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....
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
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.
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?
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
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 ^_^)
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.
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
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
My vote goes to Second Hand SmokeTM.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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
All that is needed is a consensus. Someone should put up a Wikipedia entry to state it. Then there is no denying the truth!
"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
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
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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