Murphy says that the ones that do make it – less than one percent of all the bergs produced annually – are "the ones with a shape that ensures they aren't as sensitive to the wind's effects, so they stay offshore or have enough mass that, even if they are grounded for a while, then when they float again they are large enough that they still bring a substantial amount of ice with them."

BLOWING UP BERGS

Those icebergs that survive all the way from the glaciers to the Grand Banks take up to three years to make the 1,500-mile journey. Once there, they will be tracked by the Patrol and left to disintegrate into the ocean. However, from the time the Titanic sank up until the 1960's, there was a belief that icebergs could, and should, be destroyed.

"It was thought that if you shot a shell at an iceberg, that the ice was so brittle that it would just disintegrate," Murphy said. "The U.S. Navy attempted it, but all they did was loosen a basketful of ice. Then they decided to float mines against the sides of the bergs and blow them up, but that didn't work either."

Further attempts were made after World War II, using larger bombs. "They arranged to drop 20, 1,000-pound bombs on an iceberg. They hit it 17 times over a six day period, but the end result was an insignificant change in the size of the berg, so they gave up. It was a silly idea and it was abandoned. The ocean does the job perfectly."International Ice PatrolIcebergs travel thousands of miles over several years, degrading as they go. This shape is non-tabular.

Icebergs always succumb to warm water and warm weather, but now there is considerable debate as to whether climate change is playing any part in the fate or future of these floating photogenic white sculptures.

"There is no doubt in my mind major climate change is happening," said Murphy, who has been a professional oceanographer for 22 years. "Studies in Greenland show that the glaciers are moving twice as fast as before. That means a lot of production of ice. My expectation has always been if the Greenland glaciers started moving faster, there would be increased production [of icebergs] for decades and there should be an increase in the number of icebergs into the shipping lanes. That was my model. But the last couple of years that hasn't happened, and I'm having a hard time understanding what is going on except that there are complicating factors having to do with increased storms. Maybe the destruction processes dominate over the production processes."

The main destruction process is wave action. Icebergs that run aground are the most vulnerable to sustained wave attack. In past years, large concentrations of sea ice have been thought to help icebergs remain afloat and prevent erosion from waves.

In 2005, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, sea ice cover was at its lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and in 2006 officials at the International Ice Patrol have noticed "very little – although not an absolute minimum" level of sea-ice conditions. Yet a computer model linking sea-ice levels to the number of icebergs making it into the shipping lanes has performed "horribly," according to Murphy.

So while climate change could be expected to bring about an increase in the number of icebergs being forced into the ocean, its effect in reducing the level of sea ice through increased sea temperatures could mean that those icebergs liquefy long before they reach areas of concern.

Yet, Murphy points out, that does not explain the huge discrepancy in the number of icebergs recorded in years before climate change was considered an issue (there were 15 icebergs in 1952 and 1,500 in 1972). After thoroughly studying and analyzing data from as far back as 1900, Murphy can find no significant or consistent pattern in the number of icebergs making it into the shipping lanes.

"It's a very complicated system and there are a lot of moving parts," he says but he claims some people are eager to ascribe meaning to the figures.

CLIMATE CHANGE

"Back in the mid 90's when we had thousands of icebergs I got a call from Japanese TV who wanted to do a story on us because they believed the large number of icebergs was indicative of global warming," he says. "Then, in 1999 we had only 22 icebergs and I got a call from a European TV company who wanted to a story because they were certain that the fact that there were only 22 bergs in the shipping lanes was a clear indication of global warming."International Ice PatrolThe tallest iceberg on record is 550 feet.

Murphy himself is reluctant to draw any conclusions from the ever-changing number of icebergs. Commander Hicks also believes the century-long variability precludes blaming climate change for the present low numbers.

"There would have to be a decade of consistently light or consistently heavy years to say something is happening here and we haven't seen that," he said. Nevertheless, only 11 icebergs were spotted in the shipping lanes in 2005.

This made last year's debate on board the low-flying C130 all the more intense. As the plane continued its descent through the clouds, seagulls are spotted atop the floating white object. At 400 feet above the churning ocean, when the flight crew and the ice observers can all see the object in detail through thick Plexiglas windows, they realize it is, disappointingly, an inverted, dead Northern Right whale.

"We'll keep looking," Hicks said. "We know there are icebergs out there."