Green Myth-Busting: Greenland was Once Green
Greenland MYTH: When Eric the Red and his Viking buddies settled Greenland, it was a lush pastoral paradise fit for farming and raising animals.
Facts: As climate change skepticism has developed into a full-blown industry, a number of myths have filtered out about historical patterns of warming and cooling: just mention the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warm Period” to your favorite skeptic, and let ‘em go…
As a history buff, I always found today’s myth fascinating. As Coby Beck at Grist notes, Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:
Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.
But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)
The issue here, of course, really isn’t Greenland’s name; it’s the idea of a Medieval Warm Period that skeptics claim was comparable to the present day in terms of the average temperature (or even warmer!). By extension, ice melts on Greenland aren’t that big a deal: it’s happened before.
Coby has thoughts on the Medieval Warm Period, and points to information from NOAA. RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents a number of reasons why the perception skeptics have about the Medieval Warm Period are likely incorrect.
Greenland wasn’t green in the tenth century… and we don’t want it to become green this century…
September 27th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Hey, ‘motie ….Reur Sep 26, @ 4:16 pm
1) YOU SAID: 1) Just quoting the 2nd law does not make you right. The FACT is temperature difference does not have nearly the importance you make it out to have re radiative transfer in this context! You are simply demonstrating your ignorance yet again. Temperature have so little effect on radiative heat transfer in this context that it is negligible. It does, however, affect other types of heat transfer……. [I Bob interject at this point to say: I have no idea what you mean by “in this context”, and unless I don’t understand your use of the Americano-English language, YOU Themotie in the next line are changing the subject and I will ignore it from here-on !]………. But what you seem unable to grasp is that “the greenhouse effect” acts on only a tiny part of the Earths energy budget. But that is enough to wreak havoc. UNQUOTE.
Have you just recently flown home and are suffering from jet-lag? Do you not remember what went before? Do you for instance not remember my demonstration that in a momentarily stable layer of atmosphere at a given T, with EMR flying around in ALL directions, by definition, there is no change in T, and therefore there CANNOT be any HEAT transfer within that layer. Please think deeply, crease thy brow, on why this should be so, and then apply that to a situation where there may be a temperature DIFFERENCE!
FACT: there is no transfer of ANY form of energy from A to B unless there is a potential difference between A & B. What is more, any such energy flow has to be “downhill” or to a sink as it is technically known. E.G. Water cannot flow uphill without help from a separate energy source. Ice for instance sitting (say on a plate) in a warm room will not heat the room, because the room is at a higher potential. However, the ice will receive heat from the room, and melt, largely from EMR from a higher potential, (higher T), within the room. As a consequence, (all other things being equal), the room will get colder, not warmer.
Radiative heat transfer formulae are very complicated in consideration of emitting surface shape, intervening media and surrounding reflective/absorptive surfaces and their temperatures, but here follows a very basic web-statement, which you can check by doing a Google.
RADIATION: All materials radiate thermal energy in amounts determined by their temperature, where the energy is carried by photons of light in the infrared and visible portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. When temperatures are uniform, the radiative flux between objects is in equilibrium and no net thermal energy is exchanged. The balance is upset when temperatures are not uniform, and thermal energy is transported from surfaces of higher to surfaces of lower temperature.
This was my second hit that was appropriately simple enough, I hope, for you to understand. (I ignored the first because it would have been far too complicated for you). Please don’t give me that crap that I have deliberately found the definition that best suits my purpose! We are discussing inviolate physical laws, which need to be expressed in the simplest possible manner in your case.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2a) YOU SAID: 2) “That is to say that they have all presented diagrams of EMR zapping the Earth’s surface from the colder air above…..just plain silly!”
I’m really beginning to think you’re thick … Yes, they have. Yes, it is silly. From a strictly scientific point of view. If you regard is as an accurate representation of front line science. As you apparently do. Don’t you read what I write? Or don’t you simply understand? But I will try to spell it out to you.
When science writers, scientists, what have you, want to explain complicated things to an unscientific audience (John & Jane, mom & pop, politicians etc), they use simplifications and generalizations. Okay? These simplifications and generalizations are more often than not not correct from a strictly scientific viewpoint. Okay? This “EMR zapping the Earth’s surface from the colder air above” is an example of this. Okay? The fact that you don’t seem to understand this is somewhat disturbing. UNQUOTE.
Now let’s get this right. Before this you said: no-one has ever claimed that, but now you are saying that it is OK for Encyclopedias Britannica, McGraw-Hill SCIENTIFIC, and Wikipedia and science writers galore to spout such scientific nonsense? It is OK for them to claim that cold air and clouds can heat the warmer ground below? Why do that? What is the purpose? Why not tell the suckers the truth, as for instance Andrew Lacis tried….and he is a colleague of the infamous James Hansen!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2b) YOU SAID: 2 part 2: If you read the wikipedia, or popular science, or even science courses at universities, you will read that the Moon revolves around the Earth. Well it doesn’t. Both revolve around their common center of gravity. UNQUOTE.
I guess what you are trying to say is that the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is not concentric for the reasons you mention, but it is also irregular for other reasons, such as the gravitational disturbance of the other Planets and Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun.
However: FACT: the Moon DOES revolve around the Earth on a monthly basis. Are you disputing that?
The rest of your waffle is even less noteworthy.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Dear ‘motie, you ol’ softie reur Sep 26 @4:20pm.
I notice that your 4:20pm immediately followed your Sep 26 @ 4:16 pm, or, in other words, you apparently took somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes to a) read my substantial four-part post of Sep 21, that took me several hours to compose including web-search, and b) for you to THINK CAREFULLY about it, and c) type and submit your response. Gosh, you are so incandescently quick! Do you have over there in the USA the expression, ”Fig Jam”? (ask me…. If thou non comprendo). But then, before this, when I have queried your curiously. (unnecessarily) IMMEDIATE response times on deep matters, despite that I would be away for a good while, you have explained that you are so quick because you know what you are talking about! Oh thou of nil humility!
Do you think that Einstein was delivered of his theory(s) whilst having a shower? It may be that he had an embryonic thought therein, (as strangely some do) but do you seriously think he rapidly toweled himself off and immediately rushed out and submitted his theories? Get real!
Spend TIME on THINKING on matters of science, and by-pass any gut-feelings by TESTING reasonableness and searching for logical processes!
So, here is your actual response:
QUOTE: I give up. You apparently don’t even understand what you yourself are writing. How can I then presume to make you understand anything? UNQUOTE
THEMOTIE!…It seems that you spent somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes coming to this infinite wisdom!
Contrarily, I think that ALL rational visitors to this site would think that you are out of order to respond in the way you have, if they also read the evidence that I presented in my Sep 21. FOR INSTANCE, (just for one example), do you still INSIST that Vincent Gray is an “Elderly Petroleum Chemist”, and not a revered multi disciplinary scientist, a climatologist for the last 14 years, (Ph.D. Cambridge) as described elsewhere?….If you have some alternative evidence, why run-away from the issue?……Don’t waffle….present your case if you have one!
Regards BobFJ
PS, I have seen your later humanitarian post, and I’m genuinly both PLEASED and VERY SURPRISED. Talk to you later when I have time! Cheers you ol’ fruitcake!
September 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Priceless Bob, priceless! I guess you win =)
September 27th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Bob,
You alternate between attempted amazing intellectual leaps and virtually endless and rather confused attempts to explain basic physics. You also use terminology that is not used by actual scientists, which strongly reinforces my belief that you are as best as you know how trying to make your own reality from bits and pieces and your own common sense: It ends up varying between rather difficult to understand and completely nonsensical.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
And Bob,
Did I ponder your post long enough this time? You seem for some reason to be disturbed when I don’t take a week or three to respond. Seeing as you’ve had considerably more that that, could you answer my questions now? Perhaps you need me to re-summarize them?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Bob,
Yes. It has any relevance to your Aug 23, immediately above. And your answer kinda proves my point. I’ll try to be clearer. What you read and quote is normal scientific debate, such as occurs over any subject. Then you misconstrue this as meaning “you’re nuts, your theory is off the charts!”. In order to analyze the meaning of a scientific debate, you have to be aware of how scientific debates are conducted. From your analysis of this particular debate it is rather obvious that you could benefit from further study.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Bob,
“Do you for instance not remember my demonstration that in a momentarily stable layer of atmosphere at a given T, with EMR flying around in ALL directions, by definition, there is no change in T, and therefore there CANNOT be any HEAT transfer within that layer. Please think deeply, crease thy brow, on why this should be so, and then apply that to a situation where there may be a temperature DIFFERENCE!”
Oh, I remember alright. This was another one of your nonsensical posts. Your lack of understanding is so fundamental that I cannot even begin to address it here. I urge you AGAIN to find a physicist to actually speak to, you know, face to face, or at least over the phone. Why do you refuse this? I have asked you I don’t know how many times, and you won’t even deign to answer!
“FACT: there is no transfer of ANY form of energy from A to B unless there is a potential difference between A & B. What is more, any such energy flow has to be ‘downhill’ …”
I don’t understand where you think this is going? Do you deny that the Earth’s surface is emitting IR? Do you deny that this radiation eventually escapes to space? Do you deny that the residence time of this radiation in the atmosphere affects the energy content (i.e. temperature) of said atmosphere? Would you please, please, please answer these questions? It might help to clear up a few things.
“Now let’s get this right. Before this you said: no-one has ever claimed that, but now you are saying that it is OK for Encyclopedias Britannica, McGraw-Hill SCIENTIFIC, and Wikipedia and science writers galore to spout such scientific nonsense? It is OK for them to claim that cold air and clouds can heat the warmer ground below? Why do that?”
Bob, I really thought you understood “no-one” to mean “no serious scientist in a serious context”. I really thought you grasped the idea of popular science. The answer to the “why” I’ve already given. It’s usually simpler to simplify. When you’re trying to explain complex issues to laymen, you simplify. Encyclopedias (the wikipedia and others) are for laymen. This is, to understate enormously, understood by the scientific community and all who work with science. My example of the Moon revolving around the Earth is another example. That space is a vacuum is another. Every scientist even remotely in the field knows that “empty space” is filled with particles, just not that many. That the International Space Station is a “zero-gravity environment” is another. The ISS is subject to almost the same gravity as we are here on the Earths surface. The ISS is in free-fall, however, so the gravity isn’t noted any more that you would note it if you fell from the Empire State Building. This is understood by all who need to understand it. I can give you more examples if you want. The reason for this is that “the truth” is much more difficult to understand, and in most cases the simplified truth will suffice. You know you get a hang-over if you drink too much alcohol, right? Wrong. You get a hang-over from the metabolites of alcohol. Do you need to know this? Or is it sufficient to know that alcohol will get you a hang-over? When you’re in an airtight compartment, you’ll asphyxiate. From lack of oxygen, right? Wrong. From too much CO2 (as it happens …). Also, it’s not the oxygen levels that normally regulate your breathing, it’s the CO level. Do you need to know this, or does it suffice to know that you’ll asphyxiate in a small, airtight compartment?
“I guess what you are trying to say is that the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is not concentric for the reasons you mention, but it is also irregular for other reasons, such as the gravitational disturbance of the other Planets and Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun.”
No. This is not what I’m saying at all. The other planets and the shape of the Earths orbit has nothing to do with the Moon not revolving around the Earth and that both revolve around their common center of gravity, in about a month. This is apparently a perfect example. You know the simplification, that the Moon revolve around the Earth, and that is more than enough for you. This is not the strict scientific truth, though.
Is it so hard to accept that there can be issues in science that you don’t fully grasp? Why is this? I have no problem admitting I don’t know everything. I’ve even told you when and where this is so, and urged you to do as I did: find someone who know and ask. You apparently refuse, and I have trouble understanding why. Can you enlighten me?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Bob,
“I notice that your 4:20pm immediately followed your Sep 26 @ 4:16 pm, or, in other words, you apparently took somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes to a) read my substantial four-part post of Sep 21, that took me several hours to compose including web-search, and b) for you to THINK CAREFULLY about it, and c) type and submit your response.”
No, I didn’t. I posted them at about the same time, though. The marvels of technology, y’know … It is actually possible to work on different posts simultaneously, and then post them all before you go to bed. And no, as I have repeatedly told you, I don’t live in the US.
Re Vincent Gray:
“VINCENT GRAY is an old fashioned scientist, originally with a Ph.D degree in Chemistry from Cambridge University, and with a long research career in UK, France, Canada, China and New Zealand, research in petroleum, coal, timber, building materials, paint, adhesives, with many publications. He became interested in climate science some 14 years ago and he has been an “Expert Reviewer” for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change almost from the beginning.”
Note his research career, and the “became interested in”. I’m interested in management issues, but don’t know much about it. He’s retired and have few if any formal climatology qualifications. Becoming an “expert reviewer” doesn’t require such qualifications, only that an appropriate organization appoint you. Strangely enough, considering your alleged IPCC secrecy, contrarian organizations are allowed to appoint “expert reviewers”. You were saying?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Hi ‘motie Reur Sep 26 @7:06 am
Sorry, I was getting rather impatient with your unending waffle, but should not have called you selfish, and it’s good to hear that you are doing something useful. How about you take my insult as pay-back for your ill-informed “assassination” of Vincent Gray?
Incidentally you might try READING this; Vincent’s latest senile newsletter and in deep consideration, adopt the pose of that famous Greek sculpture; “The Thinker” for more than a couple of minutes……you know put your brain in-gear before spontaneously and dogmatically rattling the keyboard . http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray%20ipcc%20spin.pdf
So what about fighting global warming? Perhaps we can learn from even recent millennial history. There were the Anasazi that experienced drought during the MWP at which time they mysteriously departed. More recently was the departure of the Khmer from Angkor only 500 years ago because of monsoonal changes. When the Mayans were stricken with drought around 800-900 AD, they probably increased their rate of human sacrifice, but it achieved nothing. Some 200 years earlier, the “Nazcans” made all those mysterious lines on the plains in Peru. There is strong evidence that these were religious processionals, but no good; the gods were not impressed, and the area was abandoned because of drought and the high cost of sandals.
In the absence of any EVIDENCE of human cause warming, I think you should devote your efforts to the greater benefit of mankind.
We have here in Oz a popular science journalist named Robyn Williams. He is so sold on the AGW hype that he recently declared that sea levels could rise 100 metres this century. That is TWO orders of magnitude above the IPCC estimate!
Groan….are you a science journalist?
September 28th, 2007 at 9:07 am
‘motie
Uh?
BobFJ