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

Also glaciers

[SensiMillia]

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

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.

Lakes drying up

[Anonymous Coward]

This must be a serious blow for the Siberian Tourist Board.

It goes in cylces...

[ed_the_sock]

I find that every August it feels several degrees hotter than in January. I think this merits further data analysis to find the exact cycle of this global warming thing...

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

[elbobo]

nobody knows "absolutely and definitely" whether there is global warming or, if it exists, whether it is due to human activity.

Actually I think it's not at all in dispute as to whether we're experiencing any global warming. I believe that's been conclusively established. What some still heavily debate are the causes of said warming.

There's a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and warming and well understood atmospheric interactions of CO2, but some try to point the finger elsewhere or back to natural patterns.

What's truly astounding is the massively increasing level of outright propaganda on the subject. The scientists appear to be being left behind and the propagandists (sponsored by private industry) are taking over the show. Do a google for "CO2" -- it's a real eye opener.

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:Tropical

[Colin Smith]

"Crops become harder to grow"

Evidence? Where I live, warmer weather increases the length of the growing season. Crops are easier to grow.

Increasing?

[Zonnald]

To quote a paragraph from tfa;

By contrast, the scientists found that in Siberian areas where the ground below is still permanently frozen, the number of lakes actually increased by about 4% and total lake area grew by about 12% over the last three decades.

Interestingly they neglected to indicate how many hectares this 12% represented.

I guess that wasn't as dramatic a headline.

Arctic Warming Is Drying Up Lakes, Study Finds, but some lakes actually growing

Re:Here we go again...

[insert cool name]

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.

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-sc ience/

If you manage to find a copy of the debate that Channel 4 news ran between George and David it's well worth seeing.

Re:This != Global warming

[gowen]

I have a question since your a geoligist or whatnot.

I write CFD codes for polar oceans, so I can only answer your question in broadest terms.

i) Climate is not weather
ii) The climate is exceedingly complex, and global warming does not mean a uniform temperature increase across the globe.

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/

Re:MSM HYPE

[Jafafa Hots]

junkscience.com is run by steven milloy. Steven milloy was a lobbyist who was paid by Phillip Morris to create a similar "group" to put forth the idea that second hand smoke is harmless.

Now he has this site up, and though he refuses to disclose his funding, he has in the past received money from oil company interests to lobby for them and do PR for them.