Lake Disappears into Andes

steveb3210 writes "It seems that what was once a 5-acre glacial lake in the Andes has mysteriously disappeared. 'In March we patrolled the area and everything was normal,' Juan Jose Romero from Chile's National Forestry Corporation, Conaf, said. 'We went again in May and to our surprise we found that the lake had completely disappeared. All that was left were chunks of ice and an enormous fissure.'" The current theory is that an earthquake opened the ground and allowed the lake to drain. Looks like global warming is off the hook this time around.

Comments

"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[Anonymous Coward]

"But if we hadn't noticed the fissure, then it would be PROOF."

Re:"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[lego_boy_aus]

And based on this: If the temperature of the Earth has risen and fallen in the past, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any current changes are entirely natural...

Alternatively, given that the solar output has increased recently, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any change in the Earth's tempersture would be related to that...

Re:"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[geekoid]

"And based on this: If the temperature of the Earth has risen and fallen in the past, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any current changes are entirely natural..."

Except the changes in CO2 far exceed any measurement from the last 800,000 years. Not some of them, not kinda near, far exceed . the most prior 1900 was 300ppm, now we have 350ppm...
We have warehouse full of evidence that the earth is warming faster then at any other time.

So it's not the fact that it is warming, it's the speed at which it is warming, as well as the amount of CO2.

"Alternatively, given that the solar output has increased recently, "it's likely and reasonable that you will assume" that any change in the Earth's tempersture would be related to that..."

Except that the invers squar laws say otherwise. Also, while increased over all, the earth continued to warm during a multi-years cooling period of the sun.

Science has looked at those and ruled them out pretty simply.
Personally, I wish it was one of those, then we can plan for the change, instead we have neo-cons and the pundets going on about how it isn't happening and the fact that nearly everybreputable scientist in the world agrees. But hey, you go on and ignore the science, the evidence and keep repeating whatever Rush says like a good little sheep.

Re:"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[vought]

We have measurements for Mars as far back, as accurate and as geographically diverse as those here on Earth?

Jesus. People who hate Al Gore will believe anything that validates their dislike of him.

Re:"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[lego_boy_aus]

"Except the changes in CO2 far exceed any measurement from the last 800,000 years"...Interesting claim. I would quite like to know how they know the records go back 800,000 years, and how they claim these are the highest readings in the time covered by the records.

From what I have researched, these records come from ice cores. However, a minor problem with ice is that it has a habit of meling above a certain temperature. Given that there may be 800,000 years covered by the samples, that does not prove that the earlies sample is 800,000 years old. how are we to know if it is not in fact 8,000,000 years old, but due to natural climate variations, a large proportion of the sample has melted in this time.

So, without the dubious claim of having accurate readings for the past 800,000 years, we are left with the claim that the issue is the speed of the temerature rise. Strangely enough, there aren't all that many accurate temperature readings for the globe over 1,000 year old, and so all that can conceivably be claimed is that the current temperature fluctuations are the fastest in recorded history.

And so we come to "Except that the invers squar laws say otherwise. Also, while increased over all, the earth continued to warm during a multi-years cooling period of the sun.".

So from this we should be able to deduce that you believe that the sun is having no affect on temperature change here. however to claim thus would be to ignore evidence from at least 2 planets, where the temperature there has continued to rise. In fact, looking at our nearest neighbour, it seems that other than the sun, there has been no other possible cause for this temperature rise.

Besides which, I seem to recall that temperatures peaked around 1998, and have been stable/dropping since then.

Which leads on to "Science has looked at those and ruled them out pretty simply". Strangely enough, it seems that the only science that HAS ruled these out is the science dependant upon a "CO2 is causing this, what can we do to stop CO2" funding system. this is emphasised by the attacks on scientists funded by "big oil", and the way in which their studies are considered biased due to the funding source. However, no such claim of bias is levelled at those whose funding comes from organisations with a vested interest in keeping the AGW myth going, or those who would lose funding were it to be known that the change in the Earth's climate WAS natural.

Additionally, ALL the research being done that shows CO2 is the cause of global warming is started under the premise that this is what is the cause, relies entirely on almost identical computer models, includes large "fudge factors"...and has yet to provide accurate results based on known information, even for past years. The only real exception to this has been where the models have succesfully produced results based on known information for a given year, but which fail entirely when information for a different year is used instead.

Wouldn't it be nice if others as well as "big oil" did research where it was begun on the premise that CO2 is NOT the cause of the earth's change in temperature. Maybe then we would get some true research done, rather than propoganda to assist in gathering further funding. At present, any scientist wishing to do true research is hard pressed to find a funding source due to the "CO2 is the cause" lobby. This is the ONLY group claiming that the science is finished, and which is still dependant on "fudge factors" to prove this.

An additional consideration would be that those who do research which "proves" CO2 is the cause are not willing to allow those who do not agree with this THEORY to look at their computer models, purely because they do not wish the degree they rely on "fudge factors" to be known. If their research was accurate and valid, they should be able to take their model and based on the same data (ie, CO2 levels, solar output, etc.) for ANY year be able to produce an accurate measure

Re:"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[ZwJGR]

The amount of CO2 produced by humans is not actually that much when compared with natural production (respiration, organic decay, volcanoes, sea, etc.)
Hence a single volcano going of will have a far more significant impact then human production.

However the real kicker is the relationship between CO2 and temperature. In his movie Al Gore says that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Correct.
What he doesn't say is that the temperature changes appear to lead the carbon dioxide level changes by up to 200 years. (The peaks and general shapes of the lines are offset).
(I would speculate that this is due to differing ocean soluability levels?).

Furthermore, the Earth has undergone much more intense fluctuations before, without the American drivers, etc.
It is known that the current period is one of increased solar activity, and a correlation between solar activity and temperature has been established. (google it).
People were worrying about an ice age 30 years ago... Look how the media have switched the fear factor around.

Poverty in Africa, and clean water supplies should be prioritised in favour of "carbon credit" schemes (especially as the money goes to Al Gore's companies).

That isn't to say that environmentalism isn't bad, but CO2 is not the only thing they should be looking at.
Mercury in the lakes, sulpher dioxide, dioxins, lead polution, and in general the crud spewed into the air, land and water is more important.
Carbon dioxide is a "clean" gas in that the plants will absorb it for you, no problem.

Re:"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[whoop]

All that is needed is a consensus. Someone should put up a Wikipedia entry to state it. Then there is no denying the truth!

Re:"Looks like global warming is off the hook"

[ajs]

Significant changes in the albedo of Mars have been observed. On the other hand, the monitoring of the Sun's output does not show the increase that would be necessary for it to be the cause of the warming on Mars. The problem with this is that we have two events that are nearly identical in two places at the same time, and two theories which discount the most obvious common element because we don't have a working model for the way that common element could have the observed impact. Occam's Razor is a useful guide here, and suggests that more time spent looking for a common element that fits both systems is worth while. Just as an arbitrary example: the Earth's albedo has also been changing due to ice that has been melting steadily for the last 10,000 years since the last ice age. Has this lead to a recent change in the way the sun's radiation is absorbed by the Earth? It's hard to say. Does the sun's magnetic field have a larger impact on warming that we'd suspected? We don't know.

There's nothing wrong with the CO2-driven model of warming, it's just that it's not the only candidate, and in some areas, it's not the ideal fit to the observations. Actually, what I find most striking about global temperatures is that, for the end of a major ice age, we're experiencing shockingly cool temperatures as compared with the end of the last 4 roughly 100 thousand year ice age cycles. In the other four, the end of an ice age is signaled by a sharp spike in global temperature. At the end of the current ice age, we see a similar spike, which is truncated well below the peaks achieved by the previous warming periods (see above link).

It leaves me wondering what in the last 5,000-10,000 years could have stopped such a powerful rise in temperatures, and has the rest of the rise been merely delayed, or does this signal an early start to the next ice age?

Re:Global warming?

[TPIRman]

Mod parent up. For all those crowing about global warming in this thread, RTFA. There is no mention of global warming in the article. It's just an interesting story about a weird geological occurrence. The only reference to global warming was a harmless offhand crack from CowboyNeal. Lighten TFU, people.

Re:Off the hook?

[dabraun]

Makes you wonder if global warming had anything to do with the lake forming in the first place.

What's that they say - if the only tool you have is a hammer ... Why is it global warming fanatics feel the need to associate everything that happens with global warming - oh, right, they're fanatics.

Re:Off the hook?

[42Penguins]

The lake hadn't been there 30 years ago, as stated by grandparent. IIRC, we were to blame for global cooling about 30 years ago.

Significant Human Interaction Theory, or SHIT:
Back then, CFCs and other particulates caused the water to condense into a lake. Now your car exhaust has caused the water to warm and evaporate.
Cycle of life.

Thats what I love about environmental science

[patio11]

The facts always support the hypothesis because the hypothesis changes to fit the facts! Mark my words, if we had ten years of cold weather and scaremongering activists and opportunistic climatologists will be warning of a coming ice age which we can only avoid by going green. Its happened before, after all. (The scaremongering, not the ice age. Well, OK, technically we have had an ice age before, too.)

LOL

[Soiden]

I live very near to that lake, and it's funny how the world is more cared for this event than Chile itself.

Re:Challenge accepted

[Farmer Tim]

Precisely. This is known as "irony", and I'm glad the object lesson that bullshit can be thrown both ways and isn't remotely helpful isn't lost on you.

FWIW, I'm not 100% convinced about man's effect on climate change, but I do think (a) burning oil is probably the most wasteful thing we can do with it, (b) energy self-sufficiency and improved efficiency are good long term goals for any economy, and (c) it's better to replace a finite energy source before it becomes impractically expensive. And if nothing else, China's future suphur dioxide emissions from burning coal are going to cause environmental problems well beyond their borders.

I'm certainly not prepared to claim either side of the debate is being entirely honest or level-headed.