1 of 1
Times Atlas forges map of Greenland to cash in on global warming
Posted: 03 October 2011 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2009-10-01

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399

... the glossy publicity sheets begin with the contention that “for the first time, the new edition of the (atlas) has had to erase 15% of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover - turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland ‘green’ and ice-free.

“Recent satellite images of Greenland make it clear that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands,”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2011 04:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

Eh. I wouldn’t read too much into that. Legitimate mapmakers almost never have an ‘agenda’, as their livelyhood relies on *accuracy*. You can generally tell very quickly if a mapmaker’s got an axe to grind. I am reminded of an ‘equal area’ projection map I’ve seen, as well as Iranian and North Korean maps that were deliberately exaggerated as propaganda

If areas are green as opposed to white, it’s because it falls within criteria for ‘land’. They probably said ‘Ok, how thick does the ice need to be for it to be shown on the map as white, and how thick for it to be green’? It’s likely they’re using either different criteria than before or possibly even newer information, or a combination therof. Remember that we can now analyze and map things like frozen wastelands with precision undreamt-of even a few decades ago. Icepack previously thought to be 100 feet thick turns out to be 25 feet thick? Still an icepack, but thin enough to count as ‘land’ by some measurements. No global warming or deception involved.

I’m willing to bet that areas of Canada and Siberian tundra are similarly more ‘green’ than previous editions, just based on where they draw the line (literally) on ice cover.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2011 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2009-10-01

I’m not so sure.

Publicity for the latest edition of the atlas, launched last week, said warming had turned 15% of Greenland’s former ice-covered land “green and ice-free”.

If they were just painting green for ice under a certain thinkness, I doubt they would say “ice-free”.

I’m usually sceptic about map conspiracy theories (there is one in my country which claims that in the US the amazon forest is labeled as international territory). But this one is being reported by a major news company. And there is also the guy from the research group saying that they were wrong.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 1