Ice Shelf Breaks Off In Arctic

(AP)  A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the North Pole, scientists said Thursday, citing climate change as a "major" reason for the event.

The Ayles Ice Shelf — 41 square miles of it — broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic.

Scientists discovered the event by using satellite imagery. Within one hour of breaking free, the shelf had formed as a new ice island, leaving a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.

Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and was amazed at the sight.

"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years," Vincent said. "We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead."

The ice shelf was one of six major shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic. They are packed with ancient ice that is more than 3,000 years old. They float on the sea but are connected to land.

Some scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and that climate change was a major element.

"It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906. "We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role."

Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated.

Weir notified Luke Copland, head of the new global ice lab at the University of Ottawa, who initiated an effort to find out what happened.

Using U.S. and Canadian satellite images, as well as seismic data — the event registered on earthquake monitors 155 miles away — Copland discovered that the ice shelf collapsed in the early afternoon of Aug. 13, 2005.

Copland said the speed with which climate change has effected the ice shelves has surprised scientists.

"Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly," he said.

Derek Mueller, a polar researcher with Vincent's team, said the ice shelves get weaker as temperatures rise. He visited Ellesmere Island in 2002 and noticed that another ice shelf had cracked in half.

"We're losing our ice shelves and this a feature of the landscape that is in danger of disappearing altogether from Canada," Mueller said.

Within days of breaking free, the Ayles Ice Shelf drifted about 30 miles offshore before freezing into the sea ice. A spring thaw may bring another concern: that warm temperatures will release the new ice island from its Arctic grip, making it an enormous hazard for ships.

"Over the next few years this ice island could drift into populated shipping routes," Weir said.

By Rob Gillies

[jimfinster]

aardbear:

I was trying to make a point about skeptics. That may have gone whizzing over your head.

I have positions on many subjects, based on study of the best set of available facts. I will leave belief to others.

You see, that is the tremendous thing about science that you missed during your 200 hrs of study. You don't need to believe, as the facts will take care of themselves. And yes, there are absolute facts on any subject, including global warming.

[jimfinster]

aardbear:

I like skeptics. So let's also apply that to your belief in God. Don't you think more studies are called for? After all, there could be many other explanations, just like the other explanations listed here for the ice shelf failing. Can you prove that the Bible is from God? An alternate theory is that it was created in order to create and hold followers that will pay 10% to the priests (er, I mean God).

[jimfinster]

aardbear:

"You cannot make a profit selling God's truth."


Well, I think a lot of televangelist driving Mercedes and living in mansions would disagree :)

[razmatazchaz]

reasnmclucus: "I realize many ultraconservatives believe climate should stay the same year after year, but climate has always been dynamic with warming and cooling cycles."

Ok, good point. Life is change. So what's the big deal? Climate change is happening. Always has and always will.

Yeah. But not at this rate. In terms of geologic time, an explosion event is occuring here, and explosion event that humans are causing. Problem is, this explosion event is outside the range of human awareness. There's the irony. Humans are empowered enough with just enough savy so as to casue this explosion, but we're not capable of being aware of it. At least no viscerally. To be aware of this explosion, we need that puny little part of our brain we use for reasoning. Reason needs a voice here and it needs it sooner than later.

It's time for humanity to grow up. Bottom line, if we want the goodies of technology, we have to step up to the plate of managing their consequences responsibly.

[jimfinster]

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that global warming is ocurring. Fine, go ahead and come up with alternate theories about why the ice shelf collapsed. Then start working on your alternate theories for all the other lines of converging evidence!

Most of us with any scientific background are way past this "is not/is too" argument. The discussion now is about the effect that global warming will have on various ecosystems and the human race, and what preventive measures (if any)can be taken.

For those of you who continue to deny the reality of this issue: you are either wrapped up in some philosophical position, and/or you simply do not understand the science involved.

[reasnmclucus]

Ice shelves fall off because they have been undermined by warm water, not because of changes in air temperature. As the distance from the bottom of the shelf to the water increases, the portion of the shelf connected to whatever it breaks off of becomes thinner and eventually cannot support the weight of the shelf.

The flow of warm water into the Arctic has increased in recent years with the flow causing a slight decrease in sea surface temperatures. Warm water melts ice from the bottom up causing a gap between the water and the bottom of the ice. As more snow falls the height of the ice increases resulting in more stress on the connection to other ice or land. Warm air would melt ice from the top down and ice would continue to be supported by the water below.

I realize many ultraconservatives believe climate should stay the same year after year, but climate has always been dynamic with warming and cooling cycles. The climate in Alaska was once much warmer than it is now and could become so again. Areas of Europe are warmer than areas of North America of the same distance from the North Pole because the Gulf Stream carries heat energy along the western European coast. An increase in warm air/water circulation from the tropics to Alaska could cause it to become warmer.

[razmatazchaz]

"Nobody is going to be able to convince me global warming exists."

Bravo for your independence of mind, Int1. All I ask is that you look into the science and the evidence with an open honest mind.

Granted, atmospheric CO2 doesn't exert a huge influence on climate over the short haul. That subtle influence is easily swamped by just the regular noise of the climate system. Thing is, a smallesh steady influence on a very large system over a very long time has consequences. Naturally, anything we do has consequences. I'm not suggesting that the existance of consequences to our actions should paralyze us. It should, however, affect public policies to the extent these consequences cost the public moeny. Science may be kind of boring to some, but money might get one's attention. Insurance companies take this serously, and they're not given to fanciful flights of baseless fears. Some Bitish economists have recently crunched some numbers on costs this century of global warming. It's something along the lines the combined costs of our great depression of the 1930s and of WWs I and II. It's a lot of dollars, and it's a whole lot of needless avoidable human misery.

This isn't out to scare you. This is a simple appeal to your character and to your intelligence.

[intn1]

Nobody is going to be able to convince me global warming exists. If the overall temperature of the earth is up, and it may be by just a few degrees, let's consider there are 6 billion people worth of body heat everywhere. Global warming is a great scare tactic for the environmentalists to get exactly what they want. I like the environment, I do my share to take care of it, but I'm not going to be scared or bullied.

[jimfinster]

razmatazchaz:

Excellent post. The problem is that most people do not have the scientist education to understand this issue. So they fall back on their philosophical positions, which really have nothing to do with the set of facts at hand.

[razmatazchaz]

Human caused global warming is not a wild theory. The physics is straightforeward. The physics works. I can prove that the physics works. I can show you a reliable instrument based upon it. It's called an infrared gas analyzer, or IRGA. It gives you a reading in parts per million, ppm, of CO2 concentration within an air sample. It works on the principle that CO2 is slightly more opague at infrared wavelengths than at other wevelengths. This is also the very same principle on which human caused global warming is occurring. Is occurring. Not will maybe someday occur. Is occurring. Today.

Another thing about IRGAs. Anyone who has been anywhere near an IRGA over the years knows for a fact that atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rizing. This isn't from volcanoes. This is from people. This is just a plain old fact about which there is no ambiguity.

You want to know a wild theory, I'll tell you a wild theory. Consider the theory that humans can alter CO2 concentration within our atmosphere and this has no consequences. What's the physics behind that theory? Where's the evidence for that theory? There's a wild theory for you by which some people delude themselves for their own self-serving reasons.