Global warming blamed for vanishing lake

[Chana3812]

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!)

[AuGmENTor]

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

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*)

[somebigguy]

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.

[AuGmENTor]

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

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...

[simuvac]

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.

[somebigguy]

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...

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.

[somebigguy]

Scientists solve puzzle of Chile's missing lake:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070703/..._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.

[AuGmENTor]

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?

[Chana3812]

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.

[AuGmENTor]

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.

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.