Across N. Canadian Arctic, Lakes Shrinking, Disappearing - 6700 KM2 Vanish From 2000 To 2009

[hatrack]

A new and strange phenomenon is baffling scientists. This is the case of the vanishing lakes in the northern part of the Arctic which can have an impact on local wildlife and human populations, researchers said. Canada lost some 1.2 percent of its water surface or 6700 square kilometers between 2000 to 2009 as revealed in a satellite survey of the 1.3 million lakes stretching from coast to coast, according to the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska,

"It's an important finding. We need to find out what's driving it," says Larry Hinzman, director of the research center.

Previous surveys showed that there had been shrinking Arctic lakes, but only in the southern-most part of the Arctic. But the new survey, carried out by Mark Carroll at the University of Maryland in College Park found that the reverse is happening: it is the northern lakes that appears to be shrinking.

What is surprising, according to Hinzman, is that the northern region received higher-than-average amounts of rain during the 10-year study period. In addition, the warmer temperature across the region should be decreasing the snow pack which should also boost the lake. Despite these factors, however, the lakes are vanishing contrary to known physical processes that suggest that the lakes should be growing, not shrinking.

EDIT

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/232796/20111018/arctic-lake-climate-change.htm

[phantom power]

1. I'm sure it's nothing

[hatrack]

3. "Look at the bones!!!"

:rofl:

[leftyohiolib]

6. RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!!!

[Laelth]

2. k&r for exposure. This is very significant. n/t

-Laelth

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. I can imagine two causes -

1) increased evaporation

2) melting of the permafrost making the tundra more permeable, so it absorbs more moisture to greater depths

The increase evaporation is the cause of the increased rainfall noted, and the more absorbent tundra means less runoff to the lakes.

[hatrack]

5. I recall a couple of stories over the past few years about lakes disappearing literally overnight .

Which would seem to support the cracking/permeable permafrost you mention - at least in some cases.

[saras]

7. The important part is not what's happening, but that WE HAVE NO THEORY

We are so incredibly ignorant of how the environment works up there that we don't even have alternative theories that could possibly suggest what is happening. They're just going "duh. I dunno."

And we think we're going to go up there and suck up all the resources without damaging anything.

It's just so much EASIER to make pigs fly.

[Nihil]

8. Actually they are applying exactly the same approach ...

> It's just so much EASIER to make pigs fly.

You're right, it is very easy to make pigs fly - it's the safe landing
that causes the problems - so capitalists simply keep charging per pig
and keep on launching them further & further up in the hope that one
might make it back ok.

Up there, there are so many ways to screw up the environment that it's
hard to choose which of them is the most likely - but there's still no
easy way to reverse the change - so capitalists just keep doing all of
the screw-ups at the same time as they can't accept any deflection of
the eternally increasing profit curve on the "off-chance" that giving
up some $$$ might reduce the damage.

:banghead:

[GliderGuider]

9. Whatever it is,

I'm sure some bright spark will be along any second now with a geoengineering solution.

Geoengineering means never having to say "Let's stop doing this..."