Canadian Ice Shelf Loses 7-Square-Mile Section

EDMONTON, Alberta — A chunk of ice spreading across seven square miles has broken off a Canadian ice shelf in the Arctic, scientists said Tuesday.

Derek Mueller, a research at Trent University, was careful not to blame global warming, but said it the event was consistent with the theory that the current Arctic climate isn't rebuilding ice sheets.

"We're in a different climate now," he said. "It's not conducive to regrowing them. It's a one-way process."

Mueller said the sheet broke away last week from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf off the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's far north. He said a crack in the shelf was first spotted in 2002 and a survey this spring found a network of fissures.

The sheet is the biggest piece shed by one of Canada's six ice shelves since the Ayles shelf broke loose in 2005 from the coast of Ellesmere, about 500 miles from the North Pole.

Formed by accumulating snow and freezing meltwater, ice shelves are large platforms of thick, ancient sea ice that float on the ocean's surface. Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s.

At 170 square miles and 130-feet thick, the Ward Hunt shelf is the largest of those remnants. Mueller said it has been steadily declining since the 1930s.

Gary Stern, co-leader of an international research program on sea ice, said it's the same story all around the Arctic.

Speaking from the Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen in Canada's north, Stern said He hadn't seen any ice in weeks. Plans to set up an ice camp last February had to be abandoned when usually dependable ice didn't form for the second year in a row, he said.

"Nobody on the ship is surprised anymore," Stern said. "We've been trying to get the word out for the longest time now that things are happening fast and they're going to continue to happen fast."

Comments

[brenner21]

Some of the tabular icebergs that break off of the huge ice shelves of Antarctica have been as large as rhode island or delaware

[emstrem]

Global Warming wont go away until it ceases to be a MONEY MAKER, and something that gives a no-name scientist a soapbox to spew their so-called facts that this is it.

Sheep.

[realpolitic]

Who are your favorite scientists? Can you name a living scientist?

[ENK727]

I just came back from the Athabasca Glacier in Canada and water was streaming down like mad. This one particular Glacier has receded the most in the past 20 years versus other periods in history. When you go and visit sites such as these, it gives you a better grasp on global warming.

[BlueZoo]

And we all fiddle while our global governments do nothing... SEVEN SQUARE MILES, PEOPLE!

[fumes]

what would you have them do bluezoo, ideally and specifically?

[realpolitic]

I would attack Iraq!

[Turophile]

No global warming since 1998 (2 of 2)

... Continued

In the 1970s it was back to global cooling and another ice age. On June 24th, 1974 Time Magazine reported that “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” The New York Times followed up on May 21st, 1975 with “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable”

On April 9th, 2001 Time Magazine reported that “[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.“ The New York Times followed up on December. 27th, 2005 - “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming”

Even our Federal Government bureaucrats gets in on the act. Around 1970 NASA 'scientist' James Hanson was screaming to us about the imminent ice age. That's the same NASA 'scientist' James Hanson who is now warning about the present global warming catastrophe.

Can you spell C-Y-C-L-I-C-A-L? Why are the New York Times, Time Magazine and NASA 'scientist' James Hanson given any credibility at all?

[Exusian]

...continued

NASA GISS Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C) (Base: 1951-1980)
Year/annual mean anomaly
1995 .38
1996 .30
1997 .40
1998 .57
1999 .33
2000 .33
2001 .48
2002 .56
2003 .55
2004 .49
2005 .62

The above stats put the lie to this tripe. Moreover, it is impossible to determine a rate per decade since it has been less than a decade since 2001. Thus you are demonstrating your mathematical and statistical ignorance. Global mean temperature for 2006 and 2007 have been lower, but two years does not make a climate trend. Neither do 5, 7 or even 10 years. Climate is defined as the average of weather over a sufficiently long period of time, and the World Meteorological Organization defines that period of time as 30 years.

"Can you spell C-Y-C-L-I-C-A-L?"

Can you define cyclical?

Happening or appearing at regular intervals.

So please, do tell us the specific natural cycle or cycles causing the warming of the past century and explain how they account for all observed and measured effects of the warming.

[Exusian]

"Measurements have shown NO global warming since 1998. In fact, the globe has entered a cooling phase, cooling about 1.1 F per decade since 2001."

This is what's known as 'cherry picking', picking a data point or points and removing them from the context of the entire data set. It's a form of lying with statistics.

By any measurement 1998 was an outlyer caused by an exceptionally strong El Nino, while 2006-07 was a particularly strong La Nina, so naturally starting with an outlying high point and ending with a strong low point will give you a drop, but it won't tell you anything about the underlying trend.

The truth is that the upward trend in temperatures did not end in 1998, since 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 were all warmer than 1997, and 2005 was tied or even higher than 1998.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

continued....

[Turophile]

No global warming since 1998 (1 of 2)

Measurements have shown NO global warming since 1998. In fact, the globe has entered a cooling phase, cooling about 1.1 F per decade since 2001. Find more facts at:

http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

The MSM have been screaming about imminent climate catastrophes for a long time. In the 1920s it was a possible ice age. On September 10th, 1923 Time Magazine reported, “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age.” On September 18, 1924 the New York Times chimed in with “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”

In the 1930s it was global warming. On March 27th, 1933 the New York Times reported “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise.” Time Magazine followed up on January 2nd, 1939 with "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

Continued ...

[realpolitic]

Are you a Time magazine historian?

[redshifted]

I've come to realize there is no amount of evidence that will convince some of these deniers. Even if they were treading water on the streets of Manhattan, they would find some other reason for it....one that doesn't conflict with whatever ideology is keeping their thick heads buried in the sand.

The good news is that they are being marginalized more and more. Most rational people now accept that humans are having a significant effect on earth's climate. The questions is, what are us rational people going to do about it?

[fumes]

hi redshifted! say, there weren't enough rational people in 2000 and 2004 to prevent the catastrophic bush administration, so how now are you and your ilk going to stop global warming, or even man-made global warming? just curious...

[jake1492]

Seven square miles is nothing. This is not a noteworthy event.

[WatchIt]

Yes, your waste products in a lake or river mean nothing. Multiply that by millions, and then ya got a problem. Why can't you cons see past your own noses?

[fumes]

jff, i looked up greenland in wiki: ''However, a recent study suggests a much warmer planet in relatively recent geological times:
Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago. The existence of those DNA samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicated that during the last interglacial period, 116,000–130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[16]'' say, greenland sounds like a magical place when warm! i think i'm not afraid any more of global warming. could this be fun even?

[Gasparilla]

Possibly for you, but if you live in a low lying area like Bangladesh it might not be such a laugh riot.

[fumes]

hi gasparilla, agreed, but haven't people always moved around when necessary?

[WatchIt]

Somebody cuttin' n' pastin' from Wikipedia? But somebody forgot to read past that basic entry into implications for low lying areas? Are we happy because we sold some chump our beachfront property?? Hmmm?

[fumes]

say watchit, i think that that's implicitly understood anyway, but yes as i recall the article stated a rise of 23 feet of sea water. so i've a question for you watchit, do you think we can control global warming? got any models that predict that we can? my post indicated that there was once warming AND cooling again long before our industrial revolution.

[TurgidCaterwauling]

Yes, let's not use the phrase global warming; it might offend someone.

[Vermontah]

What I don't understand about the 'global-warming-deniers" is, what's the point? Why argue with this? I can understand arguing about war policy, economic policy, the differences between capitalism and socialism, left-right things like that.

Why, though, when the subject is the very planet we live on, does all this have to be argued at all? Why is it so very important to you to defend the destruction of our planet? Even if "global warming" is 100% a natural phenomenon, cyclical, caused by trees, is it not obvious that we should be concerned about the health of the planet?

If our silly planet is, as you suggest, destroying itself on its own, unaffected by human activity, that's fine. But it still scares me! And if a change in human activity can somehow slow the catastrophic changes that the stupid planet is doing to itself, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Why is it so important to you to insist that we must do nothing at all to slow this catastrophe? Can you tell me how your interest is served please?

[DelvinMcGee]

Do a modicum of research on the varying temperature of our planet since its inception. Don't forget the ice age and the little ice age.

After doing so, you can answer most of your own questions.

[Gasparilla]

The usual deflection. There is no one who denies that there have been temperature variances in the past. The contention is that this warming trend is being caused or greatly hastened by man made pollution.

[Exusian]

And don't forget to note the effect of the increases in both greenhouse gases and temperature during the Permian-Triassic and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum mass extinctions.

More relevant, do a modicum of research on temperature variation during the past 2.5 million years of human evolution.

Pay particular attention to the range of variation over the past 12000 years, during which every thing that you know as civilization developed. Every single thing.

Note the reason for collapse of the Akkad, Mayan, Moche, and Eatser Island civilizations.

Then we'll talk.

[gbloodgood]

Even if they don't believe in Global warming - don't we want clean air?

Personally I prefer to breathe. I was just in Northern Wisconsin and couldn't believe the difference in the air quality. My city now has air alerts almost every hot summer day!

I do believe we are causing our planet to warm - but I think we need to discuss air and water quality in order to make headway with some of the deniers.

[DelvinMcGee]

On no! If this keeps up the island of Greenland may turn green. That would indicated an obvious man-made environmental disaster!

Oh - you mean Greenland used to be green? And had farms on it?

Nevermind.

[Exusian]

As in two tiny Norse settlements along sheltered fjords on the southern west coast?

Eastern Settlement, near present day Qaqortoq, and Western Settlement, near present day Nuuk.

You people will invoke any fairytale, no matter how preposterous, you think will undermine science and reality.

[NL207]

"two tiny Norse settlements "

You mean these settlements:
"The Vikings primarily settled in two areas on the western coast of Greenland, known confusingly as Eastern Settlement (near the tip) and Western Settlement (approximately 300 miles north). The Western Settlement supported perhaps 4,000 inhabitants spread out in small farms. The smaller Eastern settlement reached a peak population of about 1,000 inhabitants."

source: http://www.iupui.edu/~geni/documents/Vikings_in_Greenland-An_Overview.doc

Modern day Nuuk, the largest community presently in Greenland has a little less than 15,000. Sisimiut, the second largest has only a little more than 5,000. Compare London of 1000AD to today, 5-10,000 vs. 8,000,000. These Viking settlements were huge for their day.

sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes
http://www.citypopulation.de/Greenland.html

[WatchIt]

Nope. Dope. The story is that Iceland was forested (at least in part) where it counted. But to dissuade those who would come a roving (hah) to pirate their democratic land, on maps they renamed their island Iceland and this big chunk of ice over yonder GREENland. Better that the invaders would miss the mark and be sunk off the farland than make landfall on Iceland, get some bearings and come back with a larger force. Or at least that is one story. Maybe I am wrong, but DO read past what is given, Delvin?

[realpolitic]

Put all the global warming deniers on the seven mile ice floe and let them joke how the climate's not warming. It is just all a conspiracy.

[pbfishtaco]

Make Rush the owner of the ice floe, then he can start his own football team-- The Viagras.

[Gasparilla]

Yeah, but Al Gore drove his car today.

[drzoon]

so did you. and you turned your light on... and your computer (a big energy suck!) on too

[Gasparilla]

It was sarcasm. It's all some people seem to want to talk about when it comes to global warming.

[gcallaghan]

Was that picture taken from the Bat Plane, or what?

[cdnnewsjunky]

Looks like the under wing of a Twin Otter.

[insanityfollows]

Time to order the hip boots from LL Bean.