Ward Hunt Ice Shelf Breaks In Two

heidi writes "CNN has this story on the breakup of the largest ice cap. A permanent feature for the previous 3,000 years, it has broken into two pieces. "The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut territory, broke into two main parts, themselves cut through with fissures. A freshwater lake drained into the sea, the researchers reported.""

Comments

[Correction] Largest *ARTIC* ice shelf

[Meridun]

The poster obviously missed a significant point, that this is the largest arctic ice shelf, not the largest ice shelf. While still quite significant, that is not quite as ominous as the article would indicate

Re:[Correction] Largest *ARTIC* ice shelf

[ChozCunningham]

The poster obviously missed a significant point, that this was the largest arctic ice shelf.

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

so why should we believe that this ice shelf actually broke, or even existed to begin with? because some environmentalists say so? call me a skeptic but i'll believe this when i hear it in church

Shit happens.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, oil will run out. Then you'll WISH we had global warming.

Global Warming & The One World Government

[Anonymous Coward]

It is probably a good time to post this:

Bush covers up climate research (again)

Re:Global Warming & The One World Government

[wagonlips]

Even if the pollution our industries create isn't causing this, plenty of reasons to not dump pollution into our environment exist. It's obvious, really. The debate over global warming can be a sort of smoke-screen obscuring the simple truth: don't sh*t in your own backyard. And when you think about it, it's all our backyard.

Here's another good one: EPA definitely full of sh*t

The global conveyer

[MrLint]

I wonder what, if any, effect the draining of the fresh water lake into the sea will have on "the global conveyer. There was some speculation that the melting ice caps will release so much fresh water into the system the salinity and temperature difference that dries this engine will break down, and the CO2 that it deposits in the deep water will also stop. Is anyone an oceanologist?

Re:The global conveyer

[DCowern]

I, too, spent some time with geology and I prefer the "pack up the coastal cities scenario" to the "Snowball Earth" scenario (or even an ice age on the magnitude of the last one, for that matter).

In short, it's postulated that a "snowball Earth" occured approximately 600-700 million years ago (shortly before the Cambrian explosion) where glacial ice spaned from the polar regions to the equator. Several theories have emerged to explain this but they all revolve around the idea that something happened to cool the Earth (e.g. severe drops in the levels of greenhouse gasses) which lead to more land being exposed which in turn lead to a lessened absorption on solar radiation which lead to even lower temperatures, more land being exposed, even less solar radiation, etc, etc, etc.

Seriously though, I don't think we fully understand the role that natural forces such as tectonics, volcanism, and global weather patterns play in the Earth's climate. While it's pretty obvious that polluting the atmosphere is a Bad Thing, our contribution is probably just a drop in the bucket.

Besides, even if we do screw things up so badly that we suffocate ourselves, the Earth has shown a remarkable resiliency in it's geologic past. In a couple million years, things will be pretty much back to normal and the race of uber intelligent cockroaches will be wondering how these silly bipedal organisms in the fossil record went extinct. ;-)

Re:The global conveyer

[daniel_howell]

No, but I do have a PhD in modelling glacial systems during the last Ice Age, so I'll give it a go (appolgies for only using examples from the gulf stream in the N.E.Atlantic, that's the region that I know).

There is a potential risk to the warm surface currents from the loss of floating ice, though it isn't to do with a one-off influx of fresh water. This will rapidly disperse over the ocean and make no perceptable difference.

However, the 'pump' driving the global conveyer is the constant differential melting and freezing at the base of the sea ice. Sea ice is essentially floating fresh water. If you freeze part of sea water into fresh water you are left with dense, cold, salty water. This sinks to the bottom, and then flows south from the arctic. Warm, surface water then flows north to replace it, forming the Gulf Stream (and other similar currents around the world).

Over the last few decades the extent of sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk noticably. There must be a point at which this will have an effect on these currents[1].

It is not clear what the level of sea-ice required to maintain the currents is, nor on quite how the currents will respond (gradually decreasing or simply shutting down). However there is evidence from the sedimentary record of the last interglacial that the gulf stream in the North East Antlantic, at least, switched on and off a number of times, and that the switch from 'on' to 'off' was very rapid.

There is thus the possibility that current climate trends will result in a situation in which the flow of warm water to the N.E.Atlantic may cease (or dramatically reduce) over a timespan of years or decades, producing dramatic climate changes in north Western Europe (especially Iceland and North Norway, but Britain, Ireland and France are also major beneficaries of the Gulf Stream). The lack of transfer of heat from the warmer regions may also result in higher sea-surface temperatures in those regions, which in turn could provide more energy for severe bad weather and hurricanes. There are futher possible effects from the lack of the cold water current. These are important in carrying oxygen around the oceans, and when they upwell against continental shelves they bring nutrients from the deep ocean to the surface, producing rich fishing grounds.

[1] It is also, incidentally, having a major effect on polar bears, which rely on sea ice in their hunting.

Now remember kiddies

[Gortbusters.org]

The ice is already in the water (ocean), so melting it is not going to increase the sea levels. Remember, water expands when it freezes and it goes back down when you melt it. If you don't believe me, fill a glass full of water and put it in the freezer.

As the earth is still coming out of its last ice age, we shouldn't be too concerned about global warming. What we should be concerned about is desertification due to the lack of vegitation and depletion of the Ozone. Given the natural course of things, the earth will make big dinosaurs, not silly monkeys who play on computers and bitch at eachother.

Anyone else up for a nice honda civic hybrid yet? :)

All part of the cycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had we been living 50,000 years ago, I wonder if we would have blamed the melting of the Bering Strait ice bridge on global warming.

Re:So sad

[gerardrj]

No.. global warming is not a myth, there is solid data to show that the averge global temperature is rising.
What isn't certain is WHY.

Is it "greenhouse gassses"?
Is it that humans are generating more heat through burning of fuels, and throwing off the balance? IE: even if "green house gasses" were brought to 100 year ago levels, temps would still rise
Is is that the Earth is going through a "warmer" part of the Galaxy/Universe?
Is it that there is some change in the Earth's core causing more heat?
Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about?
Is it all those satellites that capture energy that normally passes the planet and direct some of back at us?
It it aliens beaning an interplanetery "slow death ray" at us?
Is it something else we can't think of yet?

Re:So sad

[Anonymous Coward]

So global warming is still a myth ? Let's try to keep it that way.

Global Warming is more than a myth, it is a European plot to undermine the US economy! They're all out to get us, because they're jealous of our way of living. That's why they've been drilling holes in the ice shelf for the last decade!

So hop into your SUV, drive home, turn up all your air conditioners (my hasn't it been hot lately), and relax! Overconsumption is your patriotic duty. Any more of this talk about anthropogenic climate change, and we'll send you to Camp X-ray, where you belong you terrorist!

This is serious stuff folks ...

[whjwhj]

This is not a good development for the ecosystem of our planet.

First, I must mention that those who rush to blame anything and everything on climate change are just as irrational and stupid and those who rush to the assumption that climate change has nothing to do with anything. Both assumptions are erronous, unlearned, and emotionally modivated.

What we need to do hear folks is educate ourselves. As one who has done a fair amount of reading on the subject, I can assure you that although the world isn't going to end tomorrow, the effects of climate change (and man's contibution to climate change) are well worth taking seriously. Instead of blowing it all off as has been done with this subject on this forum in the past, I think we all need to grow up and at least seriously consider the very real possibility that this is in fact a very real problem and that perhaps we should rethink our dependence on fossil fuel and the rest. Because let me tell you folks, if it's half as bad as many scientists predict it is, we'd better get moving on this right now!

So please put aside your impulsive reactions for a bit and go out and learn more about this subject. It's important enough to offer it the benefit of the doubt.

Article discussed Global Warming

[billstewart]

If you RTFA, you'll see them discussing that they don't know whether this is global warming or just regional warming.
Not mentioned in the article, but relevant, is that in some parts of the Canadian Arctic, I think including this area, the local Inuit had stopped making kayaks for some centuries, and had to relearn in the mid-1800s when the weather got enough warmer that kayaks were useful again. Don't know if that's global warming or just regional either.

Re:certainty

[gerardrj]

Coincidence.
There are a lot of other graphs that show similar growth rates.

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2. Environmentalists continually shout about the GhGs because it's easy to make slogans out of and it furthers their agenda.

I have no agenda but to get at truth. In my experince, accepting the first piece of data that fits your assumptions is not the way to get at truth, but a way to sell books and get on the 6:00 news.

Re:certainty

[Daetrin]

I agree it would be a mistake to say that greenhouse gasses are definitely the problem. However we have a theory about how greenhouse gasses could be causing the problem, and it's something we can take relatively easy steps to correct (as opposed to stopping an alien death ray.)

Therefore it would seem to me to be reasonable to state that greenhouse gasses seem a likely cause and take action to reduce them while simultaneously doing more research on the subject to figure out what the cause is for sure.

Re:certainty

[Znork]

Very nice graph. It does make me wonder however, how does it correlate with, for example, the temperature peak during the medieval warm period when temperatures were on average a degree C warmer than today?

Personally, I dont think CO2 emissions really make a big difference. Even if we did manage to completely stop all CO2 emissions (which I think we should do anyway) we'd still get global warming. Historical temperature data tends to point out that we're not even in a very warm period for the moment, and with or without human interference we'll get far larger variations than we've seen the last century.

So, not buying that beachfront property might be a good idea. You never know when mother nature will conspire to make your house an experimental submerged water dwelling.

Re:certainty

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidence.

The fact that temperature changes coincide with increasing levels of a known greenhouse forcing gas, is actually fairly pursuasive. Or did you mean 'mere coincidence.' ;)

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

No serious scientist is arguing 'undeniability.' The large majority of scientists, however, are pursuaded that anthorpogenic carbon dioxide (and other gases) are making a major contribution to the observed climatic changes.

You are simply wrong about a lack of experimental data. The greenhous forcing potential of CO2 has been recognised since the time of Avernius. The mechanism by which heat is trapped (it's actually diffracted), is also well known. What is more the various indicies of heat forcing potential for CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses,' has been quantified.

On the balance of probabilities, it seems to me that right about 10-20 years ago we should have stopped buring the planet's carbon sinks and moved over to nuclear.

I have no agenda but to get at truth.

If that is so, the best starting point would be the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change site. Providing, of course you prefer a scientific gloss on the issue rather than an ideological one.

Re:www.climateprediction.net

[gerardrj]

All this "Save the environment" stuff is bunk. What people are trying to save is themselves/the human race.
Regardless of what humans do, short of blasting Earth in to tiny bits, the environment will be fine. In the geologic/astonomical timescale we are insignificant to the planet, and this global warming thing is like a small pimple you had back in 7th grade on Wednesday night.

The environment is self healing. If we cause it to get too hot (and I'm not sure we're responsible), humans and a bunch of other life forms will die off. Evolution and the geoligic processeses will reform the terrain and biosphere such that new life forms will become prevelant, and perhaps dominant.

The planet seems to have been here for 4.5 billion years, it's traveled trillions upon trillions of miles and been bombarded by untold tons of material large and small. It's been through stages of liquid rock and solid water covering the surface, it likely will go through such stages again.

As for your project, I have a few problems with it:

1. It doesn't seem to incorporate any external changes to the system. ie: it treats the Earth as a closed system and ignores interactions with surrounding space and the local star. At least that's what I gather from the brief reading I've done so far.
2. Its conclusion will be based on the "most popular" result being the most likely. The idea as I see it is: "We'll make a bunch of guesses based on assumptions and very rough modeling, and the most often guessed result is the winner." Sounds a little less than very useful to me.

Re:Interesting ?

[robinjo]

You, sir, are so wrong it hurts my eyes to read!

Place a big chunk of ice in a container and fill it with water. Then sit back and see how the melting of ice does not rise the water level. Then get back to your physics books and figure out why it doesn't.

The problem with global warming is not with floating ice. It's with Antarctica where ice is sitting on the continent. Melting of that ice will rise the sea levels.

Re:certainty

[God! Awful 2]

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

Good point.

Let's do a giant experiment using the Earth as a testbed. If the Earth is still habitable in 50 years, you were probably right.

-a

Re:certainty

[Karellen]

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science

Well, yes.

However, it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we release loads of it every year. There also have been some correlations made, even though they've not yet been proven.

Now, given the potential problems that could be generated by global warming (flooding of coastal cities, alteration and possible destruction of major ecosystems due to changed animal migration or plant survival/dispersal patterns - the latter possibly caused by changes in wind patterns of deep sea current shifts) don't you think it might be a good idea to stop pumping out as much CO2 as we currently to in case it's the problem.

Or do you want to bet the lives of millions (billions?) of people on the case that it turns out not to be the problem?

If you have no idea what the result of a course of action is going to be, but are aware that it might affect the whole planet in a very real and negative way, don't do it!

Please, I don't want to get 20 years down the line, find out CO2 was the problem all along, but that it's too late to do anything about now and is all fucked beyond repair.