Arctic Warming Drying Up Lakes

kingofalaska writes "An accelerating Arctic warming trend over the past quarter of a century has dramatically dried up more than a thousand large lakes in Siberia probably because the permafrost beneath them has begun to thaw, according to a paper to be published the journal Science." From the article at the LA Times: "About 125 of the 1,170 shrunken lakes disappeared altogether, and most are now considerably smaller than the study's baseline of 40 hectares, or about 99 acres, the researchers found. If Arctic temperatures continue to rise, the scientists said, many of the lakes in high northern latitudes, where they are ubiquitous, could eventually disappear."

Comments

you don't know what you are talking about

[cahiha]

The short-term concerns about global warming aren't about huge absolute increases in temperature, they are about changing weather patterns. Global warming may well mean a new ice age for Europe.

As for the rise in sea levels, so far, the main consequence of global warming seems to have been increased thawing of ice around the north pole, which will not raise sea levels. A second consequence has been thawing of glaciers, with already serious consequences.

Sea levels will rise significantly when the antarctic ice sheets thaw. We have been lucky so far that increased thawing around the edges has been balanced by increased precipitation in the interior, but that won't last forever.

People like you are about as fringe and ill-informed as the people who deny that HIV exists or that HIV causes AIDS. Unfortunately, in this case, you endanger not only your own miserable life with your hostility towards science and reason, you endanger everybody's.

Re:you don't know what you are talking about

[Decaff]

In fact, but the standards of the past couple of millennia, this is quite a cool period. The early medieval period was warmer than this by some way, from about 1000-1300. In Roman times, the climate was much warmer - in fact, grapes were grown as far north as York in england. However, there was a cold snap from about 1600-1850, from which we are now recovering to much mroe historically normal levels.

No. These were not global effects. There have been local variations in climate over the past few millennia, but overall the planet has been warming over that period; fastest of all during the past century.

When people - few of whom seem to be "experts" at all but rather people with a political agenda and little knowledge of science or history - claim that we are absolutely and definitely sleepwalking into global disaster the likes of which the world has never sen before and omg it is all the fault of Mankind, it is time to get sceptical and call bullshit.

No. Sceptical does not mean calling 'bullshit'. Sceptical means saying 'I don't believe this so I will get myself educated in climatology and review the information myself'.

Re:you don't know what you are talking about

[cahiha]

When people - few of whom seem to be "experts" at all but rather people with a political agenda and little knowledge of science or history - claim that we are absolutely and definitely sleepwalking into global disaster the likes of which the world has never sen before and omg it is all the fault of Mankind, it is time to get sceptical and call bullshit.

We fully agree on that point: nobody knows "absolutely and definitely" whether there is global warming or, if it exists, whether it is due to human activity. That is just the most plausible explanation of what we are observing right now, and given the scope and magnitude of the consequence, that is enough to act decisively.

The irrational bullshit comes from people like you who demand absolute proof before acting. You prefer sticking your head in the sand until it's too late. Because, by the time we have "absolute and definite" proof, it will be too late.

Re:you don't know what you are talking about

[quarkscat]

I have to agree, entirely.

Just because there is insufficient data, and insufficient understanding of the forces at work to make the claim (absolutely and utterly) that global warming is the basis of climactic changes in Siberia and the Arctic as a whole, common sense should be a factor.

When the Dubya regime rejects the science behind global warming in order to justify rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, it is rejecting both civilian and US military studies that trend changing regional weather patterns on a global scale. This stubborn anti-science position does preserve the "status quo" for some short term political advantage, in exchange for increased liability for future generations to deal with. (Not unlike the USAs' going from a $500 Billion USD surplus in 2000 to a $2.5 Trillion USD debt in 2004.) Both the Canadian and US Navy are projecting forward the need for men and ships to patrol the open Artic seas in 10 years where there was only pack ice 10 years ago -- what's wrong with this picture?

Slightly OT, but this very same attitude has been used to justify the ramp-up in construction of nuclear power plants in the USA, as part of Dubya's "energy plan". Nuclear energy (fission) is cheap, just so long as you don't factor in the total manpower and environmental costs for the duration of the created radioactive hazards out 50,000 years. Simple math and simple minds and simple solutions -- if the total costs projected out 50,000 years cannot be calculated for dealing with highly radioactive waste, then it is (at least politically) not a factor and can be safely ignored.

Of course, many of the same politicians believe that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, which makes any projections out 50,000 years far outside their conceivable universe. IMHO, politicians that go out of their way to ignore science are far more dangerous than any "martyr strapped with explosives". Their narrowminded viewpoint effects millions of people for thousands of generations, truly walking, talking WMD.

Re:Also glaciers

[nihilogos]

even tho giving a glacier a nice shiny coat isn't gone solve the problem on the long term, it will extend the glaciers life a bit, giving those environmentalists time to find and sort out the real problem. So why the hell are they protesting it?

Because the whole idea is stupid and indicative of the developed world's approach to climate change: spend money so that rich people can still ski in Switzerland.

Enviromentalists can't sort out the real problem. Every single person on the planet has to take responsibility for it. But we won't. And we'll vote out any government that tries to make us change.

Re:This != Global warming

[Hobbled Grubs]

Wha?? what about ice core samples and data taken from other sources like trees? Judgement is being made on much more than a hundred years of data. The fact is that ice that is tens of thousands of years old is currently melting. It hasn't been this hot for tens of thousands of years.

If it has to kill us to do so then so be it.

If you want to die, fine!
I am just pissed about you killing me at the same time. It is amazing that there are people who still believe nothing is wrong.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/featu re1/