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]

01:26 AM on 08/02/2008

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]

12:06 AM on 08/02/2008

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]

10:17 AM on 08/02/2008

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

[ENK727]

11:14 PM on 08/03/2008

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]

05:43 PM on 08/01/2008

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

[fumes]

05:48 PM on 08/01/2008

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

[realpolitic]

10:29 AM on 08/02/2008

I would attack Iraq!

[Turophile]

11:32 AM on 08/01/2008

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]

01:06 PM on 08/01/2008

...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]

01:08 PM on 08/01/2008

"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]

11:31 AM on 08/01/2008

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]

08:28 AM on 08/02/2008

Are you a Time magazine historian?

[redshifted]

10:34 AM on 08/01/2008

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]

10:51 AM on 08/01/2008

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]

12:57 PM on 07/31/2008

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

[WatchIt]

06:39 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

12:48 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

01:28 PM on 07/31/2008

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

[fumes]

01:37 PM on 07/31/2008

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

[WatchIt]

06:42 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

09:24 AM on 08/01/2008

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]

12:02 PM on 07/31/2008

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

[Vermontah]

11:58 AM on 07/31/2008

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]

12:03 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

01:31 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

01:51 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

12:39 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

11:44 AM on 07/31/2008

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]

01:42 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

06:24 PM on 08/01/2008

"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]

06:43 PM on 07/31/2008

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]

09:57 PM on 07/30/2008

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]

02:28 AM on 07/31/2008

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

[Gasparilla]

09:20 PM on 07/30/2008

Yeah, but Al Gore drove his car today.

[drzoon]

09:26 PM on 07/30/2008

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

[Gasparilla]

10:50 PM on 07/30/2008

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

[gcallaghan]

07:01 PM on 07/30/2008

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

[cdnnewsjunky]

09:25 AM on 07/31/2008

Looks like the under wing of a Twin Otter.

[insanityfollows]

06:05 PM on 07/30/2008

Time to order the hip boots from LL Bean.