ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 02/19/2018 10:55 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.422 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/04/2008 08:33 AM ID: 73152 Permalink   

19-Square-Mile Canadian Ice Shelf Breaks Loose

 

A chunk of ice nearly as large as Manhattan has broken off Ellesmere Island in north Canada's Arctic waters in a dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the Earth's polar regions.

The ice is from the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf, which began breaking up in late August. "The Markham Ice Shelf was a big surprise because it suddenly disappeared," said Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice researcher.

Two other Arctic ice shelves have broken up, a northern Greenland glacier is showing unusual cracks, a southern Greenland glacier is rapidly melting, and earlier this year, a 160-square-mile chunk disintegrated in Antarctica.

 
  Source: news.yahoo.com  
    WebReporter: l´anglais Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  37 Comments
  
  I for one  
 
have already started growing gills. Costner had the the right idea in Waterworld
 
  by: dertah   09/04/2008 10:06 AM     
  Four thousand, five hundred  
 
That ice shelf is just plain gone. It built for 4,500 years. When the Roman Empire was growing, that ice shelf had existed for 2500 years. When the Greeks were creating writing, that ice shelf had existed for 2000 years. When the Egyptians were building pyramids, that ice shelf was growing. Roughly, civilization on Earth begin about the time that ice shelf begin. Now it is gone. And it will be followed by older ice, gone, gone and melted into the sea to raise sea levels.

It is not a one-of-kind event. Ice is melting all over the planet, shelves are breaking off and melting, glaciers are melting and growing smaller. Faster and faster.

It is change. Scared, yet?
 
  by: terryeo   09/04/2008 04:50 PM     
  @ above  
 
Not particularly. Worldwide temperature change <gradual or drastic> patterns have occurred for > millions of years. Though things like this do remind me not to take so many things for granted.
 
  by: darkshanker   09/04/2008 06:09 PM     
  @darkshanker  
 
There have been a few instances in which temperature rose this rapidly
throughout the Earth's billions of years of existence. They were always
catastrophic for life, leading to mass extinctions. Now, life has a
chance to do something about it by correcting our own mistakes. So what
do we do?
 
  by: l´anglais     09/04/2008 08:03 PM     
  It's like  
 
knowing that a giant asteroid is on a collision course with
our planet. You could argue, quite correctly, that this sort
of thing has happened before. But I don't think you'd get many
people to say that, for that reason, we should just sit on our
hands and let it happen, not when something could be done to
avert it.
 
  by: l´anglais     09/04/2008 08:05 PM     
  @dertah  
 
Don't forget to recycle your pee :)
 
  by: Jediman3     09/04/2008 08:58 PM     
  everyone knows  
 
everyone knows global warming doesn't exist. this is all just a hoax.
/sarcasm

@darkshanker

actually it has... from 1860- 1900 the temperaure rose 0.75C (1.35F)
on average; which as you should know is signifigantly more the closer you get to the poles, this is for both land and sea combine (sea temperatures take longer to rise). since 1979 the temperature for land, sea and lower troposhere have increased 0.25C, 0.13C and between 0.12-0.22C respectively PER decade... with the two hottest years since 1800's being 1998 and 2005 (depending who ask NASA or world meterological organization; one beat the other by a few hundreths of a degree.

prior to 1850 its thought the temperature was stable for 1000-2000 years; with the possible exception of the medieval warm period or the little ice age.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/04/2008 08:58 PM     
  I knew this would happen  
 
Al Gore's fanatics and L. Ron Hubbard's fanatics have embraced one and other, or worse, they've become one in the same. This is sick, disgusting, and was patently unavoidable. One contagious hysteria deserves another apparently. They just found they are so much alike...

I don't care if all of the cubes go in the drink, I know this much:

35 feet is the most sea levels could rise if all land-based ice melted. The rest dosen't matter, it balances out if it was floating beforehand.

35 feet.

So what does that mean? Lower Manhattan becomes Venice. So what?

Frankly after the towers went, there wasn't much anchoring that part of the island anyway except a few offices and apartment buildings. It's better off as a little seaside park!
 
  by: Big Bird     09/04/2008 09:16 PM     
  Mixed nuts  
 
Holy Christmas! Al Gore's disciples have gotten mixed up with L. Ron Hubbard's disciples and now look at them. One fanaticism deserves another I guess.

Look, at worst, the sea leaves rise 35 FEET. So what. Lower Manhattan around the Battery goes into the drink. BFD.

Manhattan would look better with a seaside park in that location. That how is was originally before they turned it into a dump and started building on it. Fine with me. With no WTC to anchor that section of the island, there isn't much going on there anyway. A few offices and apartments become Venice II. That's nothing to scream and cry about. It will improve their property values for Christ's sakes.

I'm tired of this hysteria over Xenu, and Greenland, and all of that crap.

Go tell it to somebody who's soft enough in the head to get excited about that sortof thing. These nuts are everywhere!
 
  by: Big Bird     09/04/2008 09:45 PM     
  PHP errors  
 
While I'm complianing, when PHP errors occur, the error should be kind enough to explain that despite itself, the message went through
 
  by: Big Bird     09/04/2008 09:47 PM     
  I heard something but I'm not sure if it's true  
 
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I'd heard that the highest point of land in the entire Florida peninsula is 26ft.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/04/2008 10:00 PM     
  I do know this though  
 
Mexicali/Calexico is 4ft above sea level and the land it sits on is the only thing holding back the Sea of Cortez from flooding into Southern California.

For those of you who liked the original Superman, Moving that much water over the top of the San Andres' Fault might have some serious side effects.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/04/2008 10:07 PM     
  I'm 35 feet above sea level.  
 
Beach front property. Sweet.
 
  by: walter3ca   09/04/2008 10:19 PM     
  I live in Florida  
 
You're not missing much.

Besides, we build on stilts if we're smart. Most of us aren't that smart, or we plan to have open-air (ahem, sumerged) lobbies is all.

Fine with me. Again, Gondola rides through downtown Miami, sweet.
 
  by: Big Bird     09/04/2008 11:07 PM     
  @  
 
Hmm if that's the case, I live at about
1000 ft above sea level, guess I can
look forward to no change.
 
  by: Claridus   09/05/2008 02:25 AM     
  I wonder if  
 
Jesus walked on that ice shelf.
 
  by: John E Angel     09/05/2008 04:10 AM     
  @BigBird  
 
you're kidding right? Many places around the world are within 35 feet of sea level. That's where people tend to build, near the water. It's not just lower Manhatten.
 
  by: gryphon50a   09/05/2008 04:10 AM     
  Approxomatly 93%  
 
of the worlds population lives within 2km of the worlds Oceans
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/05/2008 05:39 AM     
  Sorry  
 
I really do try to stay outta this S#!t

Derail the sun, pack up the moon.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/05/2008 05:48 AM     
  @gryphon  
 
Ironic that nature should punish that tendency. Say, you figure this world can continue to support 8 billion+ people?
 
  by: Big Bird     09/05/2008 05:49 AM     
  Alaska property  
 
BUY! BUY! BUY!
 
  by: THISISNEWS   09/05/2008 06:46 PM     
  It's all the fault of Bush  
 
so we better cut more taxes for the rich to solve it
 
  by: MmmMan     09/05/2008 07:23 PM     
  Ok  
 
If ice shelves dissapear, and water levels rise...what can we do? Well, we can either throw all our money at lowering Co2 emissions (which will do next to nothing), or, for a fraction of the cost, we can build dykes to protect our coastlines. Hmmm....tough choice.
 
  by: storybored   09/05/2008 08:43 PM     
  @storybored  
 
You think that building a 35ft high dyke around the state of Florida and all of the coastal cities in the world is gonna be cheaper than building electric cars? Interesting.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/05/2008 08:51 PM     
  @storyboard  
 
what happens when the dyke breaks... and it will have to me much higher than 35 feet... your obviously forgetting about waves... and worse... hurricanes?

what happens when animals species start dropping off the chart from climate and evironmental changes?

what happens to fresh water?

what about the ecosystems of that fresh water?

i guess its cheaper to build thousands more desalinization plants right?

What about all the other countries that will be affected?

how about powers grids, alot of power line are only about 20-40 feet high?

how about the sewer systems?

how does building a dyke and sitting on it do anything but enable the problem to further perpetuate?
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/05/2008 09:06 PM     
  It would better news  
 
if havoc would have been standing on it as it gave way. LOL Thats my story and I am sticking to it. (not really, just a bit of- - - -what if - - -)
 
  by: old man   09/06/2008 12:22 AM     
  @havoc  
 
"what happens when the dyke breaks... and it will have to me much
higher than 35 feet... your obviously forgetting about waves... and
worse... hurricanes?"

I'm sorry Havoc, you must have me confused with some mental deficient who actually believes water will rise to that height in our
lifetime.

In its 2007 report, the IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise about a
foot over the rest of the century. Since 1860, we have experienced a
sea-level rise of about a foot, yet this has clearly not caused major
disruptions. So based on the best available science, sea-level increase
by 2050 will be about 5 inches- which is no more than the change we
have experience since 1940.

It seems rather unlikely that we would not take relatively cheap action
through the use of barriers (like the Thames Barrier, which protects
London from sea surges); dikes and levees; coastal protection and - on
rare occasions - giving up land. If we invest smartly, we will essential
have no people flooded by 2085, simply because we are richer and can
afford greater protection.

Economically rational foresight will make sure that protection will be
afforded to property that is worth more than the protection costs, and
settlement will be avoided where costs will outweigh benefits.

We are talking about a foot of water here at most. Why people expect
anymore than this is beyond me.

Al Gore says "If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea-
or if half of Antarctica melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, sea
levels worldwide would increase by between 18 and 20 feet." He is
simply positing a hypothetical and then in full graphic detail showing us
what-hypothetically- would happen to Miami, San Fran, Amsterdam,
Beijing etc etc.

This completely contradicts the best science on the matter. Melting
glaciers and ice caps will contribute a bit more than three inches over
the century. Likewise, Greenland is expected to contribute 1.4 inches
by itself. The remaining 9 inches of the 1 foot rise expected by 2100, is
attributed to warmer water expanding. This adds up to 13.5 inches over
the coming century. However, as the world warms, Antarctica will not
noticeably start melting (it is still way too cold) but because global
warming also generally produces more precipitation Antarctica will
actually be accumulating ice, reducing sea levels by two inches. Thus,
the total estimate of about one foot.

Wake the F up Havoc, there is no 35 feet.



 
  by: storybored   09/06/2008 12:36 AM     
  @storybored  
 
Why do you have to go and confuse us with the science. Nobody wants to hear about that!
 
  by: Big Bird     09/06/2008 12:58 AM     
  @storyboard  
 
actually by 2100 most mainstreanm prediction conclude the sea-level rise will be 2-4 metres; 6-15 feet roughly... gore said 20ft.

its absolutely foolish to think that the ice will continue to melt at the same rate as it did before or in the case of your source apparently slower (LOL), when the temperatures are rising.

"However, as the world warms, Antarctica will not
noticeably start melting (it is still way too cold) but because global
warming also generally produces more precipitation Antarctica will
actually be accumulating ice, reducing sea levels by two inches. Thus,
the total estimate of about one foot.

Wake the F up Havoc, there is no 35 feet."

you wake up antartica IS MELTING...

http://www.livescience.com/...

antarctica is melting at 20 times the former rate:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...


about greenland and the antarctic deep thaw... (20 or even 35 feet CAN easily be considered concervative if we continue our trends, how does 200 feet of water sound, maybe not in our life time but how about your kids or their kids???):
http://www.sciam.com/...

by the IPCC is widely criticized for being scientifically unsounded and often using outdated information to support what many call a predetermined conclusion and/or the most conservative estimated available.

(look up the criticism of IPCC on wiki)

people like you just want to pass the buck to the next generation and let them deal with a problem that we and the generation before us have caused and/or perpetuated.


@old man

well i suppose that would get me further away from ya...lol
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/06/2008 01:09 AM     
  @big bird  
 
I'm sorry man. Would you rather me let this little
fantasy of 35 foot waves continue?
 
  by: storybored   09/06/2008 01:15 AM     
  @havoc  
 
Havoc, I've underestimated your ignorance. You are
not presenting anything of merit here. You are just
regurgitating the same old crap doom-sayer crap, and
I won't humor you with a rebuttal.
 
  by: storybored   09/06/2008 01:41 AM     
  @storyboard...  
 
wow just keep tlaking... looking like moreand more in idiot every post...lol

i never said 35 foot waves... i said basically (because apparently i have to dumb it down to your level) that if the water rises 35 feet, thats a number that big bird brought up, but if the water rises 35 feet a 35 foot dyke wouldn't be enough ... not to compensate for waves and hurricane swells....

where did YOU get 35 foot waves from?

and btw, he was also wrong about the sea ice melting not having an effect. its will ice natural sticks roughly 8% out of the water (as its 8% less dense), so whatever the total mass of all sea based ice is divide by 12 and thats how much additional water sea based ice can be expected to contribute. its might be slightly different for sea ice... but to expect no change is foolish if not downright stupid.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/06/2008 01:45 AM     
  i thoroughly defeat your arguement  
 
and you call me ignorant and offer nothing in return... and reject source far less biase than your own...

is your home a bridge?
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/06/2008 01:47 AM     
  @havoc  
 
"i never said 35 foot waves... i said basically
(because apparently i have to dumb it down to your
level) that if the water rises 35 feet, thats a number
that big bird brought up, but if the water rises 35
feet a 35 foot dyke wouldn't be enough ... not to
compensate for waves and hurricane swells...."

And, what's your point? This is all hypothetical.

I never said a 35 foot dyke. I said dykes, in general,
is all that will be needed to protect against the 1
FOOT rise in sea-levels predicted by 2100. That is
all.
 
  by: storybored   09/06/2008 02:06 AM     
  ...  
 
according to youyr biased and heavily critized source... yes, i covered this already. if you disagree look up the group from which you pull your source from first find out how credible they are... or more accurately aren't...

though i garuantee that at present course their estimate of 1 foot will not possibly fall short, infact according to ALMOST ALL credible source 1 foot is a fraction of what is to be expect... and that based on current models... although.. almost everytime they release a new model its worse than the last one... which would lead ANY RATIONAL PERSON to belive things are getting worse , not following the course they used to as your source assumes.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/06/2008 02:18 AM     
  @havoc  
 
"according to youyr biased and heavily critized
source... yes, i covered this already."

I'm sorry, was that suppose to make sense?

 
  by: storybored   09/06/2008 02:25 AM     
  Well  
 
I don't know about the rest of you but I know a 4 and a half foot dyke, and she's strong as an Ox! She probably can drink the Atlantic Ocean down to normal levels if she wanted to, too.
 
  by: Big Bird     09/07/2008 12:29 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com