I can well believe this glacier has been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age. This fits in with much field research I've read about.

However I doubt that the statement, "Researchers believe that the glacier has not retreated to where it is now in at least the last 4,000 to 6,000 years," is truly based on field research.

It might be a true statement. Researchers believe all sorts of things. The statement might be, "Researchers believe UFO's visited their grandmothers." However it is important to demand to see the field data, and also to have the "researchers" named.

I don't blame Alarmists for seizing upon this evidence, however it might be wise to take a core sample from the sea bottom below this floating glacier. Open water results in different sediments settling than ice-covered water. What I would expect to see from core samples is that this glacier also retreated during the MWP, and especially during the Roman Climate Optimum.

On parts of the Canadian arctic coast there are "permanent" ice shelves grounded on beaches. Despite the fact these shelves are called "permanent," Siberian driftwood has been found on these beaches. This driftwood has been dated from Roman times. It is very difficult to imagine how that driftwood got there, without the "permanent" ice shelf being absent during Roman times. This in turn suggests the Arctic might have been much more ice-free during Roman times, (during the summers at least,) than it is now.

If I could be called a researcher, then the above article could include the line, "Another researcher believes the glacier hasn't retreated this far since the MWP, or perhaps even Roman times."

When news articles have these statements founded on "belief," it is important to take them to task. Too often statements of fact are mixed with statements of belief in a way that blurs the distinction.

According to the AP headline, "At top of Greenland, new worrisome cracks in ice." But, in the body of the article, "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.'" It would be interesting to learn how the event in the 1990's was reported by the media.

So, there you have it. What is "worrisome" to the media is "normal" to a scientist/professor who has studied the subject. I guess you can make it to be whatever you want, since no one really knows.

The pictures are beautiful!

Greenland is big place, but when chunks of ice 10 square miles are falling off at an accelerated rate, it's easy to see that climate change is comnig at us like a Freight Train.

From the referenced article, "Researchers believe that the glacier has not retreated to where it is now in at least the last 4,000 to 6,000 years."

Without the hypothetical anthropogenic influences we are constantly inundated with, what possibly could have caused it to retreat 4,000 to 6,000 years ago? Why is the retreat alarming now?

ah, its monday morning and time for the weekly "doom and gloom", dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria headlines!!! i guess the wire service writers have to earn their weekly paycheck and the doomsday sayers have to justify their existence and keep the AGW money rolling in with sensational adjectives like ole petermann's (think about that name for a good laugh) glacier is experiencing deep wounds, hemmoraging, and has (gasp) worrisome fissures...all broadcast in familiar AGW style sensationalism whilst even the authors admitted not having a clue why the "floating" pile of ice is calving (duh, thats what glaciers do!!!)...i guess an opinion from someone with a more learned historical explanation of petermann's (i'm still lol) iceberg is just to boring; "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."...shame, shame on the alarmists...have a nice day, dudes!!!

i still don't see what articles like then have to do with AGW. I don't see any evidence here than a collapsing glacier is something that can be controlled by humanity.

Andrew

"Greenland is big place, but when chunks of ice 10 square miles are falling off at an accelerated rate, it's easy to see that climate change is comnig at us like a Freight Train."

Care to explain how that statement is true? How thick was this ice when it broke?

Reply: I personally do not know for sure, but I would think it would be very thick.

bob, here is a straightforward answer to your questions...

1 back then the retreat was caused by something in the natural cycle.

2 now the retreat is highly likely to be caused by AGW.

The reasons don't have to be the same. Things have changed since then!

Bob Tisdale: Don't you think the researchers know when the break was and where it receded and when. They don't speak about hypotheticals. They use uniform tests and data. If you can deny everything at face value, then your judgements are weaker than there's. The deniers sound a bit defensive these days. Show us some science of a cooling trend. PLEASE!
KIPP

After all this is the "Global Warming Center". Its existence depends on "Global Warming". No Global warming = no more site

Brett: A bit off topic, but I spoke to my dad who lives in Sawgrass, Ponte Vedra Beach, and this last mini- hurricane, tornado's,was worse then any Hurricane they ever had, as it traveled three miles an hour up the Florida Peninsula, right over there heads towards Mississippi. It lasted, as I'm sure you know for three days. I guess some new tropical depressions are on the way? This is your busy season I guess. Would welcome your thoughts about this year, now that you are a famous radio personality. I hope you can get the N.Y. market, even if Joe Bistardi doesn't believe in global warming, and can't answer those critics DUH!, because he is on the job. This is a free country! Thank God!

Reply: I do fill in on WCBS radio in the afternoon.
KIPP

Bob Tisdale, it is very telling that you don't know the answer to that first question.

Andrew: They only read the first half?
Between 2001 and 2005, a massive breakup of the Jakobshavn glacier erased 36 square miles (94 square kilometers) from the ice field and raised the awareness of worldwide of glacial response to global climate change.
The researchers are using images updated daily from National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellites and from time-lapse photography from cameras monitoring the margin of these and other Greenland glaciers. Additional support for this project came from NASA. At least delayers should be honest? Nah.
KIPP

I'm not sure just what the significance of this event is, but I'm sure it's related to global warming mostly by the alarmists. So what happens to the ice that broke off? Did it go into Hudson Bay? That would account for the big chunks of ice persisting there until August 24, something which hasn't happened since 2000. Or maybe it went to the Arctic Ocean and caused the Great Ice Meltoff of 2008 not to occur!

I like most of the previous posts for this. They express my own opinions much better than I could have myself.

Rick

here are some Canadian scientists panicking...

Cold Reality in the High Arctic

Bob Tisdale,

These are rhetorical questions you ask, correct? I wouldn't expect an answer from the AGW crowd, as I am sure you realize.

The answer to the questions you ask would be,

1) Without the hypothetical anthropogenic influences we are constantly inundated with, what possibly could have caused it to retreat 4,000 to 6,000 years ago?

This is irrelevant as it happened 4,000 to 6,000 years ago. What is relevant is that CO2 concentrations are rising because of rampant SUV use and the climate has reached a tipping point, one that will cause irreversible warming unless we do something NOW!!!

2) Why is the retreat alarming now?

See 1) above.

Ice cracking? Say it is not so!!!!!!Run for your lives!!!!

Bob:

C'mon...you know the answer to your question...it's simple...the last retreat occurred more than 30 years ago so it really doesn't matter to the current discussion.

And really the current retreat (whatever that means since a "retreat" is really only what happens when there is an excessive amount of ice moving down slope)is more of a structural failure than due to climatic alteration.

I find it funny that Box is concerned about the crack where others see it as merely a common and normal thing.

His pictures are striking with the most important being those including the Greenpeace ship.

Surely they are an impartial bunch right? They never make up stuff or impede the rest of the world in their activities do they?

I am saddened that my OSU probably has no issue with one of their professors working with Greenpeace. However, if EXXON had a ship in the arctic and a professor supported them, I bet there'd be hell to pay.

I am saddened that the AGWers probably do not see the hypocrisy in this.

Sounds like paranoia over the uncontrollable.

At least we can admit that we love something out of our control.

Here though, it's probably hurting people's mental clarity more than it's helping the Arctic sea ice recover to so-called "normal levels."

"Researchers believe that the glacier has not retreated to where it is now in the last 4,000 to 6,000 years."

Reply: Why was it like that then, why was Greenland once warm. These are questions that agwers overlook because there afraid there might be a reason other than that that fits there objective.

"......its easy to see that climate change is comnig at us like a freight train."

How easy is it? Also Andrew I was hoping you could go back to the open forum too answer a few of my questions if you have time, it would be appreciated,Thanks.

Last night ended the consecutive streak of lows in the 40's. I had 9 straight up until last night, that crazy climate change hapeened fast, then boom last night back to the 50's a 10 degrees rise in one night, why if that pace continues .....all my

Caleb & Bob Tisdale --- The Holocene Climatic Optimum for Greenland was about 6000 years ago. On average, since then it has been growing colder there, which is in accordance with orbital forcing theory.

Except for AGW, it ought to keep on doing so.

Here is another location where ice has melted back to about 5500 years ago position:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm

Andrew wrote:
"Greenland is big place, but when chunks of ice 10 square miles are falling off at an accelerated rate, it's easy to see that climate change is comnig at us like a Freight Train."

Andrew, do you mean to imply that Earth's climate has been static and unchanged in the current interglacial period?....and that we are now witnesses to the first significant climate changes to occur since the last ice age?

Can you say with any certainty that periodic warming of the Arctic and large pieces of ice breaking off in either the Arctic or Antarctic are not simply a part of what has been occurring naturally since time immemorial?

Paul: Don't underestimate the AGW people. You were not selected by your higher power to be the Shell Answer Man. The obvious answer you gave was not necessary. You are not required to respond to every deniers remarks. If you do that, then you feed yourself to dutifully answering every stupid deniers ridiculous notion, or any misinterpretation that any wing nut will provide. Why should Bob Tisdale the scientist, making such a blatant error, be afforded more then the inane reflection of his own argument. He's a smart guy. So for him to make such an obviously deficient analogy speaks volumes. Your efforts would be better spent on making your own pronouncements, or supporting other AGW people in their views here. We need more people here that believe in global warming. It's one sided enough .
KIPP

Bob Tisdale: After reading your past blogs, and studying your graphs I assumed that your graphs from Smith Reynolds, and your observations about the arctic were very insightful. Now I know that you are a smart blogger, but I am not going to answer your requests. I have a higher calling. I like to do what I feel is best.
KIPP

Brett: previous post re re-freeze Sorry again, but...NH ice has in fact stopped melting (reply: still looks downward to me, which means melting)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
If you connect current trend it meets last years re-freeze trend unless something drastic changes and last 3 day images shows ice growing in Hudson bay AGW = RIP

Here's the latest update on this year's Arctic sea ice melt from NSIDC.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

It talks a little about the different ways ice thickness is monitored and the factors that go into melting sea ice.

People have blamed global warming for the recent changes in the climate, and that people are causing it. In reality the earth cycles, as these great researchers have discovered through there studies. The earth will cycle with or without humans on it and by us using the products from the earth will neither slow or increase the climate change time frame. It would be different if we were bringing pollution in from foreign planets, but everything humans use comes from the earth, and it has been cycled for as long as the earth has been here.
As for the glacier issues the glaciers obviously have not always been there, and they will change with the rest of the world. And the cracks in the glaciers will appear and the glaciers will someday be gone. The earth will change and dufferent glaciers will reappear somewhere else someday in the future when we are long gone.
People just need to realize that the global warming issue is becoming a large money making racket for many large corporations, and there is nothing that we can do to stop the changing earth.

Paulm: Thanks for answering rhetorical questions, but is there really a difference between then and now? Your answers assume one subscribes fully to the AGW hypothesis, which I don't. Additionally, here's a quote that I found in my Greenland files from a 10-year old study of the Greenland ice cores by Dahl-Jensen et al with the title "Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet", "After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures in our record increase steadily, reaching a period 2.5 K warmer than present during what is referred to as the Climatic Optimum (CO), at 8 to 5 ka. Following the CO, temperatures cool to a minimum of 0.5 K colder than the present at around 2 ka. The record implies that the medieval period around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present in Greenland."

I posted links to my thoughts about polar amplification before, but for you I'll do it again. Click on my name.

Kipp: Your comment belongs on the previous thread where I commented on