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…
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Max,
To my eight points:
1. SRALT data does not cover steeply sloping marginal areas due to a wide radar footprint
2. The marginal areas not covered by the Johannessen study equal about 25% of the surface area, not 5 or 10%
3. There are alternative methods of measurement that have taken measurements of the steeply sloping areas (AMT and IceSAT)
4. The alternative methods are much more accurate than SRALT in these areas due to a much smaller radar footprint.
5. The combined data from these alternative methods covers the entire time period in which the IPCC claimed there was a net mass loss
6. Since data collected from satellite altimetry does not cover the steeply sloping areas, the only alternative for determining mass loss in these areas, outside of baseless assumptions, is data collected via other methods (such as AMT and IceSAT)
7. In most cases where the data from the varying methods of measurement have been combined, the result is a net mass loss
8. Any attempt to compare only the Johannessen study to the IPCC’s findings, without considering any alternative studies, is invalid because it is therefore based on unreliable assumptions about mass loss over 25% of the ice sheet, where the rates of mass loss is expected to be the most rapid, instead of actual measurements
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hi Reasic,
REUR December 3rd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I only scanned through it very quickly, and concluded it had zero debate value, so will ignore it. Your remarkable tenacity in this area is I think becoming ever more unproductive, and even boring.
Meanwhile, there are some whopping great issues back there that you have not responded to, and BTW, we have been through this before, but when you say that you have “answered something”, an answer may well be not an answer at all, especially when you don’t seem to understand the question in the first place! The following is what I call: BIG-NAIL #1
111111111111111111111111111111111111 (A Summary)
The most important results obtained in Johannessen et al 2005, were that the ice-sheet above 1500m, had shown SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH, but with HIGH INTER-ANNUAL VARIABILITY, and it was INFLUENCED by the NAO cycle.
Previously, some very scant aerial surveys suggested near balance or loss, NOT substantial growth. Furthermore, THE VARIABILITY was so strong that MEANINGFUL LONG TERM TRENDS could not be determined, even over a continuous 11-year cycle!
THESE RESULTS ARE SO IMPORTANT, THAT THEY REPRESENT A PARADIGM SHIFT IN KNOWLEDGE. THESE RESULTS ALONE MEAN THAT THOSE OBTAINED FOR BELOW 1500m ARE OF RELATIVELY SLIGHT INTEREST.
1111111111111111111111111111111111111
Reasic, This is one of the big ones that we are waiting on.
Cheers, Black Wallaby
December 4th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Bob,
I can agree with that. I mean, I don’t know about a “paradigm shift” or anything, but I can agree that Johannessen’s study was ground breaking in that it showed much more growth in the interior of the GIS than was previously known to have existed. I also agree with you that they attributed 75% of the growth to the NAO.
However, I disagree with the notion that the measurements below 1500m are of “relatively slight interest”. What is important is the mass balance of the ENTIRE ice sheet, and the Johannessen study alone does not provide this. So, where does this leave us?
December 4th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Hi Jason,
You wrote to Black Wallaby: “I don’t know about a “paradigm shift” or anything.”
I could easily agree, based on how you have waffled around since mid-November from one argument to another, with your statement above that you apparently “don’t know about anything.” This is the same conclusion to which I have come.
But leaving that aside, you also wrote: “What is important is the mass balance of the ENTIRE ice sheet, and the Johannessen study alone does not provide this.”
Correct, but the Zwally study DOES extend the Johannessen results to provide exactly this over the entire time period (with the exception of the truncated period between October 2002 and April 2003), and it concludes that the ENTIRE GIS GAINED MASS, directly contradicting the IPCC claim that it LOST mass over the same time period. Zwally’s results certainly UNDERESTIMATE the magnitude of the gain due to the above-mentioned truncation, but they still CONFIRM a net GAIN, which is probably actually LARGER than Zwally’s estimate, due to the truncation. Get it?
Now, before you shoot off another wordy but irrelevant post, do yourself a favor:
Check Black Wallaby November 28, 2:47pm and my November 30, 8:29am for definitions of the words: IGNORE, CONSIDER, MENTION, ACCEPT and REJECT. This will help you stay on the subject and not digress in responding to my posts to you of December 2, 8:56pm and 9:31pm.
Time to “put up or shut up”, Jason.
Regards,
Max
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Max,
I can see now that I am wasting my time by responding. I have tried to explain to you your double standard in the way you’ve judged the Thomas and Zwally studies, and you’ve continually ignored these responses, dismissing them as irrelevant. At the very least, you could explain how exactly this point is irrelevant, rather than just simply ignoring my arguments. If you don’t have a response, that’s one thing, but don’t just ignore my arguments and think that they’ll go away.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Max,
My response to Bob’s November 28 at 2:47pm, as you requested:
So you agree that the Johannessen study was mentioned by name in the IPCC full report, and that the significance of the study was also mentioned (more accumulation in the interior than previously known), proving that it was at least considered, right? However, you think the “robust significance” was “ignored”? Please explain to me what the “robust significance” is. One of the points I’ve continually tried to make is that there are also other studies which have found different results for the same time period. The IPCC’s findings cannot mirror the results of every single study that has been performed. They must look at ALL of the relevant research, and then make a determination - something you two have continually refused to do.
2)) WHEN did we CHANGE our argument, and HOW?
Originally, the argument was that the SPM showed a sea level contribution from Greenland contrary to the findings of the Johannessen study, which was accompanied by a link to the press release for the study. After reading the report, I found that the Johannessen study was actually considered (not ignored) by the IPCC, because it was mentioned in the full report, to which you responded that the SPM was all that mattered in this argument. Now that you’ve seen that the Johannessen report was considered, your argument has morphed into a strange and ironic one, which advocates ignoring all other published research except for the one(s) that you agree with.
3)) We gave our CONSIDERATION of the “author’s club” papers and showed them to be fragile because they relied on a combination of modeling, (based on assumptions etc), and few data from desultory on-site checks or a few aircraft flights. There is also the embryonic gravitational GRACE, which perhaps Max may elaborate to you. (and which Johannessen omits from his discussion on the need for more decadal study) On the other hand the Johannessen report covering eleven years of CONTINUOUS orbiting of TWO satellites, (which you claim elsewhere to be extremely accurate in MEASUREMENT), represents very robust data. (See below)
Yes, I have agreed that the Johannessen study has done a good job in covering the interior of the GIS, and has indeed found a mass gain. However, there is 25% of the GIS that is unaccounted for in this study. I am only asking that we account for the extra 25% not covered in his research by including data collected via other methods of measurement. This was why I felt the Thomas study was very helpful, because it did just that. However, you have made the case that this study is invalid because the ATM/ICESat data is not continuous throughout the time period in question. Then, I responded that our only choices are accepting this ATM/ICESat data, or assuming the losses in the margins. Now, you have grasped onto the Zwally study as proof that extra data in the margins shows a net mass gain, ignoring the fact that the methods and data used to fill in the margins in this study are much less comprehensive than those in the Thomas study, which you dismissed on those exact grounds.
4)) The Johannessen study was IGNORED by the IPCC in the SPM, and chapter 4-Exec, because the author’s conclusions, based on their own self interest, made NO MENTION of the robust opposing conclusions by Johannessen; a non-club member. Also, in chapter 4.6, and in Johannessen’s expert review comments, the author’s treatment of him was at best; flippant. (See below)
This argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of the purpose of the SPM. The SPM is supposed to give conclusions only. There are citations to certain sections of the full report so that one can go there to find out how such conclusions were reached. So, naturally, there would be no mention of the Johannessen study, just as there was no mention of any other study.
5)) We have NOT IGNORED “the Author’s” papers, and in fact, if you look back or remember, you will see that both of us have suggested appropriate wording where BOTH sides of the contrasting findings should have been elaborated in the SPM, not just the bias of the authors!
This is not the purpose of the SPM. (see above)
6)) Although it is admittedly a DIFFERENT TOPIC to Johannessen’s paper, the failure to mention that Greenland melting was PROBABLY greater in 1920-1940, than in 1993-2003 is yet another blatant and relevant example of what you refuse to recognize; that the IPCC cherry-picks its data in presenting the most alarming conclusions to policymakers.
I used your favorite tactic and highlighted a word for you. Could you provide any support for this argument? Is this based on empirical evidence, or anecdotal evidence?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Bob,
I was just reading over your response above, and had one quick question for you about it:
Could you clarify for me what your purpose in bringing up the NAO is?
December 4th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Max,
FYI: I’m working on responses to your posts of December 2, 8:56pm and 9:31pm. Just don’t want you to think I’m avoiding them or anything.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hi Jason,
You complained: “I can see now that I am wasting my time by responding. I have tried to explain to you your double standard in the way you’ve judged the Thomas and Zwally studies, and you’ve continually ignored these responses, dismissing them as irrelevant. At the very least, you could explain how exactly this point is irrelevant, rather than just simply ignoring my arguments. If you don’t have a response, that’s one thing, but don’t just ignore my arguments and think that they’ll go away.”
Now, PLEASE READ the sentence below VERY CAREFULLY. It explains, as I have done MANY times in the past why your “double standard” point is totally irrelevant to our discussion here.
My point was NOT that IPCC ignored ALL published data; in fact, I agree that it enthusiastically embraced and accepted those reports that confirmed its desired message and paradigm of net GIS losses (allegedly) caused by AGW. This would be, among some others, the Thomas report.
But reports that did NOT support the “party line” or paradigm were not enthusiastically accepted. The Johannessen report was the first to break the then-prevailing paradigm of high-elevation mass balance of the GIS, by showing massive growth in the vast interior. He even proposed an explanation, observing that elevation changes were linked to NAO pattern of atmospheric circulation.
Zwally later enhanced/enlarged this study to include marginal areas which Johannessen had not been able to measure accurately; he showed that, in total, the GIS gained mass over the 1992-2003 period.
These reports were not accepted by IPCC, i.e. they were BY DEFINITION IGNORED when IPCC made a DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY CLAIM OF NET MASS LOSS over the same period. This would be a good example of IPCC applying what you refer to as a “double standard”. I called it “cherry picking”.
My point remains: IPCC IGNORED PUBLISHED DATA THAT CONTRADICTED ITS CLAIM OF ICE LOSS OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET EQUAL TO A SEA LEVEL RISE OF 0.21 MM/YEAR OVER THE PERIOD 1993-2003.
You have not shown me any evidence that this statement is not true, while I have shown you DIRECT EVIDENCE that my statement is true.
Show me your evidence, Jason, or concede.
Regards,
Max
December 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Max,
Re: your post on December 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I can at least agree that new measurements based on ERS satellite altimetry are much more accurate over the interior of the GIS.
Yes, Johannessen’s study found more gains in the interior than were previously known.
Here, you are going a bit beyond the scope and the implications of the ESA study. I can agree with everything up to “high elevation balance”. Beyond there, you’re insinuating that these newly measured gains in the interior will result in a net loss of the GIS. Where did you get the “net loss in the GIS” quote?
What you’re missing here is that the gains in the interior up to 2003 must be combined with the losses measured in the margins over that same time period, which is exactly what the Thomas study did. Granted, the Johannessen study found a mass gain of 64 mm/yr above 1500m, but ATM/ICESat data shows a net loss below 1500m of 257 mm/yr. Simple subtraction leaves us with a net loss over the ENTIRE GIS of 193 mm/yr.
Again, the ESA study DOES NOT address the net mass balance over the ENTIRE GIS! Yes, the Johannessen study found a larger gain in the interior, but this must be combined with other data from the margins in order to determine total mass balance.
There is absolutely no basis for such a statement.
You know my answer to this. I’ve explained it multiple times, and you’ve consistently dismissed it as “irrelevant”. Zwally only used ATM data to 1999, and then interpolated for the remainder of the missing data. If your concern with the Thomas study is the inadequacy of the ATM/ICESat data, the Zwally study, by the same standards, should surely be dismissed. I’m not saying it should be dismissed, either. I’m only pointing out your double standard.
How ironic. As I’ve pointed out, the Zwally study is less comprehensive than the Thomas study, which includes ATM/ICESat data covering the entire time period, and yet you somehow still favor the less comprehensive Zwally study.
This argument that if one accepts (b), one must reject (a), ignores the other options, such as studies by Thomas and Box. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you are ccherry-picking only the studies you agree with to be compared to the IPCC report. Your argument must be expanded to include these other studies, which adds an option (c). In this case, the IPCC can weight options (a) and (c) to determine the net mass balance of the entire GIS, and arrive at (b). Therefore, (b) will differ from both (a) and (c), but that is because all were considered (none ignored), and a determination was made based on ALL available research.
I’m not the one who’s ignoring research. I say Johannessen’s research is perfectly valid, but must be combined with other data in the margins in order to determine the net mass balance of the entire GIS. You have so far countered this with the fact that the Zwally study does this and finds a net mass gain, but you ironically ignore the Thomas study because its ATM/ICESat data is supposedly insufficient, even though it is actually more comprehensive than that in the Zwally study.
You can repeat that over and over all you want, but it’s not going to make it any more true.
Now, I’ve responded to one of your two posts. Please humor me with your own rebuttals to my points.