• Full Story

Threatening island of ice breaks off Greenland glacier

Print

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 9:41a.m.

Icebergs float in a fjord near the south Greenland town of Narsaq (Reuters file)

Icebergs float in a fjord near the south Greenland town of Narsaq (Reuters file)

By Karl Ritter

An island of ice more than four times the size of Manhattan is drifting across the Arctic Ocean after breaking off from a glacier in Greenland.

Potentially in the path of this unstoppable giant are oil platforms and shipping lanes - and any collision could do untold damage. In a worst case scenario, large chunks could reach the heavily trafficked waters where another Greenland iceberg sank the Titanic in 1912.

It's been a summer of near biblical climatic havoc across the planet, with wildfires, heat and smog in Russia and killer floods in Asia. But the moment the Petermann glacier cracked last week - creating the biggest Arctic ice island in half a century - may symbolize a warming world like no other.

"It's so big that you can't prevent it from drifting. You can't stop it," said Jon-Ove Methlie Hagen, a glaciologist at the University of Oslo.

Few images can capture the world's climate fears like a 260-sqare-kilometre chunk of ice breaking off Greenland's vast ice sheet, a reservoir of freshwater that if it collapsed would raise global sea levels by a devastating 6 metres.

The world's newest ice island already is being used as a powerful emblem in the global warming debate, with US Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts suggesting it could serve as a home for climate change sceptics.

Researchers are in a scramble to plot the trajectory of the floating ice shelf, which is moving toward the Nares Strait separating Greenland's northwestern coast and Canada's Ellsemere Island.

If it makes it into the strait before the winter freeze - due to start next month - it would likely be carried south by ocean currents, hugging Canada's east coast until it enters waters busy with oil activities and shipping off Newfoundland.

"That's where it starts to become dangerous," said Mark Drinkwater, of the European Space Agency.

The Canadian Ice Service estimates the journey will take one to two years. It's likely to break up as it bumps into other icebergs and jagged islands. The fragments would be further ground down by winds and waves and would start to melt as they move into warmer waters.

"But the fragments may still be quite large," warned Trudy Wohlleben, a Canadian ice forecaster, who first spotted the massive chunk of ice on satellite images last Thursday.

The chunks of ice could be large enough to threaten Canada's offshore platforms in the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, said Wohlleben.

And, while it's possible to redirect smaller icebergs, by towing them or spraying them with water cannons, "I don't think they could do that with an iceberg this large," she said. "They would have to physically move the rig."

Moving an offshore platform is time-consuming and expensive - and very complicated in cases where they are fixed to the ocean floor.

While Greenland's glaciers break off thousands of icebergs into Arctic waters every year, scientists say this ice island is the biggest in the northern hemisphere since 1962.

It contains enough freshwater to keep the Hudson River flowing for more than two years, said Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware.

The drifting ice sheet is likely to remain at the heart of the global warming discussion during its journey.

While experts say it's difficult to directly tie the giant ice island to climate change because there are so many factors that affect glaciers in the area, the unusual event coincides with worrisome signs of warming in the Arctic.

Since 1970, temperatures have risen more than 2.5 degrees C in much of the Arctic - much faster than the global average. In June the Arctic sea ice cover was at the lowest level for that month since records began in 1979, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The retreat of Greenland's glaciers, which has accelerated in recent years, is one of the least understood pieces of the climate puzzle.

A team of climate scientists who visited the Petermann glacier last year, expecting it to crack then, is now planning another trip within weeks.

"We did leave behind a couple of time-lapse cameras and 11 GPS (devices). Now we are scrambling to get up there and recover the data," said Jason Box, an expert on Greenland glaciers from the Byrd Polar Research Centre at Ohio State University.

Box and two British researchers traveled to the glacier last year with Greenpeace activists who offered space aboard their ship, the Arctic Sunrise, to scientists studying climate change.

They were hoping to capture the event with cameras rolling, which would have been a powerful image just months before the Copenhagen climate talks that failed to produce a binding treaty to reduce heat-trapping gas emissions.

"It would have been nice if it had broken off last year," said Melanie Duchin, who led that Greenpeace expedition. "I mean ice melting, it doesn't get any simpler than that."

Still, she finds it ironic that the Petermann breakup coincides with another catastrophe linked to fossil fuels. The Arctic Sunrise is now in the Gulf of Mexico, surveying the massive oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon blowout.

AP

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

15 Aug 2010 07:18a.m.

Greer wrote:

No Chuck - YOU need to read and understand what was said - they are referring to a piece of the Greenland ice shelf that has broken off, and then in order to gain some idea of the size of the WHOLE THING (not just the 260 square Km section that broke off) they say that if the whole of the Greenland ice shelf melted, it would raise sea levels by 6 metres.

Of course the alternative action apparently proposed by many other readers is to remain with their head firmly inserted where the sun doesnt shine in the vain hope that all this is just a bad dream that will go away.

It isn't...and it wont...

Its certainly not just a natural cycle - nature doesnt do things this fast - on a global time scale, what is happening is like turning on a light switch - yes similar catastrophic extinction happened to the dinosaurs, and as we know from scientific evidence, that was almost certainly caused by a massive meteor strike, so no, that was not part of the normal natural cycle either.

The climate change sceptics seem to be of the opinion that its ok to die as the result of a natural disaster, because its completely natural - no its not, if we could do anything - however small - to help prevet it or lessen its effects!

Will they still feel that its ok to die in a flood, eathquake, landslide, or other natural disaster when they see that its their children who are dying?

I most certainly want to do anything I can to help stabilise these changes - no matter if its man made or not - that point is way past being relevant now.

Dont you want to help in trying to ensure some quality of life for your children - or is your bank balance too important?

12 Aug 2010 05:53p.m.

Paora wrote:

Here we go again. Spooner & co raise the totally unproven myths of global warming with hypothetical predictions of disaster without a shred of evidence it is linked to human intervention. They offer idiot ideas of doomsday predictions based only on their weird imaginations mixed with historically proven natural cycles. doom & gloom predictions

12 Aug 2010 01:29p.m.

GARTH SPOONER wrote:

Why doesn't anyone realise what's really happening.Fossil fuel use,degradation of natural forests,mining and industry plus man's greed for what's left inminerals and food sources is driving this planet to straining point.If these people 10-20 years from now can eat properly and have a receding coastline let them look back on their opinions with aghast.Those floods now are just a forewarning of things to come.The best solution is to invest in a green economy and use,recycle and reuse everything twice-go Greenpeace and WSPCA.

11 Aug 2010 01:54p.m.

Cathy wrote:

Once again, the 'Climate Change' protagonists grab at a natural happening that has been going on since time began millions of years ago to predict doom and gloom, carbon footprints, human intervention and a host of other unproven money making side tracking garbage. Instead, we should marvel at this wonderful example of nature at work and the natural cycle of history happening before our eyes. If it is seen as a problem by 'enough' sectors of society, why not use modern technology, only because of modern need, to set off a couple of well placed explosions to split the burg into lesser harmless pieces to melt away slowly and naturally as it has done again and again, many times throughout history without the need in the past to hasten the process, because of modern developments?

11 Aug 2010 12:32p.m.

Chuck Bird wrote:

"Few images can capture the world's climate fears like a 260-sqare-kilometre chunk of ice breaking off Greenland's vast ice sheet, a reservoir of freshwater that if it collapsed would raise global sea levels by a devastating 6 metres." The area of the world's oceans is about 360,000,000 sq km. If an ice shelf 260 sq km and 1 km thick was on land and slipped into the sea it would raise the sea level a little less than 1 mm. Why does the MSM publinsh these wild claims without checking.