Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 222 posts

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#141

Post by dncornholio »

jamincan wrote: post #77
quietbritishjim wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because language is defined by usage, if there was a body of water that is freshwater but widely agreed to be a sea then the parent commenter is agreeing to revise their definition to match.

It seems like a no-true-scotsman problem. The examples of seas that are freshwater are dismissed as not actually seas since they're freshwater.

I thought I'd go with the same method as the article, using examples. I dismissed all the examples the article has given, and asked for better examples where we call a fresh water body a sea. I think we haven't and shouldn't. It's already confusing enough.

Call all salty water bodies seas would be fine with me. But including non salty waters will only add to the confusion.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#142

Post by GuB-42 »

cf100clunk wrote: post #139
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #16

Seas or not, I love the lakes and the land around them, in the 20+ years since I moved myself here they've taken over my heart. I'm from the aspen parkland of central Alberta; thin trees, dry air, small muddy leach-infested kettle lakes, big skies, poplar and birch land. When I was 8 we did a trip across Canada, and I remember us camping by the shores of Superior when a massive thunderstorm came rolling in, and it le…

> Canada Unlike you, the author of the AtlasObscura piece seems to have a blind spot to the other country in which almost all of the Great Lakes exist. What an appalling oversight.

As a French guy, I have always associated the Great Lakes with Canada.

I had to look it up to realize that most of it is within US borders.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#143

Post by Kon-Peki »

jblindsay wrote: post #136
bregma wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work. Would the Niagara gorge suddenly be able to increase its capacity orders of magnitude beyond its physical limits? Would the Detroit and St. Clair rivers suddenly be able to deliver an increased flow into Eerie?

Yes, that's correct, it would increase its capacity by orders of magnitude, if not temporarily. The capacity of Lake Erie to hold water is set by the elevation of its outlet, which is currently about 174 m above sea level. Niagara Falls is a knickpoint in the Niagara river, and over time knickpoints in rivers are always smoothed out. This is why Niagara Falls is eroding upstream, and we spend money each year trying t…

Perhaps the missing component in understanding this is the time frame for draining Huron/Michigan into "River Erie".

So Niagara is slowly eroding and will eventually reach a tipping point where further erosion will increase the rate of outflow from Erie. The increased outflow will increase the rate of erosion which will increase the rate of outflow, and so on. Correct?

When this is happening, the rate of outflow from Michigan/Huron via Detroit and St Claire will increase, but erosion is not necessary for this to occur?

Say we built a dam on the Detroit River that keeps Michigan/Huron at its current water level. And then Erie turns into a river. Once that transition is complete, we destroy the dam. How much time is necessary for Michigan/Huron to drain? Is the timescale days, weeks, months, years, etc?

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#144

Post by zamadatix »

lettergram wrote: post #71
godtoldmetodoit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in south west Michigan and absolutely took them for granted. After almost 5 years in Austin we decided to come back to Michigan with the birth of our first child. I missed the lakes terribly, just totally took for granted that not everywhere has fresh water surrounding them on all sides. In this climate change age, being close to so much fresh water really helps calm my nerves knowing that I am in a spot th…

> In this climate change age The Great Lakes only exist because the massive ice sheet melted and left the lakes as a deposit some 10-15,000 years ago. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few thousand years the lakes largely dissipate. That said I grew up near the lake, definitely something that’s awesome to live near

Superior was around a lot longer than that. Regardless based on the extreme water height swings since the glacial retreat water level seems to now depend more on climate and what the outlets are doing than anything to do with the melt off from the last glacial period. With humans already having much to do with both of these what will happen to them in the long run seems strictly up to our choices.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#146

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #92
lettergram wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this climate change age The Great Lakes only exist because the massive ice sheet melted and left the lakes as a deposit some 10-15,000 years ago. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few thousand years the lakes largely dissipate. That said I grew up near the lake, definitely something that’s awesome to live near

If this is true ("only b/c of melting ice sheet; will dissipate in next few thousand years") then wouldn't we expect water levels to be continuously dropping? Seems more likely that they exist because rain/meltwater makes its way to the basin and keeps them filled (irrespective of whether or not they were originally filled with meltwater from the ice sheet 15kya).

Ontario is filled to record high levels now because the inflow exceeds what is lost to the St. lawrence and evaporation.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#147

Post by RobertRoberts »

No, don't touch the definition of this water source.

This appears to be the beginnings of social dialogue to get them reclassified so that they can be used "like a sea" instead of "like a lake", and therefore pump the water out of them as fast as they can make money doing it.

I hope we all start recognizing the manipulation of society over the past decades in media. They seem to start with this approach, ask a question and make people think without realizing the end game.

Then it escalates beyond control because no one recognized the dangers from an early enough point.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#148

Post by zamadatix »

griffinkelly wrote: post #62
nemo44x wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess. I don’t miss them and always thought they were cold and smelly and didn’t make for great beaches. The weather around them is awful as well with long, bitter cold winters and summer days that are often extremely humid. You can’t really eat the fish out them either due to high levels of mercury. Additionally the land around the lakes is nice but not spectacular. At least not for North America. If I were to pla…

Chicago local here, and Lake Michigan kitesurfer and surfer. The best swells hit when in the fall and spring, so you better have a good wetsuit. That said, since getting into the sports it makes me love the lake even more. You quickly get over the temp, and just get to enjoying the water. Its also nice to not have to worry about sharks! Some of the best surfing in the area is up in Sheboygan, WI, the Malibu of the Mi…

> You quickly get over the temp, and just get to enjoying the water.

Having grown up in Michigan I'd say it's more aptly put as "if you're one that can learn to live with the temperature the water can be a lot of fun" as certainly not everyone gets over it - even of those that often enjoy the water!

Never really cared much about the lack of sharks but I will say there is something special about having that "I might as well be at the ocean" scale of water without the damn salt.

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#149

Post by [deleted] »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #85
sbradford26 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt that if you want big sandy beaches you go to Lake Michigan, somewhere like Grand Haven or Ludington.

Same lake, just around the bend. I've never been to the western shore of Huron in Michigan, so can't compare to ours in Ontario. But along ours there's some lovely sandy beaches. Erie can get pretty gross.

[deleted]

Re: Are the Great Lakes really inland seas?

#150

Post by phkahler »

GuB-42 wrote: post #142
cf100clunk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Canada Unlike you, the author of the AtlasObscura piece seems to have a blind spot to the other country in which almost all of the Great Lakes exist. What an appalling oversight.

As a French guy, I have always associated the Great Lakes with Canada. I had to look it up to realize that most of it is within US borders.

>> I had to look it up to realize that most of it is within US borders.

Not really. 4 of the lakes are on the US-Canadian border. Lake Michigan is completely within the US though.

Post reply on HN