Lakes Found Under Antarctic Ice Using Space Lasers

Reverse Gear writes "There is a new study circling the media about new lakes found underneath the antarctic ice sheets that apparently empty and fill back up quite fast. 'The scientists allay fears that global warming has created these pockets of water. They say these lakes lie some 2,300 feet below compressed snow and ice, too deep for environmental temperature to reach. However, it is necessary to understand what causes the phenomenon as it can facilitate an understanding of the impact of climate change on the ice sheet in Antarctica.' NASA also has some information on the technique used to detect these lakes."

Comments

Lakes using lasers?

[Hognoxious]

Lakes can't use lasers. I can only conclude that the lakes are full of sharks.

Re:Lakes using lasers?

[D4rk Fx]

You misread the headline. Apparently the lakes exist under areas where the Antarctic Ice has been using Space Lasers.

Re:Lakes using lasers?

[FredDC]

I for one would like to welcome our new lakes-under-the-ice-firing-space-lasers-overlords!

ICESAT is Cool

[lecithin]

Here is everything you want to know about this interesting satellite:

http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/

There have been reports of people actually 'seeing' the laser as the satellite goes over:

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Oct-2003/0064.html

New water holes way under the ice. Fun. I wonder if we will find even more 'new species' as was reported here:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/1 1/2336230

Re:ICESAT is Cool

[KDR_11k]

If you keep telling people about that soon NASA will be forced through a lawsuit to dangle a huge "Do not look into laser with remaining eye" warning sign from the satellite.

Re:ICESAT is Cool

[gEvil (beta)]

New water holes way under the ice. Fun. I wonder if we will find even more 'new species' as was reported here:

Of course we'll continue finding unknown species if we continue looking in the water. We know next to nothing about the oceans, and they make up a majority of this planet.

Explanation

[johnw]

Presumably what makes them fill up is the heat from the lasers?

Heisenberg probably rules, OK

So thats where I left my Lake Maker 2000 SX

[Timesprout]

Sorry for the inconvenience everyone.

Yours etc
God

PS
Apologies also if you are on a planet I created with no lakes, shipping on these things is incredibly slow.

Re:Fire!

[LiquidCoooled]

Stop global warming.

Turn the frikking laser beam off.

AVP

[otacon]

Isn't that how Alien vs. Predator started?

Re:serious question ...

[KokorHekkus]

If you read the article you will see that they are just warding of any coming questions about global warming causing the subglacial lakes. There are over hundred known subglacial lakes in Antarctica with Lake Vostok being the largest one being 250 km long and 50 km wide ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vostok )

The next boogeyman?

[freeweed]

The scientists allay fears that global warming has created these pockets of water.

Without taking a side on the issue, does every natural event have to be compared against the global warming checklist now?

It's like when there's a gas leak (or something equally trivial) in someone's house. The news immediately has to comment that "at this time, authorities say there is no reason to suspect terrorism".

Have we finished jumping at shadows yet?

Re:The next boogeyman?

[keithhackworth]

I was just wondering that, too. TFA specifically says "they say these lakes lie some 2,300 feet below compressed snow and ice, too deep for environmental temperature to reach," so how the heck does Global Warming affect this? It it was global warming, the ice on TOP would melt - not the ice on BOTTOM! I would more likely suspect it's due to friction of the sliding ice or heat generated from within the Earth (such as volcanic activity).

Keith

Re:The next boogeyman?

[Viper Daimao]

Plus from what I understand, there is no warming in Antarctica.

A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

Re:The next boogeyman?

[Canthros]

Clearly, the fact that some phenomena are exceptions to global warming is further evidence of the pervasiveness of global warming and our complicity in same. ...

But, seriously. Global warming is pretty overblown, and highly politicized. This not just because of the economic effects that an anti-global-warming regulatory regime would impose, but also because of the political interests that desire just such a regime (for various reasons, but be aware that socialists have been very active in the enviromental movement for a long time). As long as this situation persists, expect to hear a lot of those mostly-irrelevant notes whenever the talking heads can squeeze them in.

Re:The next boogeyman?

[roman_mir]

Without taking a side on the issue, does every natural event have to be compared against the global warming checklist now? - no, of-course not, however we cannot rule out a possibility that it is Usama bin Laden who is hiding in those pockets of water, if it ain't the global warming, it just could be the terrorists.

Formula for global warming OMGWTFBBQ!!1!

[danbeck]

Step #1: Observe abnormal or extreme environmental phenomena
Step #2: Locate a "scientist" willing to go on record
Step #3: Ignore the basic tenets of science. (Observe, theorize, prove/disprove)
Step #4: WE WILL DIE IN THE NEXT (insert your conveniently difficult to prove or disprove number here) YEARS! OMGWTFBBQ!!1!

The very fact that this article has to assure people that these underground lakes have nothing to do with global warming should raise a few eyebrows. I can feel the herd of angry Moderators rushing towards me as I type this.

Re:Formula for global warming OMGWTFBBQ!!1!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The mass media have been of negative value on this issue. I'd be surprised if a majority of USians know what is uncertain and what is known with reasonable confidence.

Anyone who wants an accessible overview of the science can do much better than watching the shouting heads by taking a look at the IPCC summary for policymakers.

And any story that talks about one Siberian town getting colder, or about one single hurricane, is an insult to your intelligence and should be treated as such.

Re:We're doomed. BFD!

[fishthegeek]

I didn't see a sarcasm tag so I'm forced to conclude that you're serious. Humanity, in all of its faulty glory IS NOT THE CAUSE of temperature change. Repeat after me... "Global warming as caused by human influence is a media driven, grant driven, highly suspect piece of junk science."

Now on to the sitations...

Mars is experiencing the SAME rate of warming that earth is. No possible human cause.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-a ge_031208.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.c fm?artId=17977

From the 40's through the 70's the concern was global cooling. In a nutshell earths temperatures declined right at the point when emissions for the most part were the worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Note that as of 2002 we were complaining about Antartica's cooling temperatures. Someone forgot to inform the Antartica Temperature Management Team that they were supposed to turn UP the thermostat so that Antartica could conform to the computer models.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521d ata_trunc_sys.shtml

As late as the 14th and 15th centuries there were frickin' dairy farms on the coast of greenland! Warm enough at that time for frickin dairy farms but lo' there was a mini ice age and it killed them off. Geenland isn't as warm now as it was just a few hundred years ago!
https://conservationfinance.wordpress.com/2006/0 9/01/climate-change-on-greenland/

Satellite (read: stratospheric) temperature readings do NOT show ANY appreciable difference in the atmospheric temperatures
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

I am way too lazy to keep typing tags. Humans do not cause global warming. Now that I've trolled, flamed, and generally irritated people by saying this, I humbly accept the karma beating I am about to take. That's okay, I can creat another account :-)

Re:What could be driving this ...

[CmdrGravy]

I read last week that from the obeservations that the lakes are changing in volume the thinking is that they are connected by an extensive river system under the ice. I don't think it says but I would imagine that this may affect the plans to explore Lake Vostock, which has previously been thought to be a completely self contained eco-system but which may now be connected to a larger eco system if rivers do indeed flow into or out of it.

I wander if these rivers do ever emerge from under the ice, you'd have thought they would still flow downhill and therefore end up at the coast sooner or later.

Exploring these lakes and rivers systems would be an amazing experience, it's probably totally unfeasible to explore them with SCUBA equipment and also probably still very dangerous to explore them in submarines but I'd definitely like to see it done.

Re:We're doomed. BFD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars is experiencing the SAME rate of warming that earth is. No possible human cause.

Where are you getting the "same rate" from - it isn't in the NASA page. Furthermore, the exact rate is irrelevant as we are different distances from the sun and have completely different atmospheres. What would be relevent is if the change in rate was the same but we don't have adequate an temperature history of Mars to know that. I'm not too suprised that Mars is warming right now, as ice ages are linked at least partially to solar cycles, and Mars has the same sun as us. However, extensive measurement of solar activity shows that it alone cannot account for the increases in total thermal energy we are seeing.

From the 40's through the 70's the concern was global cooling. In a nutshell earths temperatures declined right at the point when emissions for the most part were the worst.

Yes, and it was a concern. Particulate emissions were causing localized solar blocking leading to decreased temperature. This peaked as particulate emissions peaked and is no longer a significant issue now that most industrialized countries have strict particulate emissions standards. It is a completely orthogonal issue to the green house effect.

Note that as of 2002 we were complaining about Antartica's cooling temperatures. Someone forgot to inform the Antartica Temperature Management Team that they were supposed to turn UP the thermostat so that Antartica could conform to the computer models.

Local temperature decreases do not imply global trends. Furthermore, nowhere in that article did anyone claim that this cooling was inconsistant with global warming predictions as you insinuate.

As late as the 14th and 15th centuries there were frickin' dairy farms on the coast of greenland! Warm enough at that time for frickin dairy farms but lo' there was a mini ice age and it killed them off. Geenland isn't as warm now as it was just a few hundred years ago!

Yep, and it is coming back. No one is worried about that - they are concerned because it looks very much like the temperature is going to rise well beyond what it was in the 14th and 15th century.

Satellite (read: stratospheric) temperature readings do NOT show ANY appreciable difference in the atmospheric temperatures

In the lower stratosphere and lower toposphere. The surface temperature, and upper stratospheres, however do show warming trends - as the page you links says!!

Now that I've trolled, flamed, and generally irritated people by saying this, I humbly accept the karma beating I am about to take.

I don't know if you are trolling or not, but yes your comment is misinformed and should be modded down.