Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

New cracks suggest largest remaining Arctic ice shelf destined to disappear

BOB WEBER

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 10:19 PM EST 11/04/08

Canadian Rangers get an up-close look at the deterioration ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jeff S from Canada writes: I wonder how that ice sheet around Ellesmere island broke up. The bogeyman of global warming was around then I suppose. Before autos even hit the scene en masse.
  2. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Hi Jeff S

    Your seemingly sarcastic reference to 'The bogeyman of global warming (was around then I suppose. Before autos even hit the scene en masse.)' is actually bang on. Anthropogenic global warming is a result of the large scale use of fossil fuels. That started when the industrial revolution got under way in the 1700s.

    You actually raise quite an important point, because many in the developed world don't understand why the developing world should not assume such a large role in addressing global warming early on ... at the same time as the rest of us. The fact is that long before today or even the last several decades, we started putting greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and they persist. If we stopped our emissions completely in the developed world, it would be some time before China, India, and other developing nations accounted for more than a minority share of these GHGs.

    -
  3. Tweev D from Halifax, Canada writes: I'm sure a bunch of globe and mail commenter's know much more about climate change than these researchers or the 99.999% of the scientific community that agrees that there is more than a 90% probability that climate change is due to human activities.

    Give me a break and give it a rest.
  4. Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: Gee, this will be interesting.

    (Sighs, sets up lawn chair by the side of the road ......)
  5. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    GLO-BULL.. heh heh...
  6. LUCIEN ALEXANDRE MARION from Gatineau Qc., Canada writes: ICE AGE ...According to scientists with this ice 3000 years aprox and this 443 - square kilometers block separating and with more cracks showing , could the Artic Shelf disapears slowly in such a way melting that a new age of our planet is emerging rapidly in our century that could affect generations to come in a near future?
  7. John Connor from Canada writes: Tweev D from Halifax, Canada writes: I'm sure a bunch of globe and mail commenter's know much more about climate change than these researchers or the 99.999% of the scientific community that agrees that there is more than a 90% probability that climate change is due to human activities.

    Give me a break and give it a rest.

    Whatever Tweev. Keep sucking back that IPCC Kool Aid. And BTW, there's about a 99.999% chance that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, and a more than a 99% chance that climate change has occurred without human intervention in the past.

    Give us all a break, and give it a rest.
  8. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Tweev D from Halifax, Canada writes: I'm sure a bunch of globe and mail commenter's know much more about climate change than these researchers or the 99.999% of the scientific community that agrees that there is more than a 90% probability that climate change is due to human activities.

    Give me a break and give it a rest.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Scientific community? Like the famed geneticist David Suzuki? Or the world renowned Al Gore, who's credentials escapes me.

    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes -- director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute -- states 'there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies' used for global warming forecasts.

    Dr. Christopher Landsea -- past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones -- says 'there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.'

    Dr. Antonino Zichichi -- one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter -- calls global warming models 'incoherent and invalid.'

    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski -- world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research -- says the U.N. 'based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.'

    Prof. Freeman Dyson -- one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global-warming alarmism are 'full of fudge factors' and 'do not begin to describe the real world.'

    These esteemed climatologists, meteorologists and physicists know nothing compared a politician and a bug expert. They must be in the pocket of big oil.
  9. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Tweev D, well the problem is that those scientists lost a large section of the western world's support when they started acting like typical, wide eyed crazy fundamentalists.

    There was no talk about LONG TERM targets and plans to reduce emissions, it was basically, we need to drastically change our life, our lifestyles, and our economy NOW, or else the world is going to end. Everyone called their bluff, the world didn't end, and now they don't have any credibility.

    I think something needs to be done about global warming, but until environmentalists realize the only way to do this is through small, incremental change, nothing will ever happen.
  10. bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: I agree it's important that the Canadian Rangers get a chance to do more regular inspections of what's going on in that vast area of the Arctic. I thought as well that technology like Radarsat-2 will give us constantly updated information on what is going on earthside. Then it will be a matter of comparing notes and getting some scientific interpretation of the results. This should give our government agencies the ability to do more acurate forecasting and making citizens aware of what's changes are ahead and how they might affect us.
  11. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Lucien

    My understanding is that this 'sudden' melting of Arctic sea ice is seen by the scientists as cause for concern, and could contribute to the Earth's more rapid change to a warmer environment. The reason is that melting the ice lowers the Earth's albedo (measure of reflectivity) so that even more of the Sun's energy is absorbed. This would mean that changes which were expected to take a very long time (centuries) could occur in a shorter time.

    And the answer the question about the status of the planet for future generations is yes; this change in temperature and all of the consequent results such as sea level rise, more extreme weather events etc are - for all practical purposes - irreversible.

    We should act now to provide at least a chance that the damage we do can be limited and global warming will not be entirely out of control.

    -
  12. Political Irony is Hilarious from Canada writes: Global warming is a fact; the extent of which that is human-caused is being debated. Will the world end in 50 years? No, but we'll definitely run into many problems, and our standard of living will decrease if we continue living the way we are. Only the naive would believe that the world's resources are limitless.

    I would suggest reading Collapse, by Jared Diamond. It talks about environmental conditions, and how human ignorance, exploitation etc have played a role in the destruction of their own societies, and also how they have saved themselves as well. It also addresses many of the global warming criticisms that are prevalent in these forums. If you are willing to drop the partisanship (yes, partisanship, now that global warming has become a political issue), you may learn much from the book.
  13. John Smith from Canada writes: John Connor from Canada writes: '... there's about a 99.999% chance that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, and a more than a 99% chance that climate change has occurred without human intervention in the past.'

    Both of which confirm the need to respect the 90% probability of AGW, which postulates warming is happening faster than it ever has in the past. Thanks.
  14. John Connor from Canada writes: John Smith from Canada writes: John Connor from Canada writes: '... there's about a 99.999% chance that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, and a more than a 99% chance that climate change has occurred without human intervention in the past.'

    Both of which confirm the need to respect the 90% probability of AGW, which postulates warming is happening faster than it ever has in the past. Thanks

    Whatever. It does not prove the theory of AGW It merely proves that the climate is changing again. What's your point?
  15. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Joe Canada

    If your intent is to confuse everyone ... you've failed. Most people understand that while the Al Gores and the David Suzukis of the world have been very effective at getting people to pay attention to the issue you won't hear them calling themselves climatologists. Their role has been to get us to pay attention to what the real climate scientists -- all of them -- are saying. The examples that you cite of scientists who are not yet convinced that anthropogenic global warming theory is valid is pretty pathetic (there are more and with better credentials). The point is that when ALL of the scientists look at the evidence, MOST (just about all) scientists, and the BEST scientists, and the MOST QUALIFIED scientists support the case for AGW. In fact the most prestigious scientific bodies even in countries where the scepticism is highest support current AGW theory in an unequivocal degree. The US NAS is the prime example.

    Even in industry ... even in the oil industry there is majority support for the view that this is real, and we MUST act and act as quickly as possible with hard caps.

    If you think that all of this concern is being generated by Gore and Suzuki, please look a little farther than the bargain wall at Blockbuster. Read a book. There's an important global debate going on with regard to ACTION on global warming. Maybe you're having trouble seeing what's happening because of all the dust that you've been left in.

    -
  16. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: This is the dawning of the age of aquarius. Will sacrifice 8 track tape to the profits Suzuki and Gore.
  17. bill williams from Canada writes: John Connor

    Your contention that science confirms only that global warming is happening and does NOT confirm that it is caused by human activity is in error. There is a lot to read on that subject if you're interested but the science is very solid in that regard.

    -
  18. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    As a general reminder to everyone: GHGs ACCUMULATE in the atmosphere, and at some point there will be agreement on a hard cap on total accumulated emissions, so remember, the more we do right away the easier this will be on our economy and lifestyle. If you are one of those who feel that the economy should trump all other issues, you should be in favour of acting earlier rather than later. Unless, that is, you work FOR the oil/gas industry: While most oil executives at the international consortium level recognize the problem and want rules sooner rather than later, people working for them whose short term employment status is at risk will argue that this is nonsense. That category includes Canadian oil execs right down to Fort Mac housing contractors.

    -
  19. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: This is not really happening. This is all a trick perpetuatified by them thar godless heathen libruls.

    Thanks so much for reading this comment. Brought to you by Faux News.
  20. martha stewart from Canada writes: Oh No! Its catastrophic!!! Someone said that this 'polar landmark seems destined to break up and disappear'!!!

    So it seems, to them at least. Or maybe the ice is cracking up with laughter like I do every time one of these sensational reports appear.

    I don't want to be alarmist but here there has been a catastrophic decline in the snowpack here recently. What to do!!!???
  21. John Smith from Canada writes: Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644

    All the standard denier myths are debunked on the New Scientist site.
  22. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Hey Archie, I don't want your car. I just want it to cost you a lot more to put gas in it. Lifestyle, Schmifestyle.

    -

    -
  23. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Martha Stewart, you are totally right. If you put an ice cube on a glass. It melts, so what? ice has been melting for billions of years here and Mars. It will keep melting for trillions more. Bush was right. Science shmyance. Fact is ice is growing FAST. Most agree with me. Ignore science shmyance liers. You can't take my car.
  24. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Hi Martha

    Your info on past warming is not news. We have had warm times in the past.

    The warming in the last two-hundred years is unprecedented and really lifts current conditions out of the noise band. The recent warming has been more dramatic and more persistent. If you really don't know that nor accept what most reputable scientists are saying about it, then ... well all I can say is that you are missing valuable information.

    But I see your name on these threads all the time, so I assume that you DO know this.

    I have no idea why presumably reasonable people take a contrarian position on an issue that needs action, but a few do. Whatever.

    You really should overhaul your perspective. In my case my career and my lifestyle are negatively impacted by the reality of having to accept and act upon global warming. I argue in favour of action DESPITE my vested interest. I don't regard that as something special or especially noble, and -to be frank- I expect it as a matter of course from every conscientious Canadian.

    We have a lot of work to do in order to arrest AGW at as low a level as possible, and we need everyone on board.

    We don't have the luxury of being able to bring one hundred percent certainty to every sceptical mind, and everyone should be able to understand that. The evidence is strong enough to warrant addressing this serious issue. I would like to know from you, and others like you, the level of certainty that you demand, and why - even if we were only fifty percent certain - you put only short term economics ahead of our economic future in the longer term, and ahead of the overriding problem.

    You can make fun of Gore and Suzuki (they're public figures and are used to it) and - except for public awareness - play no major role. But casually casting doubt on the reputations and work of serious scientists is unconscionable. They have been on this since before the media circus.
  25. martha stewart from Canada writes: This was deleted before. Why?

    From: McGhee, R. 2001 [1996]. Ancient people of the Arctic. Canadian Museum of Civilization/UBC Press.

    From Chapter 6, 'When the Climate Changes'

    'Very recent scientific work has produced startling findings on the speed of past climatic changes... These studies have now shown that events as significant as the end of the last Ice Age occured over only a few years each...

    The last Ice Age came to an end about 11,000 years ago. The climate of the Arctic suddenly warmed, soon reaching mean annual temperatures a few degrees warmer than today. The ice sheets... began to thaw and retreat, and the sea invaded channels freed from melting ice... The tree line advanced well to the north of its present position, and in more northerly regions the warm summers probably produced a relatively luxuriant tundra vegetation.'

    ---

    Then it 'rapidly cooled' about 2000 B.C., rapidly warmed again to the Mediaeval Warm Period peak (1000 AD), then cooled (Little Ice Age), then warmed again.
  26. martha stewart from Canada writes: Relevant information from a verifiable published scientific journal. This should not be deleted, should it?

    'The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative, offering fine temporal resolution and continuity. This has revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events.'

    From: Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quarternary ice ages. NATURE, Vol. 405, 22 June 2000 (www.nature.com)

    Again: 'with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades.'
  27. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Billy Williams, you think you are funny. Wait until the liberal Suzukis take your freedoms and make you walk to the store to buy a stick of celery! You know nothing about science. GloBULL warming is fake. Earth is cooling for millions of years. Everybody knows that. How do you think the continents formed?? If the Earth didn't cool it would be molten. You should try reading a book. I have.
  28. martha stewart from Canada writes: Hi bill williams - Thanks for your very reasonable post and comments.

    Any time there is such a massive campaign of fear-mongering misinformation and exaggeration as there is about this issue, it makes me very skeptical. (a la WMDs)

    There is absolutely no doubt about the misinformation and misleading information in the media. Obvious examples are the attempted use of the mt pine beetle epidemic and the polar bear as poster children for this when the facts do not support that.

    We have been very consciously living 'green' since the last energy crisis. We minimize our travel. We grow food. And we manage much of our land primarily as wildlife habitat, including a nice forest which absorbs enough CO2 every year to cover our entire lifetimes plus hundreds of sanctimonious urbanites. No lectures please.

    I know from experience that all scientists are not the objective saints you seem to think they are. Some are, others not. And some fields of science are more credible than others.
  29. Fifty cal from Austin, Texas, United States writes: OH NOES! I'm MELTING, MELTING! Ooops, that was the 'wizard of Oz'. I guess Canadians can relate to OZ. So the ice has been melting for 3000 years and SUDDENLY continues to melt? Well, I have 100 billion TONNES of 'carbon credits' for sale. Why don't you institute a $10 a gallon globull warming tax and a $5 a kilowatt globull warming TAX and give me all that money? I could use it better than Algore. I'll keep the people in Arizona from mowing their grass for an extra day a month and viola' no more globull warming.

    Maybe you can all move to Greenland once the ice melts. You can move into one of the 15th century Viking towns that was covered up by the ice. No electricity, no running water, no sewer, no internet. Ummmmm CIVILIZATION!
  30. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: John Smith from Canada writes:'... AGW, which postulates warming is happening faster than it ever has in the past.'

    Yet if you look at the temperatures, you'll find that warming isn't happening at all at present, despite the increases in GHG concentrations.

    That cuts the legs out from under the paradigm that holds global temperature change to be dominated by GHGs.
  31. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Fifty Cal, you are a wise, wise man. All this gloBULL warming hysteria. Nothing that bad could happen to us. When was the last time you remember anyting that bad happening? Never, of course. The gloBULL warming liers want to tax you to death and take your car. Algore is trying to get elected. He doesn't care about our freedoms. I remember that in the 70s ALL the scientists were saying we were going into an Ice Age. Sure. Didn't happen. Just because it is a warm day doesn't mean the sky is falling. Don't listen to Suzuki, nothing bad can ever happen, no matter what we do.
  32. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: bill williams from Canada writes: 'We have a lot of work to do in order to arrest AGW at as low a level as possible...'

    The warming stopped six years ago or more. Before taking draconian actions, which carry heavy costs and zero returns, we first need to ascertain how much of the globe's changes in temperature are due to anthropogenic causes.

    The IPCC's stance that all or nearly all of the last warming period (~1970-2001) was due to AGHGs is an obvious non-starter.
  33. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: GlynnMhor what you say is completely true. It is NOT warming. That is a lie. ALL scientists know that Earth is cooling and has been for millions of years since the apes walked the earth in the Creatatious Era.
  34. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Correction.. I should have said 'since we humans were apes walking the Earth in the Creatatious Era'. Sorry.
  35. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Here's a nice graph of the global average temperatures:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    It's plain to see the 1910-1940 warming of 0.5 degree as well as the 1970-2000 warming of 0.5 degree, and the cooling that followed the former looks to be repeating itself after the latter.

    Given that the AGW hypothesis would have temperatures respond to increasing GHGs by increased warming, the absence of further warming after 2001 does not bode well for the survival of the popular AGW paradigm.
  36. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Archie, you could have spelled 'cretaceous' correctly as well. Or were you trying to make some sort of word-play about creationism?
  37. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: The evidence piles up and the deniers deny. Some people are so reality challenged one wonders how they manage to get out of bed in the morning let alone hold down a job.
  38. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: G. Veneta says

    'Some people are so reality challenged one wonders how they manage to get out of bed in the morning let alone hold down a job.'

    The joke is on you my friend. I have been in bed most of the last 2 days with an illness and I am retired so I don't as you say 'hold down' a job. Clearly you spole too soon. What other 'facts' do you gloBULL warmers make up?
  39. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: 'The evidence piles up and the deniers deny.'

    The central evidence, the actual amount of warming the globe is experienceing, is available at the Hadley Centre site I linked above.

    Warming essentially stopped after 2001, while as all know, GHG concentrations are rising faster than ever.

    While one or two years might be dismissed as an artifact of the nino-nina oscillation, six or more years of no warming makes it clear that the popular AGW paradigm is in trouble.
  40. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Martha-

    You're giving every impression of being one of those people who pride themselves on resisting the herd instinct, and resist being one of the gullible many who are taken in by the influential few. That's fine - as far as it goes - but you have to keep in the back of your mind (front of your mind would be nice!) that sometimes the majority are right.

    There's no question that scientists are neither omniscient nor 'saints', and they err for all kinds of reasons including falling in love with their theories no matter what the evidence.

    There are scientists who support the case that AGW is happening but whose work has been shot down because it was flawed. There can be errors on both (all) sides, but recall that these issues tend toward common view and resolution over time; the errors get discovered and resolved and the data get refined. Do we know everything that there is to know about the world's climate? No. But as our knowledge slowly builds it is not taking us in the direction of being able to say that anthropogenic global warming theory is a crock.

    The scientists (good scientists, bad scientists, objective, narrow-minded) have been working on this more and more intensively for over fifty years. It's just not reasonable to contend that most of them are EXTREMELY LIKELY to be wrong.

    I understand that your lifestyle and career may (like mine) be vulnerable, but it is just unacceptable to put your reluctance to be 'sucked in' ahead of your obligation to act like a responsible citizen of the planet, and that would include what you opine. It's a moral issue. You don't have to argue with me; you must meet a higher standard: you have to know for sure that you are not lying to yourself.

    -
  41. Mike McFae from Canada writes: Very confusing...the last line says scientists are trying to determine the significance ...yet the writer seems to have already determined the significance. Its been disappearing since the 1930's folks...stop the hysteria.
  42. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: bill williams from Canada writes: '... our knowledge slowly builds it is not taking us in the direction of being able to say that anthropogenic global warming theory is a crock.'

    Like most of your generalizations, this one is nearly meaningless.

    While there are good theoretical reasons to suspect that AGHGs warm the planet, there is neither a theoretical nor an experimental basis to conclude that AGHGs dominate temperature changes.

    So while the AGW theory is not 'a crock', it's also not the terrible bugaboo being portrayed in the media and by some of the less scrupulous and more attention-seeking researchers.
  43. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: GlynnMhor says 'Warming essentially stopped after 2001, while as all know, GHG concentrations are rising faster than ever.'

    Very true GlynnMhor. You are smarter than the rest of these 'experts' on this website. In fact, GlobULL warming has stopped MANY times, not just 2001, but 1998 and many other times as well. If it can stop before, than why can't it stop again?? Obvious, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It starts.. it stops...starts...stops...just like the misses says about me! The Earth is our home world and would not allow itself to change to make us suffer! Why would it do that?? Makes no sense. We aren't that bad--most of us. Algore is the exception of course. Cars are normal. Why hate cars?? it's just common sense.
  44. bill williams from Canada writes: GlynnMhor-

    You have been over this territory a number of times: you argue that short periods of no warming indicate that global warming is not happening. The climatologists point out that the climate changes (up and down) quite a bit over the years, and so nothing that happens on a timeframe on the order of even decades is conclusive. Even warming on the order of several years means little in terms of the case for global warming.

    It's clear that you want all this to go away. You want the majority of the scientific work to be proved wrong. We would ALL like the scientists to be wrong: global warming will be a planetary-scale pain in the a$$. But not all of us turn that desire into an argument that the science IS wrong.

    The burden of proof is really on the other side: with what's at stake, we really must act unless we're virtually certain that there is no chance that global warming is real. You don't like that view, so you don't accept it no matter how much sense it makes.

    Remember this: the longer that we 'fight' the science the worse that this will ultimately be for our economy.

    -
  45. Harbinger from Out West from Prince George, Canada writes: Save the ice! Empty my wallet!! That oughta work.
  46. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Give it a rest bill williams. If the warming is over than IT'S OVER capital letters. Why keep telling people things that are untrue? If it starts again, then talk about it, but it will just stop anyway so what's the point? Some days are warm some are colder, so what? The Earth has been around for something like 400 million years or thereabouts. It has NEVER done anyting that you say it will do. Why? Because it would not make any sense for it to do so. Easy. Common sense. Why is it so rare these days? The only warming you get from a car is when you tough the engine. Don't do that. Problem solved.
  47. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: GlynnMhor you are right. Cretaceous is the correct way to spell the word. I was wrong. I can admit that unlike the gloBULL warmers.
  48. Onus Probandi from Canada writes: Instead of the endless who's right, who's wrong arguments about climate change, why not simply try to live life with a bit more regard for this remarkable environment that sustains it?

    Though there are still scientific opinions debunking the hazards of smoking, or the dangers of not wearing seatbelts, I don't need a stack of irrefutable scientific reports before I decide to buckle-up in the car, or leave cigarettes alone.

    Most of the practical initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gases have other benefits that make them worth doing. Fewer contaminants; more efficient use of resources; and yes, financial savings in some cases too. Bottom line is that we cannot have a good quality of life without a good quality environment.

    It's a matter of conscience, non?
  49. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: bill williams from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: The burden of proof is really on the other side...'

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Claiming that we are all doomed unless we doom ourselves is going to take more than just a few inadequate models that fail to match reality in order to be convincing.

    Thus far the popularity of the AGW paradigm is due far more to PR and propagandizing efforts than to any actual science behind it.
  50. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: bill williams from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: ...the longer that we 'fight' the science the worse that this will ultimately be for our economy.'

    The sooner we get the actual science in gear to counter the AGW hype, the less unnecessary damage will be inflicted upon our economy.
  51. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Onus Probandi from Canada writes:'Most of the practical initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gases have other benefits that make them worth doing.'

    That's flatly untrue. The obsession with squandering time, money, and other resources on reducing GHGs takes away from our ability to use those resources to control actual pollutants.
  52. martha stewart from Canada writes: Archie B from Vernon writes: 'Correction.. I should have said 'since we humans were apes walking the Earth in the Creatatious Era'.'

    GlynnMhor noted the spelling problem. But that was long before anything but the earliest little mammals were scurrying around hiding from dinosaurs... unless I really missed the spelling.
  53. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: 'The sooner we get the actual science in gear to counter the AGW hype, the less unnecessary damage will be inflicted upon our economy.'

    Absolutely true. Scientists have to go back and use more common sense. Talking about Globull warming might be interesting if you like science fiction stories. But scientists should TELL people that they are just thinking 'outside the box', otherwise it confuses people who don't know as much as some of us. If you want REAL science you have to think about the bigger picture. Why would the Earth warm? Makes no sense. The Earth is a rock basically. Last time I checked rocks don't just warm. Sorry warmies, go back to school and study Geology.
  54. martha stewart from Canada writes: bill williams writes 'Martha...'

    You write that you 'understand that your lifestyle and career may (like mine) be vulnerable'

    Sorry Bill, retired. Lifestyle? Did you read my post? We walk the walk already and have been doing so for decades.

    Then you go on... That 'it is just unacceptable to put your reluctance to be 'sucked in' ahead of your obligation to act like a responsible citizen of the planet, and that would include what you opine. It's a moral issue. You don't have to argue with me; you must meet a higher standard: you have to know for sure that you are not lying to yourself.'

    No free speech? Save your santimonious lecture for the hypocrites you seem to worship. What is the carbon footprint of the world travelling Suzuki or Gore - and forget the absolutely bogus carbon offset argument.

    How far is it to Bali or the next meeting? How do the growing herds of unnecessary researchers get to the Arctic?

    We disagree because I read critically and think objectively.
  55. Dr. Sartor from Victoria, Canada writes: I blame Al Gore for the breakup of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf. I blame David Suzuki for the food riots in Haiti. Wake up, people. There's a global conspiracy of scientists and French socialists who are intent on taking away your guns and surveilling you with black U.N. helicopters. Oh, yes, and did I mention Jack Layton and the Taliban? I'm sure there's a connection somewhere.
  56. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: REAL scientists don't write articles in the Globe and Mail. They are too busy doing REAL science work. These guys looking at cracks in the ice are just fooling around. What does it prove? Ice cracks! Wow. That's an incredible insight. Every stepped on a piece or ice? Yes, it cracks. Anything could have cause the cracks up there. There could have been an earthquake or bigger waves under the ice caused it. It was NOT globULL warming. That is obvious. Warming doesn 't make ice crack it makes it melt. I though that was commone sense. I took an ice cube from the ice box and put it on a plate by my bed. It has melted WITHOUT cracking. That is REAL science. Doing experiments. Sorry just flying around looking at things is not real science.
  57. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: I should add that, no, I don't have a PHD or any letters after my name. Big deal! I would never lie to make myself look 'smart'unlike Al Gore who thinks he invented computers. Right... I've been studying ALL science since I retired and, not to toot my own horn, but I feel that I have gotten a very solid grasp of the field. Science is serious business. I am reading a book called 'Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin. Ever heard of him??
  58. Ted Harrison from Canada writes: You know there's probably more than a hint of truth to something when people argue against it so loudly for no good reason. If people weren't actually afraid that global warming is happening and that we're likely a large part of the cause, they probably wouldn't respond so negatively to articles like this.

    In short there's a good reason to argue loudly in favour of the global warming theory (because if it's true our children are in for some rough times around the world), but not such a good one for arguing loudly that it's wrong. If people weren't afraid they'd just ignore stories about cracks in Arctic ice and such.
  59. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Even IF it was warming, why bother to worry about it? Just stay in the shade and wear lighter clothing like shorts and short sleeve shirts. Cotton is best. Drink lots of liquids and don't exercise too hard. Spend a little more and get a car with AC. It's just common sense. IF it were cooling which is much more likely you wear heavier clothing and wool socks. Lord oh lord, why do people get worked up. It's just laziness in my opinion. People get used to wearing certain clotihng and they don't want to give it up. Sorry, life can be hard. When I was a kid I had one pair of shoes that didn't fit. So what? Didn't bother me. Same thing with the weather. Spend less time complaining and smarten up.
  60. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes: Ted:

    'If people weren't actually afraid...they probably wouldn't respond so negatively to articles like this....'

    I'm not afraid of global warming, certainly not anthropogenic global warming, which comes with the upside of higher plant productivity. I just wonder if there is any global warming happening at all for the last 6 years or so, anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic.

    Most people don't go beyond the mainstream media, so in that sense I can understand why they might be 'afraid', since the main stream media for the most part give the narrow 'alarmist' view of the future.

    Regards, BRK
  61. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: It's ice, a summer love, destine to fade away. Mountains crumble, ice travels, mountains grow, ice accumulates, repeat.... repeat... repeat...
    on and on and on..... someone I know bought a condo on the bay in San Fran and he ain't worried and the sun will rise and I'm not afraid.
  62. Antonio San from Canada writes: Bill Williams displays inability and ignorance to discuss this report and the hasty, fashionable conclusions the press loves to make believe is a scientific debate... 1) the reference to the tabular iceberg of Antarctica is no reference at all: except football fields or portion of Canadian province, NO one from the press corp explained the largest iceberg measured was of the Filchner shelf and was 300 times bigger than the one they described and that it was observed in... 1955/56!!! 2) “We're looking at the possible demise of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf,” said Doug Stern, a Ranger and Parks Canada employee... POSSIBLE and from a Ranger... That's informed opinion. 3) Here is THE piece of real information: '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 ringed by one, but that enormous shelf broke up in the early 1900s' EARLY 1900s!!! where it was known CO2 concentrations were huge... NOT! 4) 'Mr. Mueller found evidence of one of the new cracks in satellite images. Then he and Mr. Stern followed up with an aerial survey earlier this year.' No mention whatsoever of the fact the Arctic ocean is not a closed sea but indeed an open ocean with currents and that atmospheric circulation has a tremendous impact on the ice formation and preservation. Of course, the increasing advection of warmer air due to strongest gradient incompatible with AGW is NEVER mentioned by the obtuse canadian press. 5) 'The cracks, easily large enough to swallow a snowmobile...' LOL 6) 'But after a period of stability during the '80s, that deterioration seems to picking up, said Mr. Mueller.' SEEMS... 7) 'That suggests climate change in the area has crossed some kind of threshold, ' Or not?
  63. The Bubble from Canada writes: The level of stupidity of posters who do their best to denegrate these global warming articles is simply pathetic. No one believes your idiocy folks, that's why no one responds to your useless and tired arguments.
  64. Antonio San from Canada writes: 8) On its own, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf represents only a tiny fraction of the Arctic Ocean's ice. But its loss is another example of the slowly shrinking ice cover,' INFORMATION... slowly? I thought they said it was accelerating... 9) The bottom line is the vast plain of ice is now on “life support,” he said. Ice shelves are not replenished by glaciers. Cracks in them are permanent. “You can't go back,” said Mr. Mueller. “It's broken.” Really? So how do you explain the icepack freezes again every winter? 10) 'The rapid changes point to the need for more research to understand what's going on, Mr. Mueller said.' Yeah, give them MORE taxpayers' MONEY so they can see if next time instead of a snowmobile they can sink a Cadillac in it... What a bunch of crock from the canadian press where the information is massaged, just as GISS Hansen temperature data...the Massage is the message wrote a smart commenter! Of course the Globe and Mail quickly reprint this garbage, finally happy to find a crack in a 2008 year that is hardly poster boy for the warmists... Oh and by the way, did we hear about the toatl CO2 being less than the previous year at mauna Loa? This had not happened in 30 years... Of course NO... because once again it shows temperature driving CO2 not the opposite. Perhaps it's the result of Earth Hour? ROTFLOL! Next the Gorespel as soon as 3 days above average will hit Toronto...
  65. The Bubble from Canada writes: The fact that you are on here trying to desparage every scientist and journalist in the world is proof of your stupidity, not from the point of view of your stupid arguments but from the point of view that you refuse to believe your eyes and probably believe in god.
  66. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: bill williams you gotta read something other than realclimate and start weighing the science, its gone way beyond the mantra you cackle.
  67. Antonio San from Canada writes: Bubble sees a fat man living in a mega mansion but belives in Gore. eom.
  68. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: The best scientists all believe in God. How do you think you got here?? You evolved from a fish which turning into an ape than a man. Why would that happen if there wasn't a God? Why wouldn't the fish just stay a fish? Same with Globull warming. The Earth stays the same because only LIVING things change over time like Darwin says. Read about it. It's very interesting. If the Earth changed that would mean it's alive. Right. Sorry can't agree with that. If you thnk the Earth is alive I can't help you. Why would you even think that? Oh yeah Algore says so. Right.
  69. Antonio San from Canada writes: BTW talking about realclimate and the Team, climateaudit.org shades some lights on the sloppy peer reviewing process at Nature when it comes to the Team, Mann, Amman etc...
  70. martha stewart from Canada writes: The Bubble writes: 'The level of stupidity of posters who do their best to denegrate these global warming articles is simply pathetic. No one believes your idiocy folks, that's why no one responds to your useless and tired arguments.'

    Thanks for responding to the 'useless and tired arguments' and doing your best to 'denegrate' them. But if this is your best then who's calling who 'stupid' again?

    Consider this from the article:

    “We're looking at the possible demise of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf,” said Doug Stern, a Ranger and Parks Canada employee, who was on the patrol and has been helping Mueller with his research.'

    In other words, this scary story is based on what some park ranger muses about. Are we supposed to imagine he is any more qualified to make this assessment than you are to make yours?

    Why?

    You just don't get the point that the public is just being jerked around by these sensational scare stories. Some people like to get jerked I guess.
  71. bruce riley from spruce grove, Canada writes: bill williams .....not all scientists are in on the consensus

    http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/environment?bbPostId=B5XrBmMZWINIB77nCVFqAxSqCz2waaIYK7WnHB8FG3s6Kr77x
  72. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Funny you get these Alberta wonks denying Global Warming. Almost like their jobs depend on it not being true.
  73. martha stewart from Canada writes: Antonio San - I made my comment to the Bubble before I read your posts. You already made the same point so pardon the redundancy.

    Park rangers as forecasters of the future? LOL! Crack experts?
  74. bill williams from Canada writes: Hi again Martha

    I'm sorry, I'm still missing the point in your post where you talk about being retired, and if you're living in a way that conserves resources and minimizes emissions, that's great. It doesn't say anything about where the money comes from, but we have nothing to argue about there. The point that I was trying to make had more to do with my credibility than yours: people who argue in favour of addressing global warming agressivley are often accused of having some ulterior motive, and I just wanted to make the point that, in my case anyway, life would be a lot easier if global warming theory were pure fiction. The broader point then is that I take a position in favour of action only because I think that it's the right thing to do.

    I'm not going to apologize for my motives if they are reasonable. I do think that it is a moral issue, and I have every expectation that others will regard it as such. If you agree, it's a nothing. If you disagree then it maybe seems like a lecture. If I had a financial vested interest I'd be explaining or apologizing for THAT. It's not reasonable to expect me to have to sit here and have my credibility questioned no matter what I do or say.

    A lot of people seem to be hung up on the Gore/Suzuki thing; honestly, what difference do they make? Global warming can't be real because Suzuki took a bus?

    Related to the above points and your accusations is this: you have NO monopoly on reading critically and thinking objectively. My conviction that this problem needs action is based upon A LOT of reading. I have read more extensively on the sceptic side because that's where the questions come from. I remain convinced that the case for AGW is sufficiently strong that action is warranted. You can come to a different conclusion, but it is pretty arrogant to assume that I'm wrong because I haven't read your favourite stuff.

    -
  75. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Scientists have clearly stated again and again that there is no globull warming. They have been saying it since the 70s. All the people trying to make it look the opposite should be ashamed. I've never seen journalists so willing to lie to scare people. I half think that the cracks in the ice they are taking about in the article MAY have been faked by the ship the scientists were on. Think about it. You drive the ship through the ice then take a picture of where you have been. Obviously it will look like a crack. I'm not saying they did that but it wouldn't surprise me. I've been around the block a few times. Unless you are yourself up there to look at it you shouldn't believe anything. That is how science works. Its' called skeptical thinking.
  76. martha stewart from Canada writes: j wilson from vancouver writes: 'Funny you get these Alberta wonks denying Global Warming. Almost like their jobs depend on it not being true.'

    Congratulations. You get the Most Predictable Moronic Post award.
  77. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Antonio Sam, just went to climateaudit.org! It's the blog page of some dude who wants Global Warming to not be happening!

    What else you got, kiddo?
  78. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Geez, Martha, Im just stating the obvious. Might be moronic to do that, but I'm still right.
  79. The Bubble from Canada writes: I like the stupid ones who write long passages like anyone is going to read them. Martha, right on time and never a tiny bit wiser, why would you want to deny the truth yet believe in a ghost in the sky that made everything, right wing religious nuts. I bet you have one of them nice debutante hairdos Martha, if you are a woman.
  80. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes: Take heed warming groupies. The first stirring breezes of the winds of change are blowing through the climate science community. Below the radar scientists are switching sides as the objective data slowly accumulates against the alleged driving force of anthropogenic global warming.

    You'll be the last to know, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

    BRK
  81. Darryl Williams from Canada writes: Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes:

    'The Earth has been around for something like 400 million years or thereabouts.'

    Good one, Archie. Let's hear some more of your scientific knowledge.

    Archie B from Vernon, Canada also writes:

    'I've been studying ALL science since I retired and, not to toot my own horn, but I feel that I have gotten a very solid grasp of the field.'

    Archie - a kind word of advice: KEEP STUDYING!!

  82. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: If you look closely at the picture of the supposed 'crack' in the article you can see that it is actually round like a pit. Easier to fake obviously than a real crack. Pitiful! I've never seen such desperate tactics to lie to people. This is actually worse than I thought. The warmists are hitting a new low and that is saying something. A good young reporter should expose this and make a name for himself. If I were younger I would do it myself.
  83. martha stewart from Canada writes: bill williams - What 'accusations'??? Seriously bill, I don't care what or why you think what you do. Its a free country. And since you sound more like a missionary than a thinker, its pointless to discuss anything. Your comments about a 'moral' issue confirm that.

    And your comments wondering why the utter hypocrisy shown by Suzuki should matter reveal that you dare not question your pope.

    But I am curious. What 'action' exactly have you personally taken?

    P.S. You do have a financial and vested interest in everything related to this issue. All Canadians do.
  84. Archie B from Vernon, Canada writes: Darryl Williams I said 400 million years approximately. I can't look up the exact figure every time or I'd die of old age. Maybe it's 500. Big deal! And yes I do keep studying. You can never know everything even though I am probably about 80 to 90 percent there. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but it's true.
  85. harry carnie from Northern,B.C, Canada writes: Now if that bloody snowbank on my lawn.. that is STILL 4 feet high would disappear.......might start singing 'I`m a believer!'............................
    • Posted 11/04/08 at 10:22 PM EST |