world

Canadian Arctic nearly loses entire ice shelf

28 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments
Login to comment

Global cooling.... Wooooo! Buy land in Hokkaido.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Copland said mean winter temperatures have risen by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade for the past five to six decades on northern Ellesmere Island"

Honestly, no sarcasm intended but 60 years ago scientists were telling us that the world had been cooling for fifty or sixty years and that another Ice Age was coming. I remeber magazine covers from TIme, Omni, National Geographic and others. And, like ice in a glass of water that overflows when the ice melts, if ice caps are melting shouldn't sea levels be rising significantly. I'm not a scientist and am not tryong to be sarcastic but I am confused.....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So there in no global warming Mr.George Bush??

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Sam, if it's sea ice that's melting the water level should remain almost unchanged (although there is a very small increase as fresh water is less dense than salt water). It's when ice over land melts that you should see sea levels increasing significantly.

The Global Cooling/New Ice Age stuff from the 70s was mostly sensationalising by the magazines. There were some scientists theorizing that then but the majority were predicting warming even then when it was an emerging science.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Yokomac, thanks for the info!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Denialists are worse than Birthers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.

Denialists are worse than Birthers.

So there in no global warming Mr.George Bush??

Guys, you need to read with comprehension. The article states that it is returning the Candian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years. I don't believe that they had cars, airplanes, and other so called instruments that cause "global warming" as those who are trying to sell people carbon credits and cap and trade. If the temperature of the earth is getting warming, it is part of a natural cycle. Nothing we can really do about it.

Now we can be better stewards of the globe, trying not to put excess pollutants in the oceans, and not cutting down all the trees and draining marshes and other avenues to reduce pollution. But driving a prius, or replacing a light bulb is not really going to do anything to stop the advancement of nature.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

samwatters: "if ice caps are melting shouldn't sea levels be rising significantly."

Put an ice cube in a glass of water -- you'll see the surface level arise immediately because of displacement. When the ice melts IN the water you'll see that the level is basically unchanged (it will change a tiny fraction of the amount due to the air in the ice. But note what I stated first -- when you transfer the ice to the water initially the level will increase.

So, the answer to your question if you apply the above allusion is yes and no. If the ice is melting and running off of land, as with arctic tundra in a lot of cases, then the levels will gradually increase. If it's an iceberg/glacier already in the water than it shouldn't change too much.

Alphaape: "The article states that it is returning the Candian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years. I don't believe that they had cars, airplanes, and other so called instruments that cause "global warming" as those who are trying to sell people carbon credits and cap and trade. "

'Comprehension problems' indeed, since you can't even understand how you unwittingly agree with global warming; it says it's returning to a condition that existed THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, meaning it took thousands of years to get where we are -- not the recent few centuries and rapid rate at which things are 'returning'. There's a major problem if an ice-shelf thousands of years in the making is reduced to a few square miles in two or three years, my friend -- nothing 'natural' about it. Not to worry, though... it'll be your kids apologizing to theirs for the denial amongst many in this age, not you having to do it yourself.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

'Comprehension problems' indeed, since you can't even understand how you unwittingly agree with global warming; it says it's returning to a condition that existed THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, meaning it took thousands of years to get where we are -- not the recent few centuries and rapid rate at which things are 'returning'.

@smithinjapan: Do you have data that states that back thousands of years that the rate of change was the same or slower? I would like to see that since I don't think the Babalonians kept such accurate records.

Maybe I should state my point clearer. I don't believe in "Man made Global Warming." Does global warming occur, yes it does because it is a natural phenomina. But selling carbon credits, and cap and trade will do nothing to stop it. Let me ask this, if under cap and trade underdeveloped and third world countries can get away making money by making industrial nations pay, then what happens when say a volcano erupts in an underdeveloped country. A volcano that normally puts as much particles in the atmosphere in a day than all the cars on the earth in a year, do they then have to pay back to the nations they sold their carbon credits too? Since they will be over their cap. Oh but I guess there must be a provision to allow natural occurences. If that is the case, then my point is made.

Man can't really change the world as the global warming alarmist like to think. But we can be careful and as Woodsy Owl used to say "Give a Hoot and Don't Pollute."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And, like ice in a glass of water that overflows when the ice melts, if ice caps are melting shouldn't sea levels be rising significantly. I'm not a scientist and am not tryong to be sarcastic but I am confused.....

I'll say. Have you ever observed a glass overflowing due to ice melting? When I read this from you I figured it was wrong, somehow. Maybe it was the knowledge that water had to expand to become ice? Or just the fact that I never actually saw that happen? I checked the net. It said false. I got home and put water and ice in a glass so that the water level was even with the rim and ice floating above it. A few drops of overflow as it melted. Nothing compared to the amount of ice that had been poking above the glass or even just plain old condensation, which no doubt contributed to the size of those tiny drops. And I found this just for you: http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/experiments/iceoverflow.html

Trust me on this: your imagination is simply no comparision to people on site making measurments for years.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

All of North America used to be covered by ice hundreds of meters thick. That ice melted away naturally. The ice on Ellemere island is melting away naturally too. Nothing is stagnant in nature.

I remember about 10 years ago all the global warming theorists claiming that the Maldives would be gone by now.

The island is still there and the coastline hasn't changed an inch. In fact ocean level has fallen slightly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember about 10 years ago all the global warming theorists claiming that the Maldives would be gone by now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7945877.stm

Report from just 2 years ago - houses built inland falling into the sea. They're doing all they can to stop it happening, but all they're doing is slowing things down.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There are many small islands and atolls in the Pacific which are disappearing with the rising sea level. Where is that coming from? Answers on a postcard please?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Someone please tell me when the climate has not changed from hot or cold during the history of our planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the problem of the volume of water when ice melts is not that trivial. the density of ice is different from that of liquid water, and upon melting it will take a different volume. also, ice may float and only partially contributes with its volume

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republican denialist thought "evolution" in a nutshell:

Global warming is not happening. Global warming is happening, but it is not due to human activity. Global warming is happening and is due to human activity, but we can't do anything about it. Global warming is happening and is due to human activity, but efforts to do anything about it would be made moot by cheating poor countries. Global warming is happening and is due to human activity, and we could actually do something about it, but it would be too expensive. (Preview) Coastal cities are mostly Democratic anyway, so who will miss them?
2 ( +2 / -0 )

Democrat denialist thought "evolution" in a nutshell:

We, by hampering our economy by putting ridiculous limits on CO2 output, we can significantly alter the Earth's climate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We, by hampering our economy by putting ridiculous limits on CO2 output, we can significantly alter the Earth's climate

See #5.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"See #5"

Your #5 is false. Check it out!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your #3 & #4 are also false. So, Mother Nature has nothing to do with climate change? Really?

Your #6 is funny though. Tee hee!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flashbacks below:

1960: "Mercury, PCBs and like chemicals are too central to industry to regulate!"

1970: "If catalytic converters (not to mention seat belts) are required for each and every car, automobile manufacturers will go bankrupt!"

1980: "If lead is banned from gasoline, it will become unaffordable!"

1990: "If ozone is banned, aerosol and refrigerant makers will go out of business!"

Wow, those were all pretty scary times, what with environmental extremists threatening the very fabric of our existence. How did that all work out, by the way? Can you imagine (and would you desire) to return to the old days?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wow, those were all pretty scary times, what with environmental extremists threatening the very fabric of our existence. How did that all work out, by the way? Can you imagine (and would you desire) to return to the old days?

@Laguna: Answer this: If the city of San Francisco, that bastion of far left environmental extremists have passed a city ordinance that bans the plastic shopping bags from stores in 2007 due to their claims of them being bad for the environment, then why does that same city council pass out free condoms? Aren't they plastic too?

The whole global warming faction is full of situations similar to the above. It's all about controlling people.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Answer this: If the city of San Francisco, that bastion of far left environmental extremists have passed a city ordinance that bans the plastic shopping bags from stores in 2007 due to their claims of them being bad for the environment, then why does that same city council pass out free condoms?

The far extremes that some right-wingers will go in an attempt to "catch" sane and reasonable people is hilarious to behold at times. Condoms are made of latex -- a completely natural substance that biogrades over time when exposed to sunlight, earth, or water.

Aren't they plastic too?

Oh yeah, that's why they're called "rubbers."

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The whole global warming faction is full of situations similar to the above. It's all about controlling people.

The whole anti-global warming faction is full of the fundamental ignorance similar to the above. It's all about the fear and paranoia of feeling that people far more aware and intelligent than they are out to control them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Canada needs to step up here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Condoms are made of latex -- a completely natural substance that biogrades over time when exposed to sunlight, earth, or water.

@yabits: FYI, the large-scale use of disposable condoms has resulted in concerns over their environmental impact via littering and in landfills, where they can eventually wind up in wildlife environments if not incinerated or otherwise permanently disposed of first. Polyurethane condoms in particular, given they are a form of plastic, are not biodegradable, and latex condoms take a very long time to break down. Experts, such as AVERT, recommend condoms be disposed of in a garbage receptacle, as flushing them down the toilet (which some people do) may cause plumbing blockages and other problems. The plastic and foil wrappers condoms are packaged in are also not biodegradable. However, the benefits condoms offer are widely considered to offset their small landfill mass. Frequent condom or wrapper disposal in public areas such as a parks have been seen as a persistent litter problem.

While biodegradable, latex condoms damage the environment when disposed of improperly. According to the Ocean Conservancy, condoms, along with certain other types of trash, cover the coral reefs and smother sea grass and other bottom dwellers. The United States Environmental Protection Agency also has expressed concerns that many animals might mistake the litter for food.

So, I guess you need to do a litle research. Though I am not against condom usage, I think it is silly for a city council to give them out, while banning the use of plastic bags as a step to "save the planet." Climate changes will occur even when humans will not be here. Just keep watching those History channel "Live After Humans" and you will get the picture. They happened before we got here, and will happen while we are here and long after we are gone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it is silly for a city council to give them out, while banning the use of plastic bags as a step to "save the planet."

Juxtaposed with:

However, the benefits condoms offer are widely considered to offset their small landfill mass.

A plastic bag has no benefits to offset the larger environmental impact they cause. On the other hand, condoms are very effective in preventing the spread of communicable, sexually-transmitted disease. Therefore I think it is really stupid to claim that it's "silly" for a city to pass them out while banning plastic shopping bags. There's really no comparison between the two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A plastic bag has no benefits to offset the larger environmental impact they cause. On the other hand, condoms are very effective in preventing the spread of communicable, sexually-transmitted disease. Therefore I think it is really stupid to claim that it's "silly" for a city to pass them out while banning plastic shopping bags. There's really no comparison between the two

I normallyuse plastic bags for a lot of other things around the house beside just throwing them out after carrying them home. Though small, they make good garbage bags. So if by using a "smaller" garbage bag than using that 9 gallon "Hefty Bag" has no benefit, then I guess you are right. Never mind that a small plastic condom rapper or condom is in a landfill.

If you notice my post, I didn't say anything about the use of condoms in stopping the spread of disease. I believe that they should be used. My point is that a meddling city council in SF should stick to what it is supposed to do, fix the crappy roads in SF (some of the worst in the nation), get rid of the bums that seem to have carte blanche due to pandering to them, and run an effective government, not trying to push some agenda to make themselves "feel good" without having to do any hard work.

Also, how many trees are used to make paper bags?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites