In many senses, Greenland already is a country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
"The Danish government retains control of foreign affairs...national defence...monetary policy" and a (declining) annual subsidy, but otherwise Greenland runs its own affairs. It has long had its own legislature, flag, and (as of nearly a century ago, its own national anthem http://www.nationalanthems.info/gl.htm). 30 years ago already, it was able to vote to leave the European Union, even as Denmark stayed in.
Nonetheless, even though Greenland was "created" as a "country" well before AGW, it does look like becoming the first country to have rapid and sustained economic growth due to global warming.
And it will become MORE of a country too, in the tangible sense of there being more and more actual green land.
Edit to Antarcticice: How "could you say 2013 was a recovery"? An oldie but goodie:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_A...
There was farming in Greenland during the medieval warming period. The world managed not to drown. No there is not enough ice on greenland to raise the oceans by 20 feet. Further, even if there were, the length of time it would take to melt all of that ice is redonkulous. That is assuming that the ice continues to melt, that the warming crap predictions are true and that the earth does not just enter a new equilibrium. All horrid assumptions.
The warmers claim I am anti-science, but look at this scare-mongering garbage they have gotten people to believe. It is absurdity upon absurdity. These alarmists are trying to convince you that the solutions that are bankrupting Germany are right for us. They are trying to give the government the ability to tax the very air we breath. All of this is being done by scaring the population into believing unscientific apocalyptic garbage. In the meantime, their worthless models are so bad that they are searching for the "missing heat" as if it is some nymph from folklore hiding from them.
Hmm your assuming that the ice is going to continue to melt, i don't, last year saw a recovery in Arctic ice both in extent and volume, okay it is still below average, but it caught out a lot of expeditions trying pass through the North West Passage.
Somehow I don't see Denmark giving up Greenland
Plus in places the ice sheet is 3000meters thick it's going to take a long time to melt that.
The wonders of the denier 'statement' i.e. kano, note how he switchs without pause between talking about the Arctic (sea ice) and glacial ice sheets. We also have the usual playing with statistics (that deniers love to do) could you say 2013 was a recovery, I guess you could as long as you leave out that 2012 was record loss.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
Gosh do you think this is why kano offered no links to his 'claims' hard to see any recovery in this.
But then we have Greenland that also is declining and this is glacial ice (not sea ice)
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#l...
Then we have this
"last year saw a recovery in Arctic ice both in extent and volume, okay it is still below average, but it caught out a lot of expeditions trying pass through the North West Passage. "
Hmm doesn't seem to have bothered these guys to much (Sep 2013)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/danish-ow...
I doubt it
Access to the Arctic from the receding ice means that Greenland has become a new frontier for resource development and the secession from Denmark.
As the ice melts in Greenland it may not be so good for the Bahamas or a big part of Bangladesh or the Maldives, Marshall Islands, Rio or Miami. after all there is enough ice on Greenland to raise ocean levels 20 ft. but someone seems positioning themselves for profits to come. Big Oil knows the climate is changing because of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels and preparing to make money on it.
