START A PETITION37,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

Fractures in Arctic Ice Worry Scientists


Environment  (tags: globalwarming, climate-change )

Past
- 3401 days ago - latimes.com
In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said Thursday.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Judy Cross (83)
Friday August 22, 2008, 10:08 am
What this article does is pathologize what is a perfectly normal process.

The glacier keeps growing over water and after a while gets too big to be supported, so it breaks off.

This happens periodically. It probably happened in 1922 when the Arctic warmed very fast and stayed warm until the 1940s.

We haven't seen it before because we didn't have satellite coverage of the Earth until 1979.
 

Past Member (2031)
Friday August 22, 2008, 11:35 am
Sorry to disagree with you but global warming is not a hoax.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Friday August 22, 2008, 12:43 pm
It would be interesting to know what you base your opinion on besides hype.

Science is not "faith based".

"A final concern related to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration is the worry that it may lead to
catastrophic global warming. There is little reason to believe that such will ever occur, however, for
several observations of historical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature suggest
that it is climate change that drives changes in the air's CO2 content and not vice versa. In a study of the
global warmings that signaled the demise of the last three ice ages, for example, Fischer et al. (1999) found
that air temperature always rose first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 400 to 1000 years
later. Likewise, Petit et al. (1999) found that for all of the glacial inceptions of the past half-million years,
air temperature consistently dropped before the air's CO2 content did, and that the CO2 decreases lagged the
temperature decreases by several thousand years. In addition, the multiple-degree-Centigrade rapid
warmings and subsequent slower coolings that occurred over the course of the start-and-stop demise of the
last great ice age are typically credited with causing the minor CO2 concentration changes that followed
them (Staufer et al., 1998); and there are a number of other studies that demonstrate a complete uncoupling
of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature during periods of significant climate change (Cheddadi et al.,
1998; Gagan et al., 1998; Raymo et al., 1998; Indermuhle et al., 1999). Hence, there are no historical
analogues for CO2-induced climate change; but there are many examples of climate change-induced CO2"
http://icecap.us/docs/change/Greenhousegasesclimate%20map.pdf


Higher CO2 levels have been shown by numerous researchers to be a response to warming....and NOT THE CAUSE OF IT.

Hello? Is anybody home?
 

Past Member (2031)
Friday August 22, 2008, 4:24 pm
Here's the article. I don't know where you get faith based?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judy Cross (83)
Friday August 22, 2008, 6:35 pm
Faith based because there is absolutely nothing that shows humans can or are affecting climate with CO2 production.

Glaciers grow and some of them crack off over water. It is not a catastrophe or a sign of impending doom. One of the scientists quoted even says it's normal.

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

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

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

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 8:32 am
"Faith based because there is absolutely nothing that shows humans can or are affecting climate with CO2 production."

That is the faith based dogma of the denialists - to discount THOUSANDS of sientists and THOUSANDS of articles in peer review journals is simply foolish and anyone making such a statement can not be taken seriously. Keep up spreading the word Kristi - facts are the best wepon against the outlandish denialist view...
 

Past Member (2031)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 8:34 am
Thanks Chris! It amazes me that ANYONE still doubts the validity of global warming.
 

June Rice (125)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 10:17 am
If the ice caps melt and the ocean currents stop, we won't have to argue anymore. Sadly noted.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 10:28 am
That is a very big "IF." The likelihood of that happening is zilch! That is the kind of scare stories propagated by the crooks who want to sell us "carbon credits", who want us to switch to nuclear power and who do not have a scientific leg to stand on.....just scare stories.
 

Past Member (2031)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 10:42 am
Judy, I am SO glad that you have joined Care 2! You will learn alot here about global warming.
 

June Rice (125)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 11:17 am
It has happened to the ocean before they've found...THAT'S science for you, not faith. I'm talking about the DEEP ocean current, not the surface ones. IF??? There is a poison lake in New York that shows you what happens when water stops moving. Dead spots in the ocean.

rent the dvd
Earth:The Biography: on disc 2 is Oceans...you can hear all about it and SEE it.
 

Adrienne Dewdney (4)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 8:28 pm
What the point really should be for everyone including the denialists is that no matter what we as a western society need to stop caring so much about 'me and mine' and more about the collective 'we' including the people that challenge us and our world views. So what if you don't believe. As a canadian i don't 'believe' the american isolationist ideals and views that many americans hold to the detriment to the rest of the world (unfortunately this seems to including many greenies that i have come into contact with). I know your gov't isn't necessarily a representative of all americans, but really it is a representative of the selfishness that is apart of too many western world views on the world. What the real point is that we all need to learn to live with less and share more. Whether or not climate change is happening, north americans (yes including canadians) need to lighten our footprints and anything we do will not only help the climate, but more importantly the beings that don't have a voice in your congress or senate which hold too much concentrated power over the rest of OUR MOTHER EARTH. So let's not alienate Judy but show her by example that it's not about details or facts but about compassion for others and the earth that we are definitely destroying. To realize this you only need to look out anyone's back door to see problems. I agree with Judy when she says that carbon trading is just another business venture. Be careful about that but that does not mean that there are many different solutions out there. We need to stop focusing on the bad and start applying our collective good educations and lifestyles to the solutions that are already out there. Blessings and Love to even the people that make my blood boil!!!
 

JOSSIE ROSS (62)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 10:11 pm
VERY GOOD POINT CHRIS OTAHAL & CONGRATS KRISTI K. I AM WITH YOU BOTH !!
 

Bob F (10)
Saturday August 23, 2008, 10:51 pm
In a little more then a hundred years ago a ship sailing to New York hit a iceburg. A lot of people died, but no one cared where that iceburg came from then. Things change dont they. May be the polar bears pushed it in the ships way? I know it never happened, but...? I can see a group of poler bears sitting arond saying "the ice is melting, lets strike now!" I look at things diffrent. But it dont mean I dont care.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 2:54 am
TY girls!I can't imagine there's still people believing :Faith based because there is absolutely nothing that shows humans can or are affecting climate with CO2 production.
You'll learn a lot on care2!I wish you'll stop blinding yourself so foolishly!
TY ALL (sadly noted)
 

Past Member (2031)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 6:52 am
Thank you all for noting and for caring about global warming!
 

Pete Conrads (91)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 8:50 am
Peace to all, regardless of your beliefs. Thanks for sharing.....
 

Bill McGlone (103)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 1:32 pm
Judy: please stay out of my "inner city" neighborhood and leave our crack alone!!!!
 

Judy Cross (83)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 3:52 pm
If anybody cares about what is real as opposed to scare stories, read below:

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm
 

Morgan Griffith (225)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 5:05 pm
While we all are going to formulate our own opinions on global warming it is good that there is a cross-section of opinion in this thread. I agree with one or two of the posters that we all need to live AS IF there is warming and do what we can to take care of this planet we live on. If the threat of global warming helps decrease the amount of pollution we live with and is growing daily I will be happy with that by-product. The truth is no one truly knows each scientist looks at the data and then formulates their truth with their own prejudices intact. In 1922 there were not hoards of scientist in the Artic as the means of getting there at all were extremely limited and equipment along with sattelite imagery was not available. Nature will always be her own pollutant with volcanos and dust and dirt storms but in the past there has not been the amount of added pollution caused strictly by man so past figures are really not totally accurate when applied to what is happening today.
 

Chris Otahal (507)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 6:16 pm
I find it interesting that Miskolczi's model is impecable science, while all of the many models that support human cause warming are garbage...

Would you Judy like to tell us what is wrong with becomming less relient on foreign fossil fuels, using more renewables, becomming more energy efficient, planting trees, and stopping deforestation..ya know, all those "evil" things the "warmers" are promoting...Point is, as pointed out above, we sould be doing these things even if they did nothing for the climate (which they do)...
 

Judy Cross (83)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 6:30 pm
It's another nail in the coffin of AGW aka man-made global warming.

And yes, new energy sources are always welcome and all that other good stuff...but that is no excuse for lying to the public about CO2.

It is no excuse for corrupting science and trying to silence critics. It is no excuse for burdening the public with needless taxes.

It is also no excuse for the people who push the scam also profiting from it and being seen as heros by a well meaning but frightened public.

Do not try to pass this scam off as being good for the environment when we have already seen the consequences of ethanol and biodiesel.
 

Past Member (2031)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 8:18 pm
Here's the story again!

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Otahal (507)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 8:23 pm
the onily "scam" is the fossil fuel denialist industry and the money they are aking by creating "doubt where there is none...
 

Chris Otahal (507)
Sunday August 24, 2008, 8:29 pm
wow tired LOL lets try again

the only "scam" is the fossil fuel denialist industry and the money they are making by creating "doubt" where there is none...
 

Judy Cross (83)
Monday August 25, 2008, 12:29 am
You know it could be cracking, not from warming, but just because it got too big. It was afterall hanging over water.

Please spare us the silliness.

How about this oil company scam?

"For example, in the Democratic Party, Vice President Al Gore has a long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum that has been enormously beneficial to the company. Occidental's late chairman, the controversial Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore's father, Senator Albert Gore, Senior, quote, "in my back pocket", unquote. When the elder Gore left the Senate in 1970, Hammer hired him for $500,000 a year. Personally and professionally the vice president has profited from Occidental largess. To this day he still draws $20,000 a year from a land deal in Tennessee brokered between his father and Hammer. The total amount is more than $300,000. The personal relationship between young Gore and Hammer was very close throughout the 1980's, including trips on Hammer's private jet and constant campaign contributions.

For most of the 20th century, oil companies have tried unsuccessfully to obtain control of two oil fields owned and operated by the federal government: the Teapot Dome field in Casper, Wyoming, and the Elk Hills field in Bakersfield, California. Despite his public reputation as a staunch environmentalist, Gore recommended that the president approve giving oil companies access to this publicly owned land. It is land that the U.S. Navy has held as emergency reserves since 1912. In October, 1997, the Energy Department announced that the government would sell 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve to Occidental.

Largest Privatization in U.S. history

It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history, one that tripled Occidental's U.S. oil reserves overnight. Although the Energy Department was required to assess the likely environmental consequences of the proposed sale, it didn't. Instead it hired a private company, ICF Kaiser International, Incorporated, to complete the assessment. The general chairman of Gore's presidential campaign, Tony Coelho, sat on the board of directors.

The very same day the Elk Hills sale was announced, Gore delivered a speech to the White House Conference on Climate Change on the "terrifying prospect" of global warming, a problem he blamed on the unchecked use of fossil fuels such as oil. He said, quoting, "If we ignore the scientific warnings and continue stubbornly on our current course, we better begin to prepare what we would like to say to our children and grandchildren. They might fairly ask, if you knew all that, why didn't you do something about it?""

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/Gore+Oxy.html
 

Ron Stephen (40)
Tuesday August 26, 2008, 1:19 pm
Higher CO2 levels are a sign of Global Warming, not the cause. So how does that dispute Global Warming. Yes it is sad that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth places the blame on higher CO2 when it has now been shown that rising CO2 levels trail temperature change by 5 years. A tragic mistake caused by setting a million years of data on a thousand year time line so that 5 year variations could not be seen. However the rising CO2 level IS EVIDENCE of global warming even if they are not the cause. They are, in fact, proof of global warming. Removing CO2 or reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will slow global warming whether or not it is the cause. Therefore anything we can do to reduce CO2 will help mitigate the dramatic effects which we are about to see. Reducing all forms of air and water pollution are in the best interests of mankind (and womankind)!
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.