Arguing about Greenland

Hola, my friends.

In my work I see certain effects of climate change on the biodiversity.  But those who work with glaciers, ice, and snow see a very different ones.  An American colleague sent me a link to a story in the New York Times I find amusing…

Britain’s Comprehensive Atlas of the World came out with a new edition, in which Greenland looks as though it has lost about 15 percent of its ice since 1999, with large portions of the coast ice-free.

The map that made the scientists go -- how do you say? Ballistic.

Climate scientists and glaciologists went crazy about it, saying the map is “a fiasco” — that the actual percentage is more like one-tenth of 1 percent, and that nobody from the atlas consulted with the actual experts on this subject. The publishers fired back that they’re sticking by the data, but then investigation revealed “mistakes were made” in the creation of the map.  So they’re making a new map of Greenland that will “more effectively” represent the reality.

I never thought I would hear scientists are saying climate change isn’t as bad as it looks…  or that a map would look worse than reality!

Reminds me of the movie called The Dead Zone, in which the marvelous actor Christopher Walken yells, “The ice is gonna break!” But in reverse.  “The ice is still very solid and very much there!”  Hehe.