Is there an upside to global warming?

MattusMaximus said:
Now, as for the predicted effects in 10, 20, 50, 100 years of AGW? I don't know, and this is - to me - where much of the legitimate controversy lies right now, not whether or not AGW is occurring.
Click to expand...

What do you consider the legitimate controversy to be? (IOW what are the contrasts and where does your perspective and consideration reside, and how do you support your position?)
 
TShaitanaku said:
What do you consider the legitimate controversy to be? (IOW what are the contrasts and where does your perspective and consideration reside, and how do you support your position?)
Click to expand...

I do NOT consider the question of whether or not AGW is occurring to be legitimate, because the consensus within the climate science community is very clear: AGW is occurring.

The legitimate question is what will be the effects/outcomes of 10, 20, 50, 100 years of unchecked AGW? I think there is much uncertainty still in addressing this question.
 
Highly Selassie said:
OK then, what textbook contains such an idea? I confess I took several undergrad courses in meteorology and climatology and never encountered this idea. Maybe I skipped that class...
Click to expand...
Maybe you skipped fluid dynamics. There are equations of state and equations of motion describing dynamical systems driven by state function gradients, like pressure, temperature and so. Some knowledge of mathematical physics would be helpful for comprehension, though.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
It was indeed Erik the Red, but the rest is just myth. Greenland was sometimes referred to as Gruneland but Grune doesn't mean "Green". (Can't recall what it does, or did, mean.)

His son, Leif, is said to have started the colony in Vinland (Vin doesn't mean "Vine", by the way).
Click to expand...

Not to derail too much, but do you have references for these statements? As far as I can determine, he did name it Greenland in order to make it more appealing to settlers. And "Grune" almost certainly means "Green." (German gruen, swedish groene, norwegian gronn, icelandic graenn)

As for Vinland, from wikipedia:

"The name Vinland has been interpreted in two ways: traditionally as Vínland ("wine-land") and more recently as Vinland (meadow- or pasture-land)."


Edited to add: I found this, so there may be the possibility that it didn't necessarily mean "Green land." But it doesn't sound like a certainty:

"Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's time during the Medieval Warm Period."
 
Last edited:
TShaitanaku said:
Actually, throughout most of the last several thousand years, there have been and are green, forested and grassy areas in the southern coastal valleys of Greenland. During milder stretches these areas a quite ameniable to the type of settlements and living familiar to most early nordic peoples. during the rougher stretches, not so much so.
Click to expand...

We were discussing recorded History.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Not to derail too much, but do you have references for these statements? As far as I can determine, he did name it Greenland in order to make it more appealing to settlers. And "Grune" almost certainly means "Green." (German gruen, swedish groene, norwegian gronn, icelandic graenn)

As for Vinland, from wikipedia:

"The name Vinland has been interpreted in two ways: traditionally as Vínland ("wine-land") and more recently as Vinland (meadow- or pasture-land)."
Click to expand...

Just going on memory I'm afraid. I knew I was going out on thin ice by being quite so definite :).

"Almost certainly" perhaps, but there is some contention about the meaning of both Greenland and Vinland from what I've read. One thing which makes me doubtful about "green" is the associated idea that Erik had to promote the place to his followers. Erik the Red was a warlord and his family and followers would have gone with him as a matter of course, not least because they'd be in some danger from his enemies if they'd remained in Iceland. I also think it's unlikely that people hadn't already heard about the place. Those guys did get around, not always intentionally (what with storms and such) and some will have come across it. It would have made an obvious base for walrus hunting (walrus ivory was a valuable commodity at the time, the Islamic empire having cut Europe off from traditional African ivory).

There's no sign of vines where Vinland's likely to be, but there are meadows. Probably most important was the timber it could supply.
 
MattusMaximus said:
I do NOT consider the question of whether or not AGW is occurring to be legitimate, because the consensus within the climate science community is very clear: AGW is occurring.

The legitimate question is what will be the effects/outcomes of 10, 20, 50, 100 years of unchecked AGW? I think there is much uncertainty still in addressing this question.
Click to expand...


Uncertainty, certainly, but where, given the current scientific understandings and their record of predictions and projections, do you feel the scientific concensus estimates shake out? Are they too conservative, recklessly catastrophic or roughly appropriate, and can you reference which specific scientific concensus you are going with here?

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand and what that perspective is based on. I'll be happy to share my own considerations on these same issues so that we both know where we are starting from in any further discussion.
 
BenBurch said:
Except they don't.
Click to expand...

"...southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer..."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland)

Today 1% of the island, in the southern ice free regions, is suitable for agriculture (Encyclopedia Britannica). Since the Viking population counted at its maximum perhaps not more than 3,000 people (Enc.Brit.)the area it used could not have been more than that 1% (i.e. an area two thirds the size of Belgium).

This has remained largely consistent throughout the last several thousand years. Of course there are some years, and even stretches of years where the winter snows never fully melted even in these green areas of greenland, though those stretches are becoming more a footnote of history than current problem.

The vikings story might best be addressed here: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/


http://www.greenland.com/media(1089,1033)/Destination_South_Greenland.pdf

The Garden of Greenland
 
The good news might be that San Francisco won't be so cold and you will be able to sail into the artic ocean making for potentially shorter trips. ;)
 
Herzblut said:
Maybe you skipped fluid dynamics. There are equations of state and equations of motion describing dynamical systems driven by state function gradients, like pressure, temperature and so.
Click to expand...

You went beyond this and claimed specific gradients were in play.
 
When global warming happens I can gloat to those who didn't believe in it.

Other than that.. New coastal cities? :D
 
Schwarzwald said:
When global warming happens I can gloat to those who didn't believe in it.

Other than that.. New coastal cities? :D
Click to expand...

I have a line on cheap Siberian land, I can get you in on the bottom rung.

For denialists I have a line on Florida shorefront which is seriously undervalued right now : when reality finally exposes the hoax it will rocket in value.

Trust me. For a small commission.
 
macdoc said:
When??

The new coastal cities are already being built especially by Russia to tap the new resources and sea route.
Click to expand...

For the Russians it all looks like upside. There's no great incentive for them to do anything but warm the globe. The drought hazard is in Ukraine, which ain't their problem.

An open Arctic will finally bring Russia centre-stage, while tending to marginalise North America. What's for them not to like?
 
TShaitanaku said:
Uncertainty, certainly, but where, given the current scientific understandings and their record of predictions and projections, do you feel the scientific concensus estimates shake out? Are they too conservative, recklessly catastrophic or roughly appropriate, and can you reference which specific scientific concensus you are going with here?
Click to expand...

A specific scientific consensus? There's never a choice of concensuses.

You start with "current scientific understandings" (a consensus no less) and ramble off into who knows what you might want to class as predictions via other undefined terms before ending with a demand for a specific scientific consensus.

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand and what that perspective is based on. I'll be happy to share my own considerations on these same issues so that we both know where we are starting from in any further discussion.
Click to expand...

Why not share with all of us? How would you answer your own questions? If nothing else it might give us a clue as to what they mean.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Edited to add: I found this, so there may be the possibility that it didn't necessarily mean "Green land." But it doesn't sound like a certainty:

"Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's time during the Medieval Warm Period."
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that there can be no certainty what name the Icelanders knew it by, or what it meant to them. I think we can also agree that Erik founded the colony by giving it that name is a later invention of the English-speaking world. It first emerged in the 19thCE, when the "booster" of new-founded towns became a US American feature. Just saying ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom