Opinion: Lake clarity needs to be reported in real time
To the community,
On Sept. 30, Tahoe Pipe Club completed its final summer 2012 Lake Tahoe clarity measurement. During summer 2012 (June through September) the average clarity of Lake Tahoe was equal to 59.7 feet and represented an 8 foot improvement in summer clarity compared to the 2011 average as reported by the Tahoe Environmental Research Center.
Tahoe Pipe Club would like real time publication of all official clarity measurements. Real time publication will improve the public’s understanding of the fluctuations in lake clarity and help to improve our understanding of the processes which impact clarity.
Processes such as snowfall, snow melt, boating, rain, lake mixing and drought.
The current delay in releasing the official record and withholding monthly results deprives the public of gaining an understanding of how these processes can be better managed to improve clarity.
To learn more about Lake Tahoe and how we need to improve the management practices which are intended to save its clarity, go online.
Tahoe Pipe Club
TRPA’s new lower limits of allowed snowfall which began with last winter did the job as predicted in raising lake
clarity. Good job. The snowfall limits for winter 2012-2013 are further reduced
insuring even greater clarity for the
summer of 2013 for Lake Tahoe.
You do realize that any change in reporting will require more money for the TRPA, right?
Why wouldn’t they post the clarity each time they measure it?
“The current delay in releasing the official record and withholding monthly results deprives the public of gaining an understanding of how these processes can be better managed to improve clarity.”
No it doesn’t.
“Real time publication will improve the public’s understanding of the fluctuations in lake clarity and help to improve our understanding of the processes which impact clarity.”
No it wouldn’t.
“Why wouldn’t they post the clarity each time they measure it?”
Because a single reading is meaningless.
I don’t believe this author has any knowledge of basic statistics and how they are used in the most basic aspects of limnology.
Please don’t fall for their pseudoscience.
Hey Chuck sticking feathers up your butt doesn’t make you a chicken.
Dropping plates in the lake doesn’t make you a scientist.
Maybe you can explain to me why on your science page, you use a trend line with a linear equation when the R-squared value clearly shows that a polynomial is a better fit?
For those of you who don’t want to wait for an answer. They can’t explain that, they have no idea what I am talking about or that they did something wrong.
And why are they anonymous?
Hmmmmmm maybe because they can’t establish credibility?
Its obvious that the above commenting fish has no idea of the program, statistics or lake clarity as this individual has no idea to the impacts of lake clarity from any use whether physical or meteorilogical, nor do they care. If you can debunk a single thing on their website it may help many of the informational gaps regarding science and the program. And yet it is obvious that you have not researched anything on the website or know anything about the science based information they present. And it is science.. If you have measurements, reports or data, please lets see them. I am going to go out on limb here and say you work in the program and yet have no evidence that anything you do is working. It appears the pseudo science comments are coming from a pseudo scientist. Single measuremtns ARE meaningful which completely shows your lack of science based knowledge to the factors that affect lake clarity.
Spoken like a true insider thing fish… So the public is better served under the current system where they wait until the presidential summit in 2013 for summer 2012 clarity? And all they publish is the average?
I realize criticism of your failed program must be hard to take. But if your gonna make an omlet your gonna have to break a few eggs
“So the public is better served under the current system where they wait until the presidential summit in 2013 for summer 2012 clarity? And all they publish is the average? ”
Wow…..
I really don’t know where to start…..
a) clarity varies by month and by season
b) it takes a full year to capture that variation
c) it takes 2 points to make a line and 3 to make a (poor) prediction about any other points.
d) lake tahoe is so large that multiple measurement must be taken on the same day far away from each other to get any useful data.
That is why one measurement is meaningless. If you don’t understand that, then I don’t what to tell you or anyone who will listen to you.
I am no insider, and not part of any program.
Just a person who smells BS and points it out.
The Tahoe Pipe Club are disinformation agents who misrepresent science.
Just look at the ignorance of their spokesperson, “Chuck”.
Their summer average is based on nine measurements. Two in June. Three in July. Two in august. And two in September.
The ignorance and arrogance of your responses are truly sad thing fish. There is much that is not known and it is clear by your responses you do not have a clue either. Things will be brought to light regarding the failures and the lack of science to support anything completed to date. You are quick to point out the lack of understanding of the various contributors to this club but yet have no idea who any of these people are or what they know. It is sad and your response shows your lack of understanding and knowledge including what you think you know of statistics. The processes you speak of have explanation and without attempting to understand this you bury your head in the sand. You can’t teach a blind person to see and we can’t hold your hand to guide you. The information on the website and references are compiled from the top researchers in the industry regarding the topics they specialize in. This stuff is not made up…. You obviously have not read any of it and are on auto pilot defense mode. If you wish to contribute technical thoughts of any kind please email us and we will respond but arrogant uniformed jargon with the appearance of intelligence does not make you smart.
As far as anonymity, the information speaks for itself and it’s the technical idea presented that is the point and not how we feel about it. Our hundreds of members have influence in nearly every agency and helps this group communicate very sensitive topics without the fear of retribution from our employers. This club has not even scratched the surface and most info is held in confindence between those we trust and the club. “We cook your meals. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep.”
If you don’t like what you read then I guess that’s just to bad, but blurting out uninformed technical jargon does not make you a scientist either.
Once again I ask you, assuming that you are an insider….
Explain why you chose to use a trend line with a linear equation when a regression analysis shows that the r-squared value for the data of clarity vs. time is maximized by a polynomial equation.
And please explain to us why a single data point in one year is important to know when the value being measured is only significant on a time scale that includes all natural fluctuations, which in this case is one water year.
Thanks.
PS: I am a scientist. I read research papers for fun, I have read the ones on your website, all of them. You probably didn’t count on people doing that to check your work, but I did.
Have one of your 100s of people get back to me one that.
Or have a hand full of them check your website for scientific inaccuracies.
because this:
“As far as anonymity, the information speaks for itself and it’s the technical idea presented that is the point and not how we feel about it. ”
Is a joke. I’m taking the data you post on your website and throwing it back in your face and you can’t answer any questions about it.
You want to play science?
“You were running around in ski masks trying to play science? What did you think was going to happen?!”
Slide.
Ok you peaked my curiosity so I went to their web site. The trend line used on their 2012 data looks like a moving average not a linear equation? And no matter what or how you look at the old secchi record, clarity got worse while the lake clarity industrial complex wasted billions of dollars and was unable to improve clarity. The more monthly data points released the better and the more transparency the better. When you know what kind of money was spent, you would have to hold the secch data crooked and squint to see anything but a failed program.
Thing fish… I am a member and in the program. The use of references is the critical thing here and the building off of existing information instead of collecting new data to show what studies in other locations have already demonstrated. You present one technical item which you believe to be a flaw and are using that to attempt to undermine the technical basis of all the info provided. That in itself is just arrogant as others have already said. The majority of the information is based in knowledge of existing peer reviewed published literature as presented on the website. This is the most recent state of knowledge on the topic. If you have something to add, please let’s see it. If you have read the papers you claim then you know that what is presented at the website are conclusions drawn from the top professionals in the industry. If you have something to add please forward so Tyler can post it and a discussion can occur.
On the website I see no graph with a linear equation or trend line presented. I do see what appears to be a moving average trend line presented but the author makes no claim on what that means or the significance of the trend. It appears to be for visual purposes in optically identifying a trend not as a predictor. I don’t see a graph with and r^2 value on it, could you please elaborate on which graph you are referring to?. I am sure an answer to your question exists but at the moment your question is unclear. A polynomial equation would be used if the data were to consistently change direction and the moving average used if the data were constantly moving up and down while changing direction. The degree of the polynomial fit and the degree of directional change determine which equation to use and what this means. I don’t see claims of future Conditions but do believe that future conditions are dependent on specific variables of which the complex processes have an affect. Testing any prediction against future data is needed as if any model fails to predict Future values its utility can then be in question. However, I don’t see a model presented….
Criticizing one graph on the club website with unclear questions does not devalue the conclusions drawn from all other research from professionals in the industry cited on their website.
Lastly, a Single data point is important when the factors that influence it are driven by single uses or individual meteorological events, especially when those factors influence clarity on the time scale of days. Are you saying that measurements are meaningless.? Is your opinion worth more? If so, then what is your opinion on what will happen with lake clarity this year, but don’t use the data the club presented to draw your conclusion.
I also find it interesting you question the anonymity of this group yet fail to disclose your identity. Why is that? Do you fear repercussion from your employer or are you just a pseudo chicken stickin feathers in your rear?
Sure sounds like a bunch of government workers trying to re-direct dollars to their favorite programs.
The pipe club website, including their graph of their Secchi data, doesn’t do anything to “improve the public’s understanding of the fluctuations in lake clarity and help to improve our understanding of the processes which impact clarity. Processes such as snowfall, snow melt, boating, rain, lake mixing and drought.(sic)” In fact, I’d think the Pipe Club would ridicule their own averaging of clarity data by calender month rather than grouping the data for physical/chemical/biologic reasons.
” You present one technical item which you believe to be a flaw and are using that to attempt to undermine the technical basis of all the info provided. ”
It is flawed. Check the r-squared values of your trendline.
“On the website I see no graph with a linear equation or trend line presented.”
It is in their downloadable excel spreadsheet. You obviously haven’t been very thorough.
“Criticizing one graph on the club website with unclear questions does not devalue the conclusions drawn from all other research from professionals in the industry cited on their website. ”
I have elaborated on the misuse of the cited research papers multiple times. In some cases the cited papers don’t even mention the claim that the Pipe Club makes when citing the research paper. If this were a college level homework assignment, the work wouldn’t even be graded because it is so poor. Their work is so poor that it really isn’t a good use of my time to look into it anymore. Everyone I have show their science page to, has laughed.
” If you have read the papers you claim then you know that what is presented at the website are conclusions drawn from the top professionals in the industry. If you have something to add please forward so Tyler can post it and a discussion can occur. ”
I have read them. All of them.
And the Pipe Club misrepresented a lot of the papers. So much so that I would consider it a fraudulent misrepresentation.
And no, I won’t do someone their homework for them.
“I also find it interesting you question the anonymity of this group yet fail to disclose your identity. Why is that? Do you fear repercussion from your employer or are you just a pseudo chicken stickin feathers in your rear?”
My employer knows what I do, and they applaud it because neither of us have anything at stake or are involved in any way. If they were really interested in making a difference, or being a part of any legitimate science, they would prefer to not be anonymous and build a reputation. They aren’t even a real non profit.
Their anonymity is a cop out and a way to dodge being held accountable for their poor work. Numerous people could be using the chuck account on this site, or the other obvious clones, or their facebook page, or respond to emails. I at least am one single person using one single title. So don’t even try to question me on the subject of anonymity.
“However, I don’t see a model presented…”
I never said there was one, or you don’t understand what I meant. I was talking about statements such as ‘the clarity of lake tahoe is not getting better’. There isn’t a model needed to make that claim. But a trend line can be used. And theirs is faulty.
So, no one can tell me anything about their trend line or justify their use of a linear relationship which is integral to their claim that lake clarity has not hanged for the better?
In the recent publications I have seen have a graph of clarity vs time. And they don’t use a trend line with a linear equation, they use a polynomial. And they go on to justify their regression analysis.
The claims made by the Pipe Club regarding the rate of change of lake clarity, require that the trend line have a linear equation.
And they offer no explanation for why their regression analysis is better.
You want to play science? That’s how it works. Justify your analysis, or it is invalid.
I don’t even think they are aware that they are attempting a regression analysis….
So please enlighten us with your knowledge about river realignment….
whatever you want to call it, an equation, model, regression…bottom line lake clarity has been degraded. And watershed management in the past decades have not returned clarity to predevelopment conditions. There is support to suggest the rate of clarity loss has slowed or stopped. But no one is saying it is improving in spite of considerable investment. Even if you feel that more of the same is what is needed, there is no more funding. So let’s talk about the solutions to clarity cause same old same old is not an affordable or effective option
So no one can answer my question about your flawed data analysis?
River alignment…. I know that none of the research papers on your site support anything you say and in some cases don’t even mention what you are talking about.
You want to play science?
Consider your webpage as a research paper.
By the standards used to judge real science, your webpage would be throw out for multiple misrepresentations of science and inability to support the reasons behind your data analysis.
A graph with a trend line that doesn’t display the equation of the line or the r-squared value would be enough to get you a F in college, if it was even considered for grading.
Let’s play science.
So full of it:
“There is support to suggest the rate of clarity loss has slowed or stopped. But no one is saying it is improving in spite of considerable investment.”
You must have written the BS on stream restoration because you make the same ridiculous criticism of the work. That is, expecting solutions that address problems that took 100 years to create, to be evident in a very short amount of time.
When did the large scale BMP work start?
Pick a range of years. Now highlight those years and the ones after it on your graph. HMMMMMM.
If there is support to the claim that clarity is stabilizing, why do you continue to misinform people on your website?
You know I might actually support the general idea of your club if it weren’t for the blatant disregard and misuse of science. The notion that there are any even amateur scientists contributing to your message is laughable.
You don’t think people will notice? You thought you could pull a fast one?
Why aren’t you a 501c?
Why aren’t you affiliated with any respected organization or groups of scientists?
I know for a fact that I am not the only one who sees through the facade.
‘You haven’t been shamed like that since grade school’
Slide.
“You know I might actually support the general idea of your club if it weren’t for the blatant disregard and misuse of science. ” I agree. Instant clarity data would be neat because you could see the ebb and flow of the seasons or storms. But pretty meaningless for management.
Here is a suggestion.
Compare your list of pipes to the NHD and categorize them by their origin and/or upstream connections. Maybe the information could contribute to identifying pipes that would be possible to mitigate.
You have scientists in amongst your space monkeys, right?
You are right, that web sites does have links to numerous publications on river restoration and the papers speak for themselves. If your desire is river restoration will reduce sediment load where is the science? The link to a 2011 paper by Dr. Doyle from duke university, published in the journal of the American water resources association is an interesting read regarding sediment and river restoration. Is this one of the citations that doesn’t say anything about what the club is talking about? How long has the basin been restoring rivers to reduce sediment and where is the science? Another paper on their web site is a good summary on Tahoe basin restoration effectiveness. Just visit the airport reach of the upper trucker river if you would like to see a restoration project in action.
The nhd would be a great tool to map and prioritize the hydrologically connected urban watersheds. But no one has populated the urban outfalls. So this citizen group should be responsible for this? Because we know the connectivity used in the tmdl is not useful. If anyone gets an F it’s the urban hydrology used in the tmdl. An assumption, really.
It appears the club is pointing out the obvious which sounds like makes some people uncomfortable. No wonder they are anonymous…
Are you sure that the NHD doesn’t have urban outfalls?
I’ve seen them in other HUCs outside of this region…..
I stand by my statement that you misrepresent science. The graph on clarity over time and on river restoration are just two areas. The research you link to, does not support the thesis in your paragraphs.
It is amateur.
And you criticize the effectiveness of restoration project well before they are expected to who change and experience flood events.
They are anonymous so it is easier to them to pull one over on people.
Why no non profit status?
Why no support or affiliation from any respected groups of scientists?
I just had some time to look at the NHD data and compare it with your list of ‘pipes’. It appears that at least 1/3 of them are connected to historic stream channels. Which would not make them a BMP issue.
I don’t think the GPS coordinates listed in your table are GIS derived, the resolution on your pdf is very coarse, and it appears as if the points were just drawn on without any spatial reference. Also the coordinate system is not listed.
Not very scientific.
Please have one of your scientist monkeys get accurate points derived from a GIS and make a real map. Google Maps would be OK as long as the points you create are pretty close.