Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada

reply to post by Equinox99


Actually you just pretty much agreed with everything I have been trying to point out.


As an aside, I remember reading somewhere that animals farting make up a large proportion of waste gasses being emitted into the atmosphere. Perhaps the governments of the world should band together and create a career path called "Livestock Bowel Corker". We wouldn't want too much of that methane gas creating Global Warming now would we?

reply to post by Kryties

You know, when I first saw Gores' film, he had me pretty convinced, but then I did a lot of research on my own and found out that he is pretty much dead wrong on alot of things.
Global warming appears (IMHO) to be nothing more than a very natural part of a worldwide system of changes that take place in cycles over a period of thousands of years.
While I dont see a man made global warming event happening, it is possible that the pollutants that man has created and put into our environment has influenced the warming trend very slightly. But in reality the Earth probably knows what it is doing, and when we humans are long gone it will still be here, doing whatever it will with all that plastic that it asked for!!!!

reply to post by spookjr


Bravo!!! Good to see another fellow logical thinker. When one takes the time to step back, disassociate themselves from agenda's and looks at the solid data one begins to find that things aren't all that squeaky clean in the CO2 camp.

Originally posted by atlasastro

So this is yet another huge break, and there is another huge amount of ice expected to follow this break. Add this the New Artic all time low for ice coverage, Wilkins and Ward Ice Shelfs that also broke up this year too. But hey, its not Global Warming. That phrase about burying your head in the sand is becoming more significant now, pull 'em out all you Climate Change Global Warming deniers.

news.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-9-2008 by atlasastro]

Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said 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.[17]

Look I am all against stopping pollution, however to think that our polution has caused this is rediculous. Temperatures are cyclical. Yes the earth is warming, but it will cool again. Global Warming Not Made By Man



[edit on 4-9-2008 by tide88]

Those who disbelieve man climate change/global pollution have obviously never been to China and seen the full extent of its damage. It is not only the fact that we are poisoning our atmosphere, we are also polluting the land which our children will inherit.. our legacy will be a filthy, animal free planet.

I dislike Al Gore, but I know that we are making a negative impact on our environment. Most of all the disbelievers are just Al Gore haters. Big Oil companies have deluded the minds of many with their pseudo-scientific research and deeeeeeeep pockets, if u catch my drift.

Originally posted by xion329alpha
Those who disbelieve man climate change/global pollution have obviously never been to China and seen the full extent of its damage. It is not only the fact that we are poisoning our atmosphere, we are also polluting the land which our children will inherit.. our legacy will be a filthy, animal free planet.

1. Prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the pollution is directly affecting our climate.

2. We are not discussing the impact the pollution has on human's medically. That is a whole new topic altogether.

I dislike Al Gore, but I know that we are making a negative impact on our environment. Most of all the disbelievers are just Al Gore haters. Big Oil companies have deluded the minds of many with their pseudo-scientific research and deeeeeeeep pockets, if u catch my drift.

Once again, this is not about the impact pollution is having on us physically (ie medically). I do not hate Al Gore so please try not to make out as if you can read my mind. I have looked at ALL the research and drawn my own conclusions. I have been neither paid nor influenced by anyone.

So, can you prove without a doubt your claims?

I trudged through the posts on here, but if I missed a post or two, you will hopefully forgive me. I didn't see anything about this.

There have been requests for pertinent information to show how this is not necessarily man-made (i.e. fossil-fuel-related) temperature anomalies causing the Arctic ice cap shrinkage. So far, the most obvious concept has been totally ignored.

We know that heat melts ice. Ice is nothing more than water at or below the freezing point, based on atmospheric pressure and amount/type of chemicals dissolved in said water. So, logically, thinking, there must be some heat source that is warming the Arctic ice.

If we look to the atmospheric 'pollution' of 'excessive' CO2 levels along with other actual pollutants, we learn that AGW states a global increase in the global temperature of approximately 1 degree Celsius. If the ice is to have melted from this source, we would have to assume that said ice was no more than one degree Celsius below the freezing point before the temperature increase. This is absurd and easily refuted without sources on the exact temperature, by no more than rational thought.

We could hypothesize that somehow the temperature variations have confined themselves to the Arctic regions. I know of no rational explanation for why or how this would/could happen. Atmospheric pollutants tend to disperse throughout the available solute available to them (in this case the atmosphere), with concentrations above the normal only seen at or near the sources of said pollution. There are no man-made sources of pollution in the areas being affected (at least in comparison to other more populated areas of the planet).

However, there is another source of heat in the Arctic, recently discovered, which produces a much greater temperature differential than a single-degree Celsius. Volcanoes. From www.canada.com...


Red-hot molten rock and streams and blasts of explosive gases are spewing out under the Arctic Ocean. This particular article was dated June 25, 2008. We apparently have no info on how long these volcanoes had been forming.

As a correlation to this hypothesis, we can see from this link to NOAA that the temperature anomalies since 1971 are largely in the northern portions of the planet. The South Pole seems to have precious few temperature extremes, while the North Pole is covered with record high temperatures. We can also see that these areas of temperature anomalies lie in fairly isolated spots rather than being evenly distributed. This, again, would suggest localized heating phenomena as a cause. And finally, we also see other areas in the Northern Hemisphere that indicate areas of anomaly, although less in intensity than in the Arctic. These are centered around the China coast and Newfoundland, both seismically active areas. So we have yet another correlation between these anomalies and tectonic (including volcanic) activity.

Specific/scientific enough for everyone?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by ryan atwood

 

Alot of damage, here is what they are expecting for that Ecosystem alone....

The loss of these ice shelves means that rare ecosystems that depend on them are on the brink of extinction, said Warwick Vincent, director of Laval University's Centre for Northern Studies and a researcher in the program ArcticNet.
"The Markham Ice Shelf had half the biomass for the entire Canadian Arctic Ice Shelf ecosystem as a habitat for cold, tolerant microbial life; algae that sit on top of the ice shelf and photosynthesis like plants would. Now that it's disappeared, we're looking at ecosystems on the verge of exstinction,' said Muller.

NewsSource
So you would think that this would worry people right, well some people are worried, while others see this as Good News! Who....well, Politicians. Go figure. LOL

They'll just move inland

Along with decimating ecosystems, drifting ice shelves and warmer temperatures that will cause further melting ice pose a hazard to populated shipping routes in the Arctic region — a phenomenon that Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to welcome.
Harper announced last week that he plans to expand exploration of the region's known oil and mineral deposits, a possibility that has become more evident as a result of melting sea ice. It is the burning of oil and other fossil fuels that scientists say is the chief cause of manmade warming and melting ice.

NewsSource

So?

Great news, the ecosystem is dying, wow, everyone grab a shovel and lets make sure it real is dead! Insane. Politicians. Arrrgggghh!

Global warming is a good thing, whether or not it's man made is inconsequential, when things get really bad cities will be destroyed (hopefully death can be avoided) and man will once again see that it's nature that holds the upper hand in this world and we better well start respecting that. Until a major city is destroyed nobodies gonna listen, after that things will get done, electric car mass role out, hippies, money less societies the whole shebang!

Nature will recover and so will we and we'll be better for it, chill out and warm up.

reply to post by Kryties

Us deniers aren't denying that Global Warming is occuring, we are denying it is MAN-MADE. The GW we are seeing is nothing more than Earth's natural 1500 year cycle as proven by various drill-cores taken from all the oceans. Stop making this out to be like we deny GW is happening. It detracts from our argument and quite frankly makes you look stupid.

Yeah, right. We should listen to you, Rush Limbaugh, and Shawn Hannity over 2000 of the world's top peer reviewed scientists who study this every day and say that man is greatly contributing to this problem. Maybe the next time one of us gets cancer, we should consult the peanut gallery instead of going to an oncologist?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by whatsup]

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


interesting how when scientist don't agree...but the most recent info indicates that
when the carbon level reaches a certain mass, the stratosphere flips allowing
these gas's to escape away from the planet, the majority of the gas that the kool
aid drinkers are talking about is water vapor, and the sun is what controls that.
Why do you all focus on something you can't control, yet keep flushing your poisons
into our rivers, and oceans. Its about the micro level folks, and X is right on time
to clean up our mess, standup for your redemption is knocking.....

I'm fairly amused and somewhat puzzled by the attitude many take towards global warming. There is no doubt that the greenhouse effect is a truth. There is no doubt that we as a race put out a heck of a lot of CO2.

So why is it when stories like these come out, people claim they KNOW it's a "normal cycle." How in the world would you know that? Based on timing of previous cycles, as much as 60,000 years old? I'm sorry, but you are guessing when you say this. You have no way of knowing if this is true.

But bottom line: The heat has been going up as CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Why would you NOT at least consider that this could be a cause? Might impact your lifestyle perhaps?

CO2 causes greenhouse effect, greenhouse effect causes heat to become trapped, tempature of our planet is rising.. but it's not possible it can be CO2? This is a logical conclusion how?

I'm much more apt to believe that a known effect is causing a result, when we KNOW we are doing somethig to cause it, versus guessing we might be going through a "cycle" because heck, it happened before!

Originally posted by whatsup
Yeah, right. We should listen to you, Rush Limbaugh, and Shawn Hannity over 2000 of the world's top peer reviewed scientists who study this every day and say that man is greatly contributing to this problem. Maybe the next time one of us gets cancer, we should consult the peanut gallery instead of going to an oncologist?

Putting me in the same catagory as those idiots is only a sign of your own weakness and propensity to label others when you do not understand the topic at hand. Show me your evidence, as I have shown you, and then we can begin talking about this.

Originally posted by fleabit
But bottom line: The heat has been going up as CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Why would you NOT at least consider that this could be a cause? Might impact your lifestyle perhaps?

If you had have read this whole thread you would have seen multiple pieces of evidence I have displayed that refute that theory. You would also know that I said that I may not necessarily be correct but I was looking at the evidence and data and drawing a logical conclusion

I wish you people would bloody read threads fully before jumping to insane conclusions.

EDIT TO ADD: If you are so damned concerned about it being Co2, why don't you go out and actively plant 400,000,000 trees. Its the tree's that are the single most effective carbon scrubbers. By sitting here discussing this you are showing a lack of caring for your beliefs and are losing valuable time planting those trees!!!!!

[edit on 5/9/2008 by Kryties]

Originally posted by atlasastro

Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada

news.aol.com

Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada
By CHARMAINE NORONHA, AP
posted: 12 HOURS 2 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: SCIENCE NEWS, WORLD NEWSPrintShareText SizeAAA
TORONTO (Sept. 3) - A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said Wednesday.
Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, told The Associated Press that the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.reuters.com
www.physorg.com
www.esa.int

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Even The Antarctic Winter Cannot Protect Wilkins Ice Shelf

More scare tactics from the American media.

Doom
Death
Murder
Flooding
Ice melting, world warming!!!!!!

And tonight on Fox, how to turn your children into a prom queen.

Originally posted by Kryties


I have already shown evidence that not all the scientists involved agreed with the evidence and therefore not accepted by the scientific community as a whole.

I hope you re not reffering to the Petition, i have linked to one f my earlier replies a case study you should read on the Petition and the way it was Fraudulently peddled and that the premise of the report does not address or debunk GW at all. The organisation the Oregon Institute is in fact a small organisation based on a farm, OISM was pulled into the Petition by the Author to front the Petition, Until the petition emerged the OISM was infact totally obscure and irrelevant in the feild of Science and Medecine. You have no evidence at all. Your opinion piece is just that, an opinion piece on the system of review on the REPORT and terms in the REPORT, not the science, do you think that if the science was flawd you would need an opinion piece and comments from a comments box on blogs to attack GW science.....please.

Not on its own, but when viewed in conjunction with all the other evidence I provided it begins to build a nasty picture.

This is a great post and sums up tactics used to obscure or twist the facts to foster doubt which is intended to fuel appathy. You paint a nasty picture....that is all you have......show some solid facts....you can't, we can, our solid facts show the REAL nasty picture(not a painted spin)....and if you want to see what that picture is, there are plenty of links in the OP that shows another massive iceshelf breaking off. Facts.

Do you have anything of substance about the piece to ask, or comment, about?

Tom

I think that response speaks for itself.

Yes, yes it does, Tom admits he is and was a lobbyist, he admits he now works for a PR company, so we have a lobbyist and PR rep attacking the IPCC report(by the way i have linked the IPCC hme page and this report, as well as a report on the history of the science used in these reports.....i suggest you read these and then post back on how flawed it is) with no scienctific rebuttles, only an opinion on the way the Report was reviewed by other scientists. That is all, Tom in fact has no substance at all in attack the IPCC reports or the facts within.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by Teki187

More scare tactics from the American media.

Umm, no, infact this did'nt even appear on any mainstream news that i watched, I have FOX, CNN, BBC and SKY and here in OZ it didn't make any of the News Bulletins, and I watched for them. Admittedly the Republican Shindig was probably alot more interesting to US media outlets than them airing more evidence of GW.

Doom
Death
Murder
Flooding
Ice melting, world warming!!!!!!

And tonight on Fox, how to turn your children into a prom queen.

I thought that show was called [INSERT YOUR NATION HERE] NEXT TOP MODEL. What time is it on

Originally posted by atlasastro
Umm, no, infact this did'nt even appear on any mainstream news that i watched, I have FOX, CNN, BBC and SKY and here in OZ it didn't make any of the News Bulletins, and I watched for them.

Dude, the news isn't restricted to Television, just a heads up

Try the newspapers, or some of the wide variety of other news sources plastered all over the internet.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Yes that is pretty interesting, will be looking at this. BTW the Southern Antartic is experiencing overall ice loss, although you are right in pointing out the Trends in the North and this has to be considered as seriously as other caused being attributted to the melting. Will get back to this when i read your links and sources. Thanks for the great reply.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by atlasastro
Umm, no, infact this did'nt even appear on any mainstream news that i watched, I have FOX, CNN, BBC and SKY and here in OZ it didn't make any of the News Bulletins, and I watched for them.

Dude, the news isn't restricted to Television, just a heads up

Try the newspapers, or some of the wide variety of other news sources plastered all over the internet.

Dude, did i say it was. I was replying to another poster stating that this was a media scare campagn.......thanks for the heads up though. BTW were do you think i got all my news sources for the OP, come on mate. The OP material did'nt make any of the Papers or broadsheet i had read that day, this was first reported on some ONline services and pages on the 2nd and then recieved more greater attention on the 3rd, i caught a small blurb(10 lines in a margin) in a Murdoch magazine type newspaper targeting commuters in SYD called MX i then went online to find more, then i flicked the news services like i normally do, and saw zip. I was catching a train that day instead of riding my bike home, as i had been to the dentist that day and was to out of it to ride......all that coincidence leeds me here explaining and justifying my perception of available news and how i encounter it, to you. Come on mate, your post is dissapointing.

reply to post by atlasastro


Don't take it so personally mate It was only meant to be a heads up, not a patronising comment directed at you.

]Originally posted by TheRedneck

We could hypothesize that somehow the temperature variations have confined themselves to the Arctic regions. I know of no rational explanation for why or how this would/could happen.

Well one logical explanation is that the Artic has a larger percentage of ICE exposed to the sea where as the Antartic is a continent with larger amounts of Ice on land, so it is only exposed to one temperature variant more so than the Arctic , this one variant being the atmosphere, where as the Artic gets both the Atmospheric increase as well as more Oceanic, and now Volcanic as you rightly highlight, as causes.

Atmospheric pollutants tend to disperse throughout the available solute available to them (in this case the atmosphere), with concentrations above the normal only seen at or near the sources of said pollution. There are no man-made sources of pollution in the areas being affected (at least in comparison to other more populated areas of the planet).

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occuring gas, it is released as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. This is being equally distributed throughout the atmosphere, and it is being observed and measured. World Data for Greenhouse Gases. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is labelled so because it aids in heating the atmosphere....it is not pollution, air born pollutants, or aerosols, would be the particulate matter that we observe as smog in urban enviroments that are also a result of burning fossil fuels or as industrial processes etc. For further reading i suggest you look at this article on Aerosol pollutants.

Unlike greenhouse gases -- which stay in the atmosphere for long periods and are fairly evenly distributed -- aerosols are more concentrated near their sources and variable in space and time, making it difficult to quantify their impacts. "But their cooling effect may be as large as the warming effect created by humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during the last century," said Toon, also a professor in CU-Boulder’s Program for Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences.

University of Colorado

However, there is another source of heat in the Arctic, recently discovered, which produces a much greater temperature differential than a single-degree Celsius. Volcanoes. From www.canada.com...

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

Well how does the volcano theory explain this.

This comes on the heels of unusual cracks in a northern Greenland glacier and rapid melting of a southern Greenland glacier. And earlier this year a 160-square-mile chunk of an Antarctic ice shelf disintegrated.

SOURCE The Greenlands Glaciers are on land and the Antartic is continental, not to mention in the south pole so these factors are arguing against Volcanoes as being the cause to explain melting in these areas and so this only limits the Volcanic activity to a possible cause within a localised area, that being the Arctic. Which i can easily accept and agree with as a cause, it still does account for all the other observable warming around the planet, Atmospheric or Oceanic.

“Reduced sea ice conditions and unusually high air temperatures have facilitated the ice shelf losses this summer,” said Luke Copland, director of the Laboratory for Cryospheric Research at the University of Ottawa.
“And extensive new cracks across remaining parts of the largest remaining ice shelf, the Ward Hunt, mean that it will continue to disintegrate in the coming years.”

So there are some people observing unusually high temperature that they then, and logically so, attribute as causes for melting, observed factors. Volcano's though can still be playing a role in conjunction with these other factors.

What i found significant about the Woods findings on the Gakkel Ridge is that the venting is happening in a way previously never seen before. That is what is remarkable, the event, not that there is unexpected or anomolous heat being expelled.

The scale and magnitude of the explosive activity that we're seeing here dwarfs anything we've seen on other mid-ocean ridges," says Sohn, who studies ridges around the world. The volume of gas and lava that appears to have blasted out of the Gakkel volcanoes is "much, much higher" than that seen at other ridges.

WWW.CANADA.COM
This is your source remember, and it is a good one. This article then goes on to also say this.

The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say.

Your link showing anomalous sea temperatures is great. But Unfortunately we would have to also observe anomalous temperature whenever vents are active to see if these vents create these anomalous temperatures everywhere else in the ocean. I am currently looking for more stuff on vents.
While the scientist from your source discount it as being a cause, I personally am inclined to accept that it must have some effect, and that this cannot be ignored, nor can it be the credited as the sole contributing cause of Artic melting and thus lead others to ignore the observed warming in the Atmosphere and Ocean, observed and Attributted to Anthropogenic GW.

P.S. On a side not, you might notice in the above highlited quote that the scientists admit that volcanoes contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Volcanic CO2 is 1% of the volume emitted by Humans, 1%.

What the science says...
As far as CO2 goes, volcanoes emit only 0.3 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year - about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 26.4Gt per year.

IT MIGHT BE VOLCANOES extra DIV