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 9th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Bob,
No, Bob. I don’t understand that. Please elaborate.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Hi Jason,
Still waiting for your response. Thanks.
Regards,
Max
December 9th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Max,
This has become quite cumbersome, and it has become so because of your inability to understand this process of determining the state of climate science. I am going to try to explain for you how it can possibly be that any particular study can be different from the IPCC report, and yet that study was still carefully considered, and most importantly, duly recognized for its contributions.
1. First of all, the Johannessen study and the IPCC report are NOT mutually exclusive. As I have shown before, the ESA data, when combined with those of other studies, show a significant net mass loss over the ENTIRE GIS. In other words, while it is true that there were losses in the interior, there were also at the same time, greater losses in the margins. I would even say that the Zwally study is not mutually exclusive with the IPCC report. In fact, I don’t think ANY study is mutually exclusive with the IPCC report, which brings me to my next point.
2. This is very important. Please read carefully. Each study brings to the table its own separate and unique approach to solving the puzzle that is our complex climate system. All of these studies that we’ve discussed are based on their own different assumptions, data, and methods of measurement and analysis. No one study contains the solution to the puzzle. Rather, each study contains only a piece of the puzzle. The IPCC then takes each of these pieces and tries to put the puzzle together. It is not an effort to cherry pick data in order to get desired results based on some predetermined agenda. Instead, it is an attempt to better understand what is truly happening to our planet, using all of the tools and resources available.
This is what all of this boils down to. It is all a matter of interpretation and perspective. We have basically agreed to the same outcome based on the same sequence of events, but we have interpreted them in different ways. I generally respect and trust the scientific process, and have seen far too many skeptical arguments proven to be incredibly fallacious to be able to believe that an organization of the world’s top scientists are pulling one over on us. This leads me to interpret the IPCC’s findings as the best possible attempt at finding out the truth about our climate based on the available information. You, however, seem to show a general lack of respect for the scientific process, based on what seems to be a very deep, fundamental, or even ideological skepticism. This leads you to interpret the IPCC’s findings as a direct rejection of any seemingly contradicting studies. I know you will not accept this answer, but your interpretation is simply not how things work in this place we call the real world.
In closing, I have a challenge for you. Before you respond, I strongly encourage you to contact Johannessen or Zwally and ask them what they think of the IPCC’s findings. Ask them if they think their respective studies were “rejected” in the process. Please be very careful with your wording, so as not to cause any confusion as to what it is you are asking, and to avoid “leading the witness” with a suggestive question, so that we can both clearly agree to what was asked and the answers received. If you follow through with this and either responds with an answer that substantiates your argument, I promise that I will concede the point. If you do follow through, please also Cc me at reasic [at] gmail [dot] com. If you choose not to follow through, I can only assume that you are afraid of being proven incorrect, preferring to remain mired in this foggy haze of confusion and doubt that you have tried to create. I anxiously await your email.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hi Jason,
You sent me another 700+ word post that again beats around the bush.
Your suggestion to contact Johannessen and Zwally to see if they feel that IPCC ignored their reports is ludicrous. No working climate scientist of sane mind would dare to attack IPCC in such a fashion. Who would, indeed, bite the hand that feeds them?
Your stated: “The IPCC then takes each of these pieces and tries to put the puzzle together. It is not an effort to cherry pick data in order to get desired results based on some predetermined agenda. Instead, it is an attempt to better understand what is truly happening to our planet, using all of the tools and resources available.” This is a pure statement of faith, Jason. As a rational skeptic, I do not share your blind faith in a largely political organization, the IPCC.
You wrote: “I generally respect and trust the scientific process, and have seen far too many skeptical arguments proven to be incredibly fallacious to be able to believe that an organization of the world’s top scientists are pulling one over on us. This leads me to interpret the IPCC’s findings as the best possible attempt at finding out the truth about our climate based on the available information. You, however, seem to show a general lack of respect for the scientific process, based on what seems to be a very deep, fundamental, or even ideological skepticism.”
This is an outright stupid statement. Science, my friend, is ALL about rational skepticism. An “organization of the world’s top scientists” that is getting multi-billion dollar funding to provide support for a political program that will involve hundreds of billions of dollars being shuffled around by politicians and bureaucrats is not part of the true “scientific process”, Jason. Wake up to reality.
Let’s cut this debate down to the essential points, Jason. You have waffled and beaten around the bush too long (since October 29, believe it or not!) with all sorts of side issues, excuses, “could haves” and rationalizations, which I will not list here. Your latest blog is just another installment.
I made the statement that:
IPCC ignored published data that contradicted its claim of ice loss in the Greenland ice sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
I brought you the EVIDENCE that there were published data (Johannessen/Zwally) that reported a net gain of ice in the GIS over this same period, thereby directly contradicting the IPCC claim.
To simplify:
Published reports (Johannessen/Zwally) conclude net overall GAIN in GIS 1992-2003.
IPCC claims net overall LOSS in GIS over same time period, thereby IGNORING (or rejecting, if you prefer) the conclusion reached by these published reports.
Which is exactly what I said they did.
Rather simple, actually.
And since you have not been able to come up with EVIDENCE that refutes my statement, i.e. that IPCC rejected (or ignored) the Johannessen/Zwally study that concluded a net gain of GIS, you have lost this point in our debate, and it is now time for you to CONCEDE and to move on to the next point, which is Antarctica.
Regards,
Max
December 10th, 2007 at 4:40 am
Max,
What is that supposed to mean?
This “debate” is just pathetic. Let me sum up your argument for you, because your summaries conveniently gloss over your own argument’s weak points:
You claim that the IPCC “ignored” certain published studies in determining that the GIS contributed to sea level rise from 1993 to 2003. Your “evidence” to back this up is only that the studies in question seem to contradict the IPCC report. It has been made clear that the studies were mentioned in the IPCC report, which presents a bit of a problem for your argument. Why would the IPCC give any credence to these studies if they’re just going to “ignore” them? Why bring them up at all? Why discuss their findings in the report if they’re just going to be ignored anyway? Are you saying that the IPCC is trying to fool everyone into thinking that they actually considered these studies and their findings, but they really didn’t? But they didn’t fool you, did they? You know better. And now, we have the revelation that the scientists responsible for the “ignored” research are in on it, too! They wouldn’t dare speak out against the IPCC, even if only to some random guy who’s in a debate on a blog, because they won’t “bite the hand that feeds them”. I assume you know that the IPCC does not fund research.
Do you have any idea what kind of an enormous conspiracy you’ve woven here? Everyone has an ulterior motive, and you can’t trust anyone to give you an answer, because they’re all in on it. You’ve cornered yourself into a make-believe world in which the only research that counts is the research that seems to contradict the IPCC report, and any other potential methods for proving your argument wrong are also invalid, and yet I’m somehow supposed to prove you wrong with some evidence that you haven’t already deemed to be unreliable or irrelevant. How convenient.
The way I see it, you have two options, outside of conceding the argument, at this point. You can either contact Johannessen and/or Zwally, in an effort to prove that you have at least a small amount of confidence in your argument, or you can continue to refuse to do so on the grounds that these scientists are too afraid to speak out, and prove that you’re a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.
Let me know when you have some real, verifiable proof that the IPCC ignored or “refused to take notice of” any of these studies.
I agree. Unfortunately, you have gone way beyond the realm of rational into irrational.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Hi Jason,
Your last 400+ word post has not shed any new light on our discussion.
It has become evident that you can’t give up, even when you have long lost a debate.
You wrote: “You claim that the IPCC “ignored” certain published studies in determining that the GIS contributed to sea level rise from 1993 to 2003. Your “evidence” to back this up is only that the studies in question seem to contradict the IPCC report. It has been made clear that the studies were mentioned in the IPCC report, which presents a bit of a problem for your argument. Why would the IPCC give any credence to these studies if they’re just going to “ignore” them? Why bring them up at all? Why discuss their findings in the report if they’re just going to be ignored anyway? Are you saying that the IPCC is trying to fool everyone into thinking that they actually considered these studies and their findings, but they really didn’t?”
This is a lot of double-talk. The fact that these studies were “mentioned” does not change the fact that their conclusions were rejected or ignored. Yes, Jason, I am “saying that the IPCC is trying to fool everyone into thinking that they actually considered these studies and their findings, but they really didn’t”, because THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. Wake up, Jason. Look at the FACTS. Don’t be so naïve.
Published reports show mass gain.
IPCC claims mass loss over the same time period.
Ergo, IPCC ignores (or rejects) published reports.
So simple, Jason.
Now admit you lost this part of our debate, so we can move on.
Reagrds,
Max
December 10th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Hi Reasic,
I see you have done another YAWN of December 10th, 2007 at 4:40 am. Meanwhile I composed an off-line response to your:
Reasic, reur December 9th, 2007 at 9:12 pm to Max.
REUR FIRST PARAGRAPH: Naughty naughty! How about you finish the quote? …..
REUR CENTRAL RAMBLINGS: Yawn…
(although I can see you have been working hard on the wording!…..however what about substance?)
REUR CLOSING CHALLENGE: Highly entertaining!
But to remind you; I repeat briefly some parts of my November 24th, 2007 at 2:50 am on Page 28
There is no need to waste professor Johannessen’s time. [sending silly Emails] Below is pasted his gentlemanly expert comment on the second order draft. (BTW, ALL of his comments were REJECTED by the vested non-ESA AUTHORS)
COMMENT: 4-59 Exec. Summary –“The first sentence which states that “thickening in central regions of Greenland is more than offset by increased melting near the coast” is too strong and does not reflect the uncertainly in the estimates nor the high inter-annual variability of mass gains and losses.” [ESTIMATES meaning of coastal melting and variability of the author’s own scant temporal and spatial test coverage]
And, also, briefly:
COMMENT: 4-144: The presentation of hemispheric, regional and seasonal trends is also incomplete, misleading, and biased to NASA work and more specifically to the contributing author’s (Comiso) own papers. This is ironic, …”
COMMENT: 4-149: The first sentence “The most remarkable change … shown in Figure 4.4.2.” is certainly important, though again it points only to the contributing author’s own unpublished update. Serreze et al. (2003) and Stroeve et al. (2005) are the ones who reported and actually diagnosed the…”
COMMENT: 4-256 The mention of inter-annual variability is highly welcome, but not complete. On line 27, after the sentence ending “.. Kangaratnam, 2006″, add the sentence: “Moreover, inter-annual variability in winter elevation changes derived from SRALT have been shown to be linked to the NAO index … during a study period 1992–2003 (Johannessen et al., 2005). For example, the extreme NAO reversal between 1995 to 1996 [= just some of the years NOT surveyed by the authors] resulted in a 20 cm increase, which represents over +200 km3 in one year.”
If you need more, see my post on page #28
Reasic, it is time for you to concede that there is overwhelming evidence that the IPCC authors, refused to accept, (ignored), the significance of Johannessen’s ESA work. Instead, they preferred THEIR OWN and NASA’s, work which although high in human effort terms, nevertheless, in temporal, spatial, data accuracy, and data acquisition terms, was only a comparative triviality, and found only in small fractions of 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999. (not totally x2 through 1992-2003)
Cheers, Black Wallaby
Oh BTW, somewhere else Ola J’ talks about glacial surges, which are an aspect of inter-annual variability, apparently not at all considered by the author’s club.
Oh BTW, (2) according to the CIA, the coastline length is 44,087 kilometres (or ~10% greater than Earths max circumference) Yet somehow Thomas et club have got it all worked-out for its extremely complex topography with a stardust of aircraft flights, and what is known in-the-trade as modeling! …..Reasic, you claim to be an engineer, right?
Oh BTW….
December 10th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Reasic REUR December 9th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I was hoping that you would concede this point, but it is evident that you believe that you in yourself are not capable of error in your own version of faith!
You quoted me, and responded in palpable wide-eyed “innocence”:
“CONSIDER THAT: Max conceded one thing to you on a TECHNICALITY!
If you do not understand what I am saying, please ask, and I will elaborate.
No, Bob. I don’t understand that. Please elaborate.”
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Well first of all, you have not previously refuted this technicality issue!
However, out of courtesy, I’ll do a quickie response, based on my casual recollection of stuff an eon ago. (in which I was not much interested, because I think the topic is a “can-of-worms” anyway) My memory serves that Max said to you that if you could produce a paper that asserts that sea level rise was allegedly at some point 3mm/year, he would concede. Somewhere out of the very fishy ether, such a paper did apparently emerge, SO AS A GENTLEMAN, MAX CONCEDED, despite that such data was later proven wrong! I further recollect that the prime author Holegate, admitted that he was prepared to submit a graph based on INVENTED data. (and that you agreed that this was absurd!)
But that was at around post # >>>>>HINT>>>>>maybe it is time for you, Reasic, to be a gentleman?
December 10th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Hi Jason,
You wrote (December 10, 4:40am): ‘This “debate” is just pathetic.’
I could not agree more. You have waffled, rationalized, made excuses, brought up irrelevant side issues, provided reams of blah blah, but evaded the real issue here. Yes, I agree that your behavior has been truly “pathetic”.
I presented you with the following evidence:
· Published reports (Johannessen/Zwally) conclude net overall GAIN in GIS 1992-2003.
· IPCC (SPM 2007) claims net overall LOSS in GIS over same time period.
· Therefore, by definition, IPCC ignores (or rejects, if you prefer) the conclusion reached by these published reports.
You have presented me a lot of words but no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, you lost this part of our debate, but stubbornly refuse to concede.
After following your constantly waffling argumentation on this point, one thing has become apparent to me.
You have shown me that your ideological conviction and faith in the IPCC will not allow you to concede in any point where you would have to admit that IPCC made a mistake or “cherry picked” data to prove a point, even when it is patently evident that this is exactly what happened.
You see, unlike you, as a rational skeptic I can look at the data and make up MY OWN mind.
I can accept those things that IPCC claims that make sense. Some actually do. Some do not.
But, if I see that IPCC ignored or rejected a report in making a claim that is diametrically opposed to the conclusion of this report, which covers the same time frame as the IPCC claim, I can rationally and skeptically conclude from this fact that IPCC ignored or rejected this report in favor of another “cherry picked” report that supports its pitch or paradigm (i.e. “bad things will happen due to AGW”), even if the supporting report covers a different time frame or scope, as was the case in our Greenland discussion.
To put this into perspective, IPCC in effect says, “in our ‘infinite wisdom as the organization of the world’s top scientists’, we (the IPCC) have decided to reject (or ignore) this published report that contradicts our premise in favor of this other published report that supports our hypothesis”.
But you apparently have difficulty seeing this. Your mind has already been made up, not by yourself, but by the IPCC, in whom you have total faith and belief. By definition, they cannot err in your mind. Referring to them as an “organization of the world’s top scientists” shows just how strong your belief is. This is more than just being “stuck in a paradigm”. It comes very close to a religious conviction.
I have had discussions with religious fundamentalists who react in exactly the same evasive and defensive way you have reacted to any implied critique or skepticism of their belief. Whether they are defending a “6,000-year old universe” or an “intelligent design” hypothesis versus Darwinism does not matter; the reaction is exactly like yours.
So I can see that you will be PHYSICALLY UNABLE to ever concede defeat in any point of a debate where the immaculate perfection of IPCC, as the “organization of the world’s top scientists”, is being questioned.
Makes debating very tough, Jason. Rational skepticism has a hard time debating against blind, unchallenging faith, whether with religious fundamentalists or fervent IPCC believers, like yourself.
So, even though it is obvious based on the facts, I will not try any longer to force you to concede that you lost the point on Greenland, as it would apparently be too painful for you to bear.
I KNOW you lost this part of our debate, as would any rational observer (who hasn’t already gone to sleep during this marathon exchange), That’s good enough for me. YOU LOST this one, Jason, whether you are man enough to admit it or not.
Score is currently 1:1 (since I, as a rational skeptic, did concede to you on the sea level part of our debate).
Can we now move on to Antarctica? I’m truly tired of this fruitless and endless discussion on Greenland where you have lost but are too stubborn and boneheaded to admit it.
Regards,
Max
December 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Max,
I tell you what. I’ll concede. I will concede that, in its deliberations for the AR4 report, the IPCC WG1 considered and examined the findings of many different studies, and consequently, its final determination as to the mass balance of the entire GIS differs from the conclusion arrived at in the Zwally study. How’s that? I did not include the Johannessen study, because it covers less than 80% of the ice sheet, and therefore cannot be compared with the IPCC report. Will that work for you?