Too *much* Ice blocks Iceland fish supply

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I guess the polar bears are not native to Iceland. Supposedly they come ashore sometimes but there isn't much actual sea ice in iceland so it is difficult for them to hunt seals. That's what I found on a site about Icelandic wildlife.

They are not native to Newfoundland either but sometimes some make their way down on the pack ice

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Flubber


Whats the huge deal about the bears. Every so often they get a bunch of bears coming ashore in eastern Canada in a heavier pack ice situation.

Well, my point is that the bears prove the ice came from a place with bears

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Global warmers explain increasing ice in Iceland and Antartica as a result of warmer sea temps resulting in increased precipitation (read snow falls) in artic and antarctic climes.

Whatever. Sounds like handwaving.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Well, my point is that the bears prove the ice came from a place with bears

Oh -- thought that was kinda obvious-- but it tells you nothing about whether it was due to warm temps leading to ice calving off OR whether cold temps and onshore winds led to pack ice

[Flubber]

I do know that the predominant cause for pack ice filling the harbors off Newfoundland was persistent onshore winds. If the wind swung, the ice would go out to sea and largely disperse

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Global warmers explain increasing ice in Iceland and Antartica as a result of warmer sea temps resulting in increased precipitation (read snow falls) in artic and antarctic climes.

Whatever. Sounds like handwaving.

The explination I heard is that increased melt rates have resulted in more ice coming off the ice sheets. That extra ice ends up in the water.

[Zylka]

It's so damned sad.. All across the island, Ice is ruining these people's lives

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Global warmers explain increasing ice in Iceland and Antartica as a result of warmer sea temps resulting in increased precipitation (read snow falls) in artic and antarctic climes.

Whatever. Sounds like handwaving.

No. sounds like you don't know what you're talking about...

In fact, relatively speaking, compared to climatologists none of us do. However, what I can't understand is why you and Flubber can't get your heads around the explanation of increased ice in NW Iceland as down to increased melt rates in the glaciers of Greenland and the fact that large chunks have been calving off and floating across to Iceland - after all Greenland is NW of Iceland and these icebergs are inhabited by Polar Bears, so it is kind of a no brainer...

Also, no one has mentioned the fact that all this cold melting freshwater is depressing the warmer salt water of the Gulf Stream, and that in recent times this has been being gradually deflected South and losing its strength...

As to what happened 40 years ago, maybe if we examined what happened in the world back then we'd discover an event that reduced the temperature locally, like a large volcano erupting and spewing vast amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere around that time - that sort of thing could provide the right climatic conditions single-handedly.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MOBIUS




In fact, relatively speaking, compared to climatologists none of us do. However, what I can't understand is why you and Flubber can't get your heads around the explanation of increased ice in NW Iceland as down to increased melt rates in the glaciers of Greenland and the fact that large chunks have been calving off and floating across to Iceland - after all Greenland is NW of Iceland and these icebergs are inhabited by Polar Bears, so it is kind of a no brainer...

Don't be silly. Increased calving is a possible explanation but so is a winter with increased pack ice and onshore winds-- Both could have polar bears as both could and would come down from up north

I used to live in Newfoundland and pack ice (Frozen seawater)would often appear in february and march but icebergs (freshwater off glaciers) were most commonly seen in May and June.

Oh and I have never seen or heard tell of a polar bear on an iceberg-- They tend to be on the pack ice where the seals are

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MOBIUS



As to what happened 40 years ago, maybe if we examined what happened in the world back then we'd discover an event that reduced the temperature locally, like a large volcano erupting and spewing vast amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere around that time - that sort of thing could provide the right climatic conditions single-handedly.

Wow you mean a different type weather event can just happen for localized reasons???? WOW

IN Newfoundland it was a simple as the wind. If there was persistent northeasterly winds, all the harbours would be cholked with ice for days or longer. With westerlies it all went out to sea and the harbours were clear. Since westerlies are prevailing, it was probably 1 year in 10 that there would be a significant issue

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Flubber
Don't be silly. Increased calving is a possible explanation but so is a winter with increased pack ice and onshore winds-- Both could have polar bears as both could and would come down from up north

First you say don't be silly, AND THEN you say it's a possible explanation...

D'OH!

Oh and I have never seen or heard tell of a polar bear on an iceberg-- They tend to be on the pack ice where the seals are

Aren't you contradicting yourself again...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Flubber
Wow you mean a different type weather event can just happen for localized reasons???? WOW

Yeah, WOW! I thought it was so obvious but you appeared to miss it...

IN Newfoundland it was a simple as the wind. If there was persistent northeasterly winds, all the harbours would be cholked with ice for days or longer. With westerlies it all went out to sea and the harbours were clear. Since westerlies are prevailing, it was probably 1 year in 10 that there would be a significant issue

Yeah, well the wind is affected by other things along the line like subtle variations in the air temp due to increased ice calving and a weaker and deflected gulf stream - those are valid and logical arguments. Certainly much moreso than your 'stuff happens' (but we never bothered to understand why) approach...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


First you say don't be silly, AND THEN you say it's a possible explanation...

D'OH!

Now you were being intentionally obtuse. In my first posts I contemplated two possible explanations. You were the one that stated I didn't "get " one of them. THAT is what I called silly

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MOBIUS



Aren't you contradicting yourself again...

Not at all. If you have no idea as to the difference between pack ice and an iceberg you probably should shut up now while you are well behind

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Yeah, WOW! I thought it was so obvious but you appeared to miss it...



Yeah, well the wind is affected by other things along the line like subtle variations in the air temp due to increased ice calving and a weaker and deflected gulf stream - those are valid and logical arguments. Certainly much moreso than your 'stuff happens' (but we never bothered to understand why) approach...

Your analysis simplistic. Claiming this Iceland event is an effect of global warming without evidence is superficial. The fact that it happened 40 years ago shows that warming is NOT a necessary precondition.

Could this be caused by climate change ? Sure it could.. . . All I am sick of is people jumping on EACH and EVERY weather event as conclusive proof of something. Taken together and analyzed correctly they may prove lots of things. But taken individually with no analysis its just crap