Greenland and AGW

The last written records of the Norse Greenlan...
The last written records of the Norse Greenlanders are from a 1408 marriage in the church of Hvalsey...Image via Wikipedia

Guest post by S Jay Porter

In 891 AD. Eric The Red set off from Iceland with a few followers to explore a land to the west which they had probably spotted some time before while sailing out in their longboats, and then returned three years later with about 500 fellow Vikings. At first they settled on the south-east coast, close to the tip of this new land and then, as the population grew, created a further settlement to the south-west. They called their new home ‘Greenland’.

It has been said that this name was a ‘spin’, a publicity stunt to entice more Vikings to come to join the new settlers, but this would have been pointless if it had been impossible for them to survive. They must at least have been able to create their own dwellings, build their own fires, make their own clothes and above all, grow their own food. The settlers might have been able to trade such things as polar bear-skins and fox furs for iron and other necessities on occasional trips to Europe, but their compatriots in Denmark and Iceland would have been neither able nor willing to row their longboats out each month with groceries.

At present, the temperatures in Greenland range from a maximum of 7C in July to -9C in January. This is too cold for grain such as wheat and even rye to grow and ripen in the short summer of such northern latitudes. Nor are sheep and cattle happy at those temperatures. Hill sheep might be able to nibble away at moss and short grass, but cattle need lush meadows and hay to fatten and live through a winter. Solid wood is needed for building, boat building and warmth, but only bushes and such weak trees as birch now grow in Greenland.

In 1991, two caribou hunters stumbled over a log on a snowy Greenland riverbank, an unusual event because Greenland is now above the treeline. (1) Over the past century, further archaeological investigations found frozen sheep droppings, a cow barn, bones from pigs, sheep and goats and remains of rye, barley and wheat all of which indicate that the Vikings had large farmsteads with ample pastures. The Greenlanders obviously prospered, because from the number of farms in both settlements, whose 400 or so stone ruins still dot the landscape, archaeologists guess that the population may have risen to a peak of about five thousand. They also built a cathedral and churches with graves which means that the soil must have been soft enough to dig, but these graves are now well below the permafrost (2).

There is also a story in ‘Landnamabok, the Icelandic Book of Settlement, which tells of a man who swam across his local fjord to fetch a sheep for a feast in honour of his cousin, the founder of Greenland, Erick the Red. Studies of Channel swimmers show that 10C would be the lowest temperature that a man would be able to endure for such a swim, but the average August temperature of water in the fjords along the southern Greenland coast now rarely exceeds 6C. The water at that time must therefore have been at least 4C warmer and probably more than that which means that the summer temperatures (for the air) in the fjords in southern Greenland would then have been 13C-14C, (3) as compared with the present temperatures mentioned above.

It follows that temperatures must have been higher than those of today’s during that first settlement of Greenland which lasted from approximately 900 until the mid-1400s AD, when these settlements died out. There is no written explanation for this sudden demise but climate scientists have discovered that Iceland, like the rest of Europe, was gripped by a rapid and centuries-long drop in temperature, known as the Little Ice Age. And in a recent study, William D’Andrea and Yongsong Huang of Brown University, Providence RI (4) have traced the variability of the Greenland climate over a period of 5,600 years when previous inhabitants were also subjected to rapid warm and cold swings in temperatures

Yet the whole reason for the existence of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is to thrust upon the world’s population the idea that industrialisation in the West over the last 100 years and our profligate use of fossil fuels is producing a run-away heating of the planet through the emission of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, which unless checked will lead to its — and humanity’s — death. The western governments are happily looking forward to a vast increase in taxes to pay for measures to reduce ’carbon emissions’ and even the possibility of a Global Government to control everything has been mentioned (5).

So the possibility that temperatures were higher in the past in any part of the world was a thorn in the sides of those Climatologists who are wedded to the whole idea of Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW), also known as Climate Change.

Unfortunately for them, an English Climatologist, Hubert H Lamb, first formulated the idea of a Medieval Warming Period (MWP) in 1965 and other surveys have found that this warming did not just occur in the northwestern hemisphere but was global (6). Lamb founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971 and until the mid 1990s the MWP was undisputed fact and was shown even in the IPPC progress report of 1990. But Dr David Darning (University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy) in his recent testimony to Congress (7) said ‘…I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. It said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”’ And this the ‘warmist’ Climatologists certainly tried to do.

In 1998 a graph was produced by geophysicist Michael Mann, known as the Hockey Stick Graph’, which managed to almost air-brush out of existence the Medieval Warming Period . This was published in the eminent scientific magazine Nature and also in several places in the IPPC Report of 2001 and created a world-wide sensation. Here was proof positive the world was overheating and it was All Our Fault.

However, investigation of the graph by historians and climatologists who doubted the existence of global warming, brought criticism centred around the statistical method used and the associated computer programme. It was eventually called the most discredited study in the history of science and quietly dropped by the IPPC from the latest 2007 IPPC report for policy makers.

The Hockey Stick graph had also attempted to remove the Little Ice Age which was another world-wide event, lasting from roughly the early 14th century to the mid-19th century with short interspersed warm periods. It is well-known from written reports that temperatures must at times have been considerably lower than in the Medieval Warming Period since Frost Fairs were often held on the frozen Thames until 1814 and in 1658, during the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, King Karl X Gustav of Sweden led an army across the frozen Danish waters to lay siege to Copenhagen.

It was also at this time that the Viking settlements in Greenland gradually died out. The Medieval Warming Period is usually agreed to have lasted from approximately 900 to approximately 1300 AD and from then onwards the climate cooled again. Glaciers grew, sea ice advanced and marine life migrated southwards as it did so, leaving the Greenlanders with a smaller and more difficult catch. The summers became shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder which became less available. Trade between Greenland, Iceland and Europe became more difficult and finally ceased. (3) It can only be hoped that a few Greenlanders escaped to re-settled somewhere less cold before starvation overcame them all.

But since temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were higher in Greenland than they are even today, and since this was followed by a Cooling Period, and since this has happened many times before (which have not been considered here), the fact that the earth may have warmed somewhat since the mid 1850s is not unusual. Nor will it be unusual if the temperatures now start to drop.

Above all, since man was not industrialised before the mid-1850s and so was not emitting any huge amounts of CO2, any warming which has occurred over the past 150 years (for which we should be grateful) is obviously a natural event and —

— NOT ALL OUR FAULT!

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Word Count: 1,418

Sonya Porter

Source Material:

(1) http://watsupwiththat.com (The Viking farm under the sand in Greenland by Terese Brasen)

(2) http://www.archaeology.org

(3) ‘Heaven and Earth’ by Prof. Ian Plimer

(4) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/31/temperature-reconstruction-of-greenland-shows-ups-and-downs-in-climate-happened-over-5600-years/

(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lsltxgrr_o

(6) http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog

(7) http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

169 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pull My Finger
June 1, 2011 5:16 am

The gamma rays would arrive in 6500 (1054 ad) years, not 65. The actual super nova would have been in the 6th Century BC, which happens to coincide with a lot of serious progress for humans, the Biblical flood, and some massive climate changes.
Coincidence? I THINK NOT! 🙂
———————–
The Crab Nebula is 6500 light years away

Pamela Gray
June 1, 2011 5:19 am

Those that postulate current CO2 causation (as opposed to historical natural drivers) fail miserably regarding the energy required to warm up Greenland. The only place that energy could have come from at that time in history would be within the confines of a weather pattern variation (think stationary pressure systems that parked themselves over Greenland, or major influx of warm ocean currents along the coastline). Weather pattern and oceanic systems have tremendous energy in them. Way more than the ever so slight rise in CO2 in terms of ppm – IE not relative to itself but relative to the total parts of the atmosphere.

UK Marcus
June 1, 2011 5:25 am

Sonya, thanks for posting this illuminating story.
The great Chinese fleets, are reported to have sailed around the north coast of Greenland, c.1420.
They then ignored most of Europe as being, presumably, too backward and with nothing to contribute to their understanding of the world they had just discovered – America and Africa.

June 1, 2011 5:29 am

With the vested interests of Greenpeace, Fiends of the Earth and all the other “Green” organisations investing huge amounts of time and effort into impoverishing the West and destroying any sensible economic development, this sort of information will always get hidden, discredited and buried if they can.
This is no longer a debate about science or even a scientific search for truth, this is about whose ideology ultimately succeeds – and Greenpeace et al are front organisations for Fabians and anarchists.

Mike(One of the Many)
June 1, 2011 5:29 am

“MarkW says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:23 am
I’ve been wondering. The super nova that caused the Crab Nebula was spotted by the Chinese in 1054, it was bright enough to be seen during the day for a short time. The Crab Nebula is 6500 light years away. Gamma rays traveling at 99% of the speed of light would have arrived 65 years later. Those traveling at 90% of the speed of light would have arrived 650 years later. So gamma rays from this nearby super nova would have been arriving during the period of the little ice age. Coincidence?

Surely, you mean cosmic rays i.e. highly energetic charged particles accelerated by ultra powerful magnetic fields?
Gamma rays, are electromagnetic and they will travel at the speed of light in the medium in question, in this case a vacuum, so that would be c, not a fraction of c. Though, a close gamma ray burst, hitting us dead on would not be good for us or the rest of the planet and large quantities of galactic cosmic rays might have an effect on cloud cover, Svensmark et al
So, you’re not entirely wrong

Pull My Finger
June 1, 2011 5:31 am

There is no question MWP and LIA existed, the effects of them have been taught in introductory history classes for decades. The Biblical Flood is spoke of in practically every civilizations history, one theory is a massive glacial melt flood at the end of an ice age in 9th millenium BC. We know the dark ages were cold and damp and miserable. One theory as to why such crazyness happened, especially with the witch hunts, was due to a fungus that grew on wheat during cold damp seasons which had some of the properties of a halluciagen.
Science shows that climate changes over geologically short time periods, history is full of such stories and cultural evidence, so what does that make the Climate “Scientists”? They deny science, they deny history, so I think they are the denialists.
If they want to live in the 14th Century they are free to try, just don’t drag me with you.

Keith G
June 1, 2011 5:42 am

Ms. Porter,
Excellent post! There is an obvious corollary to your summary. Phase I of the supposed disastrous rise in sea levels is largely based on melting of the ice sheets on Greenland. If Greenland was significantly warmer in historical times, and sea levels did not rise noticeably then, why would they now when temperatures are still below what they were?
Graves dug in soft soil that is now permafrost? Forests in an area that is now above the tree line? Historical evidence of cattle and sheep when modern breeds and improved shelters aren’t enough to allow significant animal husbandry? Wheat fields in Greenland?
It’s simply mind-boggling that the storyline of coming floods still has legs given the historical evidence.

Fred from Canuckistan
June 1, 2011 5:45 am

Have they figured out yet how many Hummers Eric the Red owned?
What colors were they?

Jon
June 1, 2011 5:49 am

“Studies of Channel swimmers show that 10C would be the lowest temperature that a man would be able to endure for such a swim, but the average August temperature of water in the fjords along the southern Greenland coast now rarely exceeds 6C. The water at that time must therefore have been at least 4C warmer ”
A bold statement … does this take into account their physiological adaptation to cold?
http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/1530/1509

Icarus
June 1, 2011 5:53 am

The climate history of Greenland is interesting but it doesn’t have much relevance to the global warming we’re seeing today. No ‘skeptical’ climate scientist is going to claim to have refuted AGW just because it was equally warm or warmer at some time in the past, either regionally or globally.

MikeH
June 1, 2011 6:04 am

For notation (7), the link is wrong, there is a . after the word hearing, it should not be there..
Here is the correct link:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
Also, notation (5), the youtube account has been suspended due to copyright issues (oops). Is there another link to the same information?

Dave Springer
June 1, 2011 6:09 am

re; gamma rays from Crab Nebula supernova
Cut MarkW some slack. He meant to say cosmic rays, not gamma rays. Cosmic “ray” is a misnomer as they are actually charged particles moving at a significant fraction of light speed. Cosmic rays are indeed thrown off by supernova.
6500 light years is NOT too far away to effect our atmosphere. It was visible in the daytime sky. How many astronomical objects can be seen in the daytime sky? If it’s bright enough to be seen in the daytime sky from the ground think of how bright it must have been nearer to the top of the atmosphere.

ZZZ
June 1, 2011 6:10 am

The comments about gamma rays traveling exactly at the speed of light are correct, but cosmic rays (high-speed protons, heavier atomic nuclei, etc.) generated by the supernova would travel at slower velocities. Since these particles are charged, they can be deflected by galactic magnetic fields before reaching the solar system, making it more difficult to estimate when they would get here.

June 1, 2011 6:11 am

Dear Mr Porter:
May I translate this post into Spanish and publish it in my blog, “El Atril del Orador”, with due credits and links, of course?

Don B
June 1, 2011 6:15 am

In this study by the University of Alberta of a Norse farm site, Garden Under Sandet, they reported the site was well preserved because “the site was sealed by alluvium and permafrost.” The say that during the climate optimum period of the MWP between AD 800-1200, temperatures were 1-4 C warmer than today.
large file, 205 page report:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf

BBk
June 1, 2011 6:15 am

Not sure where you get the .90c and .99c figures for gamma rays, but they are electromagnetic radiation, and as such travel at the speed of light the same as visible light. The gamma rays would have arrived in 1054 as well.

I was going to say the same. Still, gamma rays aren’t the only things ejected from a supernova. It’s concievable that super-nova accellerated particles could have arrived in the time period described. Whether that would have an impact on climate is a seperate question. Certainly something to look at and see if any correlations can be drawn.

Laurie Bowen
June 1, 2011 6:20 am

Well, this is odd . . . I googled “I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. It said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”’ And this the ‘warmist’ Climatologists certainly tried to do.”
and it went to http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
and that is S Jay Porter’s same link . . . U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Hearing Statements, Date: 12/06/2006 without the _ .
I think it always has to be stressed that . . . . many things in life are
“obviously a natural event and –
– NOT ALL OUR FAULT!” . . . . Kinda’ like Death??. . . .

Dave Springer
June 1, 2011 6:21 am

(whoever that is)
Nobody talked about the Crab supernova “spelling an end to us”. The implication is to Svensmark’s hypothesis (which appears to have been experimentally confirmed which makes it a theory now) that waxing and waning of cosmic ray flux causes more or less formation of high altitude clouds which in turn cause more or less visible light from the sun to be reflected which in turns means more or less energy arriving at the surface to warm the ocean.
There are two things which determine the cosmic ray flux reaching the earth’s atmosphere. The first is the density of the flux reaching our solar system which varies in both predictable and unpredictable ways. A predictable way is where in the galaxy the solar system happens to be. Our solar system, over periods of many millions of years, wanders above and below the galactic plane. It also orbits the center of the galaxy at a different speed than the spiral arms so it also periodically passes through one of those arms. As stellar density increases so does the average cosmic ray flux as there are statistically more violent events that generate the rays in areas of greater stellar density. The second thing that determines cosmic ray flux reaching the earth’s atmosphere is the strength of the solar magnetic field. Sunspot number is a reasonable proxy for solar magnetic strength and people have been keeping a decent record of sunspot number for 400 years and there is a marked correlation that has been known for quite a while between sunspot count and climate.
So there.

MarkW
June 1, 2011 6:27 am

I meant cosmic rays, sorry.

Paul Nottingham
June 1, 2011 6:31 am

I think it would also be useful to look at the Great Frost of Ireland in the 1740s where conditions were so severe that proportionately as many people died as in the Great Famine of the 1840s. This event seems to be generally forgotten nowadays but presumably this is the environment to which warmists wish us to return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Famine_%281740%E2%80%931741%29

Mike Bromley
June 1, 2011 6:34 am

pytlozvejk says:
June 1, 2011 at 5:04 am
Anthony
Simple facts, but brilliant. The problem is that facts don’t convince ideologues and power-hungry weirdos. Did Lysenko ever retreat in the face of facts?
BTW, you need to get a proof-reader. Someone else has mentioned Deming/Darning. There’s also a para where you mention “Hock Stick Graph”. Just sayin’ …

Not to mention several references to the “IPPC”…otherwise an excellent summary, but proofing would have made it even more so.

Craig Loehle
June 1, 2011 6:38 am

I have seen many blog comments in various places insisting that Greenland was not warmer in the MWP than today. Just handwaving away the evidence about trees growing then and cattle and graveyards frozen solid. Besides as a greeting, I just hate handwaving…

Robert of Ottawa
June 1, 2011 6:38 am

It was the historical evidence that made me skeptical. Why I say there is a lack of proof or evidence that the current warming is caused by man is because it cannot be shown that the current warming is anything unusual as this has happened before.

Steve Keohane
June 1, 2011 6:39 am

Excellent piece Mr. Porter. Human experience trumps statistical fantasy every time. It was warmer during the MWP than now. For those who want global references to the same, see: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
OldSchoolboy says: June 1, 2011 at 4:22 am
In elementary school I was taught that the Vikings intentionally misnamed Greenland and Iceland (Greenland was in fact an “ice land” while Iceland was actually green) to confound enemies seeking to raid their colony. I have no idea who made this up.

I was taught a different variation, probably wrong, that they confused the naming of Iceland and Greenland, the warmer place Iceland, was supposed to be called Greenland. This would have been in the late 1950s.

Dave Springer
June 1, 2011 6:41 am

re; cosmic ray flux
I forget to mention the unpredictable way in which cosmic ray flux varies. Orbital mechanics of the solar system about the center of the galaxy is predictable. What isn’t predictable is relatively nearby supernovae events. More or less stellar density makes these nearby events statistically more or less likely but on an event by event basis it’s still unpredictable.
I also didn’t mention the mechanism by which variable solar magnetic field effects cosmic ray flux. Cosmic rays are charged particles and thus can be deflected magnetically. When the solar magnetic is strong more cosmic rays are deflected away from the earth and when weaker fewer are deflected.
Solar magnetic field strength is somewhat predictable but we don’t really have a long enough record for statistical prediction nor a good enough understanding of solar physics for theoretical prediction. The ~11 year sunspot cycle is statistically predictable but the peak strength and weakness is less so. There appear to be centuries long cycles in that. The so called “Maunder Minimum” where sunspot counts were anomalously low coincided with the “Little Ice Age”. In the past 50 years there has been a yet to be named solar maximum. I’ll be dollars against donuts that the history books in future will have a name for the present solar maximum. It’s only just now being recognized that it was a maximum mostly due to the fact that appears to have ended with the most recent sunspot cycle. We are witnessing history being made.