Just how green was Greenland?

Malorn, do some research. Read the IPCC report and your questions will be answered. Look at the science and the research that is being/has been done. There is a lot of good information out there. I don't have the time to give you every detail and debate it down to the ground with you. You seem to have enough time on your hands to devote the better part of your waking time to an online forum for a car that you don't own, don't care to own, and have little interest in, so I assume you have the time to read actual scientific reports.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 6 2007, 05:17 PM) [snapback]419061[/snapback]</div>

Tell me how is the IPCC report created? Is it just scientists involved? Is it just science? Who approves it?

Do you think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(AGW) would ever come out with a report saying the earth's climate is actually beginning to cool, or the earth's climate is warming but we don't think it is a big deal, or how about the earth's climate is warming but it is caused mainly by solar flares and thus there is nothing we can do about it. If they did that the IPCC would probably be disbanded and all of the AGW funding would disappear.

 

And what good will it do? What nonsense will you spout off next?

And why exactly are you in a forum that you've got no concern about except for defending "American" cars that have lost their glory, quality, etc?

And I believe you when you say you've watched IT multiple times .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Apr 6 2007, 05:30 PM) [snapback]419069[/snapback]</div>

I have watched IT multiple times and I watch a little closer every time. There is a ton of innuendo in the movie over-the-top fear-mongering. I know many people who the first time they saw the movie were very shaken by it including to a small degree myself. The more reading i do on the subject including "earth in the Balance" again, the more doubts I have about the underlying agenda of the AGW movement.
I know some experts on the "subject" and the science and more importantly the ramifications of AGW keep moving, always getting worse and more dramatic.

 

Huh, well... you think, just perhaps maybe - for a teenie second - that the implications are just that dramatic?!

Do you honestly expect someone to give you a dreamy world where beaches become the norm and sunshine is everywhere for you - I assume a complete non-scientist with little education on biology and such (I have a BS in Biology, fyi) - to accept that global climate disruption is occuring?

Nonetheless, I don't ask you to easy your doubts or any of that matter - I'm sure you know I think of your doubts as utter nonsense... akin to no greater than sheer conspiracy theory.

(Don't take that as disrespect - I am only disparaging your views - not you as a person.)

All the science boils down to is this:

[attachmentid=7298]

from:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/th...nal_repor_1.php

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Apr 5 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]418158[/snapback]</div>

I thought this was going to be a discussion of Greenland and Iceland back in 1000 - but the real discussion seems to be the current GW debate. Technically not a hijacking, but effectively one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 6 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]419046[/snapback]</div>

You make some good points regarding some of the uncertainties but then go on to trash "the Great Global Warming Swindle" while unabashedly praising AIT. Could you let me know what scientific basis there is (a peer reviewed study maybe) that suggests that Greenland "may" melt in 100 years, as you state? To my knowledge this is far, far, far (can it get any further?) from the scientific "consensus". In addition, you neglected to mention a huge uncertainty of current climate models, namely their handling of water vapor (which is well recognized to be poorly modeled), the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

While I completely agree with the statement that there has been an accumulation of CO2 due to man's activity and that as a result we are likely to experience some degree of warming, I am not at all persuaded by the constant barrage of media-hyped scare stories predicting the end of the world as we know it. Interesting how the GW supporters conveniently accept and rationalize Gore's use of hyperbole while in the same breath blasting climate change "skeptics" for their "scientifically unfounded views".

And by the way, I would not call a predicted 20 cm sea level rise "mild hyperbole" when inflated to 20 feet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Apr 6 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]419100[/snapback]</div>

Actually, all the science does not boil down to that. If it were that simple, there would be no debate and no range of IPCC climate outcomes. The science is much more complicated. See this for instance, on radiative forcings:

"The poorly constrained aerosol effects results from both limited physical understanding of how aerosols interact with the atmosphere and limited knowledge of aerosol concentrations during the pre-industrial period. This is a significant source of uncertainty in comparing modern climate forcings to past states.

Contrary to the impression given by this figure, it is not possible to simply sum the radiative forcing contributions from all sources and obtain a total forcing. This is because different forcing terms can interact to either amplify or interfere with each other. For example, in the case of greenhouse gases, two different gases may share the same absorption bands thus partially limiting their effectiveness when taken in combination."

And this from the IPCC:



Now look at the "Level of Scientific Understanding" on the horizontal axis - note that of the 12 forcing mechanisms, 75% have a level of understanding of "Very Low" by the IPCCs own definition!

So when people say the "science is settled", "there is no doubt" etc. I can agree in principle that CO2 causes warming all else being equal. But when 75% of the known radiative forcings are poorly understood, how does one arrive at a 90% degree of confidence in the subsequently modeled projections?

This is where a big red flag should go up for any thinking person.

 

Greenland probably was not much more green 1000 years ago than it was today, in spite of Greenland being significantly warmer during that time. Without a doubt there was a huge ice sheet and tidewater glaciers as there are today. Wikipedia says that " the greenland regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic." Also barley was grown up to the 70th parallel. Currently, people are experimenting to see if barely grows in southern greenland, by the 60th or 62nd parallel. So maybe most of Greenland was 5 degrees fahrenheit warmer than today?

Right now, Nuuk Averages 45 degrees in the summer and 15 degrees in the winter and there are extensive tidewater glaciers. In southern Alaska, where there are extensive tidewater glaciers, the temperature averages just below 55 degrees in the summer and 25 degrees in the winter. So, even if Nuuk was 10 degrees warmer 1000 years ago, (which it probably wasn't) or if it would warm 10 degrees in the future, Nuuk and other regions in Greenland would still have tidewater glaciers as well as huge icefields. Though the fjords would be very lush and green with trees.