Far North Greenland Glacier Cracking Up

Scientists Cautious About Attributing To Global Warming, But Agree It Fits A Trend

(AP)  In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said Thursday.

And that's led the Ohio State University professor who spotted the wounds in the massive Petermann glacier to predict disintegration of a major portion of the Northern Hemisphere's largest floating glacier within the year.

If it does worsen and other northern Greenland glaciers melt faster, then it could speed up sea level rise, already increasing because of melt in southern Greenland.

The crack is 7 miles long and about half a mile wide. It is about half the width of the 500 square mile floating part of the glacier. Other smaller fractures can be seen in images of the ice tongue, a long narrow sliver of the glacier.

"The pictures speak for themselves," said Jason Box, a glacier expert at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University who spotted the changes while studying new satellite images. "This crack is moving, and moving closer and closer to the front. It's just a matter of time till a much larger piece is going to break off.... It is imminent."

The chunk that came off the glacier between July 10 and July 24 is about half the size of Manhattan and doesn't worry Box as much as the cracks. The Petermann glacier had a larger breakaway ice chunk in 2000. But the overall picture worries some scientists.

"As we see this phenomenon occurring further and further north - and Petermann is as far north as you can get - it certainly adds to the concern," said Waleed Abdalati, director of the Center for the Study of Earth from Space at the University of Colorado.

The question that now faces scientists is: Are the fractures part of normal glacier stress or are they the beginning of the effects of global warming?

"It certainly is a major event," said NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally in a telephone interview from a conference on glaciers in Ireland. "It's a signal but we don't know what it means."

It is too early to say it is clearly global warming, Zwally said. Scientists don't like to attribute single events to global warming, but often say such events fit a pattern.

University of Colorado professor Konrad Steffen, who returned from Greenland Wednesday and has studied the Petermann glacier in the past, said that what Box saw is not too different from what he saw in the 1990s: "The crack is not alarming... I would say it is normal."

However, scientists note that it fits with the trend of melting glacial ice they first saw in the southern part of the massive island and seems to be marching north with time. Big cracks and breakaway pieces are foreboding signs of what's ahead.

Further south in Greenland, Box's satellite images show that the Jakobshavn glacier, the fastest retreating glacier in the world, set new records for how far it has moved inland.

That concerns Colorado's Abdalati: "It could go back for miles and miles and there's no real mechanism to stop it."

[jimfinster]

hawkSprings & louiville2:


You warming deniers are a funny bunch. Please keep on posting, as your scientific analyses are always good for a laugh !

[jimfinster]

hawkSprings & louiville2:


You warming deniers are a funny bunch. Please keep on posting, as your scientific analyses are always good for a laugh !

[hawksprings]

Meanwhile, on August 24th in Minnesota and Wisconsin, they are going to get frost tonight.
Maybe the glacier is so cold it is cracking.

[louiville2]

ubrew12- Polar bears are not on the endangered list it''s the threatened list and Canada wants it''s removal, seems they have too many. Current debate is in taking them off the list entirely since populations have increased steadily since the 1950''s. "As I%u2019ve tried to indicate, its not just computer models that think AGW is real. CO2 is a major factor in Earths greenhouse effect (agreed since 1890). CO2 concentrations have gone up 50% in the last century (agreed since 1960). What does the computer in your brain calculate the likely effect of that would be?? Nothing??" What''s your source (%u201Cits not just computer models that think AGW is real%u201D) nitwit? Because I have read the IPCC report and it doesn%u2019t say that, your just another empty shell regurgitating alarmist propaganda. When push them your hands just fall through the fake ******.

[ubrew12]

Honestly, man.
At this point, WHAT THE FVCK IS THE MATTER WITH YOU???

[ubrew12]

louiville2 said: "you don''t have anything concrete to back up your bravado. LOL AGW ONLY exists in computer models, models that ALL said warming would continue after 1998, which it didn''t."

As I''ve tried to indicate, its not just computer models that think AGW is real. CO2 is a major factor in Earths greenhouse effect (agreed since 1890). CO2 concentrations have gone up 50% in the last century (agreed since 1960). What does the computer in your brain calculate the likely effect of that would be?? Nothing??

The polar bear is now classified, by BUSH''s EPA, as endangered of extinction. How long does it take to EVOLVE a polar bear anyway??? THATS how long its been since the north polar ice cap was THIS scr*wed up.

What happens to the polar bear could happen to your children. Given the many alternatives to that fate, why take the risk?

[louiville2]

ubrew12- in other words you don''t have anything concrete to back up your bravado. LOL AGW ONLY exists in computer models, models that ALL said warming would continue after 1998, which it didn''t. Computer models that CANNOT predict PAST known weather. Go ahaead and cling to your VODOO scienctist who won''t even debate the science (Cowards).

[ubrew12]

osidepops1 said: "get ready for EXTREEME weather in our and our childrens future."

What children?

What you''ve commented on is what they know about. Its what they DON''T know about that scares me. Like, what happens to the millions of tons of methane gas trapped in the Arctic permafrost, when that permafrost melts? There''s enough methane trapped there to increase global temperatures by 10 times the amount projected by man-made CO2 increases. Not all of the feedbacks identified due to global warming are ''negative'', you know. And there''s no particular reason they should be.

People who deny global warming are, at this point, playing Russian Roulette with our children. That is NOT funny. Eventually, names will be taken, and lists will be made. If things turn out for the worst, and our children DON''T have a future, those lists are going to be very popular... indeed.

[ubrew12]

louiville2, Global dimming is a proven man-made effect in which aerosol pollutants dim the earth by intercepting solar radiation. The Clear Air act reduced this threat by controlling the aerosol pollution created by cars, power plants, and jets. But, you could increase it if you want and deal with the thousands of people with emphysema and other lung diseases who would die as a result, as well as massive reductions in crop yields (and attendant deaths by starvation) that would also occur. Dimming the earth DOES cool it, but only a committed neocon would consider it as a solution to Global Warming: hey, that makes it your solution of choice!!!

louiville2 said: "What [climatological] science [of the present day] is that?" Gee, I guess there IS no science of the present day to match what you''ve swallowed whole-hog from your neocon websites about events a million years ago. Hey, are you sure the earth existed a million years ago [according to those same websites]? You know, the earth was created in seven days about 7000 years ago, and all that...

[louiville2]

"There are ominous signs that the earth''s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976 If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)" joeamerican3 what can I say it must be your first Man Kind Will ____ if we don''t act now" scam (idiot).

[louiville2]

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968) I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970) Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

[osidepops]

Reference a Special that aired earlier this year on CBS . Even if we stopped driving vehicles , closed all polluting factories in essence stopped all activity that prodduced pollutants , our planet wide temprature would rise about another degree and that is enough to finish melting all the glaciers and ice in the northern hemisphere. Sooo! get ready for EXTREEME weather in our and our childrens future.

[louiville2]

ubrew12- LOL I feel I''m talking to a kindergartener. You need to broaden your world, a) stop reading just leftist the end is near sights and try to OPEN your mind to other views. For example CO2 is A) a trace gas mans contribution is only about 3% +/- b) CO2 is only able to absorb 3 wavelengths of the IR (infrared) band or about 8% of the IR band and that''s only if those bands are being radiated without going into the finer details man''s contribution is about GW is about 0.000001. 0.000001 x 0.6 degree C for all of the last century heating = man''s contribution is 0.0000006 deg C LOL scientifically that''s ZERO.

"Still, its inconguous, considering your lack of faith in the far more credible and well-documented science of the present day." What science is that? Hansen who had to back off on 1998 as the hottest year because he got caught fudging the numbers, or is it Mann who''s "Hockey Stick Graph" is laughed at and lampooned, or was it the IPCC which truncated data to 2005 giving them two years to massage the data and whose own scientist who worked on call it a fraud? ROFL FYI since 2002 we have lost ALL of the 0.6 deg C Langmuir%u2019s %u201CPathological science %u201C

[joeamerican3]

Ok anyone who thinks global-warming is not real is a complete idiot. There is, and has been for decades now OVERWHELMING evidence, the we a.k.a. the human race and our actions are directly causing the dramatic climate chance that we are witnessing today. And to those who think well why bother, there is nothing that we can do to stop it so why bother, the answer is simple, we bother because even though we cannot prevent some damage being done we most certainly can limit it and in time hopefully reverse the effect and restore balance to the planet.

[usclimey]

"[CO2 concentrations] went from 26 parts of 100,000 to 38 parts per 100,000" Yes, thats what a 50% increase in a significant factor in Earth''''s greenhouse effect would look like; thanks for the confirmation. I would wish that your home value went up 50% but I know that doesn''''t mean anything to you.
Posted by ubrew12

Put another way, I wonder what would happen if the oxygen content of the atmosphere rose by 50%? Yes 260 to 380 PPM is a significant increase. BTW to all those "water is a more powerful GHG than CO2" people, when hydrocarbons burn they produce roughly one molecule of water per molecule of CO2. Thus water concentrations are being increased as well.

[ubrew12]

louiville2 said: "CO2 concentrations have been proven to be insignificant [to Earth''s greenhouse effect]" OK, now your just lying to the rest of us, and you know it.

"[CO2 concentrations] went from 26 parts of 100,000 to 38 parts per 100,000" Yes, thats what a 50% increase in a significant factor in Earth''s greenhouse effect would look like; thanks for the confirmation. I would wish that your home value went up 50% but I know that doesn''t mean anything to you.

"How about the fact that at one time the CO2 concentrations where 1,000%-2,000% higher then they are NOW but life still went on just fine in fact better then today." Oh, is that a ''fact''? (and whats with the percentages, did you have a change of heart?) Looking past thousands of present-day measurements to glom onto a few measurements from a thousand feet down in an ice-field? And life then did ''better'' than today, did it? Your faith in the science of the distant past is touching. Still, its inconguous, considering your lack of faith in the far more credible and well-documented science of the present day.

[louiville2]

Ubrew wrote "The role of CO2 in Earths greenhouse effect was figured out by the 1890''''s. Despite its low concentration in our atmosphere, CO2''''s effect is so pronounced our planet would be frozen over were CO2''''s concentration to fall to zero." LOL No H2O is the largest GHG, CO2 concentrations have been proven to be insignificant

"Its also not particularly controversial that CO2 concentrations have risen by 50% over historical values in the last 100 years. This has been measured directly in numerous places." AGW proponents are funny They all ways quote percentages you mean it went from 26 parts of 100,000 to 38 parts per 100,000 (WOW) How about the fact that at one time the CO2 concentrations where 1,000%-2,000% higher then they are NOW but life still went on just fine in fact better then today.

"And its illogical (bordering now on irresponsible, given the evidence) to deny it." No what''s irresponsible is yelling Fire in a theater when there is no fire. Especially since ALL of the climate models have failed to predicte past known data and this current drop in temps.. Chairman Mao during the Cultural Revolution demanded immediate change to save China, the result was about 30 million starved to death pursuing his fears.

[ubrew12]

newster1 said: "It''s a bit laughable to think that my little ole can of hairspray or recycling my plastic bags and soda cans is going to have one iota of effect one way or the other on a global climate change"
Multiply you by seven million.

newster1 said: "a massive scale this rapidly is NOT going to be stopped by anything we do."
If you don''t think you can improve the climate, you''re right.

legacyABQ said: "Why not make the best of it for now and see what has been revealed? " True. They''re talking about cruise ships taking the northern passage. That would be an awesome trip.

[nothappyatall]

If we do not stop now, our species is doomed.
Posted by frankie2fing

If you want to know why nothing is being done about Global Warming, its the media.
Posted by ubrew12

It''s a bit laughable to think that my little ole can of hairspray or recycling my plastic bags and soda cans is going to have one iota of effect one way or the other on a global climate change, the scale of which most people can''t comprehend.
Go read Robert Peary''s books from 1898 ''Northwrd over the great ice'' his multi year expositions focussed on Greenland and the North pole, his books have many PHOTOS, weather data, notes and more. The Greenland conditions and glaciers he describes and shows in photos is a different Greenland than we see today. The temperatures there even in the summer were in the -20 -30 range, with storms at other times bringing in -50 and -60 readings with what we call now wind chill dropping it to around -100 that''s OFF the scale!
He couldnt get his sailing ship into Cape York and other locations due to the frozen ice except during a very limited couple of weeks during the summer, the rest of the time the sea was FROZEN solid.

Now waterfalls from melting ice are larger than Niagra Falls going down some 3000 feet to the rock/land base- seen the photos, a massive scale this rapidly is NOT going to be stopped by anything we do.

[legacyabq]

I wonder about all this ice melting.. Someone should be out perusing the exposed areas, looking for prehistoric sites or mammoths or whathaveyou. I know glaciers grind everything to a pulp, but receding ice shelfs might open up new areas for geologists and anthropologists to explore. Why not make the best of it for now and see what has been revealed?