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…
September 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
To Themotie,
Hi ‘Motie, I also notice, (further to the immediate post above) that since Aug. 27, following certain unanswered posits, that you seem to have revert-migrated back to the “Reasic blog” (= Jason Leggett’s own blog)
It may only be a mistaken impression of mine…..but please tell me that you are not dogmatically trying to deny what I am attempting to reveal to you!
I bear you, (and nobody for that matter) any malice!
Regards, BobFJ
September 9th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
BTW Themotie,
Did you notice my additional response of Sep 4 inserted immediately below your Aug. 27 way above, to which I have not seen a response?
I mention this because typically elsewhere you have responded IMMEDIATELY, even when I said that I will be incommunicado for a considerable period that ought encourage you to cogitate any response at more considered length.
Cheers, BobFJ
September 9th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
BobFJ–
Jason’s taking a hiatus right now — work and family are keeping him busy enough. We’re hoping he’ll be rejoining the writing team in the next month or two…
Best,
Jeff
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
September 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am
The problem from your point of view is that this is normal scientific probing, and in no way the “let’s sink the ship” disputing you imply. You have to understand what constitutes a normal scientific discussion to understand what you are reading.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Bob,
Better late than never …
“local temperature difference with the ground surface”
Yes, the temperature of the ground obviously has an effect. Because that affects the wavelength of the IR radiation. Duh. The temperature of the gas technically also have an effect of course. But in all practicality that effect is negligible. The amount the absorption bands are shifted due to a temperature difference of a few degrees is so small. Again, this is a question of actually understanding what the scientist in question is saying. This is like saying “the speed of a bullet is affected by whether you are walking or standing still”. Correct, but mostly irrelevant. By the way, re this I would like your take on the greenhouse effect on 450°C Venus.
“His comments cut across the long-standing mainstream climatologist’s hypothesis that the greenhouse effect is caused by EMR back-radiation, or that cold air and clouds heat the warmer ground below.”
No-one has ever claimed this. Go back and actually read the aug 27 link.
“Additionally, the physics of HEAT conduction in MOST materials is somewhat similar to HEAT transfer through an absorbent gas, via EMR absorption as HEAT and reemission. In the former, the quanta are phonons, and the latter, photons.”
No. In conduction heat transfer is most definitely not by photon emission and absorption. It’s an entirely different physical process. This is university level A physics.
“Another thing that angers rational scientists is the IPCC dogma of treating anthropogenic greenhouse gasses etc as “forcings”, but water with its far greater effects, are dismissed as “feedbacks”, and are treated only cursorily.”
Your statement make no sense. Read up on the actual meaning of the words “forcing” and “feedback” in the context of climate. The IPCC most definitely does not treat feedbacks “cursorily”. And “aerosol seeded cloud formation” has nothing whatsoever to do with water vapor levels. Water vapor does not materialize out of thin air when there are aerosols present as you seem rather strongly to imply.
Let’s look at the “experts” whose reviews you have chosen. Vincent Gray is an elderly petroleum chemist. Keith Shine says that more care should be take with the wording, but has no objections on the actual issue. Same with Richard S. Courtney. Caroline Leck as scientists usually do want to focus on what we don’t know instead of what we do know. Nothing wrong with that (in fact, that’s what scientists should do), but it’s not the most effective way of communication what we do, in fact, know. She basically says we don’t know it all yet. No, we don’t. But enough to say something is seriously wrong.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Bob,
It just seemed a waste of time to have the same discussion on two different blogs.
As to the dogmatic denial, what could conceivably change _your_ mind? Since it is so apparent you are not in the least driven by dogma or ideology, but are instead extremely receptive and humble as to the limits of your own knowledge.
I’d really want you to answer this, and not just let it slide by like you do with most other inconvenient questions.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Bob,
Your prayers have been answered.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Bob,
“Truly…. why should you be so stressed out!”
Unfortunately, I can’t choose which facts to believe based on whether they stress me or not. Is that what you do?
And Bob, I don’t really consider the scientific community and the Book of Daniel to be in quite the same league as sources of scientific fact. So basing one’s actions on claims made in the Book of daniel and basing one’s actions on claims made by the scientific community isn’t quite the same I feel.
I’m very aware that there have been doom-sayers in all times. This gets highlighted everytime an asteroid is to pass within a million miles of the Earth, a hundred people die of Ebola in Congo or some such thing. But a somewhat close look at the science behind such claims usually pretty quickly reveals if there is any substance there (no, the Earth won’t likely be smacked sometime soon, and Ebola is no danger except to local congolese). Unfortunately there is regarding AGW.
You must also be aware that there are conspiracy theories in all times. Do you dare to run through a checklist on conspiracy theories and see how many points your take on AGW gets? I’d wager it’s a few.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hi ‘motie, reur Sep18 @ 4:53am blog-time.
{1} YOU QUOTED Andrew Lacis & SAID: “local temperature difference with the ground surface”
Yes, the temperature of the ground obviously has an effect. Because that affects the wavelength of the IR radiation. Duh. The temperature of the gas technically also have an effect of course. But in all practicality that effect is negligible. The amount the absorption bands are shifted due to a temperature difference of a few degrees is so small. Again, this is a question of actually understanding what the scientist in question is saying. UNQUOTE
Putting aside a few sillies; you either misunderstood what Andrew Lacis said, or, are attempting yet another diversion. He refers to temperature DIFFERENCE because the greater it is, the greater is the heat transfer.
(= the greater is the ability of the greenhouse gasses to absorb EMR as HEAT) ….you know, our old friend in heat transfer; (T1 – T2)
{2} YOU QUOTED me & SAID: “His comments cut across the long-standing mainstream climatologist’s hypothesis that the greenhouse effect is caused by EMR back-radiation, or that cold air and clouds heat the warmer ground below.”
No-one has ever claimed this. Go back and actually read the aug 27 link. UNQUOTE.
Wrong again; some sources are even still publishing it today and (rather depressingly) it is still on-going in “education” in some universities! You said elsewhere that you have great faith in Wikipedia….OK, go look at the entry titled Earth’s Energy Balance, and look at the funny circulating arrows in the diagram. It is also duplicated in different style in the latest IPCC report. (fig 1.1 ? WG1, I think from memory).
Some years ago, in the McGraw-Hill scientific and Britannica encyclopedias, and variously elsewhere, it was popular in energy balance diagrams to use angry jagged red arrows from the cold air above viciously zapping the surface with naughty EMR. (which is not HEAT). Also, a famous learned professor said something like in one of those encyclopedias: when cirrus (ice) clouds appear, it takes only a few minutes for them to heat the surface.
It is such “experts”, whom IMPRINT the gullible with their message of AGW doom!)
{3} YOU QUOTED me & SAID: “Additionally, the physics of HEAT conduction in MOST materials is somewhat similar to HEAT transfer through an absorbent gas, via EMR absorption as HEAT and reemission. In the former, the quanta are phonons, and the latter, photons.”
No. In conduction heat transfer is most definitely not by photon emission and absorption. It’s an entirely different physical process. This is university level A physics. UNQUOTE
I’m not sure if you understood my words, but anyway yes, conduction is obviously a different physical process, yet it can be visualized as having similarities in a material (other than metal or crystalline) in that the quanta are named phonons, as distinct from photons. (please concentrate carefully on the spellings: phonons versus photons)
Visualizations are sometimes appropriate in quantum mechanics to justify the “inexplicable”. For instance, how can atoms/molecules bounce neutrally off each other without some change in energy? A visualization of this that I remember is to conceive it like totally incompressible billiard balls (impossible) bouncing off each other. Obviously this is not the case, but it is a convenient visualization to comprehend the theory.
{4} I SAID: Another thing that angers rational scientists is the IPCC dogma of treating anthropogenic greenhouse gasses etc as “forcings”, but water with its far greater effects, are dismissed as “feedbacks”, and are treated only cursorily. This is despite that anthropogenic changes to water vapour levels, are also obviously evident, such as in tree clearing and aerosol seeded cloud formation. The difficulty of course is that the water “forcings” are immensely complicated and beyond quantification. Note that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, but is not and cannot be considered separately to the man-made. Neither should water be considered separately because it is interactive with the radiative and the other greater surface cooling effects, but, of course, it is all too hard. UNQUOTE
{4.1} YOU REPLIED: Your statement make no sense. Read up on the actual meaning of the words “forcing” and “feedback” in the context of climate. UNQUOTE.
I guess you meant to say [in the context of the current IPCC definition]. It is the IPCC definition which is regarded by rationalists to be an invalid “convenient construct”. Because you have elsewhere stated full belief in Wikipedia, please read this wiki-extract in the context FIRSTLY of climate, and SECONDLY of the IPCC:
“In climate science, radiative forcing is (loosely) defined as the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) tends to warm the system, while a negative forcing (more outgoing energy) tends to cool it. Possible sources of radiative forcing are changes in insolation (incident solar radiation), or the effects of variations in the amount of radiatively active gases present. Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regularly assesses the radiative forcing, it also has a more specific technical definition - see “IPCC usage” section…”
{4.2} YOU REPLIED: The IPCC most definitely does not treat feedbacks “cursorily”. UNQUOTE
You have made various assumptions and statements about the IPCC before this, based on your FAITH, and I doubt if you have actually waded through their various tomes. Believe me, there is a great deal that is unknown about water, and which is not adequately discussed by the IPCC! There is no space/time here to elaborate!
{4.3} YOU REPLIED: And “aerosol seeded cloud formation” has nothing whatsoever to do with water vapor levels. Water vapor does not materialize out of thin air when there are aerosols present as you seem rather strongly to imply.
Wrong Again! When water vapour condenses into clouds, it is no longer a gas but a liquid or solid, (ice), and it is known in physics to have undergone a phase-change or two. In the process, the original amount of water vapour (gas) is reduced. (and there is also latent heat take-up).
{5} Finally you abuse or dismiss some of the expert reviews of the IPCC 2007 WG1 reports. I will address this separately.
R E L A X ‘motie….take-in the good news….BobFJ
September 20th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Dear ‘motie
Uh?
Sleep tight…BobFJ