Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
NASA Space Science

Lakes Found Under Antarctic Ice Using Space Lasers 77

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the space-sharks-still-in-development dept.
Reverse Gear writes "There is a new study circling the media about new lakes found underneath the antarctic ice sheets that apparently empty and fill back up quite fast. 'The scientists allay fears that global warming has created these pockets of water. They say these lakes lie some 2,300 feet below compressed snow and ice, too deep for environmental temperature to reach. However, it is necessary to understand what causes the phenomenon as it can facilitate an understanding of the impact of climate change on the ice sheet in Antarctica.' NASA also has some information on the technique used to detect these lakes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lakes Found Under Antarctic Ice Using Space Lasers

Comments Filter:
  • ICESAT is Cool (Score:5, Informative)

    by lecithin (745575) on Monday February 19, 2007 @09:37AM (#18066778)
    Here is everything you want to know about this interesting satellite:

    http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

    There have been reports of people actually 'seeing' the laser as the satellite goes over:

    http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Oct-2003/0064.html [satobs.org]

    New water holes way under the ice. Fun. I wonder if we will find even more 'new species' as was reported here:

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/1 1/2336230 [slashdot.org]
  • by KokorHekkus (986906) on Monday February 19, 2007 @10:47AM (#18067220)
    If you read the article you will see that they are just warding of any coming questions about global warming causing the subglacial lakes. There are over hundred known subglacial lakes in Antarctica with Lake Vostok being the largest one being 250 km long and 50 km wide ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vostok [wikipedia.org] )
  • by fishthegeek (943099) on Monday February 19, 2007 @11:19AM (#18067454) Journal
    I didn't see a sarcasm tag so I'm forced to conclude that you're serious. Humanity, in all of its faulty glory IS NOT THE CAUSE of temperature change. Repeat after me... "Global warming as caused by human influence is a media driven, grant driven, highly suspect piece of junk science."

    Now on to the sitations...

    Mars is experiencing the SAME rate of warming that earth is. No possible human cause.
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-a ge_031208.html
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.c fm?artId=17977

    From the 40's through the 70's the concern was global cooling. In a nutshell earths temperatures declined right at the point when emissions for the most part were the worst.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    Note that as of 2002 we were complaining about Antartica's cooling temperatures. Someone forgot to inform the Antartica Temperature Management Team that they were supposed to turn UP the thermostat so that Antartica could conform to the computer models.
    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521d ata_trunc_sys.shtml

    As late as the 14th and 15th centuries there were frickin' dairy farms on the coast of greenland! Warm enough at that time for frickin dairy farms but lo' there was a mini ice age and it killed them off. Geenland isn't as warm now as it was just a few hundred years ago!
    https://conservationfinance.wordpress.com/2006/0 9/01/climate-change-on-greenland/

    Satellite (read: stratospheric) temperature readings do NOT show ANY appreciable difference in the atmospheric temperatures
    http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

    I am way too lazy to keep typing tags. Humans do not cause global warming. Now that I've trolled, flamed, and generally irritated people by saying this, I humbly accept the karma beating I am about to take. That's okay, I can creat another account :-)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19, 2007 @12:47PM (#18068246)
    Correct. The new IPCC report (only the policymaker summary has been released) notes that very little warming (if any) has occurred in Antarctica. In fact, they have strongly revised the potential sea level rises due to global warming from up to 20 feet or more in a century to up to 50 cm (best estimates between 20-50 cm). Antarctica is expected to gain a little ice mass during the next century (but decline afterwards). Greenland is expected to lose a little. The majority of the sea level rise will be due to glacier ice loss (which is a small amount of ice compared to Greenland and Antarctica). After 2100 though all bets are off. If warming continues unabated (with maybe a 1000 ppm CO2 concentration compared to the 383 or so value today) then Greenland can add about 4 m to the sea levels and Antarctica can add another 7 m.
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Monday February 19, 2007 @12:54PM (#18068342) Homepage Journal
    The mass media have been of negative value on this issue. I'd be surprised if a majority of USians know what is uncertain and what is known with reasonable confidence.

    Anyone who wants an accessible overview of the science can do much better than watching the shouting heads by taking a look at the IPCC summary for policymakers [www.ipcc.ch].

    And any story that talks about one Siberian town getting colder, or about one single hurricane, is an insult to your intelligence and should be treated as such.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 19, 2007 @04:25PM (#18071512)

    Mars is experiencing the SAME rate of warming that earth is. No possible human cause.
    Where are you getting the "same rate" from - it isn't in the NASA page. Furthermore, the exact rate is irrelevant as we are different distances from the sun and have completely different atmospheres. What would be relevent is if the change in rate was the same but we don't have adequate an temperature history of Mars to know that. I'm not too suprised that Mars is warming right now, as ice ages are linked at least partially to solar cycles, and Mars has the same sun as us. However, extensive measurement of solar activity shows that it alone cannot account for the increases in total thermal energy we are seeing.

    From the 40's through the 70's the concern was global cooling. In a nutshell earths temperatures declined right at the point when emissions for the most part were the worst.
    Yes, and it was a concern. Particulate emissions were causing localized solar blocking leading to decreased temperature. This peaked as particulate emissions peaked and is no longer a significant issue now that most industrialized countries have strict particulate emissions standards. It is a completely orthogonal issue to the green house effect.

    Note that as of 2002 we were complaining about Antartica's cooling temperatures. Someone forgot to inform the Antartica Temperature Management Team that they were supposed to turn UP the thermostat so that Antartica could conform to the computer models.
    Local temperature decreases do not imply global trends. Furthermore, nowhere in that article did anyone claim that this cooling was inconsistant with global warming predictions as you insinuate.

    As late as the 14th and 15th centuries there were frickin' dairy farms on the coast of greenland! Warm enough at that time for frickin dairy farms but lo' there was a mini ice age and it killed them off. Geenland isn't as warm now as it was just a few hundred years ago!
    Yep, and it is coming back. No one is worried about that - they are concerned because it looks very much like the temperature is going to rise well beyond what it was in the 14th and 15th century.

    Satellite (read: stratospheric) temperature readings do NOT show ANY appreciable difference in the atmospheric temperatures
    In the lower stratosphere and lower toposphere. The surface temperature, and upper stratospheres, however do show warming trends - as the page you links says!!

    Now that I've trolled, flamed, and generally irritated people by saying this, I humbly accept the karma beating I am about to take.
    I don't know if you are trolling or not, but yes your comment is misinformed and should be modded down.

"It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works!" -- from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Working...