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 20th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Hey ‘motie
I did not notice this wisdom of yours above on my last blog visit.
Look, sorry, I’m a bit thick, but could you please express yourself in plain English that a dumb-nut like me can understand?
I would probably answer your question if I could understand what the question is.
Please express it in simpler terms.
apologetically, BobFJ
Oh! BTW, whilst I agree that it is unfortunate that there are two different threads, they are nevertheless different.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Bob,
The key bit is “what could conceivably change _your_ mind?”. As in what fact, scientific result, argument, authority, whatever, could convince you that global warming is really happening, and that we are a key factor in making it happen. A few examples are sufficient.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Hi again Bob,
I don’t really think you’re thick. I do, however, think you lack some humility regarding how far you feel your knowledge will carry you.
We all agree that scientists are fallible. Is it not conceivable that you are also fallible?
It also appears that you fail to see that your reasoning meet all conceivable criteria for being a classic conspiracy theory.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Bob,
“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.”
He does, does he? When all the rest of the sentence talk about radiation and absorption? And temperature _difference_ have no effect on _radiative_ heat transfer, apart from what I stated.
“Wrong again; some sources are even still publishing it today”
Okay. I should have been clearer. No scientist in a scientific context claim this. It does not surprise me that it is claimed in popular scientific texts. But you can’t really hold popular scientific generalizations against front-line AGW theory, can you?
And yes, I have reasonable faith in the Wikipedia. As in the McGraw-Hill scientific and Britannica encyclopedias. But, as I have said a million times, you have to understand the context of what is being said to be able to understand the exact meaning! You can’t just take a statement from somewhere and apply it as the literal, gospel truth in any and all circumstances. You have to understand where and how it is permissible. This is because there are almost always hidden caveats everywhere. If you would have to write all these caveats out every time, most text would be unreadable. From your amazing persistence with this and similar arguments it would appear you either deny this or don’t understand it. How is it?
“conduction is obviously a different physical process, yet it can be visualized as having similarities in a material”
Yes. So, dazzle me with your brilliance and explain how this “somewhat similar” falsify AGW theory. Note your own “somewhat similar”.
Re 4.1. Yeah. Loosely. Are you pinning your hopes on a loose definition? There is an instructive discussion on this over at reasic from one of the recent days.
And who are these “rationalists” you speak of?
Yes, there is a great deal that is unknown about the climate. That is why we still do research. You have, however, failed to even remotely prove why this is a serious problem AGW-wise. All you have done is claim that there is much we don’t know about water and voila!, AGW is no more.
4.3. Conceded, even if I rather strongly believe this is a technicality. Now you only have to prove that this removal of water vapor is significant.
5. Who did I abuse? Most of them I even agreed with. I only questioned your rather questionable conclusions from what they said. I also can’t help pointing out that you claim the entire scientific community are paid hacks with no integrity and no professional honesty, perpetuating a hoax designed to rule humanity. Talk about massive abuse.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Bob,
Does this mean you didn’t understand a word of what I said?
September 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hi Max,
No my beliefs are not driven by fear, it’s my fear which is driven by my beliefs, if you will. I would argue that it’s rational to be fearful of something that is threatening the very fabric of society. I also fear nuclear weapons. And I fear the destruction of the world’s ecosystems. I don’t feel that is irrational. I would argue turning a blind eye is irrational. Very understandable, but irrational.
I was actually aware of the climate problem before it became a mainstream issue, and certainly way, way before AR4 (of 2007). Just like the climate science pioneers were. What do you think drove THEM, Max? Way back when no politician with any wish to be elected to anything would even touch the issue? Why did these scientists say what they did?
September 21st, 2007 at 8:32 am
‘ motie, Reur Sep 18, part 2
Concerning your expert comment on the IPCC expert reviewers comments on the IPCC draft reports, as quoted in my Sep 4.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(A) YOU SAID: Let’s look at the “experts” whose reviews you have chosen. Vincent Gray is an elderly petroleum chemist …” UNQUOTE.
Well actually, he has been an expert reviewer for the IPCC reports of 1995, 2001 & 2007…no need for your “expert” insinuation I do suggest! He has been a climatologist for 14 years.
WEBQUOTE: “Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. Dr. Gray has published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science”
Why do you use the words elderly and petroleum? Here is an extract from a recent web-chat of his:
“At this point let me say that the idea that scientific opinions can be influenced by employers is not just a myth. In my long scientific career such pressure was applied to myself on several occasions, and on one of them, I was dismissed when I resisted,
Because of the opinions I express in this newsletter I am sometimes accused of being influenced by mythical employers, For example Professor Neil Curtis, … currently Patron of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, has accused me of being in the pay of oil companies. Vanessa Atkins, Greenpeace representative in New Zealand, says I am paid by Exxon, and the same accusation has been made recently on the “Real Climate” website
I have never been employed by any oil company, or received finance from one. Campaigning for truth in climate science is not exactly financially rewarding. I might tell you about two of my recent contributions …”
I presume the reason you do not discuss his rational comments (those few that I posted) is that you believe per your own group dogma, that he is an “elderly petroleum chemist”, and therefore he is not only senile, but he is also paid by Exxon to tell lies. He is actually spoken of elsewhere by non-bigots rather affectionately; as a scientist’s scientist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(B) YOU SAID: Keith Shine says that more care should be take with the wording, but has no objections on the actual issue. UNQUOTE
Oh really? This is what he actually said:
2-280 This is a MAJOR comment. You will cause immense confusion with the reference to water vapour like this - without making it clear that there is an anthropogenically driven component of water vapour change via temperature changes. I have seen this confusion (and indeed wanton misrepresentation) in discussions of previous IPCC reports. [Keith Shine]
Did you not notice the significance of his use of the lexeme anthropogenic together with the word water? Did you not notice his words “wanton misrepresentation”? He was a lead author of the 1995 IPCC report. Does that make him an “expert” in your expert wisdom?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(C) YOU SAID: Same with Richard S. Courtney. UNQUOTE
Oh really? This is what he actually said:
1-76 “The start of this draft Answer is so wrong that it beggars belief (it should be given a ‘fail’ grade if submitted as answer to an assignment by an undergraduate). The following change is the minimum required to raise the start of this draft Answer to an acceptable standard. Replace the phrase, “The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect” with the following:
“The greenhouse effect of the Earth is the increase to the Earth’s surface temperature that results from the presence of the Earth’s atmosphere. This rise in temperature is caused by several effects, notably the radiative, convective and evaporative components…” [Richard S. Courtney]
Did you not notice a touch of anger typical of when rationalists are confronted with the inadequate and almost silly IPCC definition of the “greenhouse effect”? If you concentrate really hard on the last paragraph, you may detect that he is actually requesting a TOTALLY DIFFERENT DEFINITION to that prevailing in the current IPCC dogma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(D) YOU SAID: 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. UNQUOTE
There is a popular expression in computer usage thus; S*** in = S*** out. You simply gloss-over that she is saying, in effect, that the model results being quoted for climate change projections to policymakers and the gullible, are based on S*** in.
Crease thine brow ‘motie….think thou deeply!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long did you take reading and thinking about this stuff? 5 minutes maybe….or, am I too generous….half that maybe?
September 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
‘motie reur Sep 20 @6:50 am blog-time
Well, actually, if someone could provide some SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the current rather brief decadal warming has a significant human influence, I would verily like to see that EVIDENCE. (show me!) I state this in absolute sincerity, without any religious or financially driven motives. (I am a septuagenarian in reflective retirement) I am motivated only by logical consideration of SCIENCE, (unaffected by emotion or dogma = religion) I have an imperative to implore that we devote our human resources and intelligence to the much BIGGER issues, and I am not senile, (yet).
E.G, are you even slightly aware of the unattended human suffering in Africa, counted in many millions of PEOPLE?
They may have black skins you selfish bigot, but they have emotions ETC just like you, and MANY MILLIONS of them suffer agonies beyond your ken!
I fully understand the thought processes that drive alarmists like you to believe that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is increasing some PPM, that therefore that is the cause of the current warming. However, when the total effects of water in its 3 different phases are properly understood and considered, (despite the IPCC dogma), it is very difficult to accept any significant contribution to warming by CO2. What is more, the immensely larger and very complex effects of water have variations that are unquantifiable. It follows that any unknown tiny proportional variation in the effects of water would swamp the relatively trivial PPM contribution of CO2
One could also argue that the consumption of Kentucky Fried Chicken has also gone up roughly proportional to the warming. So?
Finally, are you aware that the many thousand followers of the IPCC and its dogma, are employed by virtue of huge funding for so-called “AGW research”?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
‘motie,
I’m beginning to think you might be on some hallucinatory substances. Here in Oz we have problems with the aboriginals sniffing glue or petrol (gasolene?).
I shall be away for a few days.
I feel sorry for you…..BobFJ
September 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“motie,reur Sep20@7:38am blogtime.
Well basically most of what you said was utter waffle and I’m not sure as to what its context or reference was.
However, concerning your mention of the Book of Daniel, there is absolutely no connection between it and science. My reference to it was philosophical or anthropological. My point was that we humans often seem to have a spiritual aspiration sometimes known as a religious calling. When stricken with this disease, the victims adopt certain unshakeable beliefs called dogma. Such victims when shown proof that their beliefs are wrong, simply go into denial. As PatPat put it a while ago, some people believe that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old, because that is what the Bible tells us.
However, obviously, that is just plain silly.
That is why I said Uh? BobFJ