Canadian ice shelves breaking up at record speed

[The_Global_Warmer]

In the interest of being fair. I did a search for ice shelved that are growing in the Arctic region and found none. Apparently a glacier in Iceland has grown but precipitation there has also went up more than enough to cover that one growing glacier. I checked with a couple of my friends up north in the hockey community and they said this report is big news up there but not that surprising given the amount of changes already made. But most Canadians live close to the US border and do not experience this first hand.

Here is some basic data of the major ones:

The Serson Ice Shelf was reduced from 205 km² to two separate remnant sections in 2008: Serson A, a 42 km² floating glacier tongue and Serson B (35 km²) just to the north. This past summer, the Serson A was reduced to a 25 km² and the Serson B was reduced to 7 km².

Last year, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf was 340 km² with its central area broken into pieces. This past summer, the central area disintegrated into drifting ice masses, leaving two separate ice shelves: a western (227 km²) and an eastern (74 km²) Ward Hunt Ice Shelf.

In 1906, the Ellesmere Island ice shelves were an estimated 8900 km² and were reduced to 1043 km² over the last century. The total extent of Ellesmere ice shelves is now 563 km² or 54 per cent of what it was prior to the loss of the Ayles Ice Shelf in August 2005.

Link to the above data

link to the CBC news article and video with professional researcher.

CBC article and video

Some quotes on the magnitude of this:

This is our coastline changing,” says Derek Mueller, from Carleton University’s department of geography and environmental studies. “These unique and massive geographical features that we consider to be a part of the map of Canada are disappearing and they won’t come back.”

This summer alone saw the Serson ice shelf almost completely disappear and the Ward Hunt shelf split in half. The ice loss equals about three billion tonnes, or about 500 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Arctic ice shelves are old and relatively rare. They are much different from sea ice, which is typically only a few metres thick. Ice shelves can measure anywhere from 40 to 100 metres in thickness. They formed over thousands of years as a result of snow and sea ice build-up, along with glacier inflow in certain spots

It took thousands of years for these to build up and they were melted/destroyed in a decade in some cases.

Here is a pretty crazy before and after image:

Serson:

The extent of the remnants of Serson Ice Shelf on March 19, 2011 (red) before summer 2011 break-up. Serson A is a floating glacier tongue (south) and Serson B is composed of thick, ancient sea ice (north). Blue denotes the coast of Ellesmere Island. Radarsat-2 fine beam imagery © MDA 2011, Distribution licensed by MDA-GSI for the SOAR program. RADARSAT is an official mark of the Canadian Space Agency. Map courtesy of Derek Mueller, Carleton University.

Recent:

The extent of the remnants of the Serson Ice Shelf on September 23, 2011 (red) following summer 2011 break-up. Serson A is a floating glacier tongue (south) and Serson B is composed of thick, ancient sea ice (north). Blue denotes the coast of Ellesmere Island. Radarsat-2 fine beam imagery © MDA 2011, RADARSAT is an official mark of the Canadian Space Agency. Map courtesy of Derek Mueller, Carleton University.

Ellesmere:

Map of Ellesmere Island ice shelves prior to major changes over the last six years. Ice shelves are outlined in black. Left to Right: Serson, Petersen, Milne, Ayles, Ward Hunt and Markham August 8, 2005 MODIS image from the Rapid Response Project at NASA/GSFC. Map courtesy of Derek Mueller, Carleton University.

Map of Ellesmere Island ice shelves prior to break-up during summer 2011. Ice shelves are outlined in black. Left to Right: Serson (A and , Petersen, Milne and Ward Hunt. July 21, 2011 MODIS image from the Rapid Response Project at NASA/GSFC. Map courtesy of Derek Mueller, Carleton University.

Map of Ellesmere Island ice shelves at the end of August 2011. Ice shelves are outlined in black. Left to Right: Serson (A and , Petersen, Milne and Ward Hunt (West and East). August 26, 2011 MODIS image from the Rapid Response Project at NASA/GSFC. Map courtesy of Derek Mueller, Carleton University.

More sources:

Carlton University

CTV NEWS has a separate video interview.

Blogs:

Nevens blog(arctic sea ice blog)

Wattsupwiththat They didn't have anything on this yet. But they did have some front page posts about Al Gore.

[skierinvermont]

our knowledge is too limited to know things like this

we don't know ANYTHING about ice prior to 1980

man did not become self-conscious until 1980 finally awaking from a long darkness

in 1975 we were still using stone tools

claiming to know what ice was like prior to 1980 is ARROGANT

prior to 1980.. I didn't see it.. I don't believe it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

our knowledge is too limited to know things like this

we don't know ANYTHING about ice prior to 1980

man did not become self-conscious until 1980 finally awaking from a long darkness

in 1975 we were still using stone tools

claiming to know what ice was like prior to 1980 is ARROGANT

prior to 1980.. I didn't see it.. I don't believe it.

Does that apply to the travelers who made it through the NW passage before 1980 as well?

If so...I guess it never happened.

[Alpha5]

In the interest of being fair. I did a search for ice shelved that are growing in the Arctic region and found none. Apparently a glacier in Iceland has grown but precipitation there has also went up more than enough to cover that one growing glacier.

So naturally, the inverse cant be true.......

[The_Global_Warmer]

So naturally, the inverse cant be true.......

what are you saying a lack of precip caused the glaciers and ice shelves in the arctic to crumble?

I hope not.

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/wardhunt/

http://www.people.trentu.ca/~dmueller/iceshelfloss2008/wardhunt.html

http://www.people.trentu.ca/~dmueller/iceshelfloss2008/serson.html

http://www.people.trentu.ca/~dmueller/iceshelfloss2008/markham.html

some more info and amazing data pertaining to the destruction of these arctic institutions.

[Sundog]

I think certain people will continue to call frivolous alarmist even if they faced an ice free Arctic lol.

[WeatherRusty]

I think certain people will continue to call frivolous alarmist even if they faced an ice free Arctic lol.

These days, if you bring forth documented evidence of climate change you are denounced with slanderous, pejorative terms such as "alarmist" and "wacko-environmentalist".

The ice can't be melting because of human caused global warming, it is more likely melting for any one of more than 1,001 other reasons sometimes referred to as "natural cycles".

[LithiaWx]

These days, if you bring forth documented evidence of climate change you are denounced with slanderous, pejorative terms such as "alarmist" and "wacko-environmentalist".

The ice can't be melting because of human caused global warming, it is more likely melting for any one of more than 1,001 other reasons sometimes referred to as "natural cycles".

Sure it could be AGW, I'll be the first to admit that but....it could easily be "natural cycles" too. We do not have enough data to know with certainty that AGW is the reason the arctic ice has been shrinking over the last couple decades and that AGW is the reason behind the slight warming we have seen. The problem I have along with other skeptics is the method of which staunch AGW believers try and deliver their message. Let me show you something....

The ice can't be melting due to 1,001 other reasons sometimes referred to as "natural cycles". It is more likely because of human caused global warming....

The arrogance in your comment is seething. You think that most skeptics believe that it can't be AGW? You are wrong imo , I think many skeptics believe it is a possibility. How many of you staunch AGW supports think "natural cycles" COULD be the reason? Do you not see how this comes across as arrogant and unpleasant? If you AGW guys would just for a moment consider that maybe most of the arctic ice melt is due to "natural cycles". All I'm asking is that you consider it as a possibility, some of you guys refuse to even do that. The science is not settled...

[Sunny and Warm]

These days, if you bring forth documented evidence of climate change you are denounced with slanderous, pejorative terms such as "alarmist" and "wacko-environmentalist".

The ice can't be melting because of human caused global warming, it is more likely melting for any one of more than 1,001 other reasons sometimes referred to as "natural cycles".

You asked several days ago for examples of "alarmist" proclamations. I provided 15 examples, and you never responded to it. Either you face the facts about your cause or sink to the depths with it.

[Sunny and Warm]

uh...

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L15708, 6 PP., 2011

doi:10.1029/2011GL048008

Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world

Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world Key Points

• Large ensembles from credible models are needed to understand sea ice trends
• Observed Arctic sea ice extent loss has been enhanced by internal variability
• When internal variability masks anthropogenic forcing, positive trends occur

Jennifer E. Kay

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Marika M. Holland

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Alexandra Jahn

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

A climate model (CCSM4) is used to investigate the influence of anthropogenic forcing on late 20th century and early 21st century Arctic sea ice extent trends. On all timescales examined (2–50+ years), the most extreme negative observed late 20th century trends cannot be explained by modeled natural variability alone. Modeled late 20th century ice extent loss also cannot be explained by natural causes alone, but the six available CCSM4 ensemble members exhibit a large spread in their late 20th century ice extent loss. Comparing trends from the CCSM4 ensemble to observed trends suggests that internal variability explains approximately half of the observed 1979–2005 September Arctic sea ice extent loss. In a warming world, CCSM4 shows that multi-decadal negative trends increase in frequency and magnitude, and that trend variability on 2–10 year timescales increases. Furthermore, when internal variability counteracts anthropogenic forcing, positive trends on 2–20 year timescales occur until the middle of the 21st century.

No need to go further Trix. Any paper that starts and ends with modeling of the past to predict the future is futile and frankly garbage. I have only to point to solar predictions for cycle 24 as examples of models predicting the future based on the past. Those scientists were quite certain of the outcome of 24 as well in 2007. Not so much in 2011.

[Sunny and Warm]

I think certain people will continue to call frivolous alarmist even if they faced an ice free Arctic lol.

Many believe Frivolous to be a step beyond alarmist, including some of his supporters on here.

[Sunny and Warm]

So naturally, the inverse cant be true.......

anything not supportive of AGW is not true. It is likely invalid data or the work of big oil. BTW, how much does big oil pay you to write comments on here. I only get $358 per month. Think I should ask for a raise??

[skierinvermont]

No need to go further Trix. Any paper that starts and ends with modeling of the past to predict the future is futile and frankly garbage. I have only to point to solar predictions for cycle 24 as examples of models predicting the future based on the past. Those scientists were quite certain of the outcome of 24 as well in 2007. Not so much in 2011.

so because one model didn't work ALL models are garbage. thank you for your brilliant input.. perhaps you should explain this to practically every modern field of science which is heavily model dependent.

Models use PHYSICS and the quality of the model will depend on how complete the physics is. Given our understanding of the physical causes of solar cycles is very limitied it's not surprising that modeling it would be poor. On the other hand, the thermodynamic equations which govern the melting of ice and the equations which govern movement etc. have been around for centuries.

[skierinvermont]

and your credentials in this field are? have you actually read this entire paper? the references cited are quite authoritative--what is your specific criticism of how they are used?

the fact you are unable to see the difference between the accuracy of heliophysics, a field still in relative infancy, to the relative wealth of data available to climate scientists is mind-boggling.

he doesn't believe in credentials. he believes he is the smartest person to walk the planet ever and all of human knowledge shall bow down before his mighty intellect.

[LithiaWx]

uh...

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L15708, 6 PP., 2011

doi:10.1029/2011GL048008

Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world

Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world Key Points

• Large ensembles from credible models are needed to understand sea ice trends
• Observed Arctic sea ice extent loss has been enhanced by internal variability
• When internal variability masks anthropogenic forcing, positive trends occur

Jennifer E. Kay

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Marika M. Holland

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Alexandra Jahn

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

A climate model (CCSM4) is used to investigate the influence of anthropogenic forcing on late 20th century and early 21st century Arctic sea ice extent trends. On all timescales examined (2–50+ years), the most extreme negative observed late 20th century trends cannot be explained by modeled natural variability alone. Modeled late 20th century ice extent loss also cannot be explained by natural causes alone, but the six available CCSM4 ensemble members exhibit a large spread in their late 20th century ice extent loss. Comparing trends from the CCSM4 ensemble to observed trends suggests that internal variability explains approximately half of the observed 1979–2005 September Arctic sea ice extent loss. In a warming world, CCSM4 shows that multi-decadal negative trends increase in frequency and magnitude, and that trend variability on 2–10 year timescales increases. Furthermore, when internal variability counteracts anthropogenic forcing, positive trends on 2–20 year timescales occur until the middle of the 21st century.

Even the IPCC is not 100% sure about AGW begin responsible for climate change.. They put the odds from about 90-99%. That is not settled science, I don't care how you look at it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter9.pdf

[skierinvermont]

Even the IPCC is not 100% sure about AGW begin responsible for climate change.. They put the odds from about 90-99%. That is not settled science, I don't care how you look at it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter9.pdf

I don't know what specific prediction you are referring to from the IPCC. They quantify the uncertainty for particular claims so it depends which claim you are referring to.

The existence of AGW is a 100% certainty.. it's an observational fact. A law of physics. The prediction of 2-4.5C by 2100 has 90-99% certainty.

The uncertainty in attributing and predicting climate change largely comes from aerosols. There's no doubt that CO2 alone causes warming.

[WeatherRusty]

You asked several days ago for examples of "alarmist" proclamations. I provided 15 examples, and you never responded to it. Either you face the facts about your cause or sink to the depths with it.

What cause do you think I have? I don't give a darn about your conspiracy theories, your politics or your ideology. I don't care about how the media sensationalizes AGW or not. I don't care about individual personal opinion. I care only about the science.

BTW, I though the list of things associated with AGW you provided to be humorous. Seriously I thought that was your intent. Do you really see an agenda in all that?

[LithiaWx]

this thread is about Arctic ice, not the root causes of global warming.

It is all intertwined. Either global warming is causing the ice to melt or it's natural cycles. If climate change is not caused by humans with 100% certainty then it is safe to assume that the humans are not with a certainty to blame for the arctic sea ice melt. It seems pretty simple.. The science is not settled according to the IPCC...

My point was that being fairly certain is not 100% and definitely does not equal science settled.

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"; It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing (i.e., it is inconsistent with being the result of internal variability), and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

Words such as "very Likely" and <5% indicate a certain degree of uncertainty as in not 100% sure.....

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter9.pdf

[skierinvermont]

<br>It  is all intertwined.  Either global warming is causing the ice to melt  or it's natural cycles.    If climate change is not caused by humans  with 100% certainty then it is safe to assume that the humans are not  with a certainty to blame for the arctic sea ice melt.  It seems pretty  simple..  The science is not settled according to the IPCC...<br><br>My point was that being fairly certain is not 100% and definitely does not equal science settled.<br><br><i></i><br><br>Words such as "very Likely" and <5% indicate a certain degree of uncertainty as in not 100% sure.....<br><br><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf" class="bbc_url" title="External link" rel="external">http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter9.pdf</a><br>

<br><br>As I just explained, this uncertainty largely comes from our more limited understanding of the effect of our aerosol emissions. It is not in doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming.<br><br>They're saying there is a <5% chance that the <i>net </i>effect of CO2, CH4, aerosols, etc. has been zero and that some other internal factor has caused the change. 

[WeatherRusty]

Sure it could be AGW, I'll be the first to admit that but....it could easily be "natural cycles" too. We do not have enough data to know with certainty that AGW is the reason the arctic ice has been shrinking over the last couple decades and that AGW is the reason behind the slight warming we have seen. The problem I have along with other skeptics is the method of which staunch AGW believers try and deliver their message. Let me show you something....

The ice can't be melting due to 1,001 other reasons sometimes referred to as "natural cycles". It is more likely because of human caused global warming....

The arrogance in your comment is seething. You think that most skeptics believe that it can't be AGW? You are wrong imo , I think many skeptics believe it is a possibility. How many of you staunch AGW supports think "natural cycles" COULD be the reason? Do you not see how this comes across as arrogant and unpleasant? If you AGW guys would just for a moment consider that maybe most of the arctic ice melt is due to "natural cycles". All I'm asking is that you consider it as a possibility, some of you guys refuse to even do that. The science is not settled...

Sure it could be natural cycles, but do you honestly think scientists have not investigated those possibilities? This is not a guessing game. The ice is melting as a consequence of a planet which is warming and that warming is not due to just natural cycles. Scientific investigation tells us the bulk of that warming is caused by the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Ice albedo feedback is very strong in the arctic and so the ice melts at a growing rate and the arctic warms twice as rapidly as the Earth in general.

[skierinvermont]

Sure it could be natural cycles, but do you honestly think scientists have not investigated those possibilities? This is not a guessing game. The ice is melting as a consequence of a planet which is warming and that warming is not due to just natural cycles. Scientific investigation tells us the bulk of that warming is caused by the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Ice albedo feedback is very strong in the arctic and so the ice melts at a growing rate and the arctic warms twice as rapidly as the Earth in general.

Depending on your metric, one can even say that greenhouse gases have caused all of the warming. The earth would very likely be much much colder today than it was even 100 years ago due to the immense quantity of aerosols we have filled the atmosphere with. If we remove the increase in GHGs that has occurred from the equation the earth would probably be 1.5-2C cooler.. the coldest it has been in 8000+ years. We have literally darkened the sky with all of our aerosol emissions... what we've done is essentially like having Tambora go off every 5 years.

[WeatherRusty]

It is all intertwined. Either global warming is causing the ice to melt or it's natural cycles. If climate change is not caused by humans with 100% certainty then it is safe to assume that the humans are not with a certainty to blame for the arctic sea ice melt. It seems pretty simple.. The science is not settled according to the IPCC...

My point was that being fairly certain is not 100% and definitely does not equal science settled.

Words such as "very Likely" and <5% indicate a certain degree of uncertainty as in not 100% sure.....

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter9.pdf

You don't understand science. Science is never 100% sure. If you demand certainty, turn toward religious doctrine and don't question a thing.

[LithiaWx]

You don't understand science. Science is never 100% sure. If you demand certainty, turn toward religious doctrine and don't question a thing.

I understand science more than you think. My entire argument has been that the science is not settled and never will be......

[skierinvermont]

yes I am quite familiar with the entirety of the report..

and what I am telling you is that you do not understand the context of that statement.

They are saying that there is a less than 5% chance that radiative forcing the last 100 years has been <0. This includes aerosols. They are not saying there is a 5% chance CO2 has not caused warming. They are saying there is a 5% chance that GHGs AND aerosols etc. have not caused warming. There is a 0% chance that GHGs alone have not caused warming.

There is uncertainty in some areas YES. There is not uncertainty in the fact that CO2 is a GHG which has caused warming and will cause warming.

[WeatherRusty]

I understand science more than you think. My entire argument has been that the science is not settled and never will be......

We must accept uncertainty in our descriptions of reality. You can continue to state your opinion that the science is not settled, and I will continue to tell you that what is settled is that the Earth is warming and that human activities represent the greatest contribution to that warming. Just how much it will warm and how fast, we can not really be sure. However, the greenhouse effect is being enhanced by accumulating atmospheric CO2 and humans are responsible for that accumulation. It's a settled fact.

[WeatherRusty]

Depending on your metric, one can even say that greenhouse gases have caused all of the warming. The earth would very likely be much much colder today than it was even 100 years ago due to the immense quantity of aerosols we have filled the atmosphere with. If we remove the increase in GHGs that has occurred from the equation the earth would probably be 1.5-2C cooler.. the coldest it has been in 8000+ years. We have literally darkened the sky with all of our aerosol emissions... what we've done is essentially like having Tambora go off every 5 years.

We are screwing with the very "natural cycles" the skeptics claim are at least equally responsible as CO2 for everything AGW related. We are messing with the natural cycles and factors which help determine our climate.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Many believe Frivolous to be a step beyond alarmist, including some of his supporters on here.

your a shameless liar.

I back everything I say with facts on top of facts on top of facts on top of facts.

your lie, manipulate, and troll.

You have no shame, no integrity, no honesty, and no honor.

You know all of this and you don't care....the word alarmist is a joke and has no meaning, except in fantasy land where you and the other liars like Mairettawx live.

[LithiaWx]

it might seem simple, but the study of climate change is much more complicated and detailed than that. the problem is that you're not versed in the science or in the breadth of the literature so you make statements like this and think you're proving something.

your point is irrelevant to the on topic discussion in this thread.

you don't know much about the language of science do you?

It is that simple and you are wrong. The warming of the earth is either natural, caused by man, or a combination of both.

It is all intertwined. Either global warming is causing the ice to melt or it's natural cycles. If climate change is not caused by humans with 100% certainty then it is safe to assume that the humans are not with a certainty to blame for the arctic sea ice melt. It seems pretty simple.. The science is not settled according to the IPCC...

My point was that being fairly certain is not 100% and definitely does not equal science settled.

[WeatherRusty]

It is that simple and you are wrong. The warming of the earth is either natural, caused by man, or a combination of both.

An important distinction must be made. Man has not invented a new way to warm the Earth. We are influencing what you would call a natural climate driver...the natural greenhouse effect. We are adding to it's strength by the addition of a naturally occurring long atmospheric lifetime greenhouse gas, CO2 and to a much lesser degree some unnatural synthetic carbon based compounds which also act as strong greenhouse gases. We add CO2 to the atmosphere principally through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, the production of cement and agricultural practices.