I know they are poles apart but; there is a probable reason why Greenland is called Greenland which would be that it, at some point not so long ago, had a fair bit of green about the place. And that should not be too much of a surprise because climate is a changeable system. You know: the Romans grew grape vines against Hadrian's Wall and the Elizabethans held winter fairs on the River Thames which froze thick and solid every winter for example. And over the last two hundred years, due to natural cyclic climate variations, there was a series of measured advance and fall back in the ice cover - the like of which was not being recorded for Antarctica. My goodness me, surprise surprise! A scientist is doing non commercial work (that is work not being paid for by investors looking to grow their knowledge, but instead being paid, we can reasonably guess, directly or indirectly, by tax-payer money - money taken at the point of a gun) and that scientist now wants to secure the funding for the next raft of work too, we can guess. Well how successful will a scientist be if he does not include the 'human activity started impacting the climate' spin to the job. Would his tax gathering political masters give him his little bit of spoils from their table if his work was not a net benefit to their aim: to make the world pay 'carbon taxes'. Stuff the scientific process, just get a few like minded tax-spoil hunters to 'peer review' the inevitable conclusion and the job's a good one - easy money.
Good news for the inhabitants of Pacific corall little atolls disapearing due to the rise of the sea ! Incindently, Antartic Peninsula seems to be the only 2 or 3% of total Antartica warming.
The quote has the site at "the far south of the Antarctic Peninsula". This peninsula has nowhere to go but north, so the far south of it will be on the main continent, no?
But NASA and the Australian scientists have told us for thirty years that Antarctica is growing by thousands of square kilometres a years. And every record I have seen shows that Antarctica is getting colder.
How come I never read articles about what a good thing global warming may be? More land to cultivate at higher and lower latitudes, rain returning to desert areas and ports moving farther inland. Most commercial buildings aren't designed to last more than 40 years anyway so tearing them down and moving to a new location is standard procedure. The older dock areas of many of our port cities are slums already. People will have to move but they already do that anyway. Everything will adapt with time. The biggest problem will be governments seizing power, property and money far in excess of what is needed.
So far only the morons have commented...time to remedy the situation. The problem with today's global warming and climate change is the SPEED with which it is happening. Yes, the Earth has been warmer and colder, and climate does change due to natural cycles, but it does not happen with the rapidity of human caused climate change. Plants and animals do not evolve quickly enough to respond to this rate of change. The result is a massive loss of species which will cause many ecological food chains to collapse in different regions. The economic cost to humans is also going to be very high as much of our infrastructure is designed to last beyond '40 years' and populations are higher along ocean shores. I don't have time to educate you more on this matter at this time. Please pull your heads out of the Fox News-hole and start reading more science articles.
Dan Pangburn
The observation that CO2 is a ghg (greenhouse gas) is a shallow penetration of the science. Delve deeper into the science and discover that CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. Here is why. 1) Essentially all absorbed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy is thermalized (i.e. shared with surrounding molecules). 2) Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it. 3) Emission from a gas is quantized and depends on the energy of individual molecules. 4) This energy is determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. 5) The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution favors lower energy (longer wavelength) photons. 6) Water vapor exhibits many (170+) of these longer wavelength bands. 7) The Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution in atmospheric gas molecules effectively shifts the OLR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules to the lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor. The ‘notches’ in top-of-atmosphere measurements over temperate zones demonstrate the validity of this assessment. 8) As altitude increases (to about 10 km) the temperature declines, magnifying the effect. The only thing countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring is the increasing trend in water vapor. (‘Otherwise’ results from declining net effect of ocean cycles since 2005 and declining solar activity which has been declining since 2014 and dropped below 'breakeven' in early 2016). Average global atmospheric water vapor has been measured and reported by NASA/RSS since 1988 and shows an uptrend of 1.5% per decade. WV has increased about 8% since the more rapid increase began in about 1960. This is more than 2.5 times the expected rate from temperature increase alone (i.e. feedback). Further discussion of this with graphs and links to source data are at which also identifies the factors which do cause climate change (98% match 1895-2016). The warmer temperature is welcome but the added WV increases the risk of flooding. IMO all rainwater retaining systems (dams, dykes, etc.) should be upgraded from 100 yr floods to 10,000 yr floods.
Robert in Vancouver
It used to be warm enough to grow grapes in Greenland, then we had an ice age, and now we have been slowly warming our way back to a normal temperature. Changes in the climate are simply beyond our control, any logical person can see that. But gov't realized they can tax us for uncontrollable changes to the climate, so we will pay carbon taxes forever because the climate will always keep changing. And gov't goes thru money like shitte thru a goose.
Eric the Red named gave Greenland it's name to attract settlers, he also gave Iceland it's name to discourage settlers. The greening of the Antarctica is due to increased CO2 not "climate change."
Stephen N Russell
Boost Eco tourism then?? Set up Perm Hotel camps for guests & for science teams alone. More can be done. Send in more ships, or survey by airship.