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 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Max,
Sometimes I get lucky and one comes to mind.
Yes, I understand, and I 100% agree with you. Even if there weren’t billions of dollars at stake, I think rational skepticism is great. I would just caution you to keep your skepticism in the realm of rationality. I also agree with you that “big bucks” can corrupt. However, I have studied this subject for a while now, and have yet to see any convincing evidence of an attempt to mislead on the part of the IPCC. There have been plenty of potentially misleading, sensationalist headlines and whatnot in the media, and Al Gore’s movie is a bit exaggerated at times for effect, but I have seen no proof that the science itself is “corrupt” or misleading.
You have provided a very long post, but without adequately addressing my main points. That is very frustrating, and unfortunately, has been the norm in this debate. I already provided you with specifics as to the other problems with the Zwally study (there were three total), and then a fourth in a later post regarding a response I received from Dr. Thomas.
This statement is a complete joke, considering the fact that I have continued to bring you evidence and you have continued to ignore it. Please address my arguments. I’ll provide them again for you. First, you’ve not addressed my problems with the Zwally paper that you claimed I wasn’t specific about:
And then the fourth deals with density:
Second, you didn’t address my argument about your whole approach to this issue:
I look forward to a substantive response.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hi Black Wallaby,
Re your message to me: “how about you and me refuse to debate Antarctica on this phlegm”.
This is a good point. On Greenland Jason has conceded and then immediately retracted his concession to come up with more lengthy blah blah posts.
I have proven my point on Greenland, but as a “believer in the faith” Jason is too stubborn to admit he lost this one.
He will obviously continue to waffle until the cows come home.
So my last message to him on Greenland is truly my LAST MESSAGE TO JASON ON GREENLAND.
I agree that we take up the Antarctica issue, plus all the other examples I gave earlier to Jason and themotie where IPCC 2007 SPM is full of contradictions and errors, on another site.
Your idea of getting Jason to start this with some “myth-busting” facts is a good one.
But I believe he may be to bloodied from this debate to want to start a new one.
Debating with true believers of the IPCC faith like Jason can be very tiring, but hopefully it will let interested observers see just how boneheaded and irrational these “fundamentalists” can be and how distorted their argumentation is.
Regards,
Max
December 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Hey Reasic,
Here’s a bit of fun for you….a quickie….all it needs is a yes or no answer.
(if the tabs work ok) Describing columns 1-4:
1, The alphas S and W represent “summer” and “winter” of 1992 -2003 inclusive, throughout which two satellites continuously surveyed Greenland.
2, A period of two months when ATM was employed over the northern part of the island
3, A period of two months when ATM was employed over the southern part of the island
4, The year when ICESat data became available
1 2 3 4
S
W
S =
W
S =
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S =
W
S =
W
S
W
S
W
S
W………………………except Zwally
. X
. X
Johannessen identified IMPORTANTLY that there was high inter-annual variability, (impossible for Thomas to determine), I therefore submit that Thomas was WRONG to claim that columns 2, 3 & 4 have ANY similarity to column 1.
(Thomas also admitted inadequate flight paths and poor accuracy for ATM.)
C’mon Reasic, give us a good laugh, and tell us that Thomas was correct in his claim of similarity!
Cheers, Black Wallaby
December 11th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Hey Reasic,
RESEND with spacer dots added to table
Here’s a bit of fun for you….a quickie….all it needs is a yes or no answer.
(if the tabs work ok) Describing columns 1-4:
1, The alphas S and W represent “summer” and “winter” of 1992 -2003 inclusive, throughout which two satellites continuously surveyed Greenland.
2, A period of two months when ATM was employed over the northern part of the island
3, A period of two months when ATM was employed over the southern part of the island
4, The year when ICESat data became available
1……2……3……4
S
W
S……=
W
S………….=
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S……=
W
S………….=
W
S
W
S
W
S
W………………………except Zwally
…………….X
…………….X
Johannessen identified IMPORTANTLY that there was high inter-annual variability, (impossible for Thomas to determine), I therefore submit that Thomas was WRONG to claim that columns 2, 3 & 4 have ANY similarity to column 1.
(Thomas also admitted inadequate flight paths and poor accuracy for ATM.)
C’mon Reasic, give us a good laugh, and tell us that Thomas was correct in his claim of similarity!
Cheers, Black Wallaby
December 11th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hi Jason,
You have seen my last message on Greenland which responded to your two specific points. It may have crossed with your very last post, since you did not respond.
As indicated, this is my LAST message on Greenland, since this discussion is over and you have not been able to bring any evidence that my statement was incorrect that IPCC ignored (or “rejected” or “refused to accept”) published reports that contradicted its claim of net loss of the Greenland ice sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
Game over. You lost.
Regards,
Max
December 11th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Message to Black Wallaby
Regarding your explicit message to Jason.
Interesting how Jason completely ignores the fact that the ATM and ATM/ICESat records are spot studies made in the SUMMERS of 1994 and 1995 plus the SUMMERS of 1998 and 1999, rather than studies covering an entire year or entire decade (including summers AND winters), as did Johannessen and as did Zwally (with the exception of the last truncated winter period (described by Hanna et al as a “high snow accumulation” period), and that the ATM/ICESat stuff which Jason is so fond of throwing out was only started at the very end of the period.
Then he makes the utterly absurd claim that IPCC was correct in giving these studies a higher weighting than a 11-year continuous record of tens of millions of ERS satellite data points running 24/7 winter and summer.
WOW!
Jason should truly be ashamed of himself for such a blunder.
Regards,
Max
December 12th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Message #2 to Black Wallaby
Your last blog to Jason got me to digging more deeply into his confusing “Zwally versus Thomas” postulations. Table 1 in Thomas report and Table 1 in Zwally report tell a totally different story than Jason’s tale.
First of all, as you and I have both been telling Jason repeatedly, the two studies differ significantly in scope and time period, and ONLY the Johannessen/Zwally studies cover the total time period which IPCC also used for its claim in 2007 SPM.
ERS SALT studies, Johannessen (1992-2003) and Zwally (same period minus the last winter-spring months of high snowfall 2002-03), tens of millions of data points on a 24/7 basis over more than 10 years, showing major increase in the “vast interior regions above 1500 meters” and an overall net gain in GIS mass over this period.
These are the reports which IPCC had to ignore (or “reject” or “refuse to accept as correct”) in making its directly contradictory claim of net loss of GIS equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003, as I have proven to Jason, but he is apparently unable (or, more likely, stubbornly unwilling) to see.
ATM 1993/94 and 1998/99 plus ICESat starting 2004, spot studies covering a few months with relatively few data points compared to ERS (some thousands rather than tens of millions), showing very little increase in the “vast interior regions above 1500 meters” (one-fifth of the Johannessen study) and a resulting net overall loss in GIS mass over these spot periods. The ICESat study was only started toward the end (2004) so could not be included in Zwally’s report in any case. Despite this fact Jason criticizes Zwally’s study as incomplete for not including them: “The Zwally study only worked with ATM data from 1993 to 1999, which means it is missing a full four years of data”.
A very curious and apparently confused statement if there were no ATM/ICESat data for these four years.
Rather than addressing the issue of whether or not IPCC accepted or ignored the Johannessen/Zwally studies (the whole point of our debate), Jason makes other claims about errors by Zwally in converting from volume loss/increase to mass loss/increase, although Zwally explains in detail how he corrects for firn density and how “near-surface melting and subsequent refreezing in the firn lowers the surface by changing firn to higher density ice, which in turn affects the rate of subsequent densification”. Zwally then goes on to show how not making this correction would give an erroneous indication of mass loss, i.e. “without adjustment for dC/dt, this surface lowering might be incorrectly interpreted as a mass loss”. Although I pointed this all out to Jason earlier, he was apparently unable to grasp it and came back with his claim that Zwally made errors in converting from volume to mass.
His last gasp was to come up with “well, Zwally really only covered 95%”, but this point is really too ludicrous to even dig further into.
But thanks for clearing up some of Jason’s confusion for me.
Regards,
Max
December 12th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Hi Jason,
Please respond to my previous posts on Antarctica, which demonstrate that IPCC ignored (or “rejected” or “refused to accept”) published studies (in this case Wingham) in making its claim of net loss in the Antarctic ice sheet equal to a rise of sea level of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
Please respond with contradicting evidence, if you have anything to say on this.
Otherwise, please concede that you accept this statement as correct.
Regards,
Max
PS If you would rather move this discussion to another site or venue, as suggested by our mutual friend, Black Wallaby, please let me know where.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Message to Jason
Hi Jason,
A new topic now.
You stated that Al Gore’s sci-fi movie was “ a bit exaggerated at times for effect”.
The only part that absolutely does not fit are your words “a bit”.
The new “100-millionaire” Gore (and the UN Secretary General) state that a 6-meter increase in sea levels could swallow up New York City (and other coastal areas) in 10 to 100 years, whereas IPCC says this COULD (maybe) happen in “millennia” (calculated out to be 35 millenia, or 35,000 years!).
Do you see a discrepancy here that does not amount to “a bit exaggerated for effect” (but, rather, a gross misinterpretation of the facts)?
This is not a slight exaggeration, Jason, it is an outright bald-faced lie, on the part of both Al Gore and the UN Secretary General, both of whom obviously have their own agendas (along with the UN’s IPCC) that do not include “finding the truth”, but “selling a bill of goods” to promote their own personal political or financial agendas instead.
Can you see this obvious discrepancy?
If not, why not?
Regards,
Max
December 12th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Reasic, REUR December 11th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Reasic, sorry, I’m just starting to have actual fun again on “Greenland”!
Oh my my, Reasic, you’re a one for silly Emails, aren’t you!? You naughty boy!
QUOTE: “[Apparently Dr Thomas responded in part; to something we know not!]…But of greater concern is that radar altimetry (which Zwally uses) is affected by changes in surface snow. Recent, well-documented warming causes snow to be wetter and raises the radar reflecting horizon, making it look as if the elevation is increasing. This has a serious effect on radar results…”
Reasic! Can’t you see that this (and the rest) is a tad vaporous, or maybe incomplete in detail?
However, since you are so good with silly Emails, how about you ask for some further clarification from Dr. Thomas? (herein under called ‘you’)
I suggest;
1A… When you say; “raises the radar reflection horizon” and “this has a serious effect on radar results”, What order of magnitude do you mean? Millimetres? Centimetres? Elephants?
2B … As “summer” starts, there will be progressive melting and lowering of surface snow elevation due to run-off and to firn-ice compaction, probably accelerating to a peak in September, and easing off in October. Does this mean that the ERS “radar reflection horizon” gradually heightens and then falls during the continuous observation period, giving the impression that the ice melt rate is slowing with more warming, or even growing rather than actually shrinking? (and then reversing?) Uh?, Or, to put it more precisely; Hmmmmm!?
3C… Given that the ERS data were gathered continuously in ALL weathers unaffected by clouds etc, over an eleven year period, would not the discrepancy you allege be detectable as a summer anomaly? (If necessary, see also below) Do you disagree?
4D … IF there was such an anomaly, it amounts to a calibration problem that can be studied over the full eleven years, taking special note of transitions between last winter snow, and first melting, and between last melting and first freezing, and/or first snow. By your inferences, there should be a jump in calibration at around these points, yielding good data for seasonal calibrations. (with eleven shots at it) Do you disagree?
5E … In your study using ATM data, there were large temporal and spatial inadequacies, but you were somehow able to determine trends based on scant data found in four summers in May-June, or June-July. Consequently, you were unable to use full-year data, or even data for the whole island at any one time. Would you please advise your rationale for using 4 x approximately mid summer partial data only to determine trends, in an attempt to imitate a solid eleven year period, per Ola J’?
6F … If you remain convinced that ESA supported by GFSC (NASA) were unable to develop effective algorithms for summer, then your “part-of-year-only”, approach could be equally applied to say December or January x 11 ERS data, when there should be adequate snow cover to allay your concerns on reflection horizon.
7G … Have you actually checked this (point 6F) out, or sought any other advice from Johannessen or any of his five teams, or ESA or GFSC?
8H … Do you do know if ESA tested a choice of ERS radar wavelength changes to modify reflection properties to best effect? Capice?
9I … You state that the ATM method, when adapted from an adequate mapping use to a more sophisticated new purpose of ice-sheet change survey yielded rather low accuracy at plus or minus 10 cm. Johannessen reports better accuracy with ERS. You do not indicate any magnitude for your alleged un-calibrated reflection error, but are you claiming that it is worse cumulatively than plus or minus 10 cm? (The best you can claim for ATM) If so, what is your new number?
10J … In your 2006 paper, you gave the impression, strongly and repeatedly, that your greatest concern with ERS radar, was its large footprint over sloping surfaces. Has that concern now receded? Did you find-out about data processing algorithms and stuff like that? Did you not previously realize that surveying the dynamic oceans also requires complex software, and that ESA knowingly had to do something else for ice-sheets? Why have you changed your emphasis?
11K … When you say “recent, well-documented warming causes snow to be wetter”, what do you mean by recent? (And BTW what is: “well documented”?) According to some sources, 2002 was a record high melt year, (but on a close par with 1987, repeat 1987), but since then, melt levels have reduced. (That is contrary to well documented RECENT VERY ALARMING melting). There are also published works that declare that melting in Greenland in the early 1900’s was probably greater than now, if the recorded instrumental temperatures are an indicator of the main driver for melting. Should this not receive some perusal in your studies, and in YOUR AUTHORSHIP of IPCC report 2007?
12L … Johannessen et al 2005 identified high inter-annual variability, tied at least in part to the NAO climate index, as a VERY IMPORTANT finding, which was DISCOVERED ONLY as a consequence of CONTINUOUS observation over a TOTAL of eleven years. This information was not possible for you to find, because of your logistically incapable data coverage of that eleven year period etc. (That is not to imply that the HUMAN EFFORT involved with you and your colleagues was trivial …. certainly NO…. it is more a question of the replacing far more powerful technology!) How do you justify projecting contrary trends with your relatively primitive (even if very hard earned) scant data, given the high inter-annual variability detected by an immensely more capable technology?
13M … If you argue a calibration error in Johannessen’s work, you might consider that IF that error actually exists, it should be reasonably constant, year to year, somewhat resembling a zero error, for summer, over the entire eleven years. If you accept that reasoning, then the VARIABILITY as found, would have to be strong data. Repeat; the VARIABILITY! Do you disagree?
14N … OK, if you accept that there is inter-annual variability, regardless of any absolute calibration, right or wrong, should you not apply this variability to adjust your very minimal baseline? Do you disagree?
Reasic, will that do for now?
You have my permission to Email this stuff to Thomass in YOUR own name, but personally I see absolutely no value in doing so….I leave it to your impetuosity or naiveté.
Cheers, Black Wallaby.