Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Large Arctic ice shelf breaks away, now adrift in Arctic Ocean

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 2:32 PM EST 04/09/08

Scientists say 50-square-kilometre Markham Ice Shelf broke away in early August ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. BUB ImumI from Canada writes: ..// 1 million extra sqkms of ice ..... 50 sqkms is nothing.

    50/1000000 x 100% equals 0.005% of the EXTA ice since last year.

    0.005% is insignificant.

    ..//
  2. Antonio San from Canada writes: End of summer what else to expect: even the NSIDC says that atmospheric conditions are controlling the pattern of ice melting...
  3. BUB ImumI from Canada writes: ..//

    George Morrison,

    It still doesn't matter. This summer there was supposed to be no ice. There is 1 MILLION square miles of it. that is as big as ONTARIO

    40 feet of 20 feet it doesn't matter.
  4. Beer and Popcorn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    It sure matters to the Liberal media alliance - expect more 'reporting' like this in the days and weeks leading up to Oct 15th..
  5. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The shelf hasn't melted away or become 'lost'. It's just moved offshore a ways.
  6. Leo Geiger from Halifax, Canada writes: BUB ImumI from Canada writes: '1 million extra sqkms of ice ..... 50 sqkms is nothing. 50/1000000 x 100% equals 0.005% of the EXTA ice since last year.0.005% is insignificant.'

    Your number is a little out of date. As of August 27 it was within 430,000 sqkms of last year (the record low) on the same date. I sure hope it doesn't end up being the same as last year, because using your brilliant little equation we'll have 50/0 x 100% equals an infinite amount of ice breaking away relative to last year. Then it would be really significant, right?

    Funny how comparing apples and oranges in one equation makes for nonsense.
  7. Polar Bear from Somewhere Cool, AB, Canada writes: Sometimes an ice cube is just an enormous ice cube ...

    And sometimes it's something more.

    ******************

    I'm not sure where the extra 1,000,000 km^2 of ice comes from, but the National Snow and Ice Centre notes that we are at the second lowest level of summer ice extent (5.26 million km^2) since satellites have recorded the information. (looks like this would be 1979 according to the data series.) As the thickness of the sea ice decreases it becomes less durable and increases the likelihood that less of it will stick around during the summer.

    The NSAIC indicates that sea ice reflects 80% of the sunlight that falls upon it, while the ocean absorbs 90% of the sunlight that falls upon it. The feedback loop in terms of increasing the warmth of the Arctic Ocean is pretty clear.

    Website is here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
  8. Ann Ig Norant from I want global warming and grow bananas in my backyard, Canada writes: This earth had warmer and colder periods before. Why are we so paranoid about some warming trend? However, this doesn't mean that I support pollution or the use of fossil fuels or reckless consumerism.
    I just don't like the idea of pollution being connected with the warming trend. What if the trend stops we can just keep polluting?
    Please don't mix up the two issues.
  9. Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: isn't this the same ice that covered my yard to a depth of 2 kilometers over ten thousand years ago... then began to retreat accross the prairies at around 500meters a year... ???
  10. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ann Ig Norant... writes:'I just don't like the idea of pollution being connected with the warming trend. What if the trend stops we can just keep polluting?'

    It's a serious risk of lying, that once the lie is found out, whatever potentially good intentions that underlaid it are discredited.

    So when temperatures continue to drop in the coming years, and when eventually even the most hidebound AGW proseletyzer gives up their desparate fight, the message against pollution (not GHGs, but real pollution) will be equally discredited.
  11. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: BUB ImumI from Canada writes: 50/1000000 x 100% equals 0.005% of the EXTA ice since last year.

    0.005% is insignificant.
    >>>

    If there one thing I trust 'BuB' knows something more about than other people do, it's insignificance.
  12. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hmmm... On rereading, I see that I misspelled 'desperate' in my post above.
  13. Polar Bear from Somewhere Cool, AB, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hmmm... On rereading, I see that I misspelled 'desperate' in my post above.

    ************

    Hmmm... I would be much more concerned about errors in reasoning than errors in spelling, but it's nice to see that you do have a concern for accuracy. ;-)
  14. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Golly, how many of these Markham Shelves are there?

    Only yesterday there was a story about another Markham Ice Shelf collapse in the Globe, and now it seems that another one, of identical size, has broken off. When will it all end?

    Wait a minute, the old story is still there, this is worse than I thought, these ice sheets are peelin' off faster than Dion's changes to the Green-Shift are occurring.

    This is an unimaginable tragedy. I hope another section of similar size is not reported to have fallen off in tomorrow's Globe: if it is, the something really very serious must be happening.
  15. Polar Bear from Somewhere Cool, AB, Canada writes: r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Golly, how many of these Markham Shelves are there?

    Only yesterday there was a story about another Markham Ice Shelf collapse in the Globe, and now it seems that another one, of identical size, has broken off. When will it all end?

    Wait a minute, the old story is still there, this is worse than I thought, these ice sheets are peelin' off faster than Dion's changes to the Green-Shift are occurring.

    This is an unimaginable tragedy. I hope another section of similar size is not reported to have fallen off in tomorrow's Globe: if it is, the something really very serious must be happening.

    **************

    Not to worry. At this rate, in another 3 or 4 years there won't be any Markham ice shelves left, or any Arctic ice shelves at all to worry about for that matter.

    Then we'll only have to worry about Antarctic ice shelves. :-)

    How serious could that be?
  16. Mean Machine from Bugtussle, Canada writes: Break out the tiger torch.
  17. Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: I really like this one...

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh sh/

    looks like we are rolling over.....
  18. Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: Funny I am looking for the article that mentions that for the first time since 1913 we have gone a calender month without sunspots... globe did you not think that was worthwhile?
  19. Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: note that you need to add a plus sign in between nh and sh to get the above link to work....
  20. martha stewart from Canada writes: Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Funny I am looking for the article that mentions that for the first time since 1913 we have gone a calender month without sunspots... globe did you not think that was worthwhile?'

    Sorry. No way to use guilt for political and economic extortion for those... unless, of course, someone can sell sunspot offsets or credits... or demand that we all do what they say to bring them back.

    But it does sound like a prime opportunity for some fund raising.

    Where's the Suzuki Foundation's Save Our Sunspots campaign?
  21. Polar Bear from Somewhere Cool, AB, Canada writes: Save the Sunspots. Where do I sign up!

    ****************

    Sunspot minimum story here:

    http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/12/where-are-the-sunspots-are-we-in-for-a-quiet-solar-cycle/

    or Google {2008 sunspot minimum} for more stories
  22. Now Tarfu from Canada writes:
    The two university scientists interviewed on CBC radio tonight (one of whom had been studying this ice shelf for 10 years) seemed quite concerned about this development and how rapidly it had occurred.
  23. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: More global warming propaganda.
  24. Jillian Fecteau from Canada writes: I hope that I have the opportunity to say 'I told you so' when all of the arctic ice shelves are gone, and many low-lying urban areas are flooded....

    Sometimes being pragmatic is a good thing.
  25. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: NO Richard Roskel , it's called evidence, but there will never be anough evidence to matter to you, Glynn,martha s, Bub Imumi,GW Bush or Harper.You guys know what you think and you won't let the facts get in the way .Maybe you geniuses should get Harper to apoint you to IPCC, instead of all those annoying scientists.
  26. Bill M from Canada writes: Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: isn't this the same ice that covered my yard to a depth of 2 kilometers over ten thousand years ago... then began to retreat accross the prairies at around 500meters a year... ???

    Yes, because our ancestors discovered wood, a fossil fuel, and started burning it. This caused a rapid increase in GHG's and caused the massive glaciers formed by the ice age to retreat. We came close to stopping the catastrophe in the 1970's when the ice age appeared to be making a comeback, but our knowledgable scientists of the time discovered human pollutants were the cause, and after much cajoling and fines, the pollutants were removed from our emmissions. This stopped the cooling, and we went back to apparently warming. So who do we blame? The scientists who prevented global cooling, or the cave people who started the warming?
  27. Bill M from Canada writes: Geoffrey May from Canada writes: NO Richard Roskel , it's called evidence, but there will never be anough evidence to matter to you, Glynn,martha s, Bub Imumi,GW Bush or Harper.You guys know what you think and you won't let the facts get in the way .Maybe you geniuses should get Harper to apoint you to IPCC, instead of all those annoying scientists

    Geoffrey, what is the ideal temperature? What is it supposed to be, and what makes you think that humans should control the temperature? What exactly should the climate be? How much rain in different parts of the world is the exact amount? How do you control that? How much snow is ideal? How many hurricanes per year? Thunderstorms? Tornadoes? All these weather events are part of our climate, and the purveyors of gloom use every one of them to prove their point that we are dooming the planet, which has been around for 5 billion years. Do you really believe that we can control it? A couple of big volcanic eruptions could cause the global temperature to drop dramatically in a short period of time. A carbon tax going to fix that?
  28. J J from Moncton, Canada writes: I'm sure the extra 2 billion people over the last 25 years hasn't helped with the CO2 levels.

    Some of you want to go back to the middle ages where we had to use horses for transportation and hunt for food. How silly.

    The earth goes through these cycles all the time - it has been proven.

    Maybe we should put a ban on human births - that would help too right?? Same logic!
  29. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well they can come and take all the snow off my driveway this year and ship it up to the arctic. They can take the microbes from my lawn as well. The point is -- all of this is so remote -- that it really does not resonate with the average voter. Until it does -- and I mean it has to be an immediate problem to THEM -- not much is going to happen regardless of the alarmist media and the non-sensicle proposals of Mr. Dion, who is trying to make it seem as if Canada is the world's greatest climate culprit, and if we tax our citizens, climate change will stop. The earth is an ever changing planet -- yes species come and species go, biblical floods happen and they recede, and maybe yes, this time the change is faster than before -- maybe it is for the best, and maybe the earth will rebalance itself -- ho hum This is a much bigger problem than we in Canada can solve. Stop flying on vacations, stop visiting your families 400km away every weekend, stop going to the cottage (or even owning one), stop building 5000 sq foot houses, stop driving SUVs -- the choices are there -- and yet we propel ourselves toward this disaster -- and expect taxation to solve the problem -- which means that the government has a bigger general revenue stream and we have less money for food. Humans are such idiots.
  30. John Doucette from Manotick, Canada writes: There is no global warming. There is no global warming. Great Leader Steve will care for us. Pray to the great leader!
  31. John Connor from Around Town, Canada writes: Bill M: Please don't waste your time arguing with the AGW zealots like Goeffrey May or Alan Burke. They've had so much of Al Gore's Climate Change Kool-Aid that they don't know where the truth ends or the lies begin. There is no conclusive evidence that man is the root cause for global warming, but they feel the obsessive need to make it so. As far as I'm concerned, they are the deniers, not the rest of us.
  32. Jonny Quest from Canada writes: 50 km2 ice shelf x 40 m thick = 2 billion m2 of ice

    If an ice cube is 25 mm/side then 2 billion m2 of ice = 128 trillion ice cubes.

    That's pretty significant in my books. :-)

    and a lot of G and Ts to boot!
  33. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: isn't this the same ice that covered my yard to a depth of 2 kilometers over ten thousand years ago... then began to retreat accross the prairies at around 500meters a year... ???

    _ _ _ _

    Great point; one that is often lost on people who over-analyze the Global Warming models.

    Wanna pour trillions of dollars into something? How about technology that will reduce pollution...money better spent if you ask me.
  34. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: The article says the majority of temp increase and ice loss was in the 1930's and 40's. Where were the fearmongers then???? As now, it is just a cycle.
  35. Leo Geiger from Halifax, Canada writes: Light em up from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Funny I am looking for the article that mentions that for the first time since 1913 we have gone a calender month without sunspots... globe did you not think that was worthwhile?'

    martha stewart from Canada writes: 'Sorry. No way to use guilt for political and economic extortion for those... '

    Sigh. There are two questions you could ask:

    1. When was the last time there was a calendar month without sunspots?

    2. When was the last time more than 31 days went by without sunspots?

    One of those two questions has a lot more physical significance than the other. Guess which?

    If you are interested in the physically significant, the answer to question 2 is 1996, the last solar minimum. But the because the spotless period started mid September and ended late October it didn't happen to line up with a calendar month.

    Pretty amazing. You've just discovered that calendar months are arbitrary. Why aren't more people reporting it? Must be bias.
  36. G M from Canada writes: Bub, you're missing the point and smearing the facts.

    The article is not about sea ice, but shelf ice that broke off. The article also says that this year, 1/4 of the ice on Canada's arctic shelves has been lost this summer.

    25% in one season is significant.
  37. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: Knowledge is cheap, ignorance expensive.
    The Arctic Ice Sheet is critical to the survival of life on this planet.

    White reflects heat, dark absorbs it.

    Try putting your hand on a dark coloured car on a summer day and you get burned, yet on a white car is barely warm.

    The Arcitic Ice reflects the Suns's heat, keeping the Arctic cool. When thisd is gone, the temperature of not only the Arctic, but that of the Planet will skyrocket.

    By this time, there is no possibility that this elevating temperature trend will not continue. The Antarctic will warm and melt and every coastal city on the planet will be under water, as will Northern Canada, much of coastal Europe, the Eastern and Southern USA, and the list goes on.

    Man will have succeeded in a few short years, of exterminating himself and every living thing.
  38. G M from Canada writes: guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: The article says the majority of temp increase and ice loss was in the 1930's and 40's. Where were the fearmongers then???? As now, it is just a cycle.

    --

    The next line in the article says that the temperatures are warmer now than they were then. Then, the following paragraph says that the ice shelves had been stable for 4000 years. So what is the cycle you're referring to?
  39. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: The fact that it is the end of summer, and the fact that we are still emerging from the last ice age, may partially explain the breaking away of the Arctic ice shelf. Be that as it may, we should still be seeking alternative energy sources, reducing and eliminating all types of pollution and wasting as little as possible, both energy and materials. To claim, however, that this heralds the beginning ofthe end, however, is a bit sensationalist (not to mention, premature).
  40. Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: The Canadian Ice Service shows ice all the way up to the Alaskan Coast today. http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/CMMBCTCA.gif No more swimming for the Polar Bears. It turns out that microwave sounding, which is relied on for all the ice readings is not trustworthy. NSIDC states on their web site that microwave sounding underestimates ice during the summer. NSIDC/CT/Bremen maps are missing a lot of ice around the edges, so comparisons versus the historical record of sailors are useless. There are a number of errors in the article. Ellesmere land has certainly never been surrounded by a continuous ice shelf. Only the north coast. This shelf is different from Antarctic ice shelves, since it is not fed by glaciers. Basically it is sea-ice that has remained frozen for a very long time and has built up to a thickness of several tens of meters. This ice-shelf was first seen by the Nares expedition in the 1870’s and was already breaking up at that time. This process has been going on since then, and will probably be finished in a few decades more. As for the age of the shelf, it is known to be less than 3,000 years since there is 3,000 years old driftwood on the beaches landwards of the shelf. Most likely it is from the Little Ice Age. Also, Derek Mueller is a Suzuki stooge....another alarmist who is given a pulpit by a compliant G&M. So what else is new?
  41. Antonio San from Canada writes: We know where the canadian ice shelf landed: NAIROBI (Reuters) - A huge hailstorm turned parts of central Kenya white, thrilling residents most of whom had never experienced such conditions, officials said on Wednesday. Hailstorms are usual in some parts of Kenya, which straddles the equator, but the ferocity of the storm in Busara, 255 km (158 miles) northwest of the capital was unprecedented. Excited villagers pelted each other with snowballs while some ate pieces of the icy sheet that formed over an entire hillside. 'We thought a big white sheet had been spread, so we decided to come and see for ourselves. We thought that it was Jesus who had come back,' one villager told reporters. Kenya's Meteorological Department said Tuesday's storm was caused by the convergence of cold air currents from the Indian Ocean and warm air currents from the Congo. 'The hailstones falling on the ground joined together to form expansive sheets of ice or snow flakes occupying a large area, 30 acres,' a statement by the meteorologists said. More than 12 hours after the storm, the forested hillside was still white despite the hot tropical sun. 'In fact this thing is very sweet, we have never seen anything like this. We like the ice so much because with the sun being hot, you take it and you feel satisfied,' resident Simon Kimani said. The only snow to be seen in normally sunny Kenya is on top of the country's highest mountain, 5,199-metre (17,057 ft) Mount Kenya.'
  42. M Shortreed from Wellesley, Canada writes: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, 'The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.' C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, 'The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.' In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and 'in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.' Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: 'If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.' In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, 'The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.' Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, '... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.' That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 '... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.'
  43. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: John Connor, accepting science has nothing to do with Al Gore or kool-aid.It's called facing facts .
  44. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Geoffrey May from Canada writes:'... Glynn,martha s, Bub Imumi,GW Bush or Harper.You guys know what you think and you won't let the facts get in the way .'

    I at least know how to punctuate properly, and why not consider the facts? The 1970-2000 warming trend of about 0.17 degrees per decade stopped after 2001, and temperatures have dropped quite noticably over the last 2 years.

    This is in accord with the lowest levels of solar activity seen since Victoria reigned over the Empire.
  45. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: Bill M from Canada writes: 'our ancestors discovered wood, a fossil fuel, and started burning it.'

    News flash Bill - wood is not a fossil fuel.
  46. J S from Canada writes: Using the same logic as the climate change deniers: I see numerous articles about the iPhone on the G&M. I think it's all hype and propaganda. I mean, I've never seen an iPhone. They don't exist. I wish the G&M would print real stories instead of the made-up propaganda from technology companies.
  47. DON BARTA from Canada writes: - Not to worry - When that Liberal dipstick puts in his carbon tax all will be well again, the ice will return, the skys will clear up, the grass will be greener, a chicken in every pot, some pot in every chick, etc, etc, etc.

    - I think that maybe I'm dreaming......

    ~
  48. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: '...temperatures have dropped quite noticably over the last 2 years.

    This is in accord with the lowest levels of solar activity seen since Victoria reigned over the Empire.'

    But temperatures sure haven't dropped back to those seen in Victorian times have they? Even during the lowest level of sunspot activity tempuratures are stubbornly remaining above the 1961 -1990 average. When solar activity resumes expect tempuratures to soar.
  49. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Amazing how the Deniers' Club members immediately turn to Suzuki or Gore bashing as soon as they face an issue beyond their ken.

    I make note of the winner who wondered what the big issue was because the ice shelf hadn't melted but simply broken off.

    It's like finding solace in the fact that flood victims, if they can hold their breath for a day or so, are most likely to survive to see the water levels recede.

    The Dinosaurs didn't die off. They hid in Alberta's tarsands until Harper hired them as apologists.
  50. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: When solar activity resumes expect tempuratures to soar.'

    That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Solar activity is a more important driver of temperature change than GHGs.

    Solar activity may resume in a few decades, but we appear to be in for a prolonged period of longer and quieter solar cycles, and can expect more cooling as a result.
  51. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: But temperatures sure haven't dropped back to those seen in Victorian times have they?'

    No, but the rate of cooling may be comparable. Obviously a given rate of cooling isn't going to immediately return temperatures from the higher level they're at now.
  52. Master T from Burlington, Canada writes:
    Bob Imumi - I am sure there is no possible argument that would steer you away from your belief that everything coming from an environmentalist is unimportant or insignificant.

    Your simple math calculation is just that. Simple. How about comparing your calculation to the average size of ice tracts breaking free and then making a judgement call that it is or isn't significantly bigger than the average. THAT is the important measure.

    The meterorites that impacted the planets in our solar system are probably smaller in size compared to the planets they impacted, but they would still extinguish life on earth as we know it.

    Small does matter. When we get to the big things that may register on your radar, it may be too late. I would rather be paying attention nice and early.
  53. John Connor from Around Town, Canada writes: Geoffrey May from Canada writes: John Connor, accepting science has nothing to do with Al Gore or kool-aid.It's called facing facts .

    Is that so? Then you don't do it very well Geoffrey. Perhaps more Kool-Aid, all will be well..
  54. Mr Spock from Canada writes: All the same lies and denials by the Harper/Republican/Exxon apologists.
    99% of scientists agree. Global warming is here, NOW, and it's coming fast..
  55. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: GlynnMhor - no one has ever said that natural variation wasn't important. But if it was MORE important as you put it, then the tempuratures now would be well below the 30 year average but they are not.

    Your guess that 'we appear to be in for a prolonged period of longer and quieter solar cycles' has no basis is science but physics tells us that CO2 is a driver towards warming tempuratures. Which is now the main driver as seen by the FACT that although tempuratures are lower than your cherry picked starting point of the warmest year on record (2005) they are much higher than the long term average.

    You're repeated mantra of dropping tempuratures isn't science its called HOPE (as in you hope the scientists are wrong).
  56. ANDY DREGER from WINNIPEG, writes: Wow! According to the article we've lost 214 square kilometers of ice in the Arctic this summer. An article published by the CBC in February 2008 stated that due to the record cold winter that the Arctic ice had expanded by approx. 2 MILLION square kilometers. This data was confirmed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Institute based on satellite readings.

    This article can easily be found online but the press didn't feel it was worthy of major coverage. Funny how a loss of 214 square kilometers is shouted from the heavens but an expansion of 2 million kilometers due to a RECORD COLD WINTER is all but ignored.

    Here in Winnipeg we recorded below normal temps for every month of 2008 with the exception of August. Can the man-made global warming alarmists explain that? I'm sure that will be passed off as just 'weather'. However, if the temps were above normal for 2008 it would not just be weather but the diabolical force that is man-made global warming.

    Wait for Stephane Dion to trumpet this dangerous loss of 214 square kilometers of ice. Hopefully someone will ask for an explanation regarding the 2 million square kilometers of new ice we got last winter.

    You want a carbon tax? VOTE LIBERAL.
  57. Angus Elliott from Cambridge, Canada writes: Let's settle this amicably.

    All those who believe we're facing a catastrophe by year X - commit to X and describe the catastrophe.

    On Jan 1, X... one or the other group will be right.

    I don't expect to see an X. History is full of people who predict disaster in their lifetime and then have to listen to the laughter when X comes and goes.

    All that being said we should still get out of the business of burning oil for heat and transport - every barrel buys some nutcase an RPG.
  58. D Kearney from Halifax, Canada writes: More than 90 per cent of Canada's ice shelves have been lost over the past century, the bulk of those during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s.

    WHAT CAUSED THE WARMING IN THE 30S AND 40S?

    Conditions that have kept the ice shelves in balance for some 4,000 years are no longer present, Mr. Mueller said.

    IN BALANCE FOR 4000 YRS, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 5 BILLION YEARS?
  59. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Well, KSW, if GHGs were more important, temperatures would still be rising in response to the rising concentrations of GHGs.

    Temperatures essentiaqlly stopped rising after 2001, and are now falling.
  60. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: ANDY DREGER from WINNIPEG, writes: Wow! According to the article we've lost 214 square kilometers of ice in the Arctic this summer.

    You should learn to read; ice shelves that have been stable for at least 4000 years are not equal to sea ice that forms annually. Do some research BEFORE you post.
  61. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor You're repeated mantra of dropping tempuratures isn't science its called HOPE...'

    No, it's called data.

    And here are the data, the same data referenced by the IPCC, from the Hadley Centre:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  62. robert carey from Peterborough, Canada writes: People will believe what they want to believe. We'll continue to burp and fart our way through Tim Horton's drivethroughs and give nary a thought about environmental consequences. Of course the sky is not falling. It's all a hoax, right? Right?
  63. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: GlynnMhor: you just don't get it do you? We ALL know tempuratures are down in the last couple years, and those at the Hadley Centre have a very good idea why, and we still know that CO2 (and other GHG) are the MOST significant driver of the climate system in the long term.

    The solar cycle will resume (when we don't know) and when it does all that green house gas is going to make things very uncomfortable. Picture a person walking up stairs while playing with a yo-yo; that stairs are the increase in GHG and the yo-yo is natural variability. How high do you want to build the stairs just because the yo-yo is at the end of the string?
  64. media hack from Canada writes: Thank goodness most of the postings here dismiss the yet another alarmist media story. It wasn't that way a few years ago. I honestly believe reporters have forgotten how to write science journalism.
  65. M Tan from Canada writes: I have an idea. How about we all conserve the save our pocket books, and we don't have to argue or worry about what's causing the earth to warm up. Environmentalist have no one to blame. I think most people agree that oil is finite, and will eventually run out.
  66. M Tan from Canada writes: It'll be like that beer commercial. 'Less Filling'(conserve -> save money) vs. 'Taste Great' (conserve -> save the planet). Everybody works toward a common goal, and yet everybody has a different reason.
  67. George Morrison from Toronto, ON, writes: Not that the article had anything to do with Arctic SEA ice (hint: it was about ice SHELVES...), but since the anti-science crowd is determined to conflate the two issues.... NOW HEAR THIS!

    2008 is the BIGGEST YEAR FOR ARCTIC SEA ICE LOSS ever in the satellite record. That's right, from the peak of the freeze over the winter, with the denialosaurs' 'big increase' in ice (still one of the lowest peaks ever...), to the current extent, we have lost the MOST sea ice. And this year's melt is not over yet. This is occurring in a La Nina year, and a year which the denialosaurs mistakenly represent as a continuation of a cooling of the globe. Had the 2007 melt not been so astonishing, 2008 would be leaving us slack-jawed, and it is still not certain that 2008 won't surpass 2007 for the new minimum extent. See here for the exciting race to the bottom. Sigh.

    Ok, we now turn you back to our regularly-scheduled program of recycled nonsense about sunspots and the coming ice age.
  68. Angus Elliott from Cambridge, Canada writes: KSW Your Yo-Yo analogy is good one. GHG are certainly a contributor to warming. IE - conceding that there is a stair being built. The challenge to the analogy (using it's language - with no disrespect intended) is that we don't really know whether there is one yo-yo or more than one at play. We also don't know how long the strings are, or what their period is. We certainly have had both warmer and cooler periods than the current one in our planetary history (without any stair construction). There is a known solar cycle, possible unknown cycles, a mathematically predictable variation in our orbit (based on the other planets), probable biological cycles (IE GHG sink changes - marine and Amazon), albedo changes arising from continental drift, and feedback loops in both directions (Co2 solubility in sea water for instance is temperature dependent). Even with the benefit of hindsight our descendants (possibly cavemen perched on the Island chain for some reason called 'the rockies') won't be able to definitively say to what extent GHG caused their problems. On the other hand GHG may be what save us from the next ice age... The model is too complex, the data too sparse, the timeline MUCH too long. We can't ever have a definitive answer. Most scientists would venture the OPINION that GHG are a significant driver. I would too, but we'll never prove it. Personally I'm in favor of making some pretty huge changes to our energy sourcing and utilization. I suspect most of us would. (Addressing the forum not an individual) Maybe we could focus on how to make those changes instead of on argueing about the math?
  69. George Morrison from Toronto, ON, writes: The two 'disappeared' url links for my post above are:

    http://tinyurl.com/2urlue

    http://tinyurl.com/6ncshu
  70. Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: Mr Spock from Canada says 'All the same lies and denials by the Harper/Republican/Exxon apologists.
    99% of scientists agree'

    Uh.....sure they do. What a steaming pile of BS. But I guess that's what is passes for Liberal 'thinking' these days.

    Check this out....maybe you should actually try to find real information rather than just puking up IPCC propaganda.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3547

    http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB64%20Arctic%20Sea%20Ice.pdf
  71. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: you just don't get it do you? We ALL know tempuratures are down in the last couple years, and those at the Hadley Centre have a very good idea why...'

    Those who support the AGHG hypothesis actually do not have any good ideas as to why temperatures have been refusing to rise despite the increases in GHGs. During the 1970-2000 warming it was easy to claim that since GHGs and temperatures were both rising, they must be connected. Now that they're clearly disconnected, the paradigm has trouble being supported.
  72. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: '... we still know that CO2 (and other GHG) are the MOST significant driver of the climate system in the long term.'

    That's something that we flatly do not know. The models that work well for the 1970-2000 warming, based on the assumption that GHGs dominate temperature changes, fail to match the observations after 2001 and prior to 1970. Meanwhile the Sun has been at its most active in over 1000 years, yet has been discounted as a signifigant contributor.

    As Keynes has been quoted as saying: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'
  73. Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada writes: Antonio San from Canada writes: We know where the canadian ice shelf landed: NAIROBI (Reuters) - A huge hailstorm turned parts of central Kenya white, thrilling residents most of whom had never experienced such conditions, officials said on Wednesday. Hailstorms are usual in some parts of Kenya, which straddles the equator, but the ferocity of the storm in Busara, 255 km (158 miles) northwest of the capital was unprecedented. Excited villagers pelted each other with snowballs while some ate pieces of the icy sheet that formed over an entire hillside. 'We thought a big white sheet had been spread, so we decided to come and see for ourselves. We thought that it was Jesus who had come back,' one villager told reporters. Kenya's Meteorological Department said Tuesday's storm was caused by the convergence of cold air currents from the Indian Ocean and warm air currents from the Congo. 'The hailstones falling on the ground joined together to form expansive sheets of ice or snow flakes occupying a large area, 30 acres,' a statement by the meteorologists said. More than 12 hours after the storm, the forested hillside was still white despite the hot tropical sun. 'In fact this thing is very sweet, we have never seen anything like this. We like the ice so much because with the sun being hot, you take it and you feel satisfied,' resident Simon Kimani said. The only snow to be seen in normally sunny Kenya is on top of the country's highest mountain, 5,199-metre (17,057 ft) Mount Kenya.'

    Antonio San from Canada, thank you for a fine example of climate change and extreme weather events. You could add, too, that the snow on top of Mount Kenya, and it's neighbor Mount Kilimanjaro to the south, is falling less and less over time and their glaciers are receding, to the detriment of the folk and animals who rely on the meltwater in streams and groundwater.
  74. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    BuB:

    Where did you come by your 1,000,000 sq. km figure? The article cites the following, 'That means some 214-square-kilometres of Arctic ice shelves have been lost this summer, or about a quarter of what was left.' Are you privy to some information the rest of us do not have? I tried finding your 1 million number online but couldn't. Please cite your source.

    Not that it really matters since I'll take the views of the scientists studying this over your opinion anytime but I am always curious to hear how the entity known as BuB comes by its version of reality.
  75. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Now that they're clearly disconnected, the paradigm has trouble being supported.

    What research supports this idea that CO2's effect on temperature is 'clearly disconnected'? Has some scientific body come up with a refutation of the greenhouse effect?

    Variables other than CO2 can and do change. That has nothing to do with CO2's influence and certainly doesn't prove at all that a link has been broken.
  76. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: What research supports this idea that CO2's effect on temperature is 'clearly disconnected'?'

    GHGs rise, while temperatures do not.

    That's what it means for the variables to be disconnected.

    This is in the absence of any large vulcanism or strong 'nino-nina' oscillations that might obscure the trend.

    What's left for a causal explanation is that the Sun is less active, with the longest solar cycle since Victoria reigned.
  77. Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: '... the Sun has been at its most active in over 1000 years, yet has been discounted as a signifigant contributor.'

    Thank you GlynnMhor, for setting us straight. We needed to be reminded that we are the helpless fire hydrant being showered by the yellow rays of a far-off and capricious Star. It's ludicrous, after all, to consider that our burning of a measly 85 million barrels of oil daily could possibly affect the atmosphere.

    But let's wait for some more data to roll in; we can probably come to a definitive answer in a few decades or so, maybe by the time Bangladesh, Holland, and half of Florida are underwater.
  78. Ed Op from Canada writes:
    Bloggins:

    I took a look at your FCPP PDF. Wow, really objective source there! A group dedicated to the economic growth of the prairies. Hmmm... wonder what they might think of environmental restraints... I wonder... In any case, the author's biggest complaint with the reporting of ice shelf news is that it tends to make alarming conclusions based on science that isn't fully understood. He doesn't have much to say to counter the actual science in a real way. He does seem to misrepresent a couple charts and draws some dubious conclusions of his own from them but otherwise doesn't really discredit the substance of the reportage that seems to bother him so much.

    Thanks for giving us an insight into where your ideological approach to the environment comes from though.
  79. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada writes:'But let's wait for some more data to roll in; we can probably come to a definitive answer in a few decades or so...'

    By then temperatures will have dropped signifigantly, and GHGs will be derided as having a trivial effect on climate.
  80. martha stewart from Canada writes: All these comments yet not one single suggestion as to how to save the sunspots and restore them to their former glory.

    Surely there must be some government funding available, or a UN program to fund NGOs to educate us about this crisis.

    Or are we just supposed to sit back in a state of denial and hope that they return on their own?
  81. Stewart Pid from Canada writes: Has anyone seen a lost TIPPING POINT ... the glo-BULL alarmists seem to have miss placed the one that was to have had the now refreezing Arctic ice free this year.
    What a joke, having lost this round they resort to twisting the data and claim a huge total melt for 2008 ... wow ... could the big melt be because it was so cold up there last winter & the melt started from a large areal extent??? Just asking.
    Be good.
  82. Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada writes: Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: 'And to Roger Gagne....Bangladesh has seen its land area increase....not decrease. You might have to dump your copy of 'Inconvenient Truth' because almost all of it is fraudulent.'

    Joseph, when I lived in a village in the northwest corner of Bangladesh 20 years ago there were 100 million people, in an area a fraction the size of Alberta. Now that they're at 150 million, do you think the land area is sufficient? And shall we ask them how they feel about shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas?
  83. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: '... not one single suggestion as to how to save the sunspots and restore them to their former glory.'

    And since we know there is none, this provides an explanation as to why the research tends to be biased toward anthropogenic GHGs as a cause.

    Since there is no way any research is going to allow us to change the Sun, there's no way to panic governments into funding such research.
  84. J S from Canada writes: Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada - You can't reason with Joseph Bloggins and if you keep giving him logical arguments he might try to find you to sue you for making him look bad. At least that's how he got his way at his children's school - gotta love it when a parent threatens to sue over an invited guest speaker because the guest speaker has a different view than the parent. It's a great way to teach your kids to be open minded about new or different ideas.
  85. martha stewart from Canada writes: Roger gagne - Please provide the source of your information about the shrinking glaciers of the Himalayas.

    I have seen a report from an Indian glaciologist that disputes that claim.
  86. adam nation from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is largely an embarrassing waste of time. Is it honestly possible that people believe that the way we interact with the planet has no effect? Combine the population growth, the amount of food and energy required to feed, house and transport everyone and everything around the world, add to that the rapid deforestation (natural filters for removing CO2 from the air we NEED to breath) and the increasing pollution of the oceans and things get pretty freaky. This is no conspiracy. These are things that happen every day on a global level. The earth has an amazing ability to withstand abuse and to be sure it will out last us. Never before has the planet been under such pressures from any species. We consume and deplete the very things we need to live. Global Warming is misleading. Climate change is better. Unpredictable and more erratic weather patterns are what we will begin to experience. If the ocean currents, regulated by streams of warm and cold water that carry with them the weather we have come to know and love (sometimes not so much - shovelers know what I mean) suffer a dramatic change the entire global weather pattern will be effected. To deny that we have no effect on our environment is possibly the dumbest thing anyone can even think of saying. Are you honestly that ignorant? Maybe brain dead? Seriously. If you dump your garbage in your living room, does it just disappear? Would you eat food from your garden after dumping paint into the soil? As for people who suggest that doing anything now while the economy is shaky, well, nice lack of guts or vision. I guess you think it better to wait until things get dire before we do anything. Fools.
  87. Angus Elliott from Cambridge, Canada writes: Roger - Joseph has pointed out that Bangladesh has seen an increase in land area. I dont know if that's true or not. I'm pretty sure the 'do you think the land area is sufficient' question is irrelevant. If Bangladesh is seeing land area increase it doesn't argue well for the 'they're going to drown' argument.
  88. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    Bloggins:

    Fascinating group this FCPP. Took a look at their Boards and Advisory bodies - 99% white males, mostly older. Three women involved if you don't count the two administrators (who are women of course, men don't do that kind of work). No minorities, and the closest they have to a First Nations member is a guy who purports to have a Metis connection via Quebec (that must go back a ways, eh?) who, appropriately enough is responsible for policy regarding native issues. The group's overridding concern seems to be less government, less regulation. One of their big ideas to help the poor is to eliminate government welfare and leave it up to community groups like it used to be in the good ol' days (that would be back before unions and safety codes too I suppose). Curiously, they post a news item relating how Col. Muammar Gaddafi is going to give oil profits directly to Libyans instead of funding public education (I'm not making this up, take a look at their site fcpp dot org). Just to be clear then, this fcpp of yours is a group that thinks the dictator of Libya has it right. Am I missing something?

    Like I said before, good to know where you're coming from. Talk about propaganda!
  89. George Morrison from Toronto, ON, writes: Stewart Pid: You are grasping at straws. The sea ice melt this year did NOT start from a large maximum area extent. It was one of the lowest on record in the satellite record. Yet it is still a record melt, because it is approaching a new record minimum extent. All three points rather obvious here: http://tinyurl.com/2urlue

    You are the one attempting to twist that. By making up hypotheticals. That are demonstrably WRONG.
  90. Dr Demento from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: 'Temperatures essentially stopped rising after 2001, and are now falling.'

    According to the Hadley data you referenced average global temperature increases stalled in 2005 and we have seen a couple of years of slightly lower temperatures similar to many other TEMPORARY periods in the 150 Hadley record.

    To conclude that 'Temperatures . . . are now falling' as you have is both wrong and deceitful . . .
  91. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: GHGs rise, while temperatures do not.

    That's what it means for the variables to be disconnected.

    Here you go attempting to obscure my point once again. The fact that the data is moving away from one variable for a relatively short time period does not discount the effect of that variable, when there are many other variables in the mix.

    If oceanic oscilations, solar radiation and aerosols temporarily provide a level of downward forcing that in combination is greater than the upward forcing from GHG, then we may see small declines in temperature like we do in the current year. However, that decline will end once one or all of those shorter-term factors are removed.

    There is absolutely nothing that suggests that GHG and temperature ar