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…
August 24th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
BobFJ,
No one has "invented data". The NH temperature reconstruction is very different from the NASA graph in that there is indeed more data available for the reconstruction. From abuot 1900, Mann was faced with two sets of data, which followed very closely and only diverged at the very end (about twnety years). At that point, one would be faced with the decision to choose between the data sets for that period. Which is more accurate or reliable, proxy data or direct temperature measurements? I hope you said "temperature measurements". Therefore, the temp data was used to finish off the curve. I fail to see how that’s "illegal".
August 25th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Jason/Reasic/Themotie
Some PHILOSOPHY demonstrated initially around Hoo Suks Whom, (sorry, Hoo suk Hwang)…please refer:
http://www.nyas.org/programs/human/libya_120606.pdf Nature News, Dec. 2006
May I draw your attention to the following paragraphs from therein:
…“we suggested that the journal institute
a policy we describe as risk assessment” in an
effort to clamp down on fraud.
Writing in an editorial4, Science’s editor-in chief
Donald Kennedy said that the journal is
now developing criteria for deciding which
papers deserve particularly careful scrutiny.
“Papers that are of substantial public interest,
present results that are unexpected and/or
counterintuitive, or touch on areas of high
political controversy may fall into this category,”
he wrote.
Such papers, perhaps ten a year, would receive
“special attention”… (Note for below: guys = all genders)
In all fields of endeavour, there are good guys, in-between guys, and bad guys. It is not unusual for the bad guys to be very influential, and/or convincing, and/or charismatic, resulting in a great following of dedicatees. When this occurs, it becomes very difficult for the dedicatees to accept any reports of malpractice about their iconic institution or leaders.
IT HAPPENS in politics. For instance the G.W. Bush administration clearly misled the American public, and they loved it, about the true reasons for going to war in Iraq again. (And, incidentally, in the early days thereof, any critics were treated as traitors, and even had their careers ruined)
IT HAPPENS in the American R.C. church. For instance, they are reportedly forking out huge sums of money to victims of their; “Thou shalt be pure doctrine”; by provenly hideous non-practicing priesthood.
IT HAPPENS amongst the many charismatic or evangelical American Churches that have been highly influential to a large following on TV. The most recent fall from grace that I’m aware of was the reverend Ted Haggard, who despite moralising to his flock of some 30 million or so, has been sacked for being rather naughty himself.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pastor-sacked-over-sex-scandal/2006/11/05/1162661553237.html
IT HAPPENS, for instance, take Jonestown, where over 900 people died. (not necessarily totally by mutual consent).
IT HAPPENS, For instance in science; “Piltdown Man”, “Cold Fusion”……to mention a few.
SHIT HAPPENS………………………..
IT HAPPENED that Mann et al produced a graph that they themselves in MBH99 declared to be inadequate in sample size and temporal and spatial quality, but the IPCC grasped it as Manna, and by withholding Mann’s clear qualifications, and exaggerating its pictorial impact, effectively grossly lied about its reality.
Perhaps you deniers should consult a dictionary on the definition of the words “temporal” and “spatial”. Whilst it is true that the other dendro-branch of annually accurate chronology is very useful elsewhere, in the paeleo-climate field, the temporal aspect is that there is no indication of winter temperatures or night-time temperatures. Yet, this missing data is an essential part of “Global Average Temperature”.
BobFJ…..This is a quickie, composed off-line, and its just turned 6;00 pm local time Saturday, and i have to go.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Jason Leggett Reur Aug. 24,
With reference to EXAMPLE 3 above:
YOU SAID: No one has “invented data”. The NH temperature reconstruction is very different from the NASA graph in that there is indeed more data available for the reconstruction. From abuot 1900, Mann was faced with two sets of data, which followed very closely and only diverged at the very end (about twnety years). At that point, one would be faced with the decision to choose between the data sets for that period. Which is more accurate or reliable, proxy data or direct temperature measurements? I hope you said “temperature measurements”. Therefore, the temp data was used to finish off the curve. I fail to see how that’s “illegal”. UNQUOTE.
RESPONSE: Jason, where do you get your information from? Is there a commentary somewhere of how Mann et al reached and justified the decision of deleting data in the way you describe? Could you elaborate how you obtained this intelligence?
You are denying what the heavy black 40-year smoothing line is claiming to represent in the hockey-stick. It is claiming to be a smoothing of the proxy (blue) data and not of the published temperatures, (red) which are completely different unsmoothed data. The fact that tree-ring growth data does not calibrate to temperature since about 1960, has been known since at least 1997, and after ten years, is still described as an unresolved DIVERGENCE PROBLEM. (PROBLEM is a strongly definitive word) It is illegal to silently delete data simply because it is inconvenient. (and cannot be explained).
You are also quietly admitting that the recent good quality proxy data of sample size over 100 is unreliable. Yet, you assume that a lesser sample size of 12 (twelve) during the MWP, and highly regionalized, with added age-related uncertainty is OK to infer the MWP over a much larger area.
If you take the trouble to look at figure 6.1 in the IPCC WG1 2007 report, they loosely describe how 15 years of non-available data was invented for their various 30-year smoothings, and it is different to what you claim for Mann.
You did not make any words of denial on the other five EXAMPLES. Does that mean that you agree that they do indeed describe a deception, or that you can’t think of any good words of denial?
August 27th, 2007 at 7:47 am
“However, you may have noticed my repeated capitalization of the word HEAT, alongside EMR. This is to emphasize the difference between these two distinct forms of energy. ”
Heat can be two things: energy in the form of EMR and kinetic energy. There is no such thing as “HEAT” separated from these.
“I understand that the KE of a molecule; its T; can only go up in progressive exact steps”
No. You understand wrongly. But temperature is irrelevant for this absorption/emission process.
“The reason I was surprised at your photon free path of 100m, is largely from study of typically published graphs of the EMR absorption from ground, and a vague recollection of it being stated somewhere that it may occur at ~10 Km.”
This is nonsense, or more likely have to do with something else.
This post is so garbled as to be virtually unreadable and un-understandable. Your notion of “HEAT” and “HEAT” transfer is nonsensical, or close to it, in the discussion at hand. Your notion of how energy is transported in the atmosphere as it regards global warming is equally so. And this on a so basic a level that I would really suggest you to take some university level science classes to correct them.
I understand that a high enough level of scientific understanding to penetrate stuff like this isn’t available to most people. But most people realize this, which you don’t seem to do. You discuss the fine details of phenomena and diagrams that you really don’t understand the meaning of. You need a teacher, not a forum for debate. This is not meant to be impolite. But it’s useless to discuss scientific points and principles if you don’t understand them. And understanding scientific points and principles is not something to be taught in short post on a forum for debates.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Bob,
Read this:
http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2007/03/cap-answers-it-all.html
Explains the greenhouse effect in reasonable detail and not too complicated.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“I get the feeling that the reason you have difficulty in composing a rational and unprejudicial post is that you are in too much of a hurry.”
No. I compose my posts reasonably fast because a) I know the subject really well, and b) I write for a living. I’m a physicist and work as a science writer. And “rational” and “unprejudicial” are in the eye of the beholder, I assure you. I understand you do not believe this, but reality is not determined by your beliefs. I also understand you’ll never give up your beliefs though, so I see this discussion as increasingly pointless. I really, really wish you were right though. If you were, the future of my children and grandchildren would look much brighter. I’m rather convinced we won’t do enough in time to reverse the effects of anthropogenic global warming, so I’m reasonably convinced my son and daughter are f***ed (and their children even more so). And deniers like you are partly to blame. Sleep well.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Themotie,
How about you actually look-up the definition of HEAT, and EMR, rather than assert your unique opinion on it?
I repeat, HEAT is one thing, and EMR (Electro Magnetic Radiation, including in part, Infra-red Radiation) is totally another form of energy. For instance although Wikipedia is not completely reliable, as of this moment it does, according to its various contributors, give a quite good definition of HEAT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat (at Aug. 28)
However, in the very same Wikipedia, the definition of EMR, which is clearly a very DIFFERENT form of energy, (not HEAT), is currently given as: (at Aug. 28)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Themotie, before addressing the rest of your ramble, how about you find a denial for the above?
BobFJ
August 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Quite. And the HEAT you are referring to is kinetic energy. Which _I stated_ as one of the forms of energy. There is no such thing as “HEAT” separated from this. The physical property heat is the sum of the kinetic energy of the particles in the matter in question. QED. Your use of the word HEAT is so garbled as to be unintelligible. If you would clearly state your thesis maybe it would be easier to get some kind of grip on what you are trying to say. I am a university graduate in physics, so I’m reasonably sure _I_ know what I’m talking about.
And heat transfer is not an issue with regard to the increase in the greenhouse effect caused by an increase in CO2. It’s all about radiation. I really wish you would find a science teacher. Even if it is in a way flattering, I find it disturbing that you attribute century-old scientific facts as my theories.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Themotie, reur Aug 28
Since you have difficulty in accepting that EMR and HEAT are two different forms of energy, as it is variously defined by other physicists in the literature, here is a rewording, with additional explanation:
YOU THEMOTIE SAID originally: Heat can be two things: energy in the form of EMR and kinetic energy. There is no such thing as “HEAT” separated from these…This post is so garbled as to be virtually unreadable and un-understandable. Your notion of “HEAT” and “HEAT” transfer is nonsensical, or close to it, in the discussion at hand. UNQUOTE.
Please carefully read this definition and discussion around HEAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Then, please carefully read the next definition and discussion on EMR, and see if you can detect some fundamental differences. Among other things it explains how EMR may be absorbed as (converted to) HEAT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Maybe the following comparisons of some other forms of energy to that of EMR will help you understand:
Electricity is another form of energy, which when encountering a resistance, is converted to (~ absorbed as) heat.
Hydraulic kinetic energy, when it encounters a resistance say in a pipe, is also converted to waste heat. When it meets say a turbine, it is converted to useful work, plus waste heat. The greater the difference in potential, the greater is the energy transfer rate. (somewhat like our old friend T1 – T2, in heat transfer)
At the molecular level, the absorption of EMR as HEAT is complicated. In the simplest case of a black body, the typical Planck curve indicates a varying distribution of molecules of different energy levels. (decreasing right with increasing wavelengths). The area under the curve is related to the surface temperature of the matter. If there is HEAT gain from an EMR source at a higher temperature, the area increases accordingly, and it means that EMR has been absorbed as heat. (photons have been retained) Any transitory EMR and internal collisions do not change the heat content. In a partly absorptive, non-grey gas mixture subjected to additional (different) heat transfer processes, it is more complicated.
It should be noted that whilst heat can be described at the molecular level, as you do, that description is difficult to quantify and of little practical application. Hence, heat is usually defined and quantified at the material level.
I’m pasting an extract from my Aug 23, as additional explanation to show that EMR is NOT HEAT:
Example: consider a momentarily stable thin layer of air at say -10 degrees C. EMR in that layer is flying around in all directions, including 360 degrees horizontally. However, there is no HEAT content change, because the temperature of the layer does not change. (T1 = T2)
Themotie, before addressing the rest of your comments, do you still deny that HEAT is a different form of energy than EMR? (as is electricity and work etc.)
BobFJ
August 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Themotie, Jason, Reasic.
Some more philosophy:
QUOTE Themotie [to me]: I really, really wish you were right though. If you were, the future of my children and grandchildren would look much brighter. I’m rather convinced we won’t do enough in time to reverse the effects of anthropogenic global warming, so I’m reasonably convinced my son and daughter are f***ed (and their children even more so). And deniers like you are partly to blame. UNQUOTE
I wish to say that if this is how Themotie (or any of you) feels, that I sincerely feel very sad about it. Truly…. why should you be so stressed out! However, I am trying to point out to you, that the assertions of the IPCC and the thousands of “climatologists and modelers etc” whom ALL HAVE VESTED INTERESTS (career funded), are very clearly tainted by launching deception upon policymakers and media. (Would you like further clarification?)
You may think that I’m a big-oil executive, but all I can claim is that I have been retired from totally different employment or consultation for about twelve years. However, I take a CONTINUED interest in multi-disciplinary science, in part, to keep my grey-matter moving…..I hope to not go like Ronnie Reagan!…..I have NO VESTED interests.
Consequently, I may have more time than you to research and present clear evidence and facts about the IPCC’s ideological “Manna” deception centered upon the hockey-stick, (but that is only the tip of the iceberg…a few steps at a time if you are interested), but you seem to be unwilling to accept the evidence.
Let me tell you a story about my very close involvement with a family in Adelaide (Australia). (I married one of them). They were Christadelphians. (a Christian church with very strong leanings towards the Old Testament). Part of the family created a schism, and moved into the hills above Adelaide in 1999 because they were convinced that in 2000, the sinful city of Adelaide would get its Armageddon. They were terribly disappointed when it did not happen, and some of their kids subsequently “came-out” but were “withdrawn-from”…that being a terrible punishment to any of the unfaithful in the church! This fundamentalist schism was convinced that the Book of Daniel did prophesy of Adelaide’s 2000 doom, and the building of a new Temple in Jerusalem. To some of them, I pointed out but to no avail, the very many internal errors in Daniel. For instance, in chapter 1 Daniel is a raw youth speaking only Hebrew, but in chapter 2 somewhat earlier in the reign of the same Nebuchadnezzar he is a tri-lingual confidant, and wiser than all the wizards in the king’s court. The Jews treat the book as literature, and biblical scholars widely agree it was written in 164 or 165 BC, by virtue of its overwhelming internal evidence. I have written an unpublished book on this, which I eventually withheld. My point in mentioning this is that it seems to be a human condition that unshakable beliefs can dominate over any contrary evidence that may be presented.
Rather than brood on Armageddon, why not discover some good news?
What about the MILLIONS dying from AIDS, no clean water, TB, malaria etc etc etc?
What about the second anniversary of Katrina?
What are the real priorities?
Neo-cons oil?
Regards, BobFJ