Slashdot Mirror
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.
Just like what happened to the lake in that James Bond movie. Launch the rocket!
.... for One Hundred Million Dollars!
We are all just people.
that a lake disappeared into a hole in the ground:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Peigneur
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Looks like global warming is off the hook this time around.
Yeah, because global warming obviously leaves huge chunks of ice when it makes lakes disappear.
Next time, the news without the hot-button bias, please?
it was *RIGHT HERE* when I saw it last.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
LAKE! Whoa! Be Gone!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Yes, every unusual event can be safely assumed to be caused by global warming until there is evidence to the contrary. Who can deny that logic?
I'm fairly certain that it is considered scientifically proven beyond doubt that recent shifting in the upper layers of the Earth's crust are in fact due to the drying period we're now entering due to global warming. I can't believe you'd question such things; do you not understand causality versus correlation?
From the article: The Magallanes area "has seen interesting changes in the last few decades," he said, noting that the lake itself had not been there 30 years ago.
Makes you wonder if global warming had anything to do with the lake forming in the first place.
What keeps "Old Faithful" at Yosemite alive and ticking....
However, at the bottom of where the lake was, is a huge crop circle in the shape of an X-Box. Additionally, a message from space was found engraved on a titanium plate. Translators think it said "All your lake are belong to us".
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...
Lots of news organizations keeping selling this story as if there's a mystery.
Well... What's the mystery?
I mean, TFA explains it fairly well:
1. earthquake creates a hole in the ground
2. water goes into the hole
What're the alternatives?
That a herd of wooly mammoths drank up the lake?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Sorry. I was really, really thirsty.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Did anyone bother to read this part?
"A glacier specialist, Andres Rivera, told Chilean newspaper La Tercera that the lake's disappearance seemed to be part of the continual reforming of the landscape.
The Magallanes area "has seen interesting changes in the last few decades," he said, noting that the lake itself had not been there 30 years ago."
How long does a lake have to exist before its concidered an actual lake? Sounds like this was more of a big puddle that came and went. Since it was only 30 years ago that it formed, I guess we can feel free to blame global warming for its creation as well.
The aliens did it. Just like Stonehenge, crop circles, and Al Gore.
Gamertag: WyleType
Sounds Like Carmen San Diego is up to her old tricks again...
Boy, ain't that the truth.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I can't believe how horribly wrong you ALL are. This was caused by the natural phenomenon known as Chuck Norris. He got thirsty, drank the lake, and then punched the earth as a calling card to his greatness.
Use your heads people, COME ON.
If anyone finds an old leather-bound book in the fissure, please send it to:
"Atrus, Son of Ghen."
5 Riven St. Apt 233
D'ni, K'veer. II DI KI II III
(Note: I know the LCD panel on page 1 looks pretty, but please refrain from touching it...)
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
A: at the end of your Armies
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Probably martians sucked it from UFO's ?? even NASA reported about water on mars...
Japan: whales are the cockroaches of the oceans
IIS marketer: Apache just has more websites running per server
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
What would happen if most herrings were red?
Man did you just nail that. Perfect 10!
Can't we just blame terrorists like always?
*goes back to bed*
When I read that, I heard in my head in a surfer-dude voice saying it as in, "Global warming is totally off the hook! It's AWESOME!"
I was confused.
I had to reread it to get the real meaning. My blood sugar must low, excuse me, I think I need to eat some dinner.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That Breitbart site is a little fruity. How can you find it credible?
Who else could pull off such a heist? Hell, she could probably steal the entire mountain range, but she was feeling lazy.
Now they need to find her.
off the hook or ;)
off the hook
?
It happened near a test facility in Betaverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Jade
How has nobody made the Ob. SF ref. yet with this many comments?!
Only, this time, he split the earth, not the waters.
It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
It crossed the pacific ocean to Maitland, NSW. You can have it back now...
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Lake Jackson in North Florida, for example, does it every few years as ground water levels fluctuate. I'm sure that human intervention has something to do with these water levels, but isn't likely the only determining factor.
It's kind of funny that, before you go bass fishing, you have to actually make sure there's water in the lake. Sometimes, it drains very quickly.
The picture to the right is more like a CG to me. No way I should believe your yet another Roswell-mistery.
(just kidding ^_^)
Is there a reason not to obtain satellite imagery from the area over that period of time?
Mysterious New 5 Acre Lake Appears in Crawford, TX
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4566355.stm
BBC News
Fri, 20 May 2005 00:50 EDT
Residents of a village in central Russia are trying to solve the mystery of a lake that disappeared overnight.
Russia's NTV channel showed a huge, muddy basin where the lake once was, in the village of Bolotnikovo.
"It looks like somebody has pulled the plug out of a gigantic bath," said the TV's correspondent, next to a deep debris-filled hole.
Local officials in Nizhny Novgorod region say the lake was probably sucked into an underground cave.
The name of the village - which lies about 250 km (155 miles) east of Moscow - roughly translates as "boggy".
No Water
The discovery was made by local fishermen when they arrived at the lake early in the morning.
"I looked and there was no water. I thought: Oh my God, what's going on?" one of them told the TV.
Rescuers were called out to search the uncovered lake bed to see if anybody could have been sucked under, but it is thought no-one was on the lake when the waters vanished.
"It's very dangerous. If somebody is caught by such a calamity, the chances of survival are practically nil," fireman Dmitry Zaitsev said, pointing out that lakeside trees appeared to have been dragged down with the water.
The lake's disappearance may have been caused by subsidence allowing the water to drain into a cave system or underground river, local official Dmitry Klyuev said.
According to Mr Klyuev, several houses were swallowed up in similar circumstances 70 years ago.
'Dark mystery'
But more supernatural explanations were circulating among the villagers, including the influence of dark forces.
Village youngsters said the lake had appeared during the reign of the feared Tsar Ivan the Terrible and had been "shrouded in dark mystery" ever since.
"We used to go swimming there, but we were rather afraid of its depth, and there were various rumours. For instance people said there used to be a church there underwater," one girl told the TV.
But one elderly villager sitting outside her house had another kind of force in mind.
"I thought the Americans had got here," she said, laughing.
It's a Bagel.
Someone had to ask :)
Obviously global warming has caused the earth itself to expand, resulting in this fissure.
But eventually this expansion will cause a similar fissure to open under an ocean and allow the world's seas to drain, thus eliminating the fabricated risk of rising sea levels from the proven myth of glacial melt. So even if all those ignorant, biased climatologists living the caviar lifestyle on fat research grants somehow turn out to be right despite the overwheming evidence to the contrary from expert SUV drivers and totally impartial oil magnates, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
I call this "The Moronic Knee-Jerk Theory of Environmental Equilibrium", and expect it to be accepted widely by people who like to set up obvious straw-men.
Blank until
and you thought it was just a movie........
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Never attribute to tectonic events that which can be adequately explained by global warming.
Well, I didn't read the article, but from the blurb it sounds like it disappeared into Andy's fissure. Sounds painful, that lake looked cold.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Though there are others who are not kidding when they blame earthquakes and tsunamis on global warming.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
"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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Thanks for the lake, please bring live rats."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My vote goes to Second Hand SmokeTM.
JUNK SCIENCE - thats all you promote with that comment. assumptions are no where near proof in science.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Hey,
Does anyone have a picture of it on google maps?
So, does CO2 explain the global warming on Mars?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I've heard this same story every couple years for as long as I can remember. No big deal.
They find the lake hiding in a barn somewhere. Ends up getting grounded for several months.
Darn lake, don't know what it was thinking. Lakes these days, great day in the morning already, what's the world coming to?
No, I really doubt bulls fuck their own shit...
Well, I misread the title and read it as "Lake Disappears into Anodes" and came up with an even more shocking theory....
*sigh* Must not read Slashdot when sleep deprived.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I believe that get the reading from drilling deep into ice.t a sorry for wiki link ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_da
But im no ice drilling scientists but i can't think how that would be accurate anymore that a "good guess", wounder what the +/- is on the readings
Except that the invers squar (sic) laws say otherwise.
No, the inverse square law doesn't say otherwise. It says that the energy falls off proportional to the square of the distance. That's useful in comparing the amount of energy received by Earth versus Mars, but it isn't relevant except in an absolute sense when the radius (r) is constant and the energy is changing. In a relative sense, if the output doubles, the amount received by Earth also doubles. The inverse square term falls out when comparing relative increases in output.
Assume that the distance (radius) is "r". For any quantity of energy, "q", the value 2q/(r^2) is twice the value of q/r^2 for any constant value of "r".
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yes, every unusual event can be safely assumed to be caused by global warming until there is evidence to the contrary. Who can deny that logic?
Absolutely! Except for those things caused by George Bush, of course.
Then if you found a white crow one day, you're theory is what? Some crows are white, but most are black. Then if you see more white crows "The white crow population is growing"
And if you start seeing less black crows for what ever reason (they flew away, someone is spray painting crows, White is a dominate gene for crows) the theory becomes "White crows are killing off black crows, we must kill white crows to avoid losing the black crows for ever"
However none of that is science. Those are just simple hypotheses, science most people have forgotten is the way to correctly study and prove our hypotheses. It's not a way to force political agenda, fiction, or subjective in any manner. To prove something in science you prove it with a verifiable proof that anyone can replicate. Claiming you have proof shouldn't be acceptable for anyone in scientific circles until the proof is available. Again something that seems to get ignored.
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.)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
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.
I've seen the video evidence. I've seen him pull the plug. Somewhere in the mud you'll find a bald guy with a lisp. Ask him about that wascally wabbit. And remember like the pig said. thea-ta-thea that's all folks!
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
That's where my keys went. /me shakes fist at sky
Damn you global warming.
Strangely Global Warming almost never responds, and when it does it's a bunch of bullshit.
A blog about stuff.
It always drops again.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
"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
....and their water cooling requirements.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I live very near to that lake, and it's funny how the world is more cared for this event than Chile itself.
Minti: What's that huge shuriken in your back?! Kin: It's the instrument of my victory.
Absolutely! Except for those things caused by George Bush, of course.
;-)
Riiiight...
Except, you forgot the part above where Shrub caused global warming. So he's included automatically as a cause for things that he's caused have caused
I'd agree that mankind probably isn't having a big effect on it, but the primary source of fresh water in that area (if I'm not mistaken - I grew up there, so this could be embarassing if I am) is water from the aquifer. The more people use that water, the more likely sink holes are to open, or so goes my very basic understanding of the process.
In all seriousness please correct me if I'm way off.
I can never remember whether it's the anode or the cathode that's the source or the drain...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"All your lake are belong to us."
There, I got it out. Mod me down.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Meanwhile... 7-11 just sold their first petagulp.
Coincidence? I think not.
The Mars warming is thought to have been caused by winds removing surface dust and exposing more of the dark underlying rock. The extra sunlight absorbed by the rock then heated up the planet. See here:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/20
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.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
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.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
Hypotheses are never proved. The evidence either supports the hypothesis or disproves it, and if enough evidence supports the hypothesis then it is probably reasonable to believe that it is true. It still isn't proved though.
It was in quick-growing wild rice.
to drain the lake with tourists than to hijak their bus.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
no, seriously
That's mis-interpreting that article I think - they start off talking about losses due to all natural disasters, and then goes on to talk about most of them being climate related. Nowhere does it hypothesis that earthquakes are climate related.
This sig all sigs devours
"Evidence to the contrary" is too vague. Anyone can claim evidence to the contrary. I think if we really want to protect humanity from false logic, we our motto should be "Every unusual event can be safely assumed to be caused by global warming until the IPCC publishes a report stating otherwise."
Clearly someone just put up a SEP field!
All that is needed is a consensus. Someone should put up a Wikipedia entry to state it. Then there is no denying the truth!
The old bedstead and bicycle wheel monsters hideout has been found. Also, links to the boot and shoe monster were discovered.
Yes, because obviously plate tectonics are totally caused by global warming, and we didn't have earthquakes or volcanoes before the 19'th century industrialization. Heck, seein' as the current theory is that plate tectonics are a very important part of the Earth's dynamo, we probably didn't even have a magnetic field before and solar radiation blew all hydrogen into space like on Venus. Plus, it makes me respect the age of exploration sailors a lot more if they managed to use a compass without a magnetic field ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
i stopped reading right there. anyone claiming to have accurate readings back to 800,000 years is a liar
For real. Don't these heretics know the Earth is only 6000 years old?
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
It's still there, it probably just sank underneath the beans.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
This was written right after the tsunami hit. It is clearly implied that it, like most other disasters, are in no way natural and all our fault for messing up the climate. The same thing happens with all disasters, like the Darfur quote in the ggp or the claims that global warming caused Katrina (despite virtually every meteorologists insistence that it was part of a natural cycle of powerful hurricane seasons). Environmentalists exploit the massive killings for their own political purposes, even when they are obviously unrelated. And the result is that left wing environmentalists are ruining the credibility of legitimate scientists.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
yeah i wouldnt worry about it its probably just missing
into this http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space. com/images/070605_mars_pit_02.jpg
"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
extraterrial belly flop contest... I was on the Nazca Lines...
I wish I was clever!
QUOTE: 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.
uh, what do you think caused the earthquake? That's right! GLOBAL WARMING! Of course, you would know this if you had seen the movie, "An Inconvenient Sicko" starring Al Bore...
10 MD
> 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...
So All man made Global Warming proponents should stop exhaling.
End of CO2 problem.
And a lot of others too.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
Five acres?!!? Hell, where I come from thats a puddle--not *even* a pond!
Thus they need to be put on the endangered species list and all of you other folks need to be taxed more.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
...Chuck Norris was thirsty!
No one saw that giant straw enter our atmosphere?
Now, really, how long before one of the major networks presents a series centered around "disappearing water" events around the globe--"Dehydration" anyone?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
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?
I bet a flock of about forty or fifty ducks landed smack in the middle of it, then the temperature dropped so fast that the whole lake froze in three seconds flat, and they got so scared they just flew off and took the whole lake with them. It's probably somewhere over in Georgia now. --Buddy
From that graph, if the ice volume is now as low as it was at the end of the last few ice ages, shouldn't we think the temperature is the same now as it was during the other spikes? Which measurement is more accurate, ice volume or temperature? Also, are temperature readings for the last ~20,000 yrs more accurate than those from 300,000 yrs ago?
This is not news.
I for one welcome our new...lake swallowing Overlords?
As for your bringing the temperature measurements themselves into question, I think the obvious retort to that is that multiple measurements have resulted in roughly the same numbers, so you're fighting an uphill battle against very credible historical data.
So, the question is: given that the major players were all in line, what stopped the temperature from reaching peak this time?
Who can deny that logic?
Climate scientists? Those people you don't think really exist?
Contrary to popular belief, the fact that you don't know about something, does not mean it does not exist.
Care to point out where on the chart it peaks over 350?
P .jpg
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CO2_CH4_Temp_440KyrB
Are you calling an entire field of science "doomsday cultists"?
That's a pretty grave accusation. Do you have any facts backing that accusation up?
I take it you're Ande?
Also, while increased over all, the earth continued to warm during a multi-years cooling period of the sun.
:)
And the Earth cooled for 3 decades during a multi-decade continual increase in CO2.
If you can discount my idea based on a very small datum, I can do the same to your idea
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
How does this say "global warming" to you? It's tectonic!
Best read in good ol' Monaco 9 point.
Medicine Lake in Alberta, Canada, fills up every year and usually drains by the fall.
I've watched it cycle throughout a season, it's pretty creepy. This lake is 7km long, it ain't just a puddle in the ground.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Missing lake and the only evidence is a giant fissure? A similar thing happened to me today. When I left the house this morning, my bathtub was full of water. When I came back it was empty. The only clue was a drainpipe at the bottom of the tub.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yet.. the articles I read said that there were no reported earthquakes in the time period to explain the crack opening. THAT is what the mystery is.
woops, sorry 'bout that. I was thirsty.... (p.s. I, for one, welcome our new lake-swallowing underlords)
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
Rumor has it that it was the Master's Tardis leaving.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
we don't need a bigger boat after all.
To understand what's happening, you just need to go back to that documentary series "V".
It's obviously been stolen by giant lizards wearing people suits.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
the most prior 1900 was 300ppm, now we have 350ppm
Seriously? You think 50ppm is enough to doom the planet? Even with that change, CO2 only comprises 0.035% of the atmosphere. Compare this to the atmosphere of Venus, where CO2 comprises 96.5% of the atmosphere. That's a monumental difference between the two planets, and shows just how much CO2 you need to have before things start warming up.
And considering that the vast majority of the biomass of this planet breathes in CO2 and exhales O2, I would think any real increase in CO2 would lead first to more trees and greenery growing up before the temperature going up.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Maybe it was the parent to this post.
I'm not paranoid, I'm just very, very absorbant!
Don't forget that the alcohol industry is responsible for a great deal of CO2 emissions. Fermentation (C6H12O6 2C2H5OH + 2CO2) produces 2 molecules of ethanol and 2 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of glucose. Ethanol has a molecular weight of 46 and CO2 has a molecular weight of 44. For every 23 lbs of ethanol produced, 22 lbs of CO2 is produced as a byproduct.
Now, consider that they're trying to produce ethanol for fuel. Ethanol is a clean burning fuel, but in producing ethanol, you put CO2 into the air in an almost equal measure. Do environmentalists really want to put that in their cars?
You need to be very, very careful with the use of the word theory. You and every single person on this planet apparently does not understand the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, theory and a wild ass guess. Now, CO2-based global warming is *at best* a hypothesis. Only with disprovable, reproducible and predictable evidence can a hypothesis become a theory. Any half-assed idea someone comes up with is not a theory.
Now, the one bright point for you to look to is that science is a process. The scientific process will figure out the truth, regardless of other factors, it always has and it always will. Whether CO2-based global warming is eventually proven correct or incorrect (in whole or in part), science as a whole will gain, and everyone benefits.
And to answer your original point, scientists will either use carbon-dating or uranium-lead dating, both of which (until the 20th century) are extremely accurate tools.
This just might be a media stunt for the silver surfer, et al themes river
I need to make a correction, ice layers are initially aged by studying the gas trapped in the ice. More information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Interesting notes:
"Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in global temperature reconstruction. In addition to the isotope concentration, the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores allow for measurement of the atmospheric concentrations of trace gases, including greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The air bubbles may also contain traces of aerosols, which are produced in great concentrations during volcanic eruptions."
Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.
Don't be so quick to say "Science has looked at those and ruled them out pretty simply" until you've reviewed all science research.
For example, this article goes into details of what you indicate that the sun's actual output isn't directly correlated to the increase in temperature, but identifies that the changes in solar winds affects the amount of cosmic radiation able to hit the earth and this does match up more closely with temperature variations.
I'm not proposing this is in anyway more or less definitive than anything you may have read, but the fact is climatology is just too immature to be making definitive statements. We are by no means at the end of this science, simply because the problem domain is just to large.
That this occurred just around the time that that FF4 Rise of the Silver Surfer was released???? Or maybe it disappeared because Chuck Norris was thirsty.
In another news story a reporter asked Chuck Norris what he thought of the lake disappearing. His response was "I was thirsty."
+3 Mod for Chuck reference
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
C'mon folks. We're not all stupid, just the elected people. Lakes dont mysteriously go missing. They evaporate or drain. When they drain there's usually evidence, like a river or a flood.
By your logic, how do you know that any ice age ever occurred? We don't have anything that *you* would ever accept as a "temperature reading" from the times when those alleged "ice ages" happened. All we have are things like ice cores.
From what I have researched, these records come from ice cores. However, a minor problem with ice is that it has a habit of melting 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.
Apparently your research haven't been enough for you to understand how those cores are dated. The age of the ice is determined by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the ice and in small bubbles in the ice. Some of those isotopes are formed by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, as the gas gets trapped in the snow it starts decaying at a fixed and (extremely) well known rate. Also, as you mention, ice starts melting above a certain temperature. Has it ever occurred to you that such a high temperature is never reached near the poles where those ice samples have been collected?
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"
So, you have read ALL the papers published that show CO2 is the cause of global warming, and you have analyzed the computer models used on each of them? Boy, I'm impressed!!! I wish I was as intelligent as you seem to be...
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 measurement for the average global temperature for the year...even going back 800,000 years perhaps?
They have done that, and gone much further than 800k years. Computer models considering CO2 levels and many other factors have been tested and found to be accurate according to known geological evidence for the whole of Earth's geologic history. Such models also accurately reflect conditions happening on Venus and Mars as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlYkIJVguCU
Well, no wonder Andy throws such great parties.
You can be a big fish in a small pond, but only until the small pond gets sucked into a huge gaping hole.
--- JurassicPizza
wait.. does that mean you have times when you are not sleep deprived?? i wonder what it's like...
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I don't even need to click on that link. And I can't, damn web filters at work. I know exactly what you refer to. Flight of the Conchords, am I right?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Marshall, Will, and Holly on a routine expedition
Met the greatest earthquake ever known.
High on the rapids it struck their tiny raft,
And plunged them down a thousand feet below.
To the Land of the Lost.
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.
There are numerous methods for dating ice cores. Besdies, many of these cores are taken from the deep Antarctic where there just isn't substantial melting: you may get slow accumulation from little precipitation, but very little melting.
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.
That's true; they may not be the fastest "ever". But they likely to be the fastest in tens of thousands of years at least; we see no evidence of changes that abrupt in the paleological record.
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.
As noted by the earlier poster, this evidence does not support the Sun's influence on temperature change. Indeed, Martian temperatures also rose during a decrease in solar irradiance. This is evidence that the warming on both planets is not solar.
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.
Elsewhere in this thread a poster gave a cause which is more consistent with the evidence than "the Sun" (namely, Martian albedo changes).
Besides which, I seem to recall that temperatures peaked around 1998, and have been stable/dropping since then.
Not true. (Incidentally, 1998 is a disingenous choice of reference year by global warming deniers, as it had an anomalously strong El Nino.)
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,
You mean, like the National Science Foundation?
or those who would lose funding were it to be known that the change in the Earth's climate WAS natural.
Really? Who do you think would lose funding? Do you think climate science would disappear if not for anthropogenic global warming?
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,
That is ridiculously false. Nothing is assumed a priori about the cause. Rather, the strengths of various natural and anthropogenic forcings are estimated from observational data. You plug in the amount of heating due to the Sun, the greenhouse effect, the cooling due to volcanism and air pollution, etc., and run your models from that.
relies entirely on almost identical computer models,
The models are not "almost identical". Some operate on spatial grids, some use spectral methods; they have competing models of biosphere feedbacks, ice dynamics, etc.
Besides which, what is wrong with "almost identical" models? The Earth runs on the same laws of physics, you know. Do you complain that aerospace codes all run on the same Navier-Stokes equations? As long as they are coded independently so they don't share the same bugs, what is the problem?
includes large "fudge factors"...
Such as?
and has yet to provide accurate results based on known information, even f
Actual, global warming is a misnomer. It is ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!
Gosh, what couldn't fit under that term. Global warming is way too specific of a term to use to cause mass panic, even though it is adaquetly hard to prove or disprove. Can't we just go back to the old method? God did it!!
I can hide from you by shutting my eyes!!
Yeah! I love Andy's parties!
I have watched their HBO special about twenty times since I recorded it last year. It never fails to make me laugh. My favorites are "She's so Hot, Boom" and "Hip-hop-opotamous vs. Rhymenocerous." You know they have an HBO series now? I've got the first episode on my DVR, I just haven't had the time to watch it yet.
Yeah, Andy throws the craziest parties, doesn't he? Ooops. She. Andy hates it when I forget that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Unfortunately their TV series suck... But their stand up is great
Yes. We emptied the glacial lake and bottled it. As a matter of fact, I drank some of it today while I was refueling my global-warming-mobile. It tasted light and glacial. yumyum.
Where's my sock? There it is...
That's what I'd heard. But my ex says I should watch it. She thinks the show is not so bad. I mean, they've had one, maybe two shows so far? That's not enough to judge a series. I haven't even seen the first show yet, so I can't really judge. We shall see whether I agree with you (and most critics ) or her. It would be sad if their series sucks. I even thought their Outback Steakhouse commercial was funny, and I hate commercials.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"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."
Don't be an idiot. They measure the variations in one
core - its layer upon layer upon layer.
" 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."
Except of course the planetary tilt which changes back and forth over time due to the celestial mechanics.
"Besides which, I seem to recall that temperatures peaked around 1998, and have been stable/dropping since then."
Not on this planet.
"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"
No, that is what religion does, not real science. Many have been trying to disprove it, but found that they couldn't.
"Have YOU approached the science with an open mind, HONESTLY willing to look at "the science, the evidence" from both sides, "
There not "sides" - there are theories which are either supported by fact or not. There is no proof of god, but there is of global warming and co2.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating