Global warming blamed for vanishing lake

Global warming blamed for vanishing lake
By EDUARDO GALLARDO, Associated Press WriterTue Jul 3, 4:14 PM ET



Scientists on Tuesday blamed global warming for the disappearance of a glacial lake in remote southern Chile that faded away in just two months, leaving just a crater behind.

The disappearance of the lake in Bernardo O'Higgins National Park was discovered in late May by park rangers, who were stunned to find a 130-foot deep crater where a large lake had been.

After flying over the lake Monday scientists said they were able to draw preliminary conclusions that point to climate change as the leading culprit for the lake's disappearance.

They suggested the melting of nearby glaciers raised the lake's level to the point where the increased water pressure caused part of a glacier acting as a dam to give way. Water in the lake flowed out of the breach, into a nearby fiord and then to the sea, said Andres Rivera, a glaciologist with Chile's Center of Scientific Studies.

Rivera, accompanied by an expert from the Chilean Antarctic Institute, flew over the site in a navy airplane, taking hundreds of photographs.

"On one side of the Bernardo glacier one can see a large hole or gap, and we believe that's where the water flowed through," Rivera said in a navy communique. "This confirms that glaciers in the region are retreating and getting thinner."

He said that the bottom of the vanished lake again has some water, likely from the melting ice.

Similar phenomenon have occurred before in the southern Magallanes region.

As glaciers retreat lakes form behind natural dams of ice or moraine, earth and stones pushed up by a glacier. Those relatively weak dams can be breached suddenly, causing the lake to drain.

The advance and retreat of glaciers is part of the normal dynamics of the Patagonia but climate change was distorting the process, Rivera said.

"This would not be happening if the temperature had not increased," Rivera said.

The navy communique said the missing lake was the smaller of a two-lake system. The larger one remains but at a lower level.

Ah, come on now, that lake is still there. There is no global warming. It's just a myth
(NOT!)

Chana3812 said:

Ah, come on now, that lake is still there. There is no global warming. It's just a myth
(NOT!)

Click to expand...

But PROVE to us that is directly linkable to the consumption of fossil fuels. And why not disect the source of this like you do to all of mine? (I'm too lazy, *wink wink*)

I am located geographically near a lake or two, and already this summer they have been plagued by E-Coli warnings or have been closed entirely due to pollution.

I'd love to enjoy a day on the beach, swimming in the lake.

Did global warming (or climate change if you prefer the propagandist's latest term) cause the pollution in this lake? Will a carbon tax resolve the pollution in this lake so that I can enjoy it once again?

How about the affects of GMO, will the Carbon Tax resolve that crisis?

Will the Carbon Tax eliminate the effects of Depleted Uranium in Iraq? How about nuclear waste in general?

Until these government stooges give us a real plan to solve ALL environmental issues, we shouldn't be so willing to believe their propaganda. We've got real issues here, and focusing solely on one specific issue and one pathetic resolution, namely a carbon tax, will get us nowhere. I'd say keep looking.

This is an easy answer by the elite, a piece of low hanging fruit that we an all jump for and feel good about ourselves. THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS!!! Demand corporations stop dumping crap in our waterways. Demand that GMO be stopped. Demand the end of the use of DU. Demand the widescale implementation of clean technologies.

Maybe then we can clean up the environment. Or, mindlessly hop on the next scam the scumbag elite send our way, and do NOTHING for the environment.

Will the Carbon Tax eliminate the effects of Depleted Uranium in Iraq?

Click to expand...

If you read certain articles by certain scientists, you will see that DU is rapidly becoming a global problem. Predictions are that in a quarter century, there will be traces of it all over the planet. I can't find the link to it, but I know I read it. But I don't hear any of our government officials standing up about that. Just the "safe" topics...

Even if you deny global warming is anthropogenic, that should not justify further increases in the burning of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels carries an enormously destructive effect on the environment. 170 million Americans live in places where the air is unfit to breathe, just to offer one example. Also consider the trampling of human rights in countries that possess oil (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.). The deleterious effects of burning fossil fuels are obvious, even if you deny the connection with global warming. Therefore, there is no excuse for our lifestyle. There is no justification. Denying global warming does not change the fact that burning fossil fuels has catastrophic effects.

I agree. The technology exists to end our dependence on fossil fuel, and yet the oil companies want to ride this petrol horse as far into the sunset as they can. And who can blame them? Why introduce a new technology when (that you wont be able to make as much profit on) when you have one that is making you filthy rich?

AuGmENTor said:

If you read certain articles by certain scientists, you will see that DU is rapidly becoming a global problem. Predictions are that in a quarter century, there will be traces of it all over the planet. I can't find the link to it, but I know I read it. But I don't hear any of our government officials standing up about that. Just the "safe" topics...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I heard that too, depleted uranium is poisoning the entire globe.

I agree about getting off of fossil fuels as well, alternatives are available, and need to be developed.

Scientists solve puzzle of Chile's missing lake:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070703/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_chile_lake

According to this article, the water drained through a crack and into the sea. The lake is slowly filling up with water again.

But the corporate media couldn't wait to push the corporate government's latest agenda, that of Global Warming and the end of the world. Gotta keep the public scared, so as to remove any logical thought or discussion.

and according to the article (glad people read more than just the headlines) ....

melting glacier ice caused the lake to rise, and caused the crack that caused the lake to drain.

The Bush Administration has done many things to ignore the threat of excessive greenhouse gases. I don't feel like they are terrorising us. It's concerned citizens and celebs that are bringing attention to this matter.

Time will tell .... but then it may be too late to stop the impending disasters.

Ah, and yet not a peep about DU? I would think that is a very pressing matter as it kills everything. Who gives a shit if it gets a bit warmer if we all die of cancerous tumors?

Chana3812 said:

The Bush Administration has done many things to ignore the threat of excessive greenhouse gases. I don't feel like they are terrorising us. It's concerned citizens and celebs that are bringing attention to this matter.

Click to expand...

So now I need a celebrity to make me aware of something? Good Christ, if that's what it has come to, just kill us all now. Guess who is starting to sound like a 4th place winner in the special olympics now?

Arctic Monkeys shiver at Live Earth 'hypocrisy'

Jul 4 10:57 PM US/Eastern

Rock group Arctic Monkeys have become the latest music industry stars to question whether the performers taking part in Live Earth on Saturday are suitable climate change activists.


"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"

Large parts of the band's hometown of Sheffield were flooded at the end of last month after a deluge of mid-summer rain that some blamed on global warming. Two people were killed.

But the band wonder why anyone would be interested in the opinion of rock stars on a complex scientific issue like climate change.

"Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it's like 'who cares what we think about what's happening'?" added Helders.

"There's more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we're in a band?"

The group, whose first record was the fastest-selling debut album in British history, will clock up thousands of air miles -- in normal airliners not private jets, they say -- during their tour to Asia and Australia in the next few months.

They are not the only stars to take a cynical view of Live Earth, which aims to raise awareness about global warming but which will require many longhaul flights and thousands of car journeys to and from the music venues.



Many of the biggest acts have questionable environmental credentials -- the car-loving rapper Snoop Dogg appeared in a Chrysler commercial last year -- and there are doubts about the ability of pop stars to galvanise the world into action.

Bob Geldof, the architect of Live Aid and Live 8, the two biggest awareness-raising concerts in history, had a public spat with Al Gore about the need for the event.

"Why is he (Gore) actually organising them?" Geldof said in an interview with a Dutch newspaper in May, adding that everyone was already aware of global warming and the event needed firm commitments from politicians and polluters.

Roger Daltrey, singer from 1970s British rock band The Who, told British newspaper The Sun in May that "the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert."

And the singer from 80s pop sensations The Pet Shop Boys, Neil Tennant, attacked the arrogance of pop stars who put themselves forward as role-models.

"I've always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don't," he was reported as saying by British music magazine NME.

Live Earth takes place Saturday in seven cities -- Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hamburg, London, Johannesburg and New York -- and organisers hope for a television audience of two billion.

An eighth show in Rio de Janeiro was cancelled by police due to security concerns.

"Live Earth is going to bring together a massive audience around the world to take action against the climate crisis," says Live Earth organiser Yusef Robb.

"Some may say that rock stars tend to be conspicuous consumers, but if we can get those people to turn the corner then we're happy to do so."

Planners have put an enormous effort into minimising the environmental impact of the event in an effort to pre-empt sniping from critics about hypocrisy and the pollution caused by the concerts.

Fans are being encouraged to share cars or use public transport to attend, all lightbulbs will be energy-efficient and the food will be sourced locally where possible.

All the signs from the New York show and the stage in Tokyo will be recycled or composted.

"Where we can't use biodegradable materials, there'll be comprehensive recycling programmes," said Robb, who says the Live Earth gigs will set new green standards for the events industry.

After the shows, the organisers, with the help of accountancy group PricewaterhouseCoopers and an army of consultants, will calculate the volume of carbon emissions created and will then "offset" the difference.

Carbon offsetting means investing in carbon-reducing initiatives such as planting trees or making donations to renewable energy projects.

Robb highlights the good work being done by many artists.

British ska-rock group The Police and US funk-punk band Red Hot Chili Peppers are examples of "people who practice what they preach."

Meanwhile, nu-metal headliners Linkin Park have their own climate change charity and Hawaiian artist Jack Johnson tours in a biodiesel-fuelled bus.

Chana3812 said:

and according to the article (glad people read more than just the headlines) ....

melting glacier ice caused the lake to rise, and caused the crack that caused the lake to drain.

The Bush Administration has done many things to ignore the threat of excessive greenhouse gases. I don't feel like they are terrorising us. It's concerned citizens and celebs that are bringing attention to this matter.

Time will tell .... but then it may be too late to stop the impending disasters.

Click to expand...

Here are the exact statements:

A buildup of water opened a crack in an ice wall along one side of the lake.
...
is fed by melt-water from glaciers

Click to expand...

I assume that is how you tie this event in with Global Warming. Please provide details. Water levels rise and fall in all lakes and streams. Now can you provide some definite proof that this is related to global warming?

Your original post implied the entire lake simply dried up due to global warming. Which is it?

You make this statement:

It's concerned citizens and celebs that are bringing attention to this matter

Click to expand...

Like Al Gore?

You make this statement:

but then it may be too late to stop the impending disasters.

Click to expand...

Disasters such as what? Depleted uranium? lack of drinking water? destruction of fish habitats due to the dumping of toxic waste and sewage? Colony collapse disorder? GMO?

No, we're not worried about any of those very real disasters, we'll just worry about carbon emissions, and tax everyone for breathing. That will solve it.

Hey man, with these guys, it's ALL related to global warming. But the things they do are all good, cuz it's to let us uneducated slobs know all the bad things we are doing. Chana likes to make it sound like Al Gore is the second coming of Jesus Christ, but I'm sure he's in the pocket of more than one corporation. They ALL are. Never forget problem, solution, reaction. They make money off of fighting the very problem they are creating.

And PS, Don't hold your breath waiting on the breakdown of your questions. She'll go on and on about what SHE wants to, and ignore your valid questions... Not really a surprise.

You guys are too silly.

Aug - you are a most negative guy. Sorry that you see so much "bad" (your perceived bad) in everyone that is trying to help, and yet you give the Bush thugs a free pass on their crimes. WTF?

SBG = Depleted Uranuium is another subject altogether, and it's certainly worth discussing. Let's discuss it.

I have to go to work, so I'll try to answer your questions later, if I can figure out what the questions are.

Aug, guess you'll have to go bitch-out someone else while I'm gone - where's Royster when you need a good whipping boy ??

Ciao

Good thing I could care less what a person with your sense of whats important thinks of me.
Royster decided to finish his alcohol induced break down in the privacy of his tarpaper shack. Way to totally misrepresent what happened between he and I (but not really surprising)
If you took every negative word exchanged between you and I and quantified them, I think you'd see that you have given alot more than you've gotten. You hate it that people poke fun at your moronic idol.
You're all about the glitz. Made such a big show out of telling us how you were on Mr. Wonderfuls campaign trail.(while in reality your toe should have been feeling for the trigger on a 12 gauge) And how wonderful that overpaid, over-rated celebrities want to make us aware of how awful our habits are. See, but none of them are pushing the DU agenda, so that's no good for you. I'll bet a few years ago baby seals were your shtick.

From what I saw, Royster was a plant, always talking about aliens, ufos, etc, to marginalize everyone that came here with an honest opinion, so it is good that he is gone. (Is that a fair opinion of him? That just what I saw, although I didn't follow those threads closely at all).

Chana, Depleted Uranium is certainly worth discussing but not at the exclusion of all other environmental issues. That is was the Global Warming issue has become.

To seriously examine environmental issues, and come up with real solutions, all threats to the environment have to be given equal weight. It disgusts me how the local beach closures are printed in the paper in such a "matter of fact" tone, as if it is perfectly normal for beaches to be closed due to health risks. Beach closures and water advisories should be the exception, not the rule, and whenever one of these events do occur, people should be yelling from their rooftops for real solutions. And yet, there is not a peep.

GMO is a huge issue that people should be screaming about for real change, and not a peep. Canada and the U.S. have the highest usage of GMO foods in the world, and the affects these genetically modified foods have on the environment and ourselves are not clearly understood. We are playing Russian roulette with GMO and one day we're all gonna pay. Terminator seeds will cause farmers to become entirely dependent on governments for their seeds. And yet, not a peep.

Corporations dumping toxic shit in our waterways, and not a peep.

Corporations dumping toxic shit in our atmosphere, and not a peep.

Vaccines given to children causing autism and seizures, and not a peep.

Depleted Uranium, and not a peep.

Notice the common thread with all of this? It is all corporations doing the polluting, not the average schmoe. Do you think changing your lite bulbs are going to do anything to offset the damage these scumbags are doing to the environment?

And when these corporations do come up with a plan to fight global warming and it involves additional taxation, you suddenly get former government stooges making movies about it, its all over the TV, every politician is talking about it, its all over the front page.

This is the same M.O., like Aug says, Problem, Reaction, Solution. And whether you believe global warming is man-made or not, the argument is irrelevant, a carbon tax will do nothing to solve the problem. What have the governments done in the past to give you any sort of comfort level that this additional revenue stream won't be mismanaged like every other tax that is forced upon us?

More mismanagement, more corruption, and nothing done to actually help the environment. Thats what the carbon tax solution gets us.

:bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: You write alot better than I do. And you have LOTS more tolerance. Thanx for putting that into words.

government supplied seeds huh? ....whoa.. pray tell, what forms of uhhh "produce" is offered?

AuGmENTor said:

:bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: You write alot better than I do. And you have LOTS more tolerance. Thanx for putting that into words.

Click to expand...

Wow, Augmentor gave me the Clap! :bigclap: