"Global Warming And The Ice Crack In Greenland"

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 further and further 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."

Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol state that reducing these emissions is crucially important, as carbon dioxide is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up. This is supported by attribution analysis.

Most prominent among advocates of Kyoto have been the European Union and many environmentalist organizations. The United Nations and some individual nations' scientific advisory bodies (including the G8 national science academies) have also issued reports favoring the Kyoto Protocol.

Some public policy experts who are skeptical of global warming, although few, see Kyoto as a scheme to either slow the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative. Others argue the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions (Niue, The Cook Islands, and Nauru added notes to this effect when signing the protocol).

Some environmental economists have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol. Many see the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits, some believing the standards which Kyoto sets to be too optimistic, others seeing a highly inequitable and inefficient agreement which would do little to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, some economists such as Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner think that an entirely different approach needs to be followed than the approach suggested by the Kyoto-protocol.

   The fact of global warming or climate change is now irrefutable. The $64,000 question is what to do about it? To me it is irrelevant whether global warming is natural or man made. It is in the interest of every nation in the world to have clean air and water along with protecting the natural environment. The United States of America doesn't need to enter the Kyoto Treaty or any other global treaty to keep it's air, water and natural beauty safe and clean. Neither does America need to hurt itself economically or give up any of it's national sovereignty for environmental issues, even for global warming.  President Bush had it right in refusing to sign on to the Kyoto Treaty, as I now see it. Let America, China, India and Russia clean up their own air and help other poorer nations with their environmental issues, as each nation sees fit. Global warming and the ice crack in Greenland is dealt with effectively as each nation pursues clean energy, air and water, in my opinion. No global treaties necessary.

tags: global warming  kyoto treaty  bush  china  climate change  greenland  clean air  clean water  clean energy  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit