The BBC reports that the Times Atlas of the World, which had reported that global “warming had turned 15% of Greenland’s former ice-covered land ‘green and ice-free,’” was wrong:
Leading UK polar scientists say the Times Atlas of the World was wrong to assert that it has had to re-draw its map of Greenland due to climate change.
Publicity for the latest edition of the atlas, launched last week, said warming had turned 15% of Greenland’s former ice-covered land “green and ice-free”.
But scientists from the Scott Polar Research Institute say the figures are wrong; the ice has not shrunk so much.
The Atlas costs £150 ($237) and claims to be the world’s “most authoritative”.
The 13th edition of the “comprehensive” version of the atlas included a number of revisions made for reasons of environmental change since the previous one, published in 2007.
The break-up of some Antarctic ice shelves due to climate change, the shrinking of inland waters such as the Dead and Aral Seas, and the drying up of rivers such as the Colorado River are all documented.
But the glossy publicity sheets begin with the contention that “for the first time, the new edition of the (atlas) has had to erase 15% of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover – turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland ‘green’ and ice-free.
“This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet forever – and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate.”
The Scott Polar group, which includes director Julian Dowdeswell, says the claim of a 15% loss in just 12 years is wrong.
The rest here.
Interesting. Greenland was called "green land" by the Vikings who found large parts of it so. Then the "Little Ice Age," and it became less green. So now it might be more green. But for how long? So claims of "for the first time in history?" Not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd like to a citation for your contention. Because most etymology I've seen regarding suggests Greenland was named Greenland not because it was overly green but to encourage settlement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe people who made that conclusion did so from the fact that Greenland currently is not green, and they assumed that in the times of the Vikings it was the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTom - You are in part right. According to dictionary.com the name was chosen to encourage settlement. That does not preclude the name from according with the facts on the ground: that the land was indeed green until the onset of the Little Ice Age.
The following is from Wikepedia: The settlements, such as Brattahlíð, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age. Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years. Similarly the Norse Book of Settlements records famines during the winters in which "the old and helpless were killed and thrown over cliffs". (Arnold 2010)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's a Murdoch product, right? No wonder it's wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo is that how you figure out what's true and what's not? Interesting approach.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo the envrio-whackos, isn't "green" another word for everything that's good, right, and virtuous? So I'd think adding a green area the size of the UK would be good, wouldn't it? More trees could be planted to hug and to absorb all that nasty CO2. They could build more windmills, solar panels, etc., etc. Hey, there could be a green jobs boom!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom a logical standpoint, modest warming of the planet should be seen as a huge boon to both humans and the rest of the biosphere. Longer growing seasons, more arable land, More fresh water available worldwide would all seem to be good things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on. During most of the Middle Ages, Europe was far colder than it is today. The Baltic Sea regularly froze over. People starved because the growing season was too short. It was not a fun time to be alive, freezing in the dark and all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs "wrong" in quotation marks because the atlas is basically right? Even the BBC article contends that ice coverage is shrinking due to global warming; the only thing contested here is the amount of shrinkage. This seems like a silly thing to latch onto as evidence against global warming, but than again this is the party whose presidential nominee suggests praying for rain while claiming the science is a hoax. LOL! Get used to it Texas!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToday's date is September 19, 2011. Neither party will have a presidential nominee until sometime in the summer of 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoe, read this:
External Link
I would also suggest that there is a dramatic difference between 15% as quoted and 0.1% in a 12 year period, which is the true fact about the extent of the ice melt. And as fast as it melts, it will very well freeze up again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(A) When the facts are with me, and are dispositive, I present them as accurately as possible.
(B) When the hack lawyer on the other side has the facts against him, he typically misstates the facts.
I generally win when (A) meets (B).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWatching liberals try to spin their mythologies sure can be amusing.
The only people left who still believe in CAGW, are those who are paid to believe it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoe - The world has been warming since the 17th century, so I am not surprised that some of the Greenland ice has melted. As regards why Greenland has its name, I refer you Regina H's earlier comment which is right on the money. It says a lot about how trivial global warming has been in any event.
One other thing Moe - The amount of warming we have experienced has been very modest when temperatures are looked at over the last 100 thousand years. It is all part of natural variation and should not lead to anyone's getting very excited about it. Just remember, all this AGW stuff - it's "Mann-made." :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseand how many boneheaded idiots believed the giant bonehead when he said believe in me, for I bring hope with some change?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBack in the summer of about 2006 or so, there was a high pressure system sitting in the southeast that blocked alot of Gulf moisture from moving east as it normally does. So, instead, it dumped itself on Texas, and the state had massive flooding that year. Not even ten years ago. So here's my question: If the Texas drought is evidence for global warming, were the Texas floods evidence against it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDialectic Environmentalism cannot be wrong! /s
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe drying up of the Colorado isn't exactly well documented--there are all kinds of models that assume global warming but calculations of virgin water flows, water flows that are adjusted for the enormous urbanization that has occured in the Colorado basin, are pretty tricky. Flow measurements go back at most 100 years and they are affected by urbanization.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure this story will make the same headlines as the original-- yeeaaah
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse