beach is gone.  Everywhere along the shoreline, unless there is an artificial retaining wall, the devastation is undeniable."
      
Barrett's concepts and ideas in the Ice Boom Theory are intriguing. But are they correct? Is there any peer reviewed scientific literature or research testing these ideas developed by this citizen scientist? At the current time, this may be Barrett's biggest challenge. Barrett has contacted scientists and professionals in the field but has been frustrated by the lack of response. With the abundance of institutions of higher education in the Buffalo area, I can't think of a better project for undergraduate or grad students to explore. Perhaps alternative methods of research and evaluation should also be used to examine topics that have been previously reserved for natural and physical scientists. If, for example, there happen to be a large number of other individuals that have witnessed the same changes in the Niagara River in their lifetimes of living on, fishing, and observing the River, shouldn't the cumulative impact of these accounts also hold weight?
   
While the jury still remains out on Joe Barrett's Ice Boom Theory, and a winter walk along the Niagara River in Buffalo remains largely free of ice, the process of re-evaluating our human impact on unique ecosystems of Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Niagara River is always a worth while endeavor. Human beings have had an impact on the natural surroundings since the beginning of our existence but time has given us experience and wisdom. It has been nearly 25 years since the last major ecological and economic impact studies on the Ice Boom were done. Has the accumulated knowledge from that time period given us motive to rethink the necessity of such alterations? Has Joe Barrett's Ice Boom Theory, regardless of its validity, brought attention to an issue affecting community that is long overdue for re-evaluation?

For more on Joe Barrett's Ice Boom Theory, visit his website at the www.bantheboom.com.
View image

1 TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://www.buffalorising.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6262

Boom Days 2010 from Buffalo Rising on March 30, 2010 12:42 PM

Kicking off the city's waterfront celebrations is the uniquely Buffalo event Boom Days (April 15-17, 2010). By now we all know what the ice boom is (here's an interesting discussion), but have we all experienced, first hand, this event that marks the a... Read More

Comments

Leave a comment

Very interesting post. Educational. Thank you for the information.
Is it true though that the ice boom - and it's keeping the waters of the niagara river open in the winter - have created habitat for over wintering waterfowl and shore birds that otherwise would not occur here - or at least to the levels that we see daily?
I do however hope that the best solutions are found for the conservation and improvements to the stability and preservation of strawberry island - and Beave Island Park shore areas and wetlands for that matter. Losing that would be unfrogiveable - unless it was nature's natural destiny....?
Too many residents are unaware of the significane of our waterways and the wetlands we enjoy throughout our region. They are so crucial to the ecosystems that we all enjoy. It should be another one of those no-brainer subjects taught in our schools - like checkbook balancing (duh!), chess (duh!), music (duh!), mandatory sports/athletics (duh!), etc.. - all no brainer subjects. Math, English, Science....all important no doubt. But these others noted above help to navigate the waters/"wetlands?" of a life as well - and are used more.
Teach the children from a young age not only to appreciate the components of a valuable eco system, but also to realize those same systems we have here in WNY and how they can be a positive part of the conservation. I asked a 14 yr old member of our family recently if he knew waht compost was. Said he never heard of it - which gave me the chance to explain it actually!. I also asked him if his school has mentioned anything about sustainability - he said:
"sustain-a-what?"
Is this where the schools - not all schools I realize - are taking our kids? They should be learning about the entire Great Lakes Watersheds, our valuable natural resources beyond Niagara Falls, all the important species of plants and animals that are integral to this vast ecosystem.......as well as the incredibly unique eco system we enjoy here that people from around the world come to enjoy wherein many of our students' parents have never even seen any of these natural jewels - or know they exist - let alone share them with their kids.

PS - someone recently has asked me "why chess?" Well, good question. Chess teaches concentration; responsibility for ones own actions, no turning back from mistakes, strategy, confidence, patience, PLANNING, doing something in total silence (rare today!) and other qualities of life. Chess for all kids.
Chess is a mandatory part of a number of school's curriculums for young students across America - and it has proven very successful. And it's not an after school program either.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

no one loves the ice boom but watch one big chunk disable electrical generation in a big way and most people can't get online or nuke their dinners. i can just hear the accusations of incompetence and calls for an investigation.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There is so much bullsh*t backed up in this post, it could use it's own bowel movement.

Please do not post an article on 'scientific' theory without a single citation of evidence. It makes you, and the organization you are representing, look like complete amateurs.

While it is likely that the ice boom does cause some environmental disruption by its very presence, to ascribe every ecosystem disruption to a floating barrier is outrageous. A better post would have acknowledged the importance of the boom in protecting our sustainable energy infrastructure from environmental disruption and made engineering suggestions to mitigate adverse effects. I would suggest that a boom strung across the entire mouth of the river is overkill when we are simply trying to protect the hydropower intake canals. Perhaps, two mini booms could be installed at the mouths of these intake canals to block ice from the Moses/Beck power plants from damage, while still allowing the free flow of ice through the rest of the river.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Excellent point on mini booms near the intake canals. If that is an engineering possibility - it should seriously be considered. I am wondering if they thought of that way back when and determined it could not be done for some evident reasons - ?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm not sure.

I have no doubt that a single boom at the mouth of the river is by far the cheapest and simplest way to go about it, and thats usually reason enough.

The ice boom just aids in the natural back up of ice that occurs as Lake Erie makes a sharp left turn and heads north. Every piece of ice from here to Chicago (hi Steel!) is crowding into that little space and a natural ice bridge will form. I can imagine how engineers would think that simply adding and taming this process wouldn't cause serious harm.

It is possible that a better solution is available, but to ascribe every environmental problem in a water system as impacted as the Great Lakes to a floating boom is simplistic. To trumpet that view as scientific, without a single citation, is dishonest.

replied to dave majewski
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Agreed that you cite an excellent point about the minibooms (boomlettes??). Imagine that the River is a conveyor belt like those at the grocery store and your groceries are chunks of ice. Well, many stores have bumpouts at the corners by the scanners to gather your items towards the scanner area and away from the edges. Since the intakes are at the edges, couldn't these mini-booms funnel the ice away from the intakes and toward the middle of the river? Perhaps they could even be permanent.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

ReginaldQMerriweathIV,

I don't think the point of the article was to advocate for one position or another, and I don't think at any point the article or Great Lakes United endorses Mr Barrett's Theory. Furthermore, it clearly states that the lack of scientific evidence supporting or disproving the 'theory' is the biggest challenge (from the seventh paragraph: "Is there any peer reviewed scientific literature or research testing these ideas developed by this citizen scientist? At the current time, this may be Barrett's biggest challenge.")

Additionally, if you think that the ecological problems listed in this article represent, as you say, "every environmental problem in a water system as impacted as the Great Lakes" than perhaps you are being simplistic and amateur. Erosion and destruction of spawning are serious problems but there are countless environmental problems that were not listed in this article and have no possible connection with ice control structures. And I don't the article attempts to claim that these other problems (toxic contaminated sediments, combined sewer overflows, lowering lake levels, aquatic invasive species, etc) do.

One thing that the article was very successful in doing, I would say, was stimulating conversation about about alternatives to the existing boom that protect carbon free hydroelectric power production as well as minimize the ecological impacts the boom may or may not have on Lake Erie, the Niagara, and the islands in the River. Your ideas about mini-booms, bommiettes, etc are intriguing and I hope that this forum has helped stir some ideas about their possibility.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nate,

Thanks for taking the time to address this.

You say your point of the article wasn't to advocate for one position or another, yet, by dedicating the majority of the article to one side, you have already defined the lens through which your post is read. The fact that position is not based upon any evidence whatsoever is disrespectful to your readers. The fact that you fail to address the lack of scientific evidence until the SEVENTH paragraph shows just how weak this 'theory' truly is. You are, in this case, the intelligent designer suggesting he is merely 'teaching the controversy' when really you're just peddling a lot of nonsense.

There are numerous and significant environmental problems regarding the Great Lakes watershed. The ice boom is not one of them. Focus on something real.

And to answer your question: "If, for example, there happen to be a large number of other individuals that have witnessed the same changes in the Niagara River in their lifetimes of living on, fishing, and observing the River, shouldn't the cumulative impact of these accounts also hold weight?"

No, it doesn't hold weight. Human beings are notoriously unreliable when it comes to judging changes in ecosystems over time. Such observations might be cause to begin serious study, but they are not proof in and of themselves and to draw conclusions from uncontrolled observed events is disrespectful of people who do real scientific research.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Reg,
As the individual of scientific and rational thought that you are, where is your evidence for the claim that 'human beings are notoriously unreliable when it comes to judging changes in ecosystems over time'? To me, that sounds like an assumption and generalization based upon your personal opinion about the ability of individuals to have a significant relationship with their natural surroundings. There are numerous articles about what is known as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), that show evidence that individuals can have a deep understanding of their surrounding natural ecosystems without an in depth understanding of mainstream Western Science. One of which, Peter M. Chapman’s “Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and scientific weight of evidence determinations” (Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 54, Issue 12, December 2007, Pages 1839-1840) included the following chart:

TEK and environmental science – differences and similarities

TEK Environmental science
Differences
Qualitative Quantitative (e.g., statistical)
Intuitive Analytical
Holistic Reductionist
Oral Written
Humans part of the environment Humans distinct from the environment
A way of life Compartmentalized knowledge (data generated (data generated by resource users) by specialists)

Similarities
Dynamic, evolving over time

While TEK predominantly refers to indigenous individuals in a specific ecosystem and I'm not maintaining that all residents along the Niagara River in both the US and Canada, (or Mr Barrett for that matter) may definitely hold this knowledge, but dismissing the fact that a collection of observations by individuals that have lived in an environment for generations as irrelevant is the type of condensing approach that has alienated many communities and concentrated the power over decisions of this matter in the hands of too few individuals that think far too similarly. I am not saying that this collection of observations is a total substitute for peer reviewed scientific research but it surely should be accepted as valid, complementary to science, and warrant further investigation. And that is what 'holding weight' was meant to mean.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This is no Traditional Ecological Knowledge. This isn't a tribe of persons who have been living from and with the water. These aren't change that has been noted, discussed and passed down through the generations.

And yes, observational science is a useful tool, but is does not, not can it, substitute for the scientific method.

Is this representative of the evidence you use when advocating policy?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

No Reg, this post was not a policy recommendation piece. That's why at no point does it say 'remove the ice boom'. This post, in conjunction with the prior one on the ice boom, were simply explorations into the potential impact we are as a society and community are having on the surrounding ecosystems and the possibilities of alternatives to these impacts. Thanks.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hello everyone, sorry it took so long for me to join in. I hope that you have visited the site to get the whole story. Nate has done an excellent job of bringing topic into light. Space forbids him from going into the detail necessary to please some of you. I have used the scientific method. At every step and on each of the 4 major issues listed in my site. If some one has the time and ability to look it up, there is a saying about the 4 steps in scientific theory. You would enjoy it. I'd say RQMIV is clearly on step 1. I am used to that. This is a huge shift in thinking and people can have a hard time accepting the truth when it goes against there beliefs. If you look at every major advance in science, there are always vocal skeptics. I am absolutely certain about this. Soon it will be obvious to everyone. Hopefully they assist in policy change and we can correct this terrible mistake. Let me know when you read my site Reggie, cover to cover, and then see if you can offer one observation that would be considered supporting evidence. To date I have not been able to find one person (scientist) that has been able to discredit even one of my conclusions.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Joe,

As to your suggestion that I read your website, I have. No where in any one of your 4 'exhaustively researched' sections do you cite any data or hard evidence. You don't even make mention of having collected any.

The 4 steps of the scientific process are:
-Observe natural phenomena (you've done this)
-Formulate theory (you've done this)
-TEST HYPOTHESIS VIA EXPERIMENT (you have offered no evidence of this)
-Establish theory based on repeated validation of results. (You've never conducted an experiment, so there's nothing to repeat)

You're on step 2.

As for conclusions that you have drawn that aren't supported by evidence, here you go:
-in your 'detail information' section about Lake Erie, you comment that it is possible that do to the ice boom (quote) "We may be losing 30 days out of 120 for a 25% loss [of growing season.]" (end quote)

-Data from the NOAA stats that since the implementation of the ice boom in 1964, spring weather conditions (when the lake water reaches 34 degrees) have been arriving, on average, 1 day sooner then in the 40 years before the ice boom was installed.

Citation: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/iceboom/iceboom2009.html

You also attribute the hypoxic events of Lake Erie to the ice. Accepted scientific research has focused on agricultural inputs (nitrogen, phosphorous) as the main causes of hypoxic events in waterways worldwide, not just in Lake Erie. Yes, the botulism blooms can occur in the shadow of hypoxia, but again, that is due to agricultural runoff, and not the great theory of ice.

Citation: http://www.wri.org/project/water-quality

Those are just two of the many issues facing the Niagara waterways that you have mistakenly, and without evidence, ascribed to the ice boom.

The onus is never on a scientist to disprove a theory. Almost every theory ever suggested has been disproved by the scientific theory. If you want this to be taken seriously, describe an experiment, define your variable, take copious measurements and notes, then publish your results and wait until someone confirms your conclusions with experiments of their own.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Reggie, that was not the 4 steps I was talking about. I'll paraphrase them. 1. That's absolutely ridiculous, Impossible! 2 This is amusing but has no merit.3 Some interesting points but of no use. 4 I always said so. This comical analogy has played out over centuries. My case is no different. I will address some of your points. Steps 3 and 4 are complete. For me to know and you to find out. My web site is written to be understood by common sense readers. Not battle N.Y.P.A. lawyers in court. The growing season fueled by the sun, is most certainly cut short. NOAA does not monitor photosynthesis. The effect on Lake Erie and it's ecosystem is my concern. Your reading comprehension has failed you. The hypoxic events are caused by the vast amounts of decaying matter that are accumulating in the lake. Detritus is there because it is no longer removed annually. You are not to considering that the ice has been doing its' thing for 12,000 years and is suddenly stopped. Whether you believe in evolution or not, you'd have to agree that nature must have adapted to this cycle. I do not say that it is caused by the ice. It is caused by the lack of movement of the ice. On your last note, It is interesting that you should bring that up. The public was put in the position (years ago) of having to prove that the ice boom would do harm. The limits of science made people only think of themselves. N.Y.P.A. should have proved they wouldn't harm anything. Instead we had to prove they did. It was a role reversal by today's standards. My work has been called counter intuitive. If you think about it, there is no better explanation than what nature intended. JBB

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm sorry, Joe. I obviously do lack reading comprehension. I thought you were referring to the actual scientific process, and not your anecdotal 'stages of grief' scientific process. My bad, I forgot the intellect I was dealing with.

As for your assertion about your collected evidence:

"Steps 3 and 4 are complete. For me to know and you to find out."

all I have to say to that is, prove it. Data is meant to be shared and poured over. If you want to advance your theory, then you need to back it up with quantitative evidence.

put up or shut up.

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

GOOD GRIEF!!! One need read no further than Barret's site's explanation of the freezing process to recognize that he's truly "out of his element."

You might better publish the scientific reasons for the Salem witch trials. This guy's theories are not worth the ink they're printed in.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hear, hear, Reginald Q!
Barrett's "scientific reasoning" is actually a hodgepodge of his IDEAS. Ideas may be right, they may be wrong, but Barrett presents little to SCIENTIFICALLY support his.

The following are not ideas, but facts.

1) A natural ice arch has formed at the mouth of Lake Erie for millennia, if winters were cold enough (and they usually were). The boom was placed at the natural location of that arch.

2) For the same millennia, the Niagara River has borne ice from broken ice dams at the Lake mouth, shore ice formed in the river, frazil ice and anchor ice also formed in the river, free flowing lake ice after windstorms, etc.

This next is opinion: Barrett's "scientific evidence" presents nothing to conclude that a "natural" ice regime would be better or worse for the river environment than the current use of the ice boom. It can also be said that no change in a river regime, however good for one element, benefits all elements, natural and cultural, of a river's ecosystem.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Thank you for your interest. You need to keep thinking boys. You'll get there. This is a big process. It covers 2 Great Lakes and an entire year. A cyclic (annual) ritual that has gone on for thousands of years. Reggie, you were given an assignment. Have you thought of 1 thing that would support my position? Do you know the difference between hypothesis and theory? Hydrologist, read it 2 more times. Then read all the links to news stories. When you are ready to apologize and play nice I'll let you help. jbb

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Rather than banter with you, I'll answer questions. If you have a specific question, ask. What would you like to know? jbb

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'll take your bait.

Here are my questions:
-Have you conducted an experiment testing your theory?
-What element of river dynamics did it focus on?
-How did you design your experiment?
-What was your independent variable?
-What were your control variables?
-What data did you collect and how did you collect it.
-How did you analyze this data?
-Have you shown these experiments to anyone else?
-Do the conclusions you draw 'make sense' in light of the experiment you just conducted?

To put it another way, I'd like to see your methodology, results and follow up discussion. Then, you can slap an introduction and conclusion on that sucker, get it peer-reviewed and published (double-blind editing process, no doubt).

Good luck!

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Reggie, Yes, I've done all that. Standard procedure. I was thinking 1 question at a time. Your 9 questions would apply to each of my 4 sub-theories to 36 questions. I have hundreds of pages of notes and observations. Just give me 1 carefully worded, specific question. you still haven't offered me the 1 thing I asked for. I'd really like to see if you can think in 2 directions or you have your mind made up. jbb

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes...each of those questions does apply to every single aspect of every subtopic in every category of your 'theory'. That is the point of the scientific process.

All I want you to do is describe ONE of your experiments. Name your control variables, name your independent variable.

and, no, I cannot find a single part of your 'theory' that better explains your observations than current accepted scientific theory. Because your theory is stupid. Not 'counter-intuitive,' just f*cking stupid.

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

RQMIV, I can only imagine what it must have been like for you growing up. Everyone picking on you because of your name. Now you're frustrated as a science critic. Your reading comprehension has you at a disadvantage. you can't give me one piece of supporting evidence due to ego, lack of aptitude, arrogance or just the inability to finish a simple assignment. You will eventually get it. Stick with it. However, I can't forgive the "potty mouth" You are excused. Go stand in the hall. I do appreciate your stopping by. Come see me lecture sometime. jbb

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Just provide me with one citation to back up any part of your theory. Just 1.

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This comment makes me sad. Is there a *single piece* of infrastructure that the Buffalo Rising and Artvoice crowd would like to keep around? I have a feeling that if you could get away with it, you'd demolish the HSBC Building, bury the thruway, knock down the Peace Bridge, seal shut the power project intakes, and close the Welland Canal. This economic masochism must stop!

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Ok Reggie, you have suffered enough. Go to kempema@uwyo.edu and watch the videos. There's a really good 1. jbb

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Thank you, Joe.

2 days later and you have finally provided a reference (not a citation, but I can work with it). Unfortunately, the site you have provided focuses on ice/sediment interactions.

Your theory focuses on the Ice Boom in and of itself and the damage it's presence does to the Niagara Watershed. The Ice Boom is there to enhance the ice bridge that forms naturally. All evidence that I provided seems to suggest that the difference between the Ice bridge with the boom and the ice bridge without the boom is marginal at best. What evidence do you have that the natural formation of an ice bridge is being hijacked by the ice boom?

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

2 glorious days later. The sportsman's show is in town. The ice boom itself is not the problem, it is the delay in ice out movement that it causes. Ice Boom Theory is the catch all title I have given my work. Originally it was called The Consequences of Inhibited Ice Flow. Mouth Full? yeah. Yes a natural ice arch forms, but when? not as quickly as with the ice boom. The ice arch also collapses, but again when? Sooner than with the ice boom. Also with a lot more ice behind it. Currently the ice boom is removed when there is 250 square miles of ice left on Erie. Out of nearly 10,000 square miles. Not enough. I do not need a citation to prove that the actual seasonal changes are being toyed with. I am glad you could "work" with the video provided. It was not available to me as I developed my hypothesis. I had to go out and see that for myself. That work only verifies what I have put forth. Control experiment? It is a scale independent process. Perhaps you will agree that it is likely a lot of ice would pass from Erie before an arch forms. So if even a little more leaves in the start of winter and a little more leaves in spring, that is a difference. I clearly state in my web site my work is far from complete, only that I have laid a solid foundation and framework. Where your and the public's energy should be directed is at the criminally rigged re licensing process and the largess that is being paid to those unaffected by the fallout. JBB

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Your original title, more accurately, is the MARGINAL consequences of inhibited ice flow. More of a mouthful, but also more descriptive of what you are trying to say.

"Currently the ice boom is removed when there is 250 square miles of ice left on Erie. Out of nearly 10,000 square miles. Not enough."

-Do you have proof (citation) that this is "not enough," or do think that asserting it as fact is enough to make it 'science'?

I do not need a citation to prove that the actual seasonal changes are being toyed with.

-Since you don't need proof of your scientific theory, what does seasonal change mean? Is Richard Kessel preventing winter from coming? Is Brian Higgins colluding to speed up summer? Or are you parroting the false idea that the ice boom 'delays spring'? Because had you referenced my previous citation:
(http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/iceboom/iceboom2009.html since you, obviously, couldn't find a citation if your life depended on it)
you would have seen data (DATA!) that suggests that in the 40 years since the ice boom was installed the 'start date' of spring is statistically the same. That would suggest that the marginal consequences of the ice boom (in this case) are nil.

Again, that video does nothing for your 'theory,' certainly not verifying it as you claim. All it speaks to is the formation of ice under supercooled conditions.

"So if even a little more leaves in the start of winter and a little more leaves in spring, that is a difference."
-But what is the effect of that difference? Is there an effect at all? Without experimentation and data, you don't know and cannot make claims otherwise.

"I clearly state in my web site my work is far from complete, only that I have laid a solid foundation and framework."
Anyone with a background in science would disagree with this statement. With no data collected, no citations, no evidence of any kind, what so ever, there is no foundation or framework. Your evidence is your foundation.

And, finally, no, my energy is directed right where it needs to be. At people (read: YOU) who attempt to pass bullsh*t off as science. People (YOU) for whom science is not a discipline, but closer to a religion. People (YOU) who try to pass this **** off on the public due to the criminal lack of scientific understanding in the wider community. I also save my anger for the advocacy groups (Great Lakes United) who give you a public soapbox to stand on, as well as legitimacy to your ideas, again, without a single citation or collected evidence of any sort.

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

RQMIV, Thank you for saying finally. You just don't get it. You are the anal nit picker that is going to go kicking and screaming over every uncrossed "T". At some point in the very near future you will be mortified and embarrassed for the effort you've put up against me. I am the "Father" of this new and emerging science. It is the essence of multi-discipline. There are no papers or citations that discuss this. Only elements of the pieces of the process. A mathematician told me that for the wrong answer to appear in all 4 of my sub theories would be 10,000 to 1. Just like the typical selfish person, you assume when I say "season" you only think of yourself. Above the Lake. I am talking about the ecosystem's season. Under water. Arguing about not enough regarding 250 vs. 10,000 really displays your ability to understand. Have you ever owned a boat? a fishing license? been to the lake? the river? I would love to keep this going, but every now and then I just have to hold some students back. Slow learners, unable to play with others, disruptive in class. You can hold on tightly to your beliefs that everything is fine. I'd really like you to offer up a theory of your own. Try writing one. I'll wait. Don't say anything bad about GLU. They provide an open discussion of new ideas to solve existing problems. As I said in my site, you couldn't just solve one. They had to all be solved consecutively. Because it's all connected. West to East. Up stream to down stream. The food web or chain is all tied together. If you had a previous life, you no doubt argued the flatness of the earth to the rebellious round earth people. Go read my site again. All the links too. Slowly. Remember, You said "Finally" JBB over and out.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"I am the "Father" of this new and emerging science."

Of course you are.

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Joe:

Have you ever noticed that in the fall, people put snow tires on their cars, and install storm windows and doors on their houses? What happens next? IT GETS COLD AND SNOWS.

Ergo: convince Western New Yorkers to leave their snow tires off, and throw away their storm windows, and winter would never come!

See my website at www.BanTheStormWindows.com

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hydro boy, Were you hiding in the bushes all this time? Is this the best you can do? Without wit there can be no humor. You come close. Take a ride to the end of Fix Rd. on Grand Island. Walk to the shoreline and look around. Tell me what you see. JBB

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Canada?

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes, and what lives there? Canadians. And they can't be trusted to help. Even though half of the water is theirs. So it's up to me and you Reggie. Put on your thinking cap. Come up with some more supporting evidence. Now as for Hydro, that is top soil washing directly into the river. It took thousands of years to form. It sits on top of the sand, then gravel, then alluvial clay. Where's the beach? It was here just a few decades ago? hmmmmmm.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Evidence of erosion is not evidence that the Ice Boom is causing the erosion, Joe.

It's your stupid theory, Joe, stop relying on Hydro and I to find your supporting evidence.

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Ok, no more Mr. Nice Guy. I was extending an olive branch to the morons in the audience. When someones brain is as frozen as yours, so unable to ever conceive the possibility that there is an answer other than your own, I have to pull the plug. Your brain is in a deep coma. It's never going to make it. None of your friends care because you were annoying anyhow. The doctors, the nurses, your teachers, myself and your dog all agree. Pull the plug. Let that quivering jelly glob die. It wasn't good for anything. you should know that your words will live on in the ever lasting cyber world. People will study the mind of ReginaldQMerriweatherIV. Small children will ask their parents "Were there really people this stupid Mommy?" or "Daddy, How did Mr. Barrett ever overcome the enormous stupidity of people like Reggie?" They'll answer "It was hard, but science was on his side and he cared enough to keep going. Even in the face of irritating half wits that couldn't comprehend simple analogies, Joe kept on going." I especially like the part when you call my theory stupid. Coming from you, it really is funny. I think I'll have an electrician remove the socket from the wall and plaster over the hole. Just to be sure. jbb

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Joey,

I now realize that you are, indeed, the second coming of Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Gell-Mann all rolled into one.

Since science is, undoubtably, on your side, please cite some.

Thanks,

The moron in the audience.

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I would list it differently, Archimedes, Bacon, Barrett, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, Gell-Mann, Hutton, Newton, and Pascal. Respecting the alphabet. Thank you.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Except they all knew how to conduct an experiment.

A better list for you to join:

Bobo, The Joker, Krusty, Ronald McDonald, Shakes and Yorick.

Like you, they are well-known clowns.

BTW,
Have you found any citations backing up your theory? Any at all?

replied to joe barrett
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You've had all weekend, Joey.

Cite now, or forever hold your peace.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Seems man has learned little from the indigenous American Indian, that you live around what nature has provided. Instead; man wants to rearrange Mother natures cupboard and usually has negative affects [ex: everglades]. Mr. Barrett seems to have respect for our enviroment and I believe his analogy has validity.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll