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 15th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Hi Black Wallaby,
Good point. Let’s move to the “Environmental News: Al Gore’s Passionate Speech by wyspa”site. Maybe Jason will do the same.
But first we probably have to let him have his last say on this site.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
December 15th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Hi Max,
May I complement you on your excellent summary of; December 15th, 2007 at 12:55 am
But, please let me add two things on the side:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(UNO): There is just one thing that I admired about the ex Prime minister of Britain; Beau Blair, and that was that he tried hard to convince the “world” that Africa, a HUGE continent, whilst already a disaster, is potentially a much greater disaster than the “Middle East” as of his reign! In Africa, millions drink muddy disease-born water, among many other sufferings! Why!?????????????????????????????????!!!. ARRGGGGHHH, why can’t we “CIVILIZED” people’s governments spend even say 1% of our GDP on helping these poor HUMAN BEINGS????!!!!!!!!! (They are PEOPLE, with emotions, great pain, and more)
However, Beau Blair failed. The ever worsening poverty and suffering, and increasing divide versus the wealthy in Africa, could eventually burst out into a vengeance and/or catastrophe like the world has never seen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(DUE): You caused me to visit the website pronouncements of the SG of the UN. And, I was astonished to find, (apart from the crap you already highlighted):
14 September 2007 | The Secretary-General message on the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer, 16 September 2007
The battle to repair the ozone layer represents one of the great success stories of international cooperation. Levels of ozone–damaging substances in our atmosphere are falling. And initial signs suggest that the vital shield protecting us from the sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation is regenerating.”
So why does he fail to mention that the ozone hole, after all these years of “improvement”, is actually increasing in size? See link:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17436
Here is a brief extract:
“From September 21 to 30, [2006], the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles,” said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
Here we go again; GSFC seems to have a bunch of guys ready to be rational, rather than the bunch at GISS.
Regards, Black Wallaby
December 15th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Max,
Okay, let’s put this to the test. I looked into the Larsen ice shelf break up a bit more, and it seems that this happened between January 31, 2002 and March 7, 2002. This is a total of 35 days, or 5 weeks. Now, Ban Ki Moon stated that it was less than three weeks, so I don’t know what he based this on, but it seems that he was off by just over two weeks. You, however, also exaggerated, but in the opposite direction:
Now, who was more misleading? You were off by almost two months!
You don’t say. You know, I don’t mind if you want to point out discrepancies with what a particular person says, but when you also exaggerate in an effort to make them sound worse, you are then also guilty of distorting the truth, which makes you lose whatever credibility you may have started with.
I can agree that Ban Ki Moon at least seems, at face value, to have been slightly misleading, but you have been no better. In your original argument, you compared Ban Ki Moon’s 10 to 100 years (when he actually said more than 100 or less than 10, emphasizing uncertainty) to 35,000 years, which is very misleading, because it is comparing two different methods of sea level rise (ice breaking up versus melting). On the Gore issue, you still have not provided a specific quote from him that is in line with what you originally attributed to him. Until you do, this will stand as yet another lie on your part. As far as the actual claim made by Ban Ki Moon, I admit that I haven’t researched it enough to know the likelihood of this occurring. I agree that there is a big difference between an ice shelf and an ice sheet, as far as the possibility that they would break up and slide into the ocean, but as Ban Ki Moon pointed out, some ice sheets have water flowing underneath them, which may explain his statement that the WAIS is “floating”.
I find it very ironic that, in your desperate attempt to prove Gore and Ban Ki Moon to be liars, you’ve resorted to becoming one yourself. Just stick to the truth, and your argument will be much more believable. Your own exaggerations and misleading arguments end up distracting from your argument. Now, any truth there may have been in your argument has become lost in your hypocrisy.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Hi Jason,
In your closing remark about Greenland you wrote: “I can see that you either ignored or didn’t understand my argument about the limitations of SRALT data and the subsequent need for data from other methods in order to develop a more clear understanding of the mass balance of the GIS. This is why I have decided to move on.”
I had fully intended to let our Greenland discussion rest in peace, but when you send out such a silly statement it begs to be shot down.
You keep making the same faulty argument for rationalizing the demonstrated fact that IPCC ignored (or “rejected” or “refused to accept as correct”) published data (Johannessen/Zwally) that contradicted its claim of net loss in the GIS equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
The fatal error in your argumentation is that it overlooks the fact that in addition to using the SRALT data of Johannessen, Zwally DID include the ATM data that was available for the time period of his study to capture the losses in the marginal areas plus he added “optimum interpretation” using other available data to further reduce the net mass gain.
The only slight flaw was that he truncated winter 2002/03, a period of heavy snowfall and resulting mass gain, from his study. Had he included these 6 months the net gain in GIS would have been higher than he reported.
But, either way, IPCC refused to accept his report as correct.
Face it, Jason. Your lost this part of our debate, so let the dead horse lie.
Regards,
Max
December 15th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Hi Jason
You wrote: “I can agree that Ban Ki Moon at least seems, at face value, to have been slightly misleading, but you have been no better. In your original argument, you compared Ban Ki Moon’s 10 to 100 years (when he actually said more than 100 or less than 10, emphasizing uncertainty) to 35,000 years, which is very misleading, because it is comparing two different methods of sea level rise (ice breaking up versus melting).”
You’re falling back into your very bad habit of dishing up double talk. I posted you the SG’s actual quote on this, so will not repeat it.
I also showed you how absurd it was to compare the Larsen ice shelf collapse with a 6-meter sea level rise from a major breakup of the WAIS that “could occur quickly, almost overnight”. You say that this “at least seems, at face value, to have been slightly misleading”. (So, in other words, it was just a “little” lie in your opinion.)
BTW, I made a mistake in my calculation that Larsen would have caused a 1.6 to 2.0 mm sea level rise. Since it was already floating, it would not have caused any rise. At any rate, it is totally disingenuous of the SG to compare this much-ballyhooed event to a possible future “overnight” breakup of the WAIS. Was this a lie (or just an intentional disingenuous statement made to misinform and frighten people)?
As far as Al’s sci-fi horror flick, there are enough reviews out there showing that it is full of exaggerations and inaccuracies. Are these lies (or just intentional exaggerations made to misinform and frighten people)?
If you want to believe all these exaggerations (or lies) because it makes you feel good, go right ahead.
I will continue to remain rationally skeptical of anything I hear from politicians trying to “sell a bill of goods” to justify a political agenda until I can verify that they have indeed told me the truth.
Regards,
Max
December 15th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Hi Black Wallaby,
Thanks for correcting me on Larsen impact on sea level. Have included this correction in my last post to Jason on UN SG and Al Gore exaggerations.
I also couldn’t resist shooting down Jason’s “closing remark” on Greenland, where he was again rationalizing why IPCC ignored the Johannessen/Zwally reports. I saw you also took him to task for this.
Also thanks for link to Times Online article. Had a good laugh.
Camilla Cavendish’s blurb “ Environmentalists may get off on climate porn, but most people just turn away” was interesting, as it introduced a new “climate” concept to the list (i.e. “climate deniers”, “climate flat earthers”, etc.). Not exactly sure what “climate porn” is supposed to be. Is she referring to Jason’s Bible, the IPCC 2007 SPM report? In her warped imagination, she seems to somehow compare IPCC skeptics to people who stand by watching a brutal murder.
Comparing those who are skeptical of alarming IPCC predictions (i.e. who do not blindly believe that these disaster predictions for the future are correct) to those who idly stood by as Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered (i.e. who do not react to something horrible that is actually happening before their eyes) or to holocaust deniers (i.e. who refuse to accept what has historically been proven to be a horrible, true fact) is more than a bit of a stretch.
It also blurs the difference between future (maybe), present (actual) and past (recorded) tenses.
But it is unfortunately typical of the hyperbole that the disastrous AGW proponents use to attempt to discredit those that do not agree with them.
Regards,
Max
December 15th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Hi Black Wallaby,
For a very good summary of what is going on in the AGW circus today, read “The Creeping Facism of Global Warming Hysteria”, by Paul Joseph Watson:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm
He quotes many of the scientists who do not support the science behind the current AGW hysteria, as well as Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, who takes issue with what he calls the “whip of political correctness” for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming.
Would be good reading for Jason, as well, as it might give him some insight on what really drives “disastrous AGW skeptics” who rationally question all the hype that is out there.
Regards,
Max
December 15th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Hi Max,
CLIMATE PORN….I first camr across this last month, and
I started a draft “GO Journal” on it but never finished.
You would probably enjoy this radio programme podcast below, but I think it will be going onto “Repeats” over the long Australian general shutdown of things, until around end January.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Draft:
Here is an interesting expert discussion concerning disappointing progress in reducing CO2 emissions. The parties elaborate some unproductive consequences of the alarmist treatment sometimes given to climate change.
In brief it is concluded that there is a big turn-off because among other things, some people feel it is out of control, even to the bizarre point maybe of; Oh well, let’s crack-the-champagne and go out and buy a Hummer while we can!
The parties are:
Simon Retallack; Head of the Low Carbon Programme at the Institute for Public Policy Research, in London.
Jim Macnamara; Adjunct Professor of Communication, UTS; Group Research Director, Media Monitors.
Presenter; Phillip Adams; I describe him as Australian media genius, and strong climate activist.
Download ~ 15 minutes of Audio (item 2, of Nov.19):
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/2095148.htm
Or access Podcast or RSS feed for daily programs:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/
Example of silly alarmism from Tim Flannery….”Australian Of The Year” (Unfinished)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards, Black Wallaby
December 15th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Hi Reasic,
Somewhere up there in your rambling there was something about floating ice-sheets!!!!!
As a civil engineer, you should not entertain the idea, because you should know that the only way that an ice-sheet can slide into the ocean, is via gravitational force on downward sloping ground towards the ocean. Whilst ground surface water would act as a lubricant, it cannot pool significantly, because the average slope is downhill, and it is squeezed out by the weight of the ice above. (And, water does what it likes doing best; it runs downhill, rapidly).
Therefore, ice-sheets cannot float within your implied scenario. There are situations where floating is conceivable, but it would not matter. Such a case is Greenland which is sort-of dish shaped, being over 300 metres below sea level in the middle, under the weight of its ice. The range of hills around the rim would however capture any central floating GIS
Cheers, Black Wallaby.
BTW….Max…. “Climate P0rn”….I posted something before this but it did not take
December 16th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Hi Jason,
Are you ready to start debating the Antarctica issue?
My statement is that IPCC ignored published data (Wingham) that contradicted its claim of ice loss in the Antarctica ice sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
Do you have any evidence to counter this statement or are you ready to concede that my statement is correct?
I am anxiously awaiting your response.
Regards,
Max