NASA Study Finds Earth's Lakes Are Warming

Recommended Videos

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,931
0
0
Talshere said:
tthor said:

Feel safe in the knowledge that NOVA has not lead you wrong ;) A small amount of cold fresh water at the surface promotes the development of pack ice. And I do mean very small. However that much water would reduce the salinity sufficiently that in all likelihood, the very cold highly saline and therefore very dense water that forms in Arctic regions due to the precipitation of minerals out of freezing ice and it being bloody cold, would simply stop. If you do this it stops the feed of this water to the lower latitudes which usually heats the water and sends it back north through density currents. This current accounts for some...er...god this was in lecture like a week ago : / ....I should really remember this...Something like 60% of the world heat transfer. Ask Atmos Duality up ^there how much the trade winds account for, the ocean is basically everything else. The last time we have on record that something like this happened was 11k years ago, when Lake Agassiz on the Laurentide ice sheet on N.America burst, flooding millions of gallons of fresh water into the....Arctic ocean.. Via the Mackenzie river valley, plunging much of northern latitudes back into glacial conditions and allowing decaying ice sheets to once again advance. This period was known as the Younger Dryas and lasted apx 1k years.
Do know if this new Ice Age were to occur, would the Earth recover eventually, simply following in a world cycle of melting and freezing that it always does, or might it cause this cycle of Ice Ages to be interrupted or something (I remember NOVA saying something about how this new Ice Age would be different than the last ice age, something about how that since Earth would no longer have a large reserve of frozen fresh water, that this ice age would not bounce back as easily, or something)
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
Have they proved conclusively yet whether this is as a direct result of man's actions or whether it's just a part of the Earth's natural cycles. Like it's done several times over the past few million years it's had a defined climate?

I want that question answered, one way or the other, before I really start to join the climate debate. I may out of a 'better safe than sorry attitude' promote saving electricity and fuel etc, but I don't want to join the debate until this fundamental question can be answered.
 

pyrosaw

New member
Mar 18, 2010
1,837
0
0
There's alway's the Futurama soulution of dropping a giant ice cube in the lakes.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
loremazd said:
Eh, I have a good feeling we could still wipe ourselves out. and the species doesnt have to be killed outright to be killed of the face of the earth. but hten again, the server is still down, so i cant read it.
 

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,931
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
loremazd said:
Eh, I have a good feeling we could still wipe ourselves out. and the species doesnt have to be killed outright to be killed of the face of the earth. but hten again, the server is still down, so i cant read it.
Steve Cole
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-0918
stephen.e.cole@nasa.gov

Alan Buis
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-354-0474
alan.buis@jpl.nasa.gov


Nov. 23, 2010

RELEASE : 10-308


NASA Study Finds Earth's Lakes Are Warming


WASHINGTON -- In the first comprehensive global survey of temperature trends in major lakes, NASA researchers determined Earth's largest lakes have warmed during the past 25 years in response to climate change.

Researchers Philipp Schneider and Simon Hook of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., used satellite data to measure the surface temperatures of 167 large lakes worldwide.

They reported an average warming rate of 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, with some lakes warming as much as 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. The warming trend was global, and the greatest increases were in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

"Our analysis provides a new, independent data source for assessing the impact of climate change over land around the world," said Schneider, lead author of the study published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The results have implications for lake ecosystems, which can be adversely affected by even small water temperature changes."

Small changes in water temperature can result in algal blooms that can make a lake toxic to fish or result in the introduction of non-native species that change the lake's natural ecosystem.

Scientists have long used air temperature measurements taken near Earth's surface to compute warming trends. More recently, scientists have supplemented these measurements with thermal infrared satellite data that can be used to provide a comprehensive, accurate view of how surface temperatures are changing worldwide.

The NASA researchers used thermal infrared imagery from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and European Space Agency satellites. They focused on summer temperatures (July-September in the Northern Hemisphere and January-March in the Southern Hemisphere) because of the difficulty in collecting data in seasons when lakes are ice-covered and/or often hidden by clouds. Only nighttime data were used in the study

The bodies studied were selected from a global database of lakes and wetlands based on size (typically at least 193 square miles or larger) or other unique characteristics of scientific merit. The selected lakes also had to have large surface areas located away from shorelines, so land influences did not interfere with the measurements. Satellite lake data were collected from the point farthest from any shoreline.

The largest and most consistent area of warming was northern Europe. The warming trend was slightly weaker in southeastern Europe, around the Black and Caspian seas and Kazakhstan. The trends increased slightly farther east in Siberia, Mongolia and northern China.

In North America, trends were slightly higher in the southwest United States than in the Great Lakes region. Warming was weaker in the tropics and in the mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. The results were consistent with the expected changes associated with global warming.

The satellite temperature trends largely agreed with trends measured by nine buoys in the Great Lakes, Earth's largest group of freshwater lakes in terms of total surface area and volume.

The lake temperature trends were also in agreement with independent surface air temperature data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. In certain regions, such as the Great Lakes and northern Europe, water bodies appear to be warming more quickly than surrounding air temperature.
 

thahat

New member
Apr 23, 2008
973
0
0
Talshere said:
emeraldrafael said:
The server was down, but I'm going to assume this is about global warming and how things will turn out bad.

is this really a bad thing? i get that all of hte earth is delicate, but its just a global period. Earth goes through one every so often. When you've had (at least) 5 major mass extinctions, you just start to think maybe this is the earth thinning the heard for better and stronger creatures? I mean, the earth will always bounce back, its just what will rule when it does.

While you are correct that the earth would bounce back, as it did during the Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum thermal maximum, saying "is this a bad thing" is the worst form of ignorance. Should, worst case scenario, the ice caps melt. Pretty much every coastal city in the WORLD would be under water. Just the loss of the Greenland ice sheet would feasibly see a global rise of eustatic sea level by some 8 metres. The Antarctic ice sheet is some 7 times that size. Don't quote these numbers Im taking them off the top of my head.

And this isnt even taking into account the havoc that dumping that much fresh water into the ocean would cause.
sucks to be in the coastal cities then.
but then again, it would also make the surface of the earth have more percentage water, lots of shallow, water too.
warm, shalow water.
as in more water vapour in the air, the trees would go al dude! you can eat the air man!
and tree-ificate all they can. decreasing the water again.
worst case scenario: we lose a bunch of humans. wich is not bad because there are 3.200.000.000.000 of us XD
 

Geekosaurus

New member
Aug 14, 2010
2,105
0
0
tthor said:
Geekosaurus said:
Was this NASA's "big news" that they said they were going to reveal? Or is that still to come? If this is their "big news" then we've all been majorly let down.
lol don't worry, NASA's big news is much more interesting than this.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105811-NASA-Discovers-New-Life
Oh yeah I saw that afterwards - but thanks all the same. Not being a sciency person I probably can't quite grasp the importance of their big discovery. And as for the whole 'the lakes are warming up' story I could have probably guessed that. I wonder how much NASA spent on researching this? I'd have hazarded a guess for half the price!
 

wammnebu

New member
Sep 25, 2010
628
0
0
Talshere said:
tthor said:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_10-308_Global_Lakes.html

They reported an average warming rate of 0.81 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, with some lakes warming as much as 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. The warming trend was global, and the greatest increases were in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

I wish to stress that this is to be an intelligent discussion. If you wish to debate anything on the subject, please speak intelligently, quote facts, and supply sources.
Im just guna point out that if the Earth as a whole is warming as is postulated, its only common-sense that lakes, isolated bodies of for the most part static and shallow water would warm first and relatively quickly.

As a student of Oceanography I find this to be a rather nonsensical comment.

If youd told me the OCEANS had warmed 0.81 degrees, you might actually have something. As it is, lake temperatures could vary fairly easily with only small changes in the suns activity, or a minor change in the source water. Even increase biological activity could account for a very small increase in such cases. Should eutrophication occur, the resultant algae would act as an insulator which would not significantly change the waters albedo, resulting in a noticeably warmer lake.
thank you for informing me about that, i had never heard that (they never talk about this in classics) before but that makes sense.
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
tthor said:
Talshere said:
tthor said:

Feel safe in the knowledge that NOVA has not lead you wrong ;) A small amount of cold fresh water at the surface promotes the development of pack ice. And I do mean very small. However that much water would reduce the salinity sufficiently that in all likelihood, the very cold highly saline and therefore very dense water that forms in Arctic regions due to the precipitation of minerals out of freezing ice and it being bloody cold, would simply stop. If you do this it stops the feed of this water to the lower latitudes which usually heats the water and sends it back north through density currents. This current accounts for some...er...god this was in lecture like a week ago : / ....I should really remember this...Something like 60% of the world heat transfer. Ask Atmos Duality up ^there how much the trade winds account for, the ocean is basically everything else. The last time we have on record that something like this happened was 11k years ago, when Lake Agassiz on the Laurentide ice sheet on N.America burst, flooding millions of gallons of fresh water into the....Arctic ocean.. Via the Mackenzie river valley, plunging much of northern latitudes back into glacial conditions and allowing decaying ice sheets to once again advance. This period was known as the Younger Dryas and lasted apx 1k years.
Do know if this new Ice Age were to occur, would the Earth recover eventually, simply following in a world cycle of melting and freezing that it always does, or might it cause this cycle of Ice Ages to be interrupted or something (I remember NOVA saying something about how this new Ice Age would be different than the last ice age, something about how that since Earth would no longer have a large reserve of frozen fresh water, that this ice age would not bounce back as easily, or something)

Thats an interesting theory. Ive not heard that one but I can see the logic in it. Its not unusual for ice ages to end very abruptly, at least on a geological time scale. The number of feedback events means that after a critical point the entire system goes into collapse. Im not sure "Ice age" is necessarily the right term for what would happen. For Europe especially western Europe. We would experience a very sharp decline in temperature as we stopped receiving heat from the equatorial waters. But this would be a local affect. A very big local, but local none the less. You may or may not know that ANY snowfall in much of the UK is cause for comment. Much less say a foot of snow. Now Birmingham has a latitude of 52.28N. Ontario in Canada has a latitude of 51.16N, so is closer to the equator, yet in winter 3 foot of snow is not real surprise and lakes solid enough to walk on are common. Western Europe would take on these characteristics. The reason the draining of Lake Agassiz returned us to glacial condition was due to the fact we were ALREADY in glacial conditions. Colder than glacial is well.....Bigger Glaciers. If this were to happen, and I am just speculating here I have no citations for this, assuming global temp got no higher, I would expect re glaciation of much of the northern hemisphere as temperatures began to drop. Much like the younger dryas, we would snap back to a previous colder climate state. Granted this may not be cold enough to cause re-glaciation.

Should the temp continue to rise, we would "quickly" return to the warming trend present pre the event. Where we stop is really anyone's guess : / It depends greatly on our continuation to pump the atmosphere full of gasses.

A feedback of this however is the ocean would gain a sizeable amount of surface area. Remembering that as the sea goes up it spreads out as well. Also, the oceans ability to take up chemicals from the atmosphere work through osmosis. Much in the same way as your kidneys. That is the high the difference in concentration, the greater the rate of transfer. This difference as well as a larger surface area will enable the ocean to consume greenhouse gasses much more quickly from the atmosphere allowing it to re stabilise the atmosphere to, for lack of a better term, "default" levels. That is, what it would be had we not intervened in the first place.

The Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occured some 58 million years ago gives us a good idea of what might happen. Due to events still under debate, a massive amount of methane was released en mass from the ocean floor, coring suggests this may have been around the east coast of S. America if I remember correctly. This gas very quickly made its way to the atmosphere increasing global temperatures by 6°C. Geologically, the event was nearly instantaneous, as was the result. You can see it in this rather amazing diagram (It really is very very good)


Source: Zachos et al. Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present
Science 27 April 2001: Vol. 292 no. 5517 pp. 686-693

The red arrow is the event we are looking at. As well as occurring very suddenly, you can also see that it ended very suddenly. Within 1000 years the climate had returned to its previous trend, which is really rather remarkable. From this point of view we can be fairly certain the damage we are doing is temporary. At least geologically.

Unfortunately, the ocean can absorb chemicals far quicker than it can precipitate them into rock. The result then, is the influx will cause acidification in the ocean. I cannot remember how much, however almost all marine species are highly sensitive to fluctuations in the pH of the ocean, and even a tiny change could well trigger an mass marine extinction event. Certainly coral, some of the most sensitive is almost certainly doomed. This will of course roll over onto bird and mammal species who live in or depend on the sea/ocean to survive. This could likely include estuarine and deltaic environments, the new ones formed after sea levels have risen of course :p So while the planet will indeed recover. The implications for its wildlife....Not good.



EDIT: 709 words. You realise that half my essay on ocean sediment nitrogen cycle right there if id been doing that rather than procrastinating :p