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 8th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hey Max,
I’m truly impressed by your research, but if I can express a thought: If you overwhelm Themotie with too many FACTS all at one time, he may be unable to face reality, and go into withdrawal…………sadly!
Your friend BobFJ
October 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Oh BTW bigot-motie from your quotes from elswhere, if you want to eliminate federal agents, would it not be better to train the kids to start firing from a closer range, say 100 yards?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Hi Max,
I also thank you, but in browsing the blog I notice that as of NOW you are thanking me for something that is no longer visible on MY computer screen in OZ! Do you also witness the same disappearance of my post on David Evans in Swissland? Was denken sie? Muchas recuerdos BobFJ
October 12th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Hi Unregistered User (Not Verified)
I don’t think Max will mind if I (BobFJ) partly cut-in on item 3:
3. So you think that a media report quoting Ted Scambos is the ultimate truth? OK, go to the following link and see a great HOST of other cited links of contradictions against what is YOUR single truth:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ice%20factsheet.pdf
Whilst Tim Flannery, David Suzuki, and Attenborough, have great charisma and popular media appeal, it does not mean that they are “THE ULTIMATE All-Comprehending Scientists”. They excel in their popular books, and media presentations, (eg TV) and win huge audience ratings. However, Flannery (a highly respected paeleo-biologist) of whom you referred, is nevertheless considered by many rational scientists to be a bit of a joke in his broader controversial ACTIVIST statements. Yep, OK, he was made “Australian of the Year 2007”, but that was all to do with politics. Yet, on the other hand, David Bellamy, who might be otherwise compared with Suzuki/Flannery, has more recently seen-the-light, and has become a rationalist, agreeing that man-caused CO2 is trivial compared to the reality of the immense balancing act of the biosphere. (some call it Gaia). I don’t have time to find accurate quotes of some of Flannery’s more silly ecological statements, but if you wholly read the following without prejudice, you might get a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In your final paragraph you say, concerning a few PARTS PER MILLION of CO2, a trace gas:
a) [we] have no idea how the climate will respond…
b) The evidence is so overwhelming at this point…
So we have no idea, but the evidence is overwhelming?
Pray what? That the reported overwhelming evidence of warming is natural or man-induced?
Please indicate your overwhelming evidence as to what of the two possibilities it might be!
Regards BobFJ
October 13th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I opened at ~5:30 pm Oct 13, Australian EST and see that my post of Oct 12 is up, but the two previous posts to which it relates (including Max’s third installment) no longer appear on my screen. BobFJ
October 13th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Hey Max,
I have a friend in Belgium, whom I have forwarned. Please Email: rcase3@skynet.be and say hello, and he will advise you. All best, BobFJ
October 14th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Message to Themotie
Sent this message several days ago. It is the first installment listing questionable claims in IPCC SPM 2007. It somehow got cut so am resending.
Hi themotie,
Back again – this time to see where you and I agree with the IPCC 2007 SPM report and where I am rationally skeptical of this report.
Remember, it is my contention that the IPCC, as the supposedly un-biased “gold standard” organization for global climate science, should be above reproach in its claims. Since policy measures costing hundreds of billions of dollars are being considered based on the IPCC recommendations, it is extremely important that these are correct and not skewed to give a picture that is more alarming than realistic. If IPCC ignores data that do not support its claims, it is no longer acting in an un-biased fashion and can no longer claim the mantle of the “gold standard” climate organization. This is why rational skeptics have to check all statements and blow the whistle on all questionable claims to “keep the IPCC honest”.
If you disagree with my contention, please let me know how and why.
To keep the post size down I’ll break this down. First come IPCC statements relating to past changes:
· Areas where I have no question with IPCC statements
· Questionable IPCC claims relating to sea level, ice caps and snow cover
· Questionable IPCC claims denying past warm periods
· Questionable IPCC claims on solar forcing
· Questionable IPCC claims on water vapor
· Questionable IPCC claims on surface vs. troposphere record, UHI effect
· Questionable IPCC claims on tropical cyclones, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events
I’ll cover the above in two posts with references.
Then come the IPCC forecasts for the future, which I will cover in a third post:
· Questionable IPCC temperature projection to 2100 plus use of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to amplify greenhouse impact
· Questionable IPCC sea level projection for 2100
· Questionable IPCC projections for tropical cyclones, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events
Bear with me, themotie.
Regards,
Max
October 14th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Message 4 to Themotie
Here is the last message that got lost.
Final installment for themotie (sent 10 Oct)
Hi themotie,
This is my final installment (debunking IPCC 2007 SPM for hyperbolic statements and questionable claims for the future).
3. IPCC makes the frightening forecast that “If negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m” (p.17). The prediction of a 7 meter rise will alarm most readers who also saw Al Gore’s waves swallowing New York City, but very few will figure out that the IPCC’s projection of “millennia” actually calculates to be 35 millenia or 35,000 years! (Not too much to worry about, themotie…)
4. IPCC claims that an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the 21st century due to a human contribution is likely (p.9), basing this conclusion on the false claim that an increase occurred in the late 20th century due to AGW (see previous discussion of past record). This ignores a 1998 study “Tropical cyclones and global climate change”, which concluded that “there are no discernable trends in tropical cyclone number, intensity or locations from historical data” and “there is no evidence to suggest any major changes in the area of global location of tropical cyclone genesis in greenhouse conditions”.
A more recent report (following Katrina) confirmed these findings with the conclusion that “current knowledge and available techniques are not able to provide robust quantitative indications of potential changes in tropical cyclone activity” and “the modest available evidence points to an expectation of little or no change in global frequency” of intense tropical storms.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/IPCC/index.html
http://severe.worldweather.org/iwtc/document/Topic_4a_John_McBride.pdf
5. IPCC makes the same unsubstantiated claim for an increase of heat waves, droughts, heavy precipitation events, extreme high sea level, etc. (p.9)
In my earlier posts I showed evidence that IPCC made questionable claims for past climate changes, particularly with regard to the last part of the 20th century, ignoring available evidence that does not support its theory of AGW. I also pointed out where the alarming high end projections for 21st century changes were totally unrealistic. Not only does IPCC make unreasonable predictions for the future; it also sticks in a bit of scary sounding hyperbole for effect.
Since the IPCC errors, omissions and exaggerations ALL go in the direction of making AGW sound more alarming, one has to ask whether the writers were following a “hidden agenda” to generate fear and support for their cause, thereby inflating their own importance and playing into the hands of media scare mongers and politicians who try to spread fear in order to expand their own influence and power.
Remember, themotie, we are not talking about a “conspiracy theory” here, just about human nature, since IPCC scientists and IPCC writers are all just humans, as are the media writers/producers and the politicians who feed on the alarmist predictions of the IPCC. All of these human beings stand to gain personally from the current AGW hysteria (research grants, salaries, prestige, profits, power), so it is only logical that they try to keep it alive. It makes it even more rewarding when you add in the warm, cozy feeling of “helping save the planet from the evils of (industrial) mankind”. This is not a “sinister conspiracy” but just human nature (and several billions of dollars) at work, themotie.
It is the role of the rational skeptic (who has nothing to gain one way or the other) to act as a “whistle blower” to keep the IPCC honest and thereby prevent the spread of unreasonable fear and panic in the general public.
Though I doubt that all of this will change your faith in disastrous AGW, I’d like to read your reaction and comments, themotie, if you have the courage to step up to the challenge. If not, too bad.
Regards,
Max
October 15th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I formerly called myself BobFJ, but, (subject to testing the reality of joining the club, and registration on site), am probably now a regisered marsupial as a member of the tribe of a common kangaroo-like species in South Eastern OZ, with my own logo-image.
I notice that Jason Leggett has made no response to my Aug 21, and Aug 26.
As a black marsupial, I am very disappointed at his “recent” lack of concern on the topic.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Reply to Jason Leggett
Hi Jason,
I’m coming back to an earlier post you sent me.
You wrote: “There was no global Medieval Warm Period. There may have been some areas that were a bit warmer, but proxy evidence from around the world has indicated that there was no global MWP.”
As one of the true climate science pioneers, Reid Bryson, has been quoted when asked about proxy evidence: “Don’t talk about proxies. We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
There are historical records from all over the civilized world at the time (900-1300 AD) that show there was a period with warmer weather than today. There are Viking maps of Greenland that show coastlines that are covered with ice today. There is evidence of medieval civilization and forests where glaciers are melting today in the Alps that show the glaciers were once smaller than they are today. Records show that subtropical citrus trees and herbs were grown in locations in Northeast China where this is not possible today. Etc. etc.
Denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period does not make it go away, Jason.
You also wrote: “Also, Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, also known as an extremely robust and verified northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction, has not been “buried as a fraud” - far from it. It is true that some small statistical errors were found by an economist and a former mining executive, but these changes were addressed by Mann and did not change the results.”
You can’t be serious about this, Jason.
Not only did McIntyre and McKintrick (whom you refer to snidely as “an economist and a former mining executive”) show errors and manipulations in the hockey stick, it also showed that the much touted IPCC peer review process was not working for even letting this slip through.
The Wegman testimony to the energy and commerce committee regarding the results of MBH98/99 (Mann’s hockey stick) summed it up as follows: “Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis,” and “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.”
It was certified to be a fraud and has been buried, Jason, and trying to dig it back up again as “an extremely robust and verified northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction” is plainly ridiculous. Let it R.I.P.
Regards,
Max