Slashdot Mirror
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."
On the other hand, it's great that we'll all be living by the seaside with lovely warm weather. Seriously, it's so easy for people to become complacent, thinking the warmer weather's going to be lovely, and who cares if the beach moves a little closer to the fish and chips shop? Perhaps it's time to change the message to: "Just a half a degree change means that all your food will be laced with horrible poisins and chemicals and millions of less fortunate people will die" but then, so many people happily chow down on poptarts and hamburgers, and who cares what happens to a few africans? People's lack of imagination and forethought is quite frightening sometimes.
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
Not only lakes, also glaciers are drying. They even pack them in foil to protect them from melting.
Glacier wrapped in foil to stop melting
Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening. Of course it will go away if you ignore it long enough.
I am trolling
I was reading a story a few weeks ago about a lake in Russia just being sucked into a sinkhole and disappearing.
c le/2005/06/03/AR2005060301524.html
- lake04.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Russian lake disappearing into a sinkhole
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0604russia
such as total distruption of the Gulf stream causing ice caps to form across most of Europe.
:-(
Well, for US global warming deniers, that solves two big problems: sea levels won't rise because the ice sheets will just move from the antarctic to Europe, and "old Europe" will be too busy shoveling snow to still interfere in US world domination.
Maybe that's Bush's secret master plan after all...
Now -- excepting your regurgitation of received opinion -- where's your data?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I'm also waiting for the flood of global warming denial posts from people who have managed to see what all those foolish climatologists have missed - it would mean SUVs are a bad thing so cannot possible be true.
:-
c ience/
We have a similarly inspired great thinker here in Britain by the name of David Bellamy. He was a sort cuddly beardy bloke who used be on tv a lot in the 70s and 80s hiding in bushes and getting excited about birds.
Up until last year he was a well respected environmentalist having set up half a dozen environmental organisations and been invited to the board of half a dozen others. But he has a weakness.
He likes birds.
A lot.
His logic when it comes to global warming seems to be.
Global warming = must use less fossil fuel
less fossil fuel = more renewable energy
more renewable energy = more wind farms
more wind farms = more birds killed by turbines
dead birds = bad thing
Therefore global warming does not exist. QED.
So figuring that his credentials as a ornithologist made him fully qualified to dismiss any arguments put forward to the contrary by people who'd merely studied climatology he wrote piece denying global warming for the Daily Mail that was based on a load of psuedo science he'd found on random web sites.
George Monbiot did quite a nice job of demolishing him here
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-s
If you manage to find a copy of the debate that Channel 4 news ran between George and David it's well worth seeing.
Never trust anyone with an id greater than 889388
More important is the temperature anomaly (which is global and indisputable), the effects it is causing, such as El Nino and the slowing of the Gulf Stream (not to mention the increasingly weird weather here in Britain), and the likely effects if it continues, such as total distruption of the Gulf stream causing ice caps to form across most of Europe.
ENSO -- the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, is probably a natural, long term feature of the current climate equillibrium and has been for probably hundreds of years if not longer. So, while it is associated with anamolous weather, the occasional appearance of anamolies is normal.
Evidence has to be weighed in the context of other evidence and a reasonable linking them. The theory of anthropogenic effects on climate stability is twice removed from any kind of measurable parameter: first the proposition of climate change has to be established (at this point the preponderance of evidence), next the link from that to human activities must be established. The theory has, in a sense, fared well thus far, in the first phase. The second phase is a still ahead, I think.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Did you actually read some of those links ?
From this link:
What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.
Hardly seems a considered scientific opinion to me. You may, of course, think differently.
And considering this link:
Try reading something about the person who wrote it, in his own words, on the same site, here:
My esteem for my peers became replaced by contempt, and planted the seed of suspicion in my mind that my whole community was of the same calibre foolish cowards. A notion that experience rarely confounded but often confirmed, so insensibly I became a social exile. This was just as well, for in a declining community any citizen who retains respect for the truth must become alienated from the majority of his fellow citizens because they hate the truth.
Is this really the sort of considered scientific opinion you consider valuable ?
The claims of a round earth are nothing more that a main stream media hype of one guys opinion to try to invoke fear in the general population.
Anyone can single out and focus on one area of the planet and come to a conclusion that would sound devastating if it really did apply to the whole planet.
Why is this interglacial anthropogenic when it's on the same cycle as the previous 9 interglacials?
That's easy: the rate of change. It may be the same or similar cycle but it's not the same rate of change. It's accelerated change (I believe without precedent) that directly correlates with the CO2 build up in the atmosphere.
My point wasn't to say that humans aren't causing climate change. I believe they are, too. There is, however, quite a bit of uncertainty about how much of an effect human activities have on the climate. There's a lot of reports coming out of imminent doom because of "global warming," and that's what I'm arguing against.
There's a lot of possible effects of global climate change due to an increased greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect works because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and radiates it out. Some of this radiation is radiated back toward the surface. There are many other greenhouse gases in play, too. Carbon dioxide isn't a particularly potent greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. The reason a big deal is made about carbon dioxide, however, is because it has a much longer residency time in the atmosphere than water vapor. A warmer Earth due to an increased greenhouse effect may, however, lead to greater evaporation and a greater amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is one concern that's worth mentioning.
It's probably incorrect to refer to this form of global climate change as global warming. What it is doing, instead, is unmoderating the Earth's climate.
It's a fact that the north atlantic drift is slowing. That's an ocean current that is a branch of the gulf stream. This current keeps the British Isles warmer than they would otherwise be for the latitude they are at. It is believed that the melting of some of the ice caps will release large amounts of fresh water into the ocean, changing its composition, and slowing or cutting off the north atlantic drift. This means that instead of warming, that part of Europe will become cooler.
On the other hand, many people believe (with some uncertainty here) that the center of some continents will become drier. I live on the central plains of the USA, which is already arid. Should climate change occur quickly, it may have a significant effect on agriculture in this part of the USA.
My two points here, and in my previous comment, were not to say global climate change isn't occuring or that humans aren't causing some of it. My point was to say that the rate of climate change caused by human activity isn't really known and to refer to the climate change as "global warming" isn't really correct.