Um, Perseus, don't you feel just a little uncomfortable having all these frootloops travelling with you?

All-: "Perhaps it would be better to prompt a question, and the obvious one would be ; "Why do they call it Greenland if it has always been covered with Ice" ?
I already know, but some might be a little confused. "

Do you really now?

Considering how much uncertainty there is about the origin of Greenland's name, you would be the first.

It is believed that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland and set sail with his family to a land that was believed to lie to the northwest if Iceland. When he landed on the shores, he named the place "Grænland".

But it is uncertain if he named it Greenland because he wanted to attract more people there or because the southern part of Greenland is very lush and green in the summertime, especially compared to Iceland (and would have been even more so during the Medieval warm period).

What's also uncertain is whether or not he did in fact name it "Greenland" or if this was just a misinterpretation of "Gruntland" (Groundland). Some of the earlier maps of Greenland show it named "Gruntland".

So which is it All-? Which of these theories is correct? I think Historians would be grateful if you could clear this up for them.

Perseus, you kindly wrote “Which(sic) makes you either a deluded green dropkick or a sleazy propagandist who thinks he has a right to mislead public debate.”.

I presume that this comes from the same logical wellspring from which you drew your great model. And I dont think that reasonable men and women would think much of your model, which takes the melt rate from one year and assumes that it will be the same for the next 19,000 years, free of influences like orbital precession and variances in solar irradiance.

You might also note that the reduced IPCC sea level rise estimates more reflects a realisation of how poorly ice sheet dynamics are presently understood than it does an acknowledgement of exaggeration. The IPCC is simply being conservative and responsible.

All- asks “"Why do they call it Greenland if it has always been covered with Ice" ?”

Perhaps if this were the case All-, there might be evidence of a substantial sea level fluctuation around this time. Instead, the evidence suggests that sea levels were very stable. In truth, the name might simply have been a marketing ploy to attract settlers.

Suggestions of melting ice sheets contributing to rising sea levels prompt the most vehement responses from denialists. Given the trillions of dollars at risk, such behaviour makes perfect sense. Sea level rise is at present the big unknown.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0217-22.htm

John, I rather think some archeological artifacts and reminance of villages would be a start;
Geophysical, who knows.
I don’t know about the exile part, but there were Scandinavian and farmers living there for some time when they stumbled across a green mass of land, as well as the native Eskimos.

From memory I read it to be and it was intended as an out post closer to England for their Looting /Rape pillage raids, but mummy nature had other Ideas.

I can only refer you back to Greek Philosophy that described the land of Green lush fields, and of course with the onset of an Ice age, the winter months became colder and longer until it was un inhabitable for Europeans and their farming, so as I read they jumped on board their boats and got the hell out of there (Who were left alive anyway.)

And they seminally perished at sea.

Perhaps if Alexander the Great Idiot did not torch all the libraries, we would have a great deal and depth of what happened so many years ago.

I think it mighty unusual that some can spit out such tabulated data of 40 years before and project 40 years to the future of Greenland then say not much is known about the history;

Quite odd and very unusual don’t you think.

Fester; Here is a publication, be it quite a radical theory; none the less it is consequential and important to explain all avenues of science when it is to address important issues such as this; and not apply a Fundamentalist religiosity connotations:

http://www.thule.org/crustaluplift/index.html

This charter fits in with Archeological – Civilizations before- and has been known for many thousands of years

I had posted the link before, but I fear it has hovered above many heads; be it belligerence or inability to comprehend;
The religious antitheses of global warming is akin to severing both legs to alleviate an in grown toe nail problem;
and perhaps emanates more from the Idiot realm of ; Proletariat;; “The Sciences and Metaphysics are our Comrade”.
Not surprisingly, Agnosticism had the exact same principles all those years ago;
Their science/Maths was proven crap – ridicules and stupid nonsense- and made up; for what purpose can be explained as our new agers do it.
Almost like some psychosis.

That is not funny at all, that is what we have today;Psychotic Idiots in influential positions. And cashing in on peoples fears.
Al Gore is a Very Rich Leftis manipulative polititan not a scientist;; that tells you more about the psychology used and deployed.

You don't need a model to predict what's gonna happen, peoples. You just need to look at what's happening now. What say the sceptics to the increasing number of reports worldwide about unexpected changes to our environment?