Wait a minute. Is this guy saying that it was warmer than today in Greenland less than a million years ago? How can that be? Why, everyone knows that CO2 concentrations were well below 400 ppm during the last million years or so and that the warming of the last 30 years is unprecedented. I keep forgetting that only the last 30 years count. Darn those geologists and their "The past is the key to the present" adage.

"It could mean that our current warming is the result of both natural processes and human influences, and we may be heading for even bigger temperature increases than we previously thought."

Good quote from Dr. Martin Sharp.

What some people may not realize is that the southern part of Greenland melted about 120,000 years ago due to slight variation in natural forces.

Today we have essentially the same natural forces, but with strong man made forcings from Carbon dioxide and Methane emissions. So, over time, it is entirely possible that southern Greenland will melt again and result in several meters of sea level rise. This isn't to say it's going to happen in the next 50 years, but is possible within the next 200.

In another version of the story, from AFP, the writer of the article notes the following:

They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

"These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken," said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a co-author of the paper.

"What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought."

I'm NOT pointing this out to attack AGW. What I find interesting is that initial indications are that it has been warmer during an interglacial period than it is now. During that warmer interglacial period, the Greenland ice sheet did not completely melt. To me, that's significant. This simply adds to the data that needs to be continually studied.

Wow! Forests in Greenland!

Must have been a lot of SUV's pumping out CO2 500,000 years ago.

Brett-

Is this a typo?

"today, the average summer temperature is -8 celsius (47 F)"

Reply:

Yes, it is. Will be fixed. Thanks, Brett.

Andrew-

"today, the average summer temperature is -8 celsius (18 F)" Temperatures in Greenland have been well below zero (Fahrenheit) this summer.

It would have to warm up a large amount to cause any significant melting. Recent studies also show that the interior of Greenland is gaining snow depth.

What exactly is it you are concerned about?

Imagine that....a green Greenland and no human contributed C02 to cause it...shocking, isn't it?

The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years. In brief, the melting is occuring primarily along the edges where summer temperatures are the greatest and not the cooler and higher elevation of the sheet. Section 4.6.2.2.1 of the IPCC WG1 AR4 Report provides an overview of the melting:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch04.pdf

Interior portions of the ice sheet are over 3000m high, while exterior portions are just above sea level. Temperature in the interior seldom reach the melting point of ice while the edges (at lower elevations) melt all summer long. So, ideally, there�s a balance between the accumulation in the interior and the melting and iceberg calving along the edges.

Net effect is melting of the ice sheet and a contribution to the rise in sea level. The area of the sheet that experiences some melting has increased about 16% between 1979 (when measurements started) to 2002 (most recent data). The area of melting in 2002 broke all previous records. In 2006, estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest that it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres (57.3 cubic miles) per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

What interesting, is that despite the record melting, the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s (probably due to changes in local weather patterns). So, any guesses as to what will happen when Greenland temperatures return to previous levels?

Andrew,

Nice reports and opinions from unbiased sources.

Unfortunately the data doesn't back them up. The Greenland Sea has just about normal ice pack and did last summer as well.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

The amazing thing about the Internet is that you can actually check the facts for yourself.

"Dr. Sharp theorizes from the research that natural processes can and do produce climate change, perhaps big enough to produce effects similar to those that are widely predicted as a result of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW/ human induced global warming), though, he cannot prove it."

Uhhhh....yes. Dr. Sharp "theorizes?" What is there to theorize about? The history of the earth is all about natural processes and climate change. The tone of this quote seems to suggest...no...does suggest...that natural climate changes are almost as certain as those "widely predicted" as a consequence of anthropogenic global warming. This is the exact reverse of the facts. One is proven, the other is a "prediction." Poor journalism, at best. Probably pedantry. Not to worry. The Live Earth concert will solve it all, once we pay for all their activism with our quality of life.

Most of things that the live earth concert promoted are common sense from an economic and clean air standpoint. Some of them might reduce "fat-ass americans." On balance, I would call their efforts aiming to upgrade the quality of life.

I found an article covering the above article on LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070705_green_greenland.html

What's interesting is that the article neglects to ask the obvious questions about why Greenland was green when it's shouldn't have been and when human causation was non-existent. (LiveScience does talk about AGW but usually not in a critical manner-so in some ways this is not surprising.You can bet that if the DNA evidence supported AGW (even remotely) it would be pointed out in the article)

That, to me, is how science is being betrayed by those supporting AGW. I mean, what is there to be afraid of? Science will prove you right, right?

Deep info!