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 13th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Hi Reasic,
Stop hiding from the observation of potential rational visitors to an appropriate forum for the ANTARCTICA debate!
Use your influence with Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, to highlight it under your authorship as a hot topic. After all, it is so HOT down there that all the ice is melting, with icebergs floating past New Zealand and many other horrors; right?
So why not openly debate that “good news” with the world out there?
Cheers, Black Wallaby
December 13th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Hi Black Wallaby,
Think there is a “typo” in your December 12, 7:55pm to Jason.
At the bottom of your table you show that ICESat data became available in the year 2004 (i.e. after the time period of Johannessen and Zwally) , but the year you have shown in parenthesis is 1994.
Just so Jason does not get confused in answering your post.
Regards,
Max
December 13th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Hi Black Wallaby,
The interesting thing about your table with the 4 columns is that it looks different from Thomas’ timeline bar chart “Figure 3”, demonstrating observation periods and rates of mass change of the various studies.
This shows a nice continuing green bar from 1994 to 1999 and another one from 1998 to 2003 for ATM and a nice continuing purple bar from 2003 to 2005 for ATM/ICESat, all of which compare with a nice continuing black bar from 1992-2003 for ERS.
Realize this was just a “visual aid”, but maybe it should have more correctly shown some two-month “blips” (as you have noted) rather than a nice continuing multi-annual bar for the ATM observation periods.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
December 14th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Hi Max, REUR December 13th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Well, let’s put it this way; during my working life, I checked and approved hundreds of documents, like test and development reports, design projects, and program proposals etc.
Occasionally, after “testing for reasonableness”, or cross checking, I found errors, even with little expertise in the topic. Occasionally, I came across what is known here in the trade, as “A Snow Job”. But, I have to say that Thomas 2006 is absolutely the worst “Snow Job” that I have ever seen. (Pun not intended) It is just awful, and it would be interesting to know WHO reviewed it for GRL.
Concerning Fig.3, I cannot believe that the axis label “Observation Period” is a typo! It must be deliberate going from the tenor of the rest of it! However, it does NOT show observation period for Thomas’s “results” but instead periods of excessive guesswork, expressed technically as expansive interpolation.
(BTW, it is TOTALLY invalidated by Ola J’s detection of HIGH INTER-ANNUAL variability)
To be truthful, Thomas’s first five-year bar should look a bit like this below, where S signifies a two-month early-mid-SUMMER period of rather scant data, and > signifies 56 months of NO DATA, nada, zilch, zero!.
S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S
S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S
S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S
S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S
S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S
No problem! Do “a Holgate” or “a Mann”, and just invent the missing data!
It is interesting to compare Rignot’s three “spot checks”. If Rignot et al had drawn enclosing lines top and bottom of their results, it would also be doing much the same thing.
Incidentally, Thomas modified his Fig 3 as LEAD AUTHOR for the IPCC into Fig 4.18A on page 364 of Ch.4 in Scientific Basis. It’s a bit similar, except Zwally’s result is mysteriously made more negative, and he tries to “hide” Ola J’s by ghosting it. The added Box study looks a bit fishy to me, but I have not looked at it yet.
Oh, and I wonder why Thomas did not take the opportunity to slope his so-called observation periods, down to the right as Box did? After all, isn’t it true that in my sketch, the right and left hand ‘S’ columns would originally (statistically) have had different values, with the RH expected to be lower? The reason why Ola J, (and I guess Zwally, whom I have not read) did not slope theirs was that Ola J identified high inter-annual variability + NAO, and could not determine meaningful trends. However, Thomas had no such restriction, as neither did Box.
There is a lot more “Snow” in Thomas 2006; for instance paragraph [11] immediately above Fig. 3 is a masterpiece in itself, but this here is what I think about just his silly Fig.3 at the moment.
I guess there is one thing we can be thankful for; at least Thomas does not have anything to do with the construction of bridges or aircraft whatever, which can kill people!
Regards, Black Wallaby
December 14th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Hi Black Wallaby,
Thanks for very thoughtful and enlightening summary. It is shocking how this whole process is distorted, well beyond what I ever naively thought was possible.
I am still waiting for Jason’s response to my last post, but suppose he is running it past his “legal advisors” before responding with a new barrage of side tracking verbage.
Will he finally concede this time?
Don’t bet on it. It would be too painful for him.
Regards,
Max
December 14th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hey Max,
REUR December 14th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I want to repeat that I’m VERY impressed that you have identified a great list of apparent IPCC whoopsies, which I was very much unaware of.
However, for a long while we have not yet properly got past #1, but I try to contribute with my particular experience as best I can.
Thus we seem to make a good team in exposing some of the silliness in the alarmism out there.
You ask: Will Reasic finally concede this time?
No! Sorry, I doubt it.
You may have seen my mention of my bad experience with Christadelphians in Adelaide.
Let me now tell a tale of a sect of Lutherans in North-East-Melbourne impinging on my then “family”. These folks had a son whom ran marathons, did body building, and was very-very-fit. One day, he went for a run on public roads, and apparently stepped out onto the road after a car past, only to be run-down and killed by a following vehicle.
How do you think his parents responded?
Oh, our son thought he was so strong, but our Lord spakest!
How is it possible to confront such fundamentalism?
Nevertheless, I think we could make a good team somewhere in spreading some reality out there.
Was denken sie?
P.S. Unless Reasic exposes himself to public scrutiny, what is the point of the current debate?
Regards, Black Wallaby
December 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Max,
This is hilarious. That you have the tenacity to declare victory in this “debate”, despite the simplistic nature of your argument is frankly laughable. You have decided that you can completely disregard the research that does not cover EXACTLY the same time period as the IPCC claim, as if the data from other studies, which do not contain continuous sets of data over the time period, cannot still be compared to each other and to the continuous data in order to determine the true value for mass balance of the GIS. You have also concluded that the studies that are based on SRALT data are superior to all others, because of the extensive coverage of the data, all the while ignoring the many limitations of SRALT data. For example, satellite altimetry cannot accurately measure surface melt runoff, melting beneath ice shelves, or ice flow acceleration, which generally occur in undulating areas at lower elevations. These are better measured via other methods. So, while radar altimetry can certainly be considered very accurate for determining accumulation in the higher elevations, it is very limited when it comes to determining many of the ways in which the GIS loses mass. Therefore, other methods MUST be considered, no matter how sparse their data, in order to determine the truth, and this DOES NOT equal “ignoring” the SRALT data. It is simply accepting SRALT data for what it is capable of measuring, and including data from other methods for that which they are capable. The data from these other studies show significant annual losses (up to 124 Gt/yr) within the time period in question. Now, does the IPCC also ignore studies that show higher rates of mass loss than it estimated? No. It has considered all available data in order to determine the truth. You have built up a very convenient argument in which the only data that matters is the data with which you happen to agree because it mostly measures accumulation, missing much of the losses over the GIS.
In summary, your argument that the IPCC ignored published data in claiming that the GIS lost ice mass from 1993 to 2003 is completely false, and is based on a very simplistic and myopic view of the very complex issue of the mass balance of the GIS. This will be my last post on the subject of Greenland mass balance. Until you can understand that the fact that the IPCC report differs from a particular study does not mean that the study was “ignored”, you will remain in ignorance of the complexity of the issue, and will continue to push against the IPCC with useless and futile arguments, accomplishing absolutely nothing. You may fool other simple-minded people, who would prefer not to delve deeper into the research to determine the truth for themselves, but I am confident that most people will see through your fallacious arguments.
Also, if this is going to be your approach on the Antarctica issue, I don’t believe I’ll go down that road with you either. It has become apparent that this has gone nowhere, and I couldn’t possibly foresee the debate on the Antarctica ice sheet being any different, unless you can begin to value and appreciate all research on the subject, and not just the research with which you agree. Until that time, maybe we can take on a different issue? I’d be glad to write a post on the subject first.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Max,
I am intrigued. Please provide a specific quote from Gore and/or the UN SG. Thanks.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Hi Jason,
Despite your pessimism, we are making some progress here, Jason. Your last post was down to 575 words. Looks like you had some legal help in writing it, as well. Who is your ghost writer?
But with all the nice verbiage it does not change the fact that the ONLY reports that covered the same time period as the IPCC claim (1993-2003) were those of Johannessen and Zwally, and these reports showed a gain in mass, directly contradicting the IPCC claim.
Therefore, IPCC ignored (or “rejected” or “refused to accept as correct” published data that contradicted its claim of ice loss in the Greenland ice sheet equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/yea over the period 1993-2003.
This is exactly what I have been saying all along and you have been unable to bring any evidence that this statement is not correct, while I have brought you the evidence that it is, indeed, correct.
I am glad that this was your last “word” on this subject.
This is also my last post on this subject.
You wrote: “It has become apparent that this has gone nowhere, and I couldn’t possibly foresee the debate on the Antarctica ice sheet being any different, unless you can begin to value and appreciate all research on the subject, and not just the research with which you agree.”
I do not agree with you that “this has gone nowhere”, since it is clear that you have lost this point in our debate based on the evidence I presented. In fact, this was clear several weeks and many thousand words ago.
It is not a matter of my not “valuing and appreciating research”, Jason, and you know this quite well, because I never claimed that other reports that covered other scopes and other time periods are not valid, nor that IPCC ignored these reports. I just showed you that IPCC ignored (or “rejected” or “refused to accept as correct”) the reports that covered exactly the same time period and showed directly contradictory results from their claim.
And yes, Jason, will use the same line of argumentation on Antarctica as I used on Greenland. The evidence there is just as convincing and absolute.
So if this line of argumentation is too tough or for you to counter, and you therefore want to break off our exchange, that’s your choice.
My challenge to you on Antarctica stands. Take it on or avoid/ignore it. It’s your choice.
Regards,
Max
December 14th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Hi Jason,
To my post that pointed out that Al Gore did not exaggerate “a bit” (but that both he and the UN Secretary General had resorted to fiction in making the ridiculous claim that 6 meter waves could swallow us in the foreseeable future) you wrote (December 14, 5:01pm): “I am intrigued. Please provide a specific quote from Gore and/or the UN SG. Thanks.”
Watch Gore’s sci-fi horror flick. Stay tuned for the 20-foot waves swallowing New York City. But don’t take your kids to the movie; they might believe what they see and get frightened. And, most important of all, don’t let the film scare you, Jason; it’s only a movie (that won an Oscar) and has nothing to do with truth.
The fact that Al, our pal, has made himself 100 million dollars heavier since he left the US VP office shows that you can indeed do WELL by doing GOOD. But just think of the bucks to be made from carbon offset schemes through his GIM company if “carbon neutral” measures really got implemented. Wow! What an opportunity!
For a good (and not at all derogatory) article on Al’s success, read “Al Gore’s $100 Million Makeover”, by Ellen McGirt: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html
Now for the UN SG. You’ll have to get a November 17-18, 2007 edition of the International Herald Tribune, where you will find Ban Ki Moon’s article “At the tipping point” under Editorials and Commentary. With a nice photo-op shot of the SG on a ship near Antarctica, looking concerned in his Ray-ban sunglasses (as some icebergs are gently floating by) he writes (referring to the WAIS): “If it broke up, sea levels could rise by six meters. Think of the effect on the coastlines and cities: New York, Mumbai and Shanghai, not to mention small island nations. It may not happen for 100 years – or it could happen in 10. We simply do not know. But when it happens, it could occur quickly, almost overnight.”
Looks like the SG saw Al’s flick, but made the mistake (normally only made by smaller, impressionable children) of actually believing what he saw instead of realizing that it was just a movie.
The SG actually had the “moxie” to add: “I am not scare-mongering. But I believe we are nearing a tipping point.”
The SG’s article was actually a lead-in plug for the current Bali boondoggle, where he insists that “we need a break-through: an agreement to launch serious negotiations for a comprehensive climate change deal that all nations can achieve” (and a set of draconian measures that will involve hundreds of billions of dollars being shuffled around by UN [and other] politicians and bureaucrats). Mmm. Smacks a bit of scare tactics to gain support for a UN power grab.
But I do agree that both Al Gore and the UN SG are probably nice and honorable men at the core, despite both being politicians.
Regards,
Max