Then, it turns out that Greenland didn't lose as much ice as was suggested here recently. It isn't clear to me the cause of this gaffe.
I tried to trace back to its source another item, re the Canadian equivalent of the EPA, from the American Geophysical Union, but got lost several times and gave up. Supposedly it said:
Nathan Gillett and his co-workers at Environment Canada in Victoria, British Columbia, analysed how well the latest Canadian Earth System Model tracked temperature changes attributable to volcanoes, man-made aerosols and rising greenhouse-gas emissions. They adjusted the model using temperature records from 1851 to 2010 — 60 years of data more than most previous analyses. The model predicted a short-term increase of 1.3–1.8 °C for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which is low in the range of estimates from previous forecasts.Clear? Not to me.
But, as I have said before, what I have not seen is a discussion of how we can exploit and accommodate global warming, if that be the future. Put another way, we need a bigger discussion. Put a third way, this is not necessarily the best of all possible worlds.
Regards — Cliff