How Is Greenland Dealing With Climate Change?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Nick W, you are wrong. I envisioned a landmass similar to southern Alaska with lots of glaciers but some arable land that would make it inhabitable. I work strictly from documents. I would never just dream up some historical fact. I hope you will ask me next time. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by ronwagn

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/10/2019 at 7:37 AM, pinto said:

For the first time, scientists have identified why Earth wobbles as it spins.
- The decrease in Greenland's ice mass is the main reason for the wobble, NASA says.

If they are right it has happened before in a dramatic manner and the earth wobbled even more. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/10/2019 at 8:08 AM, pinto said:

Climate change is science, not opinion. 
NASA has announced : "Data from satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica  and Greenland  have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009." So,....

 

So that melted ice would be measurable in our newest sea level analyses. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/12/2019 at 8:45 AM, NickW said:

Great investment tip there.

I've just invested for my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandchildren as thats how long it will take for Greenland to extensively form farmable soils

The agriculture and soil would be much like that in Iceland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Iceland

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

So that melted ice would be measurable in our newest sea level analyses. 

It  is, in fact.  And Greenland's contribution is about 0.085mm/year.  Ice melt for Antarctica is quadruple.

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The agriculture and soil would be much like that in Iceland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Iceland

No it wouldn't. Iceland has had several thousand years to form those soils after the ice sheets retreated. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Nick W, you are wrong. I envisioned a landmass similar to southern Alaska with lots of glaciers but some arable land that would make it inhabitable. I work strictly from documents. I would never just dream up some historical fact. I hope you will ask me next time. 

How about this for some facts concerning latitude which might explain why your view on Greenland being like Alaska in the Middle Ages is complete nonsense

 Most of Alaska is outside the arctic circle. In contrast most of Greenland is inside the Arctic circle. This would be the predominant reason for observed climate differences between the two land masses. Ocean currents and winds would be additional secondary factor. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle

Furthermore had Greenland been Glacier free in the Middle Ages then the Arctic Ocean would be Ice free in the summer months - that would have made the age of exploration a lot easier. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Nick W, you are wrong. I envisioned a landmass similar to southern Alaska with lots of glaciers but some arable land that would make it inhabitable. I work strictly from documents. I would never just dream up some historical fact. I hope you will ask me next time. 

On the Physics and climatology fronts can you perhaps explain how Glaciers up to 3KM thick formed over several hundred years. This would require tropical levels of precipitation equivalent in an environment where there simply isn't enough heat to allow the atmosphere to carry that amount of water vapour?

The Greenland Ice Caps account for approximately 6 metres of sea level. If these ice caps formed in the last millenium why didn't sea levels fall during that period? The post glacial sea level record shows sea levels being fairly static. 

[DA? + 301]

Greenland is rising to the challenge of dealing with climate change. That's a geology joke.

[Rodent + 1,424]

51 minutes ago, DA? said:

Greenland is rising to the challenge of dealing with climate change. That's a geology joke.

"geology" and "joke" are incompatible terms. 😂

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

On the Physics and climatology fronts can you perhaps explain how Glaciers up to 3KM thick formed over several hundred years. This would require tropical levels of precipitation equivalent in an environment where there simply isn't enough heat to allow the atmosphere to carry that amount of water vapour?

The Greenland Ice Caps account for approximately 6 metres of sea level. If these ice caps formed in the last millenium why didn't sea levels fall during that period? The post glacial sea level record shows sea levels being fairly static. 

4

The ice sheets formed over geological time. The coastal areas of Greenland are warmer, which is a natural effect of oceans or great lakes. This article explains it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet You also need to consider continental drift over geologic time. Then you need to consider the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The ice sheets formed over geological time. The coastal areas of Greenland are warmer, which is a natural effect of oceans or great lakes. This article explains it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet You also need to consider continental drift over geologic time. Then you need to consider the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

But it was given the name Greenland Land by Eric the Red in about 1000AD which as Mark says was either a bit of Medieval migration marketing or simply a reference to the observed coastal strip zones which at least in summer would have been ice free. 

It appears your premise is that Greenland was largely Glacier free hence the reason it earned that name?

If Greenland was Glacier free in 1000AD then to accumulate Glaciers 3km thick the precipitation would have to be 3-4 metres equivalent per year and you would inevitably have some losses due to sublimation, run off and glaciers falling into the sea. 

However such a claim completely defies the laws of physics because that level of precipitation is impossible in a polar climate. You need a tropical or temperate maritime climate to deliver that level of rainfall. Low at any global precipitation map and you will see that polar continental climates are mostly polar deserts with precipitation below 250mm per year. 

Ocean currents only influence the coastal zones and not the continental interior. The currents on both sides are cold but still have a moderating effect on the coastal zones. 

Claims about continental drift affecting climate in a 1000 year time span are complete nonsense. They would be if we were talking the last 250 million years because Greenland according to this has always been at a high latitude. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

Edited January 15, 2019 by NickW
addition

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Nick, I gave you the answer to your questions. You can ignore the correct answers and go with your own preconceptions and totally twisting what I clearly stated. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The ice sheets formed over geological time. The coastal areas of Greenland are warmer, which is a natural effect of oceans or great lakes. This article explains it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet You also need to consider continental drift over geologic time. Then you need to consider the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

As regards the Medieval Warm period - this may have improved conditions slightly on the coastal margins but the glaciers remained intact. 

Carbon dating of ice cores has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the current ice in the glacier has accumulated over a period exceeding 100,000 years. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I totally agree. 

Agriculture and forestry[edit source]

Agriculture is of little importance in the economy but due to climate change – in southern Greenland, the growing season averages about three weeks longer than a decade ago^[27] – which has enabled expanded production of existing crops. At present, local production accounts for 10% of potatoes consumption in Greenland, but that is projected to grow to 15% by 2020. Similarly, it has enabled new crops like apples, strawberries,^[28] broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and carrots^[27] to be grown and for the cultivated areas of the country to be extended^[29] although even now only about 1% of Greenland is considered arable.^[30] Expanded production is subsidized by the government through purchase guarantees by the state-owned Neqi A/S grocery store chain.

The only forest in Greenland is in the Qinngua Valley near Nanortalik. It is protected and not used for forestry.

Animal husbandry[edit source]

Animal husbandry consists mainly of sheep farming, with free-grazing flocks. Modern sheep farming methods were introduced in the early 20th century, with the first farm built in 1906.^[31] The farms provide meat for local consumption and wool mainly for export. Some 20,000 lambs are slaughtered annually in Narsaq by the state-owned Neqi A/S.^[12] The lack of private land ownership rights on Greenland^{[citation needed]} forces farmers to jointly agree to terms of land usage. In the south, there is also a small cattle farm.^[32][33]

Reindeer herding has been introduced to Greenland in waves since 1952. Supervision by Scandinavian Sami ended in 1978 and subsequent results were dismal. Repeated attempts in mid-west Greenland in the 1980s and the 1990s failed due to the immobility of the herds, which destroyed their forage.^[34] In 1998, the remaining herd was sold to the Nuuk municipality and removed through hunting. At that point, only one Greenlander was still a deerherd; the rest – about 20 people – were still hired Norwegian Sami. Although the conclusion was drawn that reindeer herding was incompatible with the local culture, the southern herds continue to prosper. In 2008, there was still a strong herd at the Isortoq Reindeer Station^[35] maintained by the Icelander Stefán Magnússon and Norwegian Ole Kristiansen.

Edited January 15, 2019 by ronwagn

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Nick, I gave you the answer to your questions. You can ignore the correct answers and go with your own preconceptions and totally twisting what I clearly stated. 

Below is your first comment on this thread. The Emian was >100,000 years ago. Greenland was named Greenland a thousand years ago. Greenland was pretty much then what it was like today

Does anyone ever wonder why Greenland was named Green Land? It is because it was much more green at that time. Climate has always changed and some just refuse to admit it. So called scientists are the best example. 

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Nick, I gave you the answer to your questions. You can ignore the correct answers and go with your own preconceptions and totally twisting what I clearly stated. 

You appear to be promoting the climate change deniers hokum that Greenland was Green all over  when it was named (1000AD ish)  - not covered in 3KM of ice as is factually known from ice core samples. If thats not the case can you clarify as I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Again, you are ignoring my answer. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

You appear to be promoting the climate change deniers hokum that Greenland was Green all over  when it was named (1000AD ish)  - not covered in 3KM of ice as is factually known from ice core samples. If thats not the case can you clarify as I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. 

You are again putting your desired words in my mouth which you should know are false. I told you about the green land around the periphery of Greenland. You made up the rest of it.

The best solution for decreasing CO2 emissions and real pollution is switching to natural gas from coal and diesel IMO.  

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

You are again putting your desired words in my mouth which you should know are false. I told you about the green land around the periphery of Greenland. You made up the rest of it.

The best solution for decreasing CO2 emissions and real pollution is switching to natural gas from coal and diesel IMO.  

Fine - thank you for clarifying that you were not promoting the Greenland was Green BS. 

But you did say it was much greener back then which indicates a much wider expanse of farmable land / more favourable climate conditions. 

Ok cooling climate was a factor in Norse settlement demise but other significant factors included bubonic plague wiping out large proportions of the population. The Thule cultures that followed did fine because they applied survival strategies that worked in that climate. 

Edited January 15, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Again, you are ignoring my answer. 

I don't really see that as an answer. Yes there was a marginal rise in temperature in the early middle ages. Interesting that steep spike upwards that starts around 1850😉

[Janet Alderton + 124]

On 1/14/2019 at 11:22 AM, Rodent said:

"geology" and "joke" are incompatible terms. 😂

Some scientists have a good sense of humor. 

"Greenland is rising to the challenge of dealing with climate change. That's a geology joke."

I am thankful for a bit of humor.

[Janet Alderton + 124]

"Greenland is rising to the challenge of dealing with climate change. That's a geology joke."

The islands where I live are still rising after the last glacial melting around 10,000 years ago. This rising is called isostatic rebound.

We are also rising to the challenge of dealing with Climate Change.  😉

Edited January 16, 2019 by Janet Alderton
spelling

[Chriss Street + 2]

 

The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) also performs daily simulations of how much ice or water the Ice Sheet loses or accumulates. Based on these simulations, an overall assessment of how the surface mass balance develops across the entire Ice Sheet is obtained (Fig. 4).

At the end of the 2018 season (31 August 2018), the net surface mass balance was 517 Gt, which means that 517 Gt more snow fell than the quantity of snow and ice that melted and ran out into the sea. This number only contains the balance at the surface, and thus not the total balance, which also includes melting of glaciers and calving of icebergs. The surface mass balance at the end of August 2018 is almost 150 Gt above the average for 1981-2010 of 368 Gt, and it makes the melting season of this year the sixth highest SMB result, just slightly less than the result for last year season, 2016-2017, when the SMB was 544 Gt. For comparison, the lowes measured SMB was 38 Gt in 2012. This clearly demonstrates how great a variation can occur in SMB from one year to the next.

Although the total SMB for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons are similar, development during the two seasons has been very different. Last year, the season began by gaining a lot of mass during the winter, whilst the development in SMB from the summer onwards reflected the long-term average. During the 2017-2018 season, SMB remained in line with the average from 1981-2010 until the summer, after which the development in SMB was higher than average.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

 

We are also rising to the challenge of dealing with Climate Change.  😉

And here I was thinking you were rising to the challenge of dealing with the Chiefs of the first Nations, and with the NDP, and with Justin, and with dull chains on Alaskan Sawmills,  and with smuggling across the San Juan Islands, and with old rail on the Courtenay Railroad....

Ah, silly me, for being so literal!   Oh, well.