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…
October 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
You may have a degree in physics, but you clearly have no concept of anthropology/politics. For instance, your great leader Bush, that war criminal, religious fundamentalist and hypocrite, closely followed by our own great leader in OZ, John Howard, have suddenly become aware of the alleged AGW, even if there is no evidence, what with elections looming. Bob FJ
October 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
YOU ‘motie ACTUALLY said above: “Heat can be two things: energy in the form of EMR and kinetic energy. There is no such thing as “HEAT” separated from these”.
I’m thinking of hanging these words in elaborate calligraphy in an expensive golden frame and non-reflective glass, centrepieced on my lounge wall! Wow!
October 1st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I reponded two days ago with a substantial post but it has not yet appeared Bob FJ
October 1st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I did respond with a substantial post, but it is yet to appear. Bob FJ
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 am
‘motie, reur Sep27 @4:40 pm, replying IN PART: you quoted my Sep 27 @2:03 am
A) YOU WROTE of me: “Do you [‘motie] 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 [‘motie] 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! UNQUOTE
If, ‘motie as you claim, you have a degree in physics, you should be able to grasp the first principles consideration of what happens in a thin LAYER of air at constant temperature. It may even cause you to recall how in calculus there is the method of elemental analysis. And, how in problem analysis, a treatment commonly starts with the words: Consider a …..blah blah blah. Such methods are commonly used in science to understand how things work, and I have used them many times in the past. In consideration of that hypothetical layer of air, I will expand a bit: It is the consequence of what is happening in the layers both above and below it with typically (in the atmosphere) a complex upward flux through it. It need only be considered actually stable momentarily to enable the analysis to be made. By analytical definition, we have said that it is at a constant T, for demonstration purposes. We also know from the science that EMR is radiating in all directions, including horizontally through 360 degrees. (and in the context of the layer under consideration, as a consequence of the T in the layer). However, the T in the conceived stable layer does not change, and therefore, there is no change in its heat content. There! It’s not too difficult for someone with a degree in physics to understand is it? So don’t fob it off, tell me what is wrong with this science based consideration.
B) YOU WROTE, partially quoting me: “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’ …” [this is rather incomplete]
[1] I [‘motie] don’t understand where you think this is going? [2] Do you deny that the Earth’s surface is emitting IR? [3] Do you deny that this radiation eventually escapes to space? [4] 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. UNQUOTE.
OK, in response:
[1] I think your difficulty ‘motie is that you do not understand that HEAT is a different form of energy to EMR (Electro Magnetic Radiation or Light). It is the amount of HEAT within matter that controls its T, not any surrounding EMR. Also, EMR is not the only source of energy that can increase the T (HEAT content) of matter. As demonstrated above, regardless of how much EMR is flying around, it does not get absorbed as HEAT unless it finds a lower potential, which equates to absorptive matter at a lower T than the source of the EMR. (The EMR source is sometimes called its colour T).
[2] No: As you well know, I’ve discussed that NASA claims ~40% of the HEAT leaving the surface is via EMR, and 60% via entirely different heat transfer processes. You KNOW that I have not disputed this.
[3] No: with the minor qualifications that some of it escapes immediately through the atmospheric “windows”, and that otherwise it is re-emitted EMR that “eventually escapes”, and strictly speaking it is not actually the same EMR.
[4] No: as you mean it in a simplified sense. However, you again exhibit a basic misunderstanding of the difference between EMR and HEAT. Strictly speaking the EMR effectively has no residence time in that it moves away at the speed of light. However, en route it may be absorbed as a different form of energy called HEAT. It is this form of energy that has residence time, not EMR.
I hope this helps to correct your misunderstandings
Relax ‘motie……..BobFJ
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Hi BobFJ
Thanks for writeup by Dr. David Evans.
It summarizes the situation very well.
We have to keep these guys (the AGW doomsayers) honest; looks like Evans is doing his part.
Regards,
Max
October 4th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Hi Max,
Good one! Am having difficulty getting my stuff through. Evans left a well paid job it seems. testing
October 5th, 2007 at 7:15 am
“motie, reur Sep 20@ 6:57 am
Uh? BobFj
October 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Followup message to themotie
Back again, themotie
So far I’ve posted you questionable IPCC claims for past climate. These cover sea level rise, Greenland and Antarctic ice cap mass balance, snow cover, claims of unprecedented 20th century warmth, relative importance of solar forcing, discrepancies in measured temperature anomalies between surface and troposphere, impact of urban heat island (UHI) effect, water vapor increase, increased intense tropical storm activity and increased droughts, floods, heat waves and other extreme weather events. In effect, this covers pretty much all of the eye-catching claims of IPCC relating to AGW.
With all these questionable claims about the past record it is very hard to take any of the even more alarming predictions for the future by IPCC too seriously. If IPCC can’t even get the past record right, how are they going to be able to forecast the future correctly?
A “greenhouse warming scorecard” compares many of the past IPCC predictions with the actual ensuing record and the result is poor. http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
If we now move from IPCC errors in the past record to questionable forecasts for the future, we see the following:
1. IPCC projects temperature increase in the 21st century of 0.6 to 4.0 deg C due to AGW (p.13) (this compares with 20th century rise of 0.4 to 0.7 deg C, depending on which record is used). The greenhouse gas theory, based on the Arrhenius law and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, tells us that a doubling of CO2 from the 1900 level of around 280 ppmv to the expected 2100 level of 560 ppmv would raise temperatures by 0.68 deg C. We are about 45% of the way there by now, so this leaves around 0.4 deg C increase from today to 2100, plus a smaller effect from other greenhouse gases. This means that the (not very alarming) low end forecast of the IPCC is reasonable, if we believe (as IPCC does) in greenhouse gas forcing and no significant natural forcing factors (in itself a dubious premise). The (more alarming) high end IPCC projection is not reasonable. It is not supported by greenhouse gas theory, but is based on computer modeled “positive feedbacks” from increased water vapor and clouds designed to increase the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on temperatures by several times the values supported by theoretical physics or by the actual 20th century temperature record (which checks with the theory and provides no evidence of such “positive feedbacks”). Overall, clouds reflect more energy than they trap and this leads to a net cooling equivalent to several times the warming radiative forcing projected by IPCC 2007 for anthropogenic CO2 including feedbacks, yet an overall “negative feedback” from increased clouds is ignored. Instead a positive feedback from increased high-altitude cirrus clouds is programmed in, ignoring recent studies from UAH, which show a decrease in cirrus cloud formation with warming, rather than an increase. IPCC (p.12) puts in the disclaimer “Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” but ignores the study from NASA ERBE, which concludes: “The latest results from ERBE indicate that in the global mean, clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet. This cooling is a function of season and ranges from approximately -13 to -21 W per sq.m. While these values may seem small, they should be compared with the 4 W per sq.m. heating predicted by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration” [and 1.66 W per sq.m. from 1750 to 2005, as stated by IPCC]. The studies by Svensmark et al. linking solar activity (cosmic rays) to low level cloud formation are not mentioned at all by IPCC. http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/abstracts/Empirical.html http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/allfeedbacks.htm
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/cosmoclimatology/a-brief-summary-on-cosmoclimatology
2. IPCC projects sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters over the 21st century due to AGW (p.13), compared to 0.17 meters over the 20th century, which mostly occurred in the first 50 years. INQUA, the worldwide agency responsible for sea level monitoring, estimates a rise of 0.1±0.1 meters for the 21st century and states that any projection exceeding 0.2 meters is “nonsense”. Again, the (not very alarming) low end projection is reasonable while the (more alarming) high end projection is not. IPCC states the sea level “projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003” (p.14), ignoring the fact that both Greenland and Antarctica ice caps grew during this period, rather than shrinking. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54461.htm http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110405.php http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.pdf
Bear with me, themotie. There’s one more coming.
Regards,
Max
October 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Oh ‘motie
I browsed over at the REASIC Blog, on the thread “Occam’s Razor”, and I now have more understanding of where you come from! You do apparently live in fantasy-land, as I had suspected. Given the lead on Occam’s thread, I looked-up Motie, (a new one on me), in Wikipedia, and it implies that Moties are fruitcakes! ‘motie, I’m worried about you! please seek medical help.