We just lost a large chunk of ice

[troutman]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

That being said, 18km^2 breaking off is interesting. I didn't read the article, and I am not quite sure of legal rights, but does that mean Canada just lost 18km^2 of "land". I doubt the ice is included in our landmass, but it sucks if it is.

Canadian territory has to do with our Continental Shelf - will see what I can dig up . . .

http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-p..._shelf-en.aspx

http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-p...ing_cs-en.aspx

As a coastal state bordering three oceans, a significant part of the land to which Canada has the exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit is submerged land in the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (see red line in Figure).

In some areas, Canada’s continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles and the exclusive juridiction over natural resources in the continental shelf go beyond 200 nautical miles to the outer limit of the shelf.

UNCLOS provides Canada with the ability to definitively determine the outer limits of its continental shelf. A provisional analysis using the rules of article 76 of UNCLOS demonstrated that Canada has a large extended continental shelf in both the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. (see white line in Figure)

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yes ice has always broken off but theres a big difference now, it's not being replaced with new ice.

Read the article:
"Many scientists now believe that the Arctic will have ice-free summers by 2013"
"Event consistent with theory that the current Arctic climate isn't rebuilding ice sheets"

There may not be ice being replaced in the Arctic, but there is ice being created elsewhere.

Some Glaciers are shrinking, others are growing (including ones in Greenland, the Antarctic, California, etc).

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

The world is changing... but looking at one area of the world in isolation can only lead to false conclusions.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Global warming is going to happen and I am of the opinion that there is nothing we can do to stop it, so we should just do our best to deal with it. And before some tree-huggers decide to tell me I don't know what I am talking about, yes I do.

That being said, 18km^2 breaking off is interesting. I didn't read the article, and I am not quite sure of legal rights, but does that mean Canada just lost 18km^2 of "land". I doubt the ice is included in our landmass, but it sucks if it is.

Global warming happens, ice breaking off happens. Are they connected? I don't think you need global warming for ice to break, but maybe it helps. Doesn't make it doomsday.

I think it's the rate of change recently that shows if it continues at this speed it could infact be doomsday for a lot of people.

This is just 2 years in the Arctic:




At this and Greenlands rate of ice melting they predict a 3 foot rise in the oceans in 10 years.

Heres Floridas coast after a 3 foot rise:



As much as you feel it wouldn't be bad in some parts of the world it would be devastating in places where 90% of the people now live (along the coasts) not to mention huge changes animal life and agriculture all over the world.

But your right, I doubt theres anything we can do about it.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I sent that link to a friend of mine. Here's his response. I don't know what to think of it but I have to admit, I never saw it from that perspective before.

I work quite a bit with CC and the new word being touted about more often is adaptation (opportunities and challenges).

Basically if global warming was to occur close to the prediction of the scientists' models then indeed there would be these opportunities but also these challenges. Not being a doom-monger here just listing a few potential challenges Canada will have as well as the opportunities should the predictions be accurate. To name a few.

1. Less time for ice roads.
2. Tillings dam failure due to melting permafrost -> leaked pollutants
3. Loss of coastal communities
4. Failed infrastructure due to melting permafrost and slope displacement, movement (e.g. roads, pipelines, housing). Has already been happening in the North (see below).
5. Increased tree diseases as organisms extend northwards.
6. The Athabasca river - quicker more rapid spring melt leading to water levels high for shorter times of year. Same for Northern communities reliant on glaciers for fresh water.

I'm not getting into the whole anthropogenic debate, just saying that as the models stand at the moment the projections are for some quite significant changes.

As I said the new word (along with mitigation) being touted about now is adaptation to changes that are/are projected to happen. Unfortunately John Baird doesn't see it as a priority.

The federal government's priority is to help northerners reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than adapt to climate change, Environment Minister John Baird says.
Baird made the comments Monday when asked about requests from Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie for federal help to deal with the results of global warming.
"Certainly adaptation is a significant challenge," he said. "It's obviously got to be part of any initiative but we can't set our sights away from the need to reduce greenhouse gases, the need to tackle climate change head on, which is obviously the most urgent priority."
Although he has "certainly been told about the schools that are beginning to shift because of the permafrost melting and the huge impact on public infrastructure and highways," Baird said these things have to be balanced against the need to slow down climate change.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story...rd-change.html

Anyways, a good read for anyone that wants to know what the projected changes are going to be. Hard copies can be ordered free from Nat Resources Canada in Ottawa.

http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/as...07/index_e.php

[T@T]

Originally Posted by calculoso

There may not be ice being replaced in the Arctic, but there is ice being created elsewhere.

Some Glaciers are shrinking, others are growing (including ones in Greenland, the Antarctic, California, etc).

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

The world is changing... but looking at one area of the world in isolation can only lead to false conclusions.

Not sure about the others but researchers already debunked the "growing" greenland glacier and showed it's just moving forward but actually shrinking. As far as the Antarctic goes didn't they just lose a 20 mile chunk of ice earlier this year?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by T@T

Assuming the way you want it to happen is quick it would be very destructive.

"Intensely violent earthquakes would affect virtually the whole planet. Volcanic gas, ash and debris would fill the atmosphere. Huge tsunamis would crash into coastlines around the world."

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/13364

You're confusing pole shift with magnetic pole reversal. Pole shift is based around the theory that earth's axis is constantly slipping, becoming more and more horizontal, and from time to time it recorrects itself. If this were to happen suddenly, it would be devastating. Most proponents, however, see it happening over several thousand years. The greatest long-term effects would be massive climate change. Imagine if the north-pole was in Hudson Bay, for example: the entirety of Canada would likely be located within the polar icecap.

Geomagnetic pole reversal is a much more widely accepted concept, and would have little effect on the geography or climate of the earth. It would, however, require a massive overhaul of satellite systems and other systems that use magnetic field references.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

[Igottago]

Its interesting that news stories are now a matter of opinion, not fact. There is no truth, just perspective. So many different ways to slice and dice this, with no real confirmation of fact on whats going on. Even the scientist in the article was "careful not to blame Global Warming". Talk about a politically charged issue.

The annoying thing as an average citizen is that I have all this information coming at me about global warming, climate change, how dangerous it is or isn't, and i'm not sure what to believe anymore. I'm not a scientist or climatoligist so I don't even really understand what most of the information means anyways. But when I look at an issue like this, I'd like to be able to look at actual facts, from actual experts, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by T@T

Assuming the way you want it to happen is quick it would be very destructive.

"Intensely violent earthquakes would affect virtually the whole planet. Volcanic gas, ash and debris would fill the atmosphere. Huge tsunamis would crash into coastlines around the world."

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/13364

There is evidence the pole has shifted many times throughout the Earth's history. There is NO evidence this has affected anything other then polarity of the magnetic field. A pole shift would happen nearly instantaneously as well. Note that this is different from the gradual migration of the poles that has been occurring over the past millenia.

I got my information from listening to a scientist on CBC's Quirks and Quarks. You posted an article written by a journalist who provides no backup information whatsoever.

Be my guest if you want to try to dig up something more credible. But until then, I think I'll stick with my source. As far as I'm concerned, what you linked is a poorly written piece of fear mongering.

/offtopic
Do they not teach this in school anymore? Or has the internet just made us all too lazy to care about quality information?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by octothorp

You're confusing pole shift with magnetic pole reversal. Pole shift is based around the theory that earth's axis is constantly slipping, becoming more and more horizontal, and from time to time it recorrects itself. If this were to happen suddenly, it would be devastating. Most proponents, however, see it happening over several thousand years. The greatest long-term effects would be massive climate change. Imagine if the north-pole was in Hudson Bay, for example: the entirety of Canada would likely be located within the polar icecap.

Geomagnetic pole reversal is a much more widely accepted concept, and would have little effect on the geography or climate of the earth. It would, however, require a massive overhaul of satellite systems and other systems that use magnetic field references.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

I'm not confused, I was just answering Ford-P, he wanted the polar ice to split off and cause a pole-shift, I assume he meant an immediate shift.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by llama64

/offtopic
Do they not teach this in school anymore? Or has the internet just made us all too lazy to care about quality information?

I am going with the latter, due to how often you see Wikipedia being blindly believed.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by T@T

I'm not confused, I was just answering Ford-P, he wanted the polar ice to split off and cause a pole-shift, I assume he meant an immediate shift.

Ah, fair enough. I think the two of you are talking cross-purposes then.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Ice cracks. Deal with it.

But not like this. Global warming is a big problem. We have to do the right thing. Too bad our government has no idea what to do.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by llama64

There is evidence the pole has shifted many times throughout the Earth's history. There is NO evidence this has affected anything other then polarity of the magnetic field. A pole shift would happen nearly instantaneously as well. Note that this is different from the gradual migration of the poles that has been occurring over the past millenia.

I got my information from listening to a scientist on CBC's Quirks and Quarks. You posted an article written by a journalist who provides no backup information whatsoever.

Be my guest if you want to try to dig up something more credible. But until then, I think I'll stick with my source. As far as I'm concerned, what you linked is a poorly written piece of fear mongering.

/offtopic
Do they not teach this in school anymore? Or has the internet just made us all too lazy to care about quality information?

All the article says is IF the pole were to shift quickly it would be devastating, It wasn't based on fact at all. the only tiny bit of evidence of this ever happening is researchers finding animals in the arctic with tropical plant life in the stomachs.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Igottago

The annoying thing as an average citizen is that I have all this information coming at me about global warming, climate change, how dangerous it is or isn't, and i'm not sure what to believe anymore. I'm not a scientist or climatoligist so I don't even really understand what most of the information means anyways. But when I look at an issue like this, I'd like to be able to look at actual facts, from actual experts, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think one of the reasons behind global warming denial and human global warming denial is the media. The media feels that it needs to have opinions from both sides on this issue, which is fine, but they will give both opinions equal weight when one side may not deserve it. When it comes to science, scientists opinions are not always equal. Especially when one side has the overwhelming consensus.

For example when a archaeologist digs up a dinosaur bone and says it's from the so-and-so era 65 millions years ago, the news doesn't get a creationists opinion who thinks that god planted the fossil to test our faith. That example isn't ideal. But I think you'll understand what I am getting at. Both are looking at the same evidence, but both are getting different results. That maybe through an outside influence (political, idealogical, business etc) or because maybe they have a point.

This is my theory as to why their is so many deniers (well part of it, factors like political, idealogical and business also play a role). Because the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and it is largely due to humans actions (despite what Hoz may lead you to believe). Everyone knows that global warming is happening. If you don't, you are out to lunch on this debate. Where most the sketpicism is, is in the human part. Which in my opinion is unfounded because the consensus is clearly pointing toward the human cause, and the other side isn't well put together. They are more like a random bits of data instead of a unified theory (which the humans are doing it side is).

I heard a great way to explain this. Let's say one day you wake up and your stomach hurts, so you decide to go to the doctor. Well instead of going to one doctor, you go to a 100 doctors. 90 of them say that you have an ulcer. One says you have the flu, another one says that you have heart burn, another one says you are fine, another one says your arm is broken, etc. Each of the ten are saying something else. Which course of action will you take? Seek treatment for your ulcer? Or wait till the other 10 doctors come around and conclude that it's an ulcer? Chances are by the time the other 10 doctors come around it'll be too late to treat.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I heard a great way to explain this. Let's say one day you wake up and your stomach hurts, so you decide to go to the doctor. Well instead of going to one doctor, you go to a 100 doctors. 90 of them say that you have an ulcer. One says you have the flu, another one says that you have heart burn, another one says you are fine, another one says your arm is broken, etc. Each of the ten are saying something else. Which course of action will you take? Seek treatment for your ulcer? Or wait till the other 10 doctors come around and conclude that it's an ulcer? Chances are by the time the other 10 doctors come around it'll be too late to treat.

Nice analogy. What you have just basically described is the precautionary principle.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Because the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and it is largely due to humans actions

Sorry Burninator, I have a serious problem with what you wrote here.

Firstly, as I have said in almost every global warming thread, I have finished one, and almost a second earth science degree at U of C, where I have taken a few classes that discuss global warming at length. I do not consider myself an expert, but I would consider myself more knowledgable in this subject than a lot of people on this board and in the general public due to this education.

Second, in your post you argue that the main reason there are so many "deniers" is because of the media, and then you go on to use false information (I have quoted it above) to make your point. As a matter of fact, I consider myself an earth scientist, and I DO NOT think that anthropogenic activity has a large impact on global warming. I could pull articles to make my point, but those would then be called illegitimate on this board because "every scientist has an agenda." I happen to know that nearly every earth scientist at U of C, student or faculty, thinks very similarily.

My point is this: we don't know what is causing global warming. Although it is very likely that we have helped to speed up this process, we are most likely not causing it, and it would have occured had we never even existed, albeit slightly more slowly. I will tell you one thing that everyone should agree upon, is that global warming is happening and we need to prepare for it's coseqences rather than continue complaining about what is causing it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I sent that link to a friend of mine. Here's his response. I don't know what to think of it but I have to admit, I never saw it from that perspective before.

Actually, the lack of ice closes shipping routes and decreases access to natural resources in the far north. What Arctic Canada needs is longer icebound seasons in order for those things to proliferate.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Burninator

This is my theory as to why their is so many deniers (well part of it, factors like political, idealogical and business also play a role). Because the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and it is largely due to humans actions (despite what Hoz may lead you to believe). Everyone knows that global warming is happening. If you don't, you are out to lunch on this debate. Where most the sketpicism is, is in the human part. Which in my opinion is unfounded because the consensus is clearly pointing toward the human cause, and the other side isn't well put together. They are more like a random bits of data instead of a unified theory (which the humans are doing it side is).

Don't worry, HoZ never leads me to believe anything he says.

Yeah I agree with your stance generally...for years we've been hearing that global warming and climate change are a real threat and something we need to pay attention to, and I've always believed that to be true. However, when the naysayers are getting so much attention you do start to listen to what they are saying, and sometimes wonder if they have a point. However, interestingly enough, they always seem to have the biggest stake in keeping the status quo as well.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I consider myself an earth scientist, and I DO NOT think that anthropogenic activity has a large impact on global warming. I could pull articles to make my point, but those would then be called illegitimate on this board because "every scientist has an agenda." I happen to know that nearly every earth scientist at U of C, student or faculty, thinks very similarily.

My point is this: we don't know what is causing global warming. Although it is very likely that we have helped to speed up this process, we are most likely not causing it, and it would have occured had we never even existed, albeit slightly more slowly. I will tell you one thing that everyone should agree upon, is that global warming is happening and we need to prepare for it's coseqences rather than continue complaining about what is causing it.

Are you saying that you and the majority of scientists at UCal disagree with the conclusions of the IPCCs working groups?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg2-spm.pdf

Page 9

[Hack&Lube]

The world is going to change. Mankind will adapt. Mankind will survive. What's the big deal.

We've only been here for a fraction of a percent of the history of life on this planet, not to mention it's entire geological and meteorological history.