UPDATE: Atlas: Greenland is a Different Color Now, Thanks to Warming

By Veronique Greenwood | September 23, 2011 11:10 am

greenland
On the left, in the 1999 edition; on the right, in 2011. Click to embiggenate.

[Originally published 9/16] Greenland glaciers have had a hard time of it lately, what with all the warming and disintegrating, and in their latest edition, the folks at the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World have decided to illustrate the island’s new look: as you can see above, lots and lots less white. The warming has even created a new island off the east coast: look closely just under the “Gr” in “Greenland Sea,” and you can see the words “Uunartoq Qeqertoq (Warming I.)

If we are looking at a radically reshaped world in the next hundred years or more, maybe atlases will have to be more like dictionaries from here on out, recording the dynamic nature of their subject matter.

[Update 9/19: Scientists at the UK’s Scott Polar Institute have written a letter to the Times saying that the image above is inaccurate; less ice has melted in the last 15 years than the atlas’s image shows. The atlas’s publishers, HarperCollins, respond that they created the image using data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, and that it represents not only changes due to warming but also “much more accurate data and in-depth research” than had previously been available.  Regardless of the causes, however, the image doesn’t resemble current satellite images, the Scott Polar group says. Check out a comparison of the images here. What do you think?]

[Update 9/20: HarperCollins now says that the number it quoted–15% of Greenland’s ice had melted–is inaccurate, but says that the map is still correct. The polar scientists, however, are saying that portions of Greenland shown as ice-free in the map show up as ice-covered in satellite pictures. Read more here.]

[Update 9/21: Nature News has an explanation of where a miscommunication may have come from:

Researchers speculated on the Cryolist that the error came from a misinterpretation of a 1999 map of the Greenland Ice Sheet; cartographers might have defined the edge of the glacier using a contour line that in fact showed where the thickness of the ice fell below 500 metres. That would leave out significant portions of remaining ice.]

[Update 9/23: ScienceNOW has the latest: it sounds like the source of the error may have been tracked down by researchers, and HarperCollins will add inserts to the already-printed atlas with a new map and explanation. “NSIDC and other researchers managed to track down which of their data sets and maps the cartographers used: it showed the thickness of the central core of the largest, central glacier, not the peripheral glaciers or extent of the ice cover,” writes Sara Reardon at ScienceNOW. HarperCollins then released this statement:

On reflection and in discussion with the scientific community, the current map does not make the explanation of this topic as clear as it should be. We are now urgently reviewing the depiction of ice in the Atlas against all the current research and data available, and will work with the scientific community to produce a map of Greenland which reflects all the latest data.]

Image courtesy of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, 13th edition, published by Times Books UK, and distributed in the U.S. by Trafalgar Square Publishing

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment
  • Norman Richard

    Embiggenate!!!!! What the he’ll is embiggenate supposed to mean? Why not use a real word like enlarge rather than this home made techno babble.

  • Average Joe

    That “new island” is also shown in a 1957 Rand McNally & Co book called “Arctic Riviera: North-east Greenland”.

  • Alciator

    Eastern coast (Angmassaliq, Scoresby Sund bottom) hasn’t melt that much. Yet.

  • http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk Allen Pope

    As a PhD student in glaciology, I feel like I should point out that there has been some very large mistake here. Yes, a lot of ice is melting. Yes, there are huge changes going on in Greenland. For example, the melt extent of the ice sheet has dramatically increased in recent years. But the ice is not retreating anywhere near as much as the new Times Atlas is showing. The Times Atlas has a long history of very high quality cartography, but something has gone wrong here. For more scientific (but approachable) info on the Greenland Ice Sheet, I’d suggest reading here: http://www.amap.no/swipa/GRIS_Layman_English_Secure.pdf

  • John Lerch

    Although Global CO2 induced climate change is a fact (being predicted over a 100 yrs ago before any data needed explaining and hence requiring a lower level of proof), I have to wonder how much of the new coloration should have been there before, but cartographers were just too lazy to get the exact limits of the ice sheet for a mostly unoccupied place. My parents went to Greenland in 1978 and they didn’t set foot on ice; and I don’t recall any photos of ice sheets.

  • TS Campbell

    Just like it was 1000 years ago, when the Vikings colonized the island during the Medieval Warm Period. Good news for Greenlandians!

  • http://environmentalmentalism.blogspot.com/ mememine69

    So, how does that prove the scientists are right? Melting is proof my SUV caused it now? Are you all bible thumping freaks now?
    THERE ARE TROPICAL FOSSILS UNDER YOUR “MELTING ICE”.
    Our Pledge:
    We must trust the carbon trading markets and corporations and politicians to manage the temperature of the planet.
    We must call it consensus even though all of the thousands of consensus scientists all have their own special, personal and unique views of CO2 climate crisis.
    We must trust the good and trustworthy politicians who promise to lower the seas and make the weather colder by taxing the air.
    We must continue to believe in climate change crisis despite Obama not even mentioning the crisis in his state of the union address.
    We must believe in climate change even though the number of consensus scientists vastly outnumbers the marching climate change protesters.
    We must believe in climate change h e l l and spread our love for the planet as we condemn billions to a CO2 death just to make sure the kids turn the lights out more often and vote progressive when they reach voting age.
    We must believe even though the thousands of consensus scientists refuse to march in the streets themselves. Don’t they have families to save too?

  • http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk Allen Pope

    Further to my earlier comment, full response from glaciologists at the Scott Polar Research Institute here: http://people.uleth.ca/~sarah.boon/DATA/Times-letter.pdf

    Glaciers are melting, and Greenland is changing. But let’s get the correct order of magnitude!

  • Chris

    Better visit the island quick before the ocean rises over it.

  • http://environmentalmentalism.blogspot.com/ mememine69

    If you really love the planet and respect science, ask yourself these questions before bowing to blind faith:
    -how does “warming” prove Humanity did?
    -why are there tropical fossils under the “melting” ice and on every continent?
    -what has to happen now (besides “they say…”, to convince you remaining climate blamers that the voting majority called “former believers and deniers” are 100% correct?
    -all the scientists study “effects” not causes so why would they say it’s not happening?
    -is exaggerating a worst case scenario a crime?
    -wouldn’t real planet lovers do everything they could to make sure the greatest emergency ever (catastrophic CO2 crisis), in the history of the planet is actually true?
    -why should we trust science and scientists when it was they who denied that their toxic chemicals and pesticides were not safe?
    -can you explain why if the majority of scientists DO agree, why are they not acting like it’s a real climate crisis from Human CO2? Don’t they have children too? Why are they not marching in the streets and acting like the end is near (catastrophic climate crisis).
    -is a comet hit as bad as unstoppable warming?
    -if you were told to study the consequences of climate change, why would you deny climate change?
    -look for yourself, almost none of the climate change research is in causes.
    -scientists say this climate has never happened like this before. Is that good enough to look you kids in the eyes and tell them they will suffer a CO2 death from catastrophic climate change crisis if they don’t start turning the lights out more often?

  • http://discover SCast

    If global warming is part of a natural cycle of glaciation/retreat of glaciers and geologic history suggests it is, NOTHING we do will change the rate of global warming.

  • Messier Tidy Upper

    Dramatic.

    Of course, the shrinking Aral Sea and some of the mega-dams are other examples of how humanity has literally changed the map of the world.

  • Messier Tidy Upper

    @4. mememine69 :

    If you really love the planet and respect science, ask yourself these questions before bowing to blind faith:
    -how does “warming” prove Humanity did?

    .. did what? Do you mean what evidence shows Humans have caused the current rapid Global Overheating?

    Well, actually, there’s plenty of evidence for that starting with the spectroscopic fingerprint taken of the carbon dioxide showing it’s largely the product of us burning fossil fuels. Then there’s the troposphere warming faster than the stratosphere which is in line with Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) and doesn’t match the idea of solar cycles.

    Then there’s the difference between what the other possible causes would doing versus us adding 40% or so more CO2 to the air. Milankovitch orbital cycles should be leading us towards – in a few thousand years – another ice age but temperatures are rising fast. Solar cycles have been less active recently and while they matched the temperature records earlier they’ve diverged widely form what’s happening temps~wise since about the 1970’s or so. Cosmic rays haven’t been unusual lately or anything.

    So if these natural factors are NOT causing warming and should be leading us towards cooler temps – which we’re NOT seeing as 2010 was the hottest year on record according to reliable NASA data – then what *is* behind the global Overheating?

    Couldn’t it be because carbon dioxide and other greenhosue gases are at record levels? Could we really add so much extra carbon dioxide to our air, using up in centuries fossil carbon that’s been stored over hundreds of millions of years without this having any consequences? The evidence is in, and yes it is because of that.

    If you think you have a better explanation then you need to write it up and have it scientifically published today! (Or point to a reliable source that has done so at minimum.)

    -why are there tropical fossils under the “melting” ice and on every continent?

    You’ve never heard of continental drift & plate tectonics then?

    Also, yes, global climates were different in the past both colder and hotter but that doesn’t mean that we’re NOT responsible for it this time. Evidence painstakingly collected and analysed by thousands of scientists in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers shows that HIRGO is real. Are you really calling 97% of all climatologists liars?

    -what has to happen now (besides “they say…”, to convince you remaining climate blamers that the voting majority called “former believers and deniers” are 100% correct?

    Well seeing convincing actual scientific evidence from reliable peer-reviewed scientific papers would be the main thing.

    Also having a genuine, accepted alternative causation that explains why our climate is getting hotter despite having solar cycles that should be moving us towards cooler conditions and an explanation for why the most basic and well-established physics of how carbon dioxide works is supposedly wrong and the climate contrarians right.

    Plus say an observed long term trend towards stable or cooling temperatures and advancing rather than globally retreating ice sheets and glaciers.

    -all the scientists study “effects” not causes so why would they say it’s not happening?

    Eh? Citations please.

    Actually, I think you’ll find a vast number of scientists do focus more on cause than effect. Examples : medical doctors studying the cause of disease, astronomers the cause of Gamma ray Bursts and supernova and planetary systems forming as they are, zoologists studying the evolutionary causes of animal physiology and behaviour, et cetera..

    -is exaggerating a worst case scenario a crime?

    Not necessarily, no. For one thing, its a good way of generating SF or crime novels! ;-)

    Is that what you think the scientists are doing regarding HIRGO though?

    Because, if anything, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been conservative and underestimated the effects of HIRGO.

    -wouldn’t real planet lovers do everything they could to make sure the greatest emergency ever (catastrophic CO2 crisis), in the history of the planet is actually true?

    They’ve done that checking already – & yes it is actually true.

    If you have real evidence to the contrary then please produce it but please first check your information and sources and make sure that what you *think* is evidence against the HIRGO theory is actually saying what you think it is and is actually as relevant as you think it is. Because, sadly and tediously, a lot of the “arguments” put forward by the climate Contrarians are very old errors, cherry-picked info, misunderstandings and misquotings and otherwise easily debunkable.

    -why should we trust science and scientists when it was they who denied that their toxic chemicals and pesticides were not safe?

    Because science works. You owe science your microwave oven, your mobile phone, your computer and so much else.

    Is science perfect and are scientists all noble saints? Of course not. But the scientific method works to correct itself and constantly improve our understanding of reality. It is the best method humans have yet devised through of our reasoning minds to approach the truth of the cosmos.

    -can you explain why if the majority of scientists DO agree, why are they not acting like it’s a real climate crisis from Human CO2? Don’t they have children too? Why are they not marching in the streets and acting like the end is near (catastrophic climate crisis).

    Some of them are doing so – leading NASA climatologist Jim Hansen for instance has been arrested at protests against new coal mines.

    Scientists are people and people respond in many different ways but many scientists do speak out on this issue and have been for decades including some prominent names such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and, in Australia, Tim Flannery.

    Unfortunately, politicians don’t listen to scientists enough and in many cases, scientists who do speak out get derided and devalued for doing so – getting accused of being too “activist” and not “objective” enough as though speaking publicly makes your scientific analysis less valid. (Hint : It doesn’t.) So in some ways they’re dammed if they do, dammned if they don’t.

    -is a comet hit as bad as unstoppable warming?

    Irrelevant non-sequiteur.

    However, the answer is actually that truly unstoppable warming will be worse – our earth will eventually be destroyed in fire when our Sun turns into a Red giant in a few billion years time from now. Our planet has survived comet and meteorite impacts in the past -and the consequences of these vary depending on the size of the impacting body.

    If the warming were “unstoppable” then it would literally never end and be far worse – taking a literal view of your words, you could be meaning something like the Big Rip theory of the end of the universe caused by Dark Energy but that’s another story again.

    Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating isn’t “unstoppable” although it will take a very long time and major effort to stop.

    -if you were told to study the consequences of climate change, why would you deny climate change?

    In theory you’d deny it if theer was good evidence leading you to think it wasn’t real – and you’d most likely win a Nobel prize and overwhelming global adulation plus major wealth if you could prove HIRGO wasn’t real.

    Another possible reason you’d deny HIRGO’s reality is if you are being commissioned to do so and rewarded for doing so, say by Big Oil companies and Right Wing lobby groups.

    -look for yourself, almost none of the climate change research is in causes.

    Take your own advice there please, mememine69!

    Look for yourself. Look at the evidence presented by the scientists and decide based on that.

    Consider this too : If not much research is being done on the cause of HIRGO maybe its because that question was scientifically conclusively settled a long time ago?

    -scientists say this climate has never happened like this before.Is that good enough to look you kids in the eyes and tell them they will suffer a CO2 death from catastrophic climate change crisis if they don’t start turning the lights out more often?

    That’s called a “strawman” argument because it has the same structural integrity and metaphorical tensile strength as rotten strands of hay.

    No one is telling kids what you seem to think they’re telling them.

    Even if they were, its actually not relevant to the reality or otherwise
    of HIRGO.

    What matters is the scientific evidence and that has shown that Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating is happening.

    What we choose to do about it – or refuse to do about it – is up to us.

    But the longer we take to act on this very real issue – which is as well established as the theory of gravity and evolution – the harder and more costly it will be to turn things around and the worse the amount of human suffering will be.

  • Messier Tidy Upper

    Memo to all the Climate Contrarians out there reading this.

    Before you respond please watch the following youtube series :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo (The first in a great series.Please watch them all.)

    &

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#sense

    & read the list of debunked arguments and real facts here :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Before you make yourselves look silly and waste people’s time by posting stale old climate contararian canards that have been repeatedly conclusively debunked many times over for years.

  • Messier Tidy Upper

    @4. mememine69 :“how does “warming” prove Humanity did?”

    Watch :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=S9ob9WdbXx0

    which shows in a single clear graph in a short youtube clip by Sir David Attenborough why we know Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating is, indeed, Human induced.

  • Ole Heinrich
  • Me3PO

    Messier Tidy Upper, that was a whole lot to say in response to a bunch of questions and statements. Of course, all the time you put into that post will not do anything to change mememine69 views nor will it change the thoughts of other thinkers like mememine69. That said, I appreciate the thought you put into it.

    Unfortunately, it seems almost pointless stating the reality of the situation or describing real evidence for it because people who don’t believe in HIRGO will likely never believe it. At least not until their house has been consumed by the ocean and they are forced to move inland and fight over decreasing land space and resources. Even then, I doubt they’d admit it was HIRGO. Instead, it would be a natural cycle (although sped up for some unknown reason). Some might even say it was God punishing us. Who knows.

    Then I’m reminded that there are people who just need a bit more information to decide if they should make changes in their lives, push for change, or do nothing, so I will continue to teach about HIRGO and let them decide which view they feel has more evidence. I can hope they’ll take it seriously and make changes in their own lives and perhaps be the big pushers for change. However, I’ll keep avoiding this discussion with people who have views like mememine69 because I get too frustrated listening to the same unsupported beliefs over and over again and I need to keep my sanity for better discussions.

    Hope you keep yours in whatever way you choose to discuss the matter.

  • William Yu

    It’s interesting how nothing in this article talks about man-made global warming — only that maps are being updated to show the effects of ‘something’ on Greenland. And yet immediately there are vociferous responses as if (1) they didn’t read the article and (2) their sole job is to troll the internet.

    Personally I don’t care that much either way. The people recruited to be the grassroots trolling effort will most likely be the ones to suffer more while benefiting little from the status quo so schadenfreude will keep me cool and content as our world gets warmer.

  • MensaJeff

    Thanks, Messier Tidy Upper, I enjoyed that, thanks for your time and patience. Plus I picked up some more information to fill out my understanding. Good stuff.

    Nearing sea level,
    Jeff
    Daytona Beach FL

  • http://deleted VIP

    It is only a thousand years ago that the Vikings were farming and raising cattle in Greenland. Remnants of their farming facilities are still there, and there were not below the ocean level. Neither was Florida. There also were no SUVs or other major pollutants to create a “greenhouse” effect. There also were no non-scientific Al Gores to tell them that this was the result of a disaster. Good thing that we now have a pseudo science that knows everything. The global warming that wasn’t coming now sank into the ocean (??). The rising ocean level that didn’t happen hasn’t been explained yet, just wait for another amazing logic-defying conclusion.

  • m

    #2 – good on you. I like your post. But I remind you that glaciers have been melting now for the past 10,000 years.

    #3 – uhm…no. not a fact. rather than get into a whole slew of “link wars”, I will just say E=MC2. Because mass is constant (hmm…don’t seem to have noticed any moon sized asteroids hitting us lately. have you?)

    I love it when eco nazis try to argue against that. (like #12’s rantings) That somehow the Earth is retaining more energy without a shift in mass.

    Actually…I both love it and hate it. How can we, as advanced as we have become, still find ourselves succuming to what is tantamount “the world is flat” logic?

    – I can see the horizon and it is flat. So the world must be flat.

    – I saw a glacier melt, so the planet must be warming!

    It really is sad.

    18 – the seas did not rise due to Archimedes principal. enviro nazis don’t want you to know that a greek in sandals figured that part out 2 to 3 thousand years ago. Good post.

  • RobotEatingNinja

    @ #21 (m)

    Your post is made up of several straw-men, in that you’re representing a position of the other side that isn’t true, but that is easy to knock down, so it makes it seem like you are making a good point. You also have a pretty poor concept shift in your 3rd paragraph (that is shifting from heat/energy to mass).

    When you jump up and down and get hot, is there more mass? When you turn on a light and it causes a surface to heat up, have you created more mass? When you are standing in front of a fire and it gives off heat, have you created more mass? What about sun rays? Here’s a pretty easy guide from CalTech on heat and energy: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html Hint: You’re not creating more mass, instead you are heating up the mass already in existence.

    But even here you made a a straw-man because the argument isn’t that there is global warming, instead it’s that the global climate is changing (hence it being called climate change).

    What is more, nobody is looking solely at glaciers and saying the climate is changing. There’s a range of other things that science is studying / has studied.

    Then of course there’s your ad hom attack… Always the indicator of someone lacking evidence for their position when they simply resort to childish name calling.

  • dazed

    I have a simple theory for choosing a side on any complex issue regarding politics, health, environment, etc. I look for the money people and what side they are on – then I know the opposite must be the ‘right’ side and that’s the side I take and vote on. Money wants to make obsene amounts of money, lots of money will buy protection for that money, and religion is the most expensive dress money can buy for protection. Is global warming real? Oh yeah!

  • Messier Tidy Upper

    @19. MensaJeff : Thanks for that. My pleasure. :-)

    @21. m :

    I love it when eco nazis try to argue against that. (like #12′s rantings) That somehow the Earth is retaining more energy without a shift in mass.

    Were you referring to me there? What exactly did you consider to be “ranting” in comment 12 please?

    The energy-retention requiring mass to shift thing is just plain wrong. Does your mass change when you stand in sunlight or turn the thermomenter up on your heating or as you sit by a campfire thats getting warmer?

    @17. Me3PO :

    Messier Tidy Upper, that was a whole lot to say in response to a bunch of questions and statements. Of course, all the time you put into that post will not do anything to change mememine69 views nor will it change the thoughts of other thinkers like mememine69. That said, I appreciate the thought you put into it.

    No worries. It may or may not do something but y’never know. I live in hope – & I was once an adamant “climate contrarian” myself going back a few years before I found out more and changed my views to match reality.

    However, I’ll keep avoiding this discussion with people who have views like mememine69 because I get too frustrated listening to the same unsupported beliefs over and over again and I need to keep my sanity for better discussions.

    Fair enough. I understand where you’re coming from there. The same climate contrarian canards do seem to keep getting tediously repeated everywhere and dealing with it does get tiresoem and frustrating. Still I’d rather not let nonsense like the “arguments” posted by (#10. originally #4) “mememine69″ go unanswered but have them calmly and politely refuted
    instead.

    Hope you keep yours [sanity] in whatever way you choose to discuss the matter.

    Thanks for that – me too! ;-)

  • Messier Tidy Upper

    @20. VIP :

    It is only a thousand years ago that the Vikings were farming and raising cattle in Greenland. Remnants of their farming facilities are still there, and there were not below the ocean level. Neither was Florida. There also were no SUVs or other major pollutants to create a “greenhouse” effect.

    Watch :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=56

    which deals with that or read this :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

    Remember here that local warming eg. in Greenland is NOT the same as Global warming just as you can heat your car up in winter but still have conditions outside freezing cold when you get out.

    Again, yes, the past global climate has changed naturally but this doesn’t mean that human activity isn’t resposnsible this time. We’ve got good scientific reasons to know that this time our greenhouse gas emissions are the cause as you can see from comment #15.

    There also were no non-scientific Al Gores to tell them that this was the result of a disaster. Good thing that we now have a pseudo science that knows everything.

    Al Gore is irrelevant. Don’t get your info from him or fall victim to the common fallacy that he has done anything other than raise some awareness of the issue. He’s not an expert and Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating wasn’t his invention and won’t be stopped by blaming him as one of the many messengers on this issue.

    The climatologists, OTOH, are experts. Climate scientists have spent their whole lives studying climate. They have immersed themselves in the science, faced peer-reviews, published real science papers in real science journals and they do know what they’re talking about – just as medical doctors know about medicine and astronomers know about astronomy.

    If an astronomer tells you where to point your telescope and what you might see when you look at a planet or a nebula or when the best time to catch the International Space Station passing overhead might be; don’t you listen to her knowledge on that? If your doctor tells you that you need a certain treatment for a certain disease which could kill you if left untreated do you take her advice? Or do you reject it and prefer the words of a political commentator on a disease he knows little if anything about?

    Why then would you ignore the scientific experts when it comes to climate?

    The global warming that wasn’t coming now sank into the ocean (??). The rising ocean level that didn’t happen hasn’t been explained yet, just wait for another amazing logic-defying conclusion.

    Actually, there’s no waiting necessary. I can direct you to a good explanation for that right here :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/26/sea-level-rise-has-slowed-temporarily/

    via Dr Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog. Although it doesn’t defy logic and makes good sense and good reading. Whether you find it “amazing” or not that’s what the actual science is saying.

  • A Riley

    I perfectly understand where the people at the Scott Polar Institute are coming from. However, IMHO scientists carry a responsibility towards society that transcends our urge to split hairs. Climate change is a fact that needs to be addressed. It cannot be addressed without restructuring our society. Men and women better than most of us have been working for this transformation for decades on our behalf. Now they need us, as the deniers have managed to confuse the public. Now is not the time to muddle the issue. It is time to show solidarity. Sometimes that means nothing more than shutting up. And may I remind that heretofore, the scientists at the Scott Polar Institute have relied on society’s solidarity as well.

  • D Tav

    Embiggenate?!?!

  • MensaJeff

    @D Tav

    I know, right?

    I could expand on how that’s enlarged my vocabulary…but I don’t think it’s legit.
    I don’t want to go zooming into a blow-up.

  • Chris

    Well you just know Fox “News” is going to jump all over this one.

    For those without a sense of humor Embiggenate (and variations thereof) is a word Phil Plait uses a lot. It is derived from the Simpsons

    Springfield’s town motto is “A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.”

    Ms. Krabappel: “Embiggens”? I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield.
    Ms. Hoover: I don’t know why. It’s a perfectly cromulent word.

  • Tom Bowden

    I objectate to the usage “embiggenate” because it subjectates the “perfectly cromulent” verb “embiggen” to the mindless practice of back-forming verbs that already perfectly have perfectly good verb forms by adding the surplus syllable “ate” or its siblings “tate” and “cate” Other equally annoying examples are orientate, and spectate, notate, etc. It’s becoming harder than ever to determinate what constitutionates good dictionation!

  • Geack

    @ MTU –

    Tons of good info, and thanks for it, but unfortunately it’s best simply to not feed the trolls. They pop up in every mention of the weather on this site.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

80beats

80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »