Starship Asterisk*

Frankly, I understand that greenland would be the description of a place full of vegetation. How then is the island not called "Whiteland"??? How long ago was the green name given to the area (who was accountable for this?) and what did humanity do to convert a lush island into an icy "wasteland"? It's in the news again these days because of water pockets; here, I am sure, we are going to be blamed for our influence on climate change ...

Cloudgazer wrote:Frankly, I understand that greenland would be the description of a place full of vegetation. How then is the island not called "Whiteland"??? How long ago was the green name given to the area (who was accountable for this?) and what did humanity do to convert a lush island into an icy "wasteland"? It's in the news again these days because of water pockets; here, I am sure, we are going to be blamed for our influence on climate change ... :?

Greenland has never been green in human history. Arctic areas appear to be particularly sensitive to subtle changes in climate, and parts of Greenland were apparently somewhat more mild during a climate fluctuation about 1000 years ago. Greenland was not given its name because it was green!

It is the exquisite sensitivity of the arctic climate to global shifts in energy balance that makes it the best indicator of human climate change as well, which is the primary factor in the current changes we see in Greenland.

I think the idea that Greenland was ever lush and green is a myth perpetuated first in medieval times and once again in modern times. In medieval times supposedly Erik the Red named it to try to convince more people to settle there. In modern times it is used as a point in climate change denial. The periphery of the island suitable for human habitation is so narrow that it's understandable that small climactic changes could make it either too cold or just so. Climate change deniers either unwittingly or purposefully conflate the ideas of natural climate variation and human driven climate change so Greenland is a fun topic for them to poke at.

And Chris just beat me to the post, of course.

geckzilla wrote:In medieval times supposedly Erik the Red named it to try to convince more people to settle there.

The methods used by salesman have apparently not changed for over 1000 years.

You made me smile with this explanation, geckzilla. In the days of Erik the Red surely there didn't exist a massive over-population in northern Europe to delegate people to an island way out there - the way we may end up settling on Mars if humanity doesn't curb its birthrate ... Unless, of course, Erik wanted to get rid of delinquents, prisoners and other misfits the way these were pushed off to Australia not so long ago?

Addendum to my last comment: just read Chris Petersen - so I still maintain what I said earlier on ...

Cities in Europe were arguably overpopulated in medieval times for the infrastructure they had. Terrible or nonexistent sanitation and cohabitation with rats and mice resulted in the infamous Black Death. If we observed any other animals living in such conditions we would no doubt cite overpopulation and their inability to deal with their own refuse making them so sick. Forests had already been clear cut by those times.

Cloudgazer wrote:.. I still maintain what I said earlier on ...

If you're genuinely interested in this subject, Google "history of settlement in Greenland" and have fun. There's lots of material there, and much of it gives historical perspective on both the reasons for the Norse settlement activity and on details of the local Greenland climate then and now.

Rob

Melting Glaciers, Joe Raedle’s photographs from Greenland
Scroll down to the Greenland visit
http://peopleus.blogspot.com/2013/09/ic ... urces.html

Good grief, that page is terribly designed. It's hard to read. I would just recommend watching Chasing Ice.

Thanking all that have contributed to my query! I am genuinely interested in the subject and will study it further.
One thing though remains being said by this querulous interlocutor: couldn't we accept that we are entering another "Warm Period" such as the one which happened in the Middle Ages? The sun's activities have been somewhat erratic and, frankly, frightening lately so we shouldn't discard this possibility, right? Our climate depends so drastically on what is happening on our star that we should jump off the band-wagon of guilt complex and face a natural phenomenon we cannot do anything about ...
You can clearly tell that I am in denial and will not be convinced by all the scare tactics being employed. The so-called greenhouse effect is, in my keen eyes, an infantile word from a fairytale book. But that, of course, is how you draw the masses' attention to the subject.

I think I herewith bail out and leave the topic for good since all I'll be getting from hereon-in will be Flak ...

All of those ideas (natural cycles, the sun, etc.) have been thoroughly considered and rejected. The greenhouse effect is definitely real. It's important to ignore all of the emotional pleas from anyone and look straight to the scientists and to the facts. Of course, if you are one of those individuals who feels that the scientists are somehow involved in some vast liberal conspiracy then there is probably no amount of discussion that can dissuade you from that idea and our talk is over.

I had better clarify that it is not my belief that scientists are involved in a conspiracy from which they could hardly benefit themselves (besides dubious fame), but that they work with a huge margin of error by, on one hand, applying tunnel vision on the other trusting computers which (if left to their own devices after an initial input might give better results) they feed what they believe must be fed them. Computers "think" the way their 'Masters' tell them to; so, please, accept that there is a lot of leeway for misinterpretation and misleading involved. Or, if we apply "I, Robot", the whole procedure might get out of hand altogether in a slightly different way. I simply do not trust the whole scheme since my common sense tells me that they are all just batting the subject about!
Well, as I said: I'd better remove myself here but do not regret having raised the subject.
PS: why can't the term "greenhouse effect" be eliminated - it is utterly senseless! A greenhouse is something with a perfect atmosphere to make things grow and thrive, not exactly the place for a doomsday scenario.

Well, if you read a lot of denier websites, that's what they want you to believe. They'll point you to the so-called "Climategate" emails to a statement about a "trick" by a scientist and tell you that this is evidence that you can't trust any of those scientists. However, that's not how things work. There are degrees of error but they aren't huge margins of error. Chris can probably elucidate the subject much better than I can.

As far as the term "greenhouse effect" goes, I don't understand your hangup there. Greenhouses are a good analogue to what happens with the atmosphere in the way that they trap energy inside to create a warmer environment within. Again, ignore doomsday claims and the heralds of the cataclysm. Don't get caught up on that. Just try to understand it for what it is first and then think about the direction we should move to make things better. That's really all it is... trying to make things better than they are. Doomsday is a large asteroid striking Earth. Admitting firstly that it is possible that we are changing the climate, that it's possible that this will have negative consequences for us and the other creatures we share the planet with, and that it's possible we can alter our course is not doomsday.

Believe it or not: I have not read a single website on the subject so far, denier or staunch supporter kind! In fact, I don't browse around looking for controversial subjects - I am almost an "anti-browser" and usually stick to URLs pointed out to me by friends or family, tho none of these deal with global matters (rather with garden issues or cooking tips) ... I sum up what I read in moderate to conservative newspapers and come to my conclusions judging by carefully choosing the snippets I pick up here and there. That's how scientific my approach is, sorry. And I still trust scientists just as I do politicians: as far as I can throw my house!

If humanity could find a way of "taming" all this excess melting water by channelling it into chronically drought-stricken parts of the globe, then the greenhouse might have a very positive effect after all. We are capable of exploring the universe (I am partial to that) but fail to make the best of what we have on this planet of ours. Free drinking water is being released all the time by global warming - which takes place naturally, not through our doings - and yet we cannot irrigate where it is vital for the survival of our species.

Obviously I don't want to let go, but will have to say goodbye to this forum now.
It's been a pleasure, and an eye-opener!

Cloudgazer wrote:I sum up what I read in moderate to conservative newspapers and come to my conclusions judging by carefully choosing the snippets I pick up here and there. That's how scientific my approach is, sorry. And I still trust scientists just as I do politicians: as far as I can throw my house!

There is a good chance that the people reading the media you've chosen do read primarily climate denial propaganda. I can't stress how important it is for you to go straight to the scientists and what they publish on this matter. You've indicated that you trust the people disseminating your news media by believing what they write without looking into their sources and yet you don't trust any scientists? Well, that's your folly, then.

Well, Geckzilla, one last post to 'defend' myself ... the only newspapers I read are "Mail&Guardian" (South Africa) and "El Correo" (Spain), unbiased on international matters and even pretty neutral on internal affairs. I am living in both countries a half of each year, but read both daily papers wherever I am at the moment.
Cheers!

Reporters present scientific matters incorrectly all the time. Even if you could truly remove all bias, which you can't, especially on emotionally charged matters such as climate change, it wouldn't change the fact that even mundane scientific findings are often misreported over and over from one news article to the next like a toppling row of dominoes. Again, you trust these two sources (that's a pretty sparse list!), but not a single scientist? Not even one?

My mistrust goes against scientists and politicians across the board. If there is a single one (or more than one?) in the pack who doesn't howl with the rest of the wolves, I wouldn't know how to find him ... Who is to name to me, totally without bias and favouritism, which of the lot is to be trusted? Misinformation and disinformation are rife everywhere, so you just have to pick your sources. I don't read tabloids ...

Projected change in annual mean surface air temperature from the late 20th century to the middle 21st century, based on a medium emissions scenario (SRES A1B). This scenario assumes that no future policies are adopted to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Image credit: NOAA GFDL.

Cloudgazer wrote:My mistrust goes against scientists and politicians across the board. If there is a single one (or more than one?) in the pack who doesn't howl with the rest of the wolves, I wouldn't know how to find him ... Who is to name to me, totally without bias and favouritism, which of the lot is to be trusted? Misinformation and disinformation are rife everywhere, so you just have to pick your sources. I don't read tabloids ...

That's what I'm saying. You trust people who write news stories, but you don't trust a scientist? You trust people who are not specialized in understanding climate, who don't have science degrees, but are reporting on scientific subjects more than the people who study and collect the facts on those subjects. I'm sorry to inform you but you are a denier, you are reading denial media, and you are not checking on sources. You are a classic illustration of confirmation bias.

Yah, I guess you tagged me down. But so be it - I normally don't profess my beliefs in public, only felt that here I had to make an exception because the initial 'harmless' comment on the name "Greenland" led to a whole string of comments I hadn't figured on getting ... so I bared my soul and you are probably right: I do deny! I can live with that though, tho never thought I would make "enemies" by letting them know that I was so - so - okay, so superficial.
We could start another topic: "cigarette smoking" ... I am a staunch supporter of the tobacco industry, have been all my life, and probably contributed to the greenhouse effect with all those hot exhalations of noxious fumes ... Please don't jump on that one - I've got to go to bed now (way past midnight here).

For Neufer: thanks for the illustrations although I have a problem interpreting them correctly.
I see the solution in turning our globe upside down, pole-wise, and see what happens if the antarctic is on top instead of down under ... I'll be moving to the equatorial belt ...