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 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Max, Okay, I see your other comment now. So much for censorship, huh?
Do you have access to the full Proudman document? The abstract you’ve linked does not contain numbers for 1961-2003 or 1993-2003. Where are you getting those numbers. Also, you are wrong on the IPCC’s numbers for 1904-2003. The IPCC says in their report that the rate of the last century was 1.7 mm/yr.
Are you kidding? Satellite altimetry is much more accurate than tide gauge data:
Tide gauges are not as reliable as satellite altimetry, and are therefore only used for data prior to 1993.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Max,
The main thing I wanted you to address is the fact that the IPCC’s report accurately reflects the information that was available at the time on the ice sheets’ mass balance. The only reason you’ve found a discrepancy is because very recent data has now been made available.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
This was a duplicate. Please delete.
October 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Reply to Jason Legget October 29 Sea Level
Hi Jason,
You wrote: “Are you kidding? Satellite altimetry is much more accurate than tide gauge data.”
This is apparently a matter of opinion.
Changing methods in the middle of a data series is a potential source of error.
The fact that the satellite numbers had to be adjusted with a “correction factor” in order to come up with an acceleration for the period 1993-2003, causes me to be even more suspicious (as it also caused Nils Mörner to be).
The fact remains that IPCC ignores the Proudman data that show NO acceleration in sea level rise 1993-2003 over previous periods, and eagerly jumps on “more accurate” satellite numbers that have to be “corrected” to show an accelerating trend.
Looks fishy to me, Jason.
Regards,
Max
October 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Max,
So you want to throw out all of the satellite altimetry data because the raw data needed to be corrected? If it is the correction that you’re suspicious of, why don’t you look into the actual correction and see why it was done, rather than simply throwing away the results?
I’ve asked you previously to show me where you’re gettin the Proudman data for 1993-2003 and 1961-2003. It was not in the abstract you linked.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Max,
You have also still failed to address my remarks about the ice sheets: Do you think it is at all possible that the IPCC report accurately reflects the information that was available at the time, and that this new information that you’ve presented on inland snowfall was not available until too late in the process? Otherwise, it seems that you’re not proving anything by bringing this discrepancy to light. Bare with me for a minute while I go through an exercise in logic to get you to see my point here. All of these claims you’ve made must be seen in the correct context. What is your purpose for bringing them up in the first place? It is to show that the IPCC is filled with corruption, manipulation, improper influence, ulterior motives, etc., right? Now, when you claim the IPCC "ignored" this data on snowfall (even though it was not available at the time), you are saying that they did so on purpose, which means that they are manipulating available data on purpose in order to achieve a particular outcome that they prefer. However, this couldn’t be possible, because these numbers for sea level rise that were attributed to ice sheet losses were only provided in an effort to determine what is causing the measured total sea level rise. You could take out the numbers that were attributed to these ice sheets, but you would still be left with the total rate of sea level change of 3.1 mm/yr that was measured via satellite altimetry. So, the IPCC would not gain anything by making up or ignoring numbers attributing sea level rise to melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, would they? This is why I don’t understand what you gain from presenting this argument, and why I tend to believe that the reason this information on inland snowfall was not included in the report was that it was not available at the time that the report was put together.
You’ve also not commented on my argument against Morner’s method for determining that there was no sea level rise between 1993 and 2003, and have instead moved on to Proudman data, which I still have yet to see as far as 1961-2003 and 1993-2003. Do you concede the point that Morner’s claim of NO sea level rise because of a correction for ENSO is incorrect?
October 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Max,
Here is information on the calibration of satellite data to correct for the drift in satellite orbits, complete with references to research papers on the subject:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.php
It may "look fishy", but please look into it, rather than ignoring it just because you don’t understand it.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Response to Jason Leggett #2, October 29 on IPCC claims of ice mass loss
Hi Jason,
You wrote: “You have also still failed to address my remarks about the ice sheets: Do you think it is at all possible that the IPCC report accurately reflects the information that was available at the time, and that this new information that you’ve presented on inland snowfall was not available until too late in the process?”
My response to this was sent earlier today, but is still in the “pipeline”. Once your editors clear it for posting, you will see it.
It points out that your statement “this new information that you’ve presented on inland snowfall was not available until too late in the process” is not correct. The info was available but IPCC chose to ignore it, since it did not support IPCC claims of Greenland and Antarctic ice loss mass from 1993 to 2003.
Sorry, Jason. You are wrong on this one. Admit it. IPCC ignored published data.
Best regards,
Max
October 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Max,
Any comments on Morner’s methods or the location of the Proudman data that you’re referencing that I can’t find? Or how about the logical argument I made against the IPCC "ignoring" research? As I stated in a recent response, they would have no motive for doing so, because it would not change the total measured sea level rise via satellite altimetry. Or any comments on satellite calibration?
October 29th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Now it seems that I’m being censored. I must have a comment in moderation.