From the THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY and the “must make the blade of the hockey stick flat” department comes this claim:
Study undercuts idea that ‘Medieval Warm Period’ was global
Vikings may not have colonized Greenland in nice weather

A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Based upon signs left by old glaciers, researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived–and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed exceptionally clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world.
“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global,” said lead author Nicolás Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “The concept is Eurocentric–that’s where the best-known observations were made. Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same.” Climate scientists have cited the Medieval Warm Period to explain anomalies in rainfall and temperature in far-flung regions, from the U.S. Southwest to China. The study appears today in the journal Science Advances.
Norse, or Vikings, led by Erik the Red, first sailed from recently settled Iceland to southwestern Greenland around 985, according to Icelandic records. Some 3,000 to 5,000 settlers eventually lived in Greenland, harvesting walrus ivory and raising livestock. But the colonies disappeared between about 1360 and 1460, leaving only ruins, and a longstanding mystery as to what happened. The native Inuit remained, but Europeans did not re-inhabit Greenland until the 1700s.
The Greenlandic Vikings’ apogee coincided with the Medieval Warm Period (also known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly), generally dated from about 950-1250; their disappearance followed the onset of the Little Ice Age, which ran from about 1300-1850. Both periods are firmly documented in European and Icelandic historical records. Thus, popular authors and some scientists have fixed on the idea that nice weather drew the settlers to Greenland, and bad weather froze and starved them. But there are no early historical climate records from Greenland. Recently, historians have proposed more complex factors in addition to, or instead of, climate: hostilities with the Inuit, a decline in ivory trade, soil erosion caused by the Vikings’ imported cattle, or a migration back to Europe to farms depopulated by the Black Plague.
In the new study, the scientists sampled boulders left by advancing glaciers over the last 1,000-some years in southwest Greenland, and on neighboring Baffin Island, which the Norse may also have occupied, according to newly uncovered evidence. Glacial advances during the Little Ice Age have wiped out most evidence of where the glaciers were during the Norse settlement. But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines–heaps of debris left at glaciers’ ends–that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances. Using newly precise methods of analyzing chemical isotopes in the rocks, they showed that these moraines had been deposited during the Viking occupation, and that the glaciers had neared or reached their later maximum Little Ice Age positions between 975 and 1275. The strong implication: it was at least as cold when the Vikings arrived as when they left. “If the Vikings traveled to Greenland when it was cool, it’s a stretch to say deteriorating climate drove them out,” said Young.
The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off.
In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed. Other studies of the region suggest a more complex picture. A 2011 study of a core from the Greenland ice sheet shows a strong cooling at the start of Norse occupation, and another in the middle, with interspersed warming. On the other hand, lake-bottom sediments from southwestern Greenland studied in 2011 by Lamont-Doherty paleoclimatologist William D’Andrea, suggest it might indeed have been warm when the Norse arrived, but that climate cooled starting in 1160, well before the Little Ice Age.
The new study may feed recent suggestions by other researchers that the Medieval Warm Period was in part just an extended phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Modern observations show that the NAO is a generally decadal-scale climate cycle, in which warm winds from the west strengthen and boost temperatures in Europe and Iceland, but simultaneously make southwest Greenland and Baffin Island colder, by sucking in more Arctic air. That makes the two regions seesaw in opposite directions.
Gifford Miller, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Colorado, called the paper “a coup de grace on the Medieval Warm Period.” Miller said it shows “with great clarity of evidence” that “the idea of a consistently warm Medieval period is certainly an oversimplification and of little utility.”
Astrid Ogilvie, a climate historian currently based at Iceland’s Akureyri University, said the study “shows that the climate is clearly more complicated and variable than people earlier assumed.” As for the Vikings, the climate story has been dimming for some time, she said. “I do not like the simplistic argument that the Greenland people went there when it was warm, and then ‘it got cold and they died’,” she said. “I think the Medieval Warm Period has been built on many false premises, but it still clings to the popular imagination.”
The rocks were analyzed at the University of Buffalo, and at the Lamont-Doherty lab of geochemist and study coauthor Joerg Schaefer. The Lamont lab is among a handful that can precisely date such recent rock deposits. The analyses are done by measuring buildups of small amounts of Beryllium 10, an isotope created when cosmogenic rays strike rock surfaces newly exposed by melting ice.
###
In addition to Young and Schaefer, the paper was coauthored by Avriel Schweinsberg and Jason Briner of the University at Buffalo, who carried out the Greenland portion of the fieldwork.
The paper, “Glacier maxima in Baffin Bay during the Medieval Warm Period coeval with Norse settlement,” is available from Science Advances
On President Obama’s visit to Alaska. Check the tree-stumps in the retreating glaciers. A Limerick.
President Obama is on a mission to Alaska to promote draconian measures to combat Climate Change. What he doesn’t know is that Alaskans see evidence of the Ice Age everywhere, and that warm and cold periods has been with Alaska since time began. He can begin studying the tree-stumps that pop up out of melting glaciers and ask himself – why?
Well, he won’t. A quote from Obama’s speech in Alaska: “If we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between six and twelve degrees by the end of the century ”
On the other hand, if we do implement his draconian measures, we might lessen the temperature rise by about 0.05 degrees. *
Old tree-stumps in glaciers that shrink.
It once was much warmer – you think.
We can learn from the past
warm and cold will not last.
You cannot get this? – Seek a shrink.
Background:An ancient forest which is thought to have been hidden for at least 1,000 years has been discovered beneath a melting glacier. The trees are between 1000 and 2800 years old.
Logs and stumps can be seen underneath the thawing 37 square mile Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska, with some of the trees still bearing roots and bark.
Remnants of the forest have been protruding from the river of ice, which flows into a lake near the city of Juneau for around five decades.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2451640/Mendenhall-Glacier-melting-reveals-ancient-forest
* And then again, it might get colder all by itself: http://lenbilen.com/2014/07/01/eleven-signs-of-cooling-a-new-little-ice-age-coming/
Lenbilen — Your wit with a point should be repeated with emphasis (I’m afraid people will miss it in is current position above) so…
{Annotated version — ed. JM}
APPLAUSE! #(:))
{Insightful comment otherwise, too!}
Thanks. That makes sense.
#(:))
To YOU, it makes sense… (keep on writing — your creativity brightened my day!)
The Danes would like everyone to know that despite the cooling temperatures in Greenland, the Vikings toughed it out:
(Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/18/claim-danish-researchers-debunk-greenland-climate-myth/ )
To repeat for clarity (the wording of the above post on WUWT confused some readers at the time) the Danish study says :
1. The Vikings came to Greenland when it was relatively warm.
2. The climate cooled significantly after they arrived.
3. The Dane’s ancestors were tough! They did not leave due to cold
Conclusion: The above study supports the MWP Theory.
Wikipedia states that the Little Ice Age occurred between 1300 AD and 1850…ish. Wikipedia also states that the MWP 950 to 1250
Idiot Author of Study (IAS) claims-
“Eric the Red first sailed to Greenland in 985… But the colonies disappeared between about 1360 and 1460”
“that the glaciers had neared or reached their later maximum Little Ice Age positions between 975 and 1275…The strong implication: it was at least as cold when the Vikings arrived as when they left. “If the Vikings traveled to Greenland when it was cool, it’s a stretch to say deteriorating climate drove them out,” said Young.
WELL DUH!!!! It was just STARTING to warm up when they arrived (thus glaciers were still at their maximums along with all their moraine debris) and as it warmed, they thrived for 300+ years FARMING and raising cattle, which is impossible to do unless you can grow stuff and feed cattle (all this taking place during a period we call the MWP..when the glaciers most likely shrank back some) and then it started to get cold again…less crops=less cows, less everything…and glaciers advanced again to the SAME FREAKING places as they had been before.
It’s the exact same “stretch” to claim that deteriorating climate drove them out, as it is to say deteriorating climate DID NOT drive them out. How do these people have jobs?
Those melting, retreating glaciers would also provide plentiful fresh water in a warming climate.
The study’s data is sound. It how they made interpretations and conclusions that are BS.
“The concept is Eurocentric”
Yeah sure. below is an excerpt from the following link.
They pilgrims landed in 1620, hmm now when was that,, OH yes the little ice age.
The colony nearly died off during the first year. It was only saved by the arrival of a second ship the Swiftsure.
And they were pretty well prepared. Or so they thought.
“The first winter of Plymouth Colony was rough and many of the colonists died of scurvy and terrible conditions on-board the ship. The Mayflower sailed with 102 emigrants and of the 102, only 57 survived. Close to fifty percent of the original colonists died the first year. By the time of the harvest only 53 of the original 102 still survived. Of the 18 women, 14 died before the first Thanksgiving, leaving only 4 adult women.”
http://thehistoryjunkie.com/plymouth-colony-facts/
If it was just as cold for the vikings I don’t think it would have been possible for their colony to thrive.
By the way anyone Know what the breed of cattle the viking had was. Were they native or imported.
Barley again native or import. Does it still flourish,
michael
Oops not Swiftsure that was the one that didn’t go.
Hanging head in shame….
michael
Dear Michael,
Your information was no less helpful for that small error. Lift that chin, young man — there is no shame in making a mistake, just in refusing to learn from one.
WEAR that sweater I sent you!
Love from your Mom
(Well! That is what she WOULD have written!)
Ah Janice, Its local history for me. I grow up in Conn. and have been to Plymouth many times. Took my older there when he was young. Now semi retired I find names sometimes blend together, to much to remember.
Still there are to many places I have not yet seem and even more I wish to re-visit, now with my younger boy in tow..
michael
arrrhg not yet seen…. must learn to spell,,,
Michael Mann — The Hockey Stick
There was a crooked Mann
Who played a crooked trick
And had a crooked plan
To make a crooked stick
By using crooked math
That favored crooked lines
Lysenko’s crooked path
Led through the crooked pines
And all his crooked friends
Applaud what crooked seems
But all that crooked ends
Derives from crooked means
Eugene WR Gallun
An oldie but a goodie
You’re my hero Eugene.
Eric the Red, he traveled afar, establishing colonies bold,
But one summer day, the winds changed they say, and they all left because it got COLD.
And more
Fine rhyme with devastatingly accurate facts, to boot.
Eugene WR Gallun
An oldie but a goodie
😉
(Actually, I have no idea how old you are — your writing could be that of anyone from their 20’s up.)
Janice,
Eugene is referring to the fact that he has posted it before. I agree. It’s an oldie but goodie.
H.R. … thank you. I realized that. But, thank you for making sure I knew. I was trying to make a joke. Failed. Obviously. Yes, a goodie, indeed (both).
Janice Moore
I wrote that poem several years ago when the hockey stick was still a “new lie”. That’s what I meant by “an oldie”. I have put it up before on WUWT. I am currently 67 moving forward to 68 in Jan. The poem is a “goodie” but “goodie” is not a part of a poet’s job description.
Eugene WR Gallun
Hi, Mr. Gallun,
Yes, I realized that. Thanks for telling me. And I still think that BOTH you and it are “goodies.”
Your WUWT ally for truth (and humor),
Janice
Insects have a tale to tell too. From https://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/greenland/environment.html
See also http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
So the Vikings were stupid enough to plant crops in the snow…. Hmmmmmm……
… and lucky enough for them to grow!
Absolutely!
So, then the obverse must be true today and it’s actually very cold all over the world EXCEPT in the Arctic … so there is NO global warming, just regional warming.
Thanks Gifford. I sort of suspected that. 😉
Surprised? These mendacious twits at NASA most recently erased the nearly two-decades long pause.
It sounds like agenda driven science. Look until you find what you want.
These people are ignorant. Read about the Dorset people, who were there when the Vikings showed up, not the Inuit.
Read about all the other Northern settlements in the Scandinavian world that retreated South after the MWP ended.
Gawd. Ignorant. Stupid. Dishonest.
BTW, anybody who declares victory in a scientific debate, and declares the debate is over, is really not searching for truth. They are engaged in a polemic, not a scientific debate.
Think about evolution. We still don’t understand it. We can’t model it. We can’t predict its course. It is hard to even explain, although we know it has happened. We deny it when convenient. It’s like climate change. Cuvier was champion of special creation and Lamarck a champion of evolution. Both were right on the basic observation: New species did appear over time, but, since DNA was unknown, each man hatched a theory that didn’t involve DNA. Can’t blame them, but, a better scientist would have said we just don’t understand how new species come into being. We need a better understanding of the biology of living things. If they had just said: Parents pass on their traits to their offspring. We have to discover that mechanism before we can begin to understand evolution. But, in the feisty world of science, admitting ignorance is not going to help your career.
So, because our scientists are ignorant, but will not admit it, we are making the same old mistakes.
Exactly right.
And so long as all models diverge significantly from real world observations the theory of catastrophic man made climate change is falsified.
Anthony: your intro reads: the “must make the blade of the hockey stick flat” department. But this isn’t about the blade, it’s about the shaft of the hockey stick.
Are you saying they are trying to give us the shaft?
There are a lot of records and data covering the past 100 years which could easily be interpreted as showing patchy not global warming.
Yet the team’s inventive interpretation of far less data is casting the MWP as patchy?
If the team were to honestly and objectively apply the same standard to both periods would they not come to the conclusion there is far more stuff indicating the current period is patchy?
This is a point that I have long made.
First Climate is regional not global, and second change and the consequences of change occur and are felt predominantly on a regional basis.
For example, the Us has (which is about 6% of the area) has cooled since the highs of the late 1950s/early 1940s.
There has been all but no warming in equatorial/tropical regions since the satellite started taking measurements.
There has been no warming in the bulk of Antarctic, not only in the satellite data, but also radiosonde balloon measurements.
This is what RSS shows for regional variation.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
A couple of typos.
Couldn’t agree more. My comment along the same lines was to be:
“the idea of a consistently warm Medieval period is certainly an oversimplification and of little utility.”
Pretty much like the modern warm period. Pretty much like any period based on global temperature.
Anyone who thinks the MWP in Greenland was totally toasty is dreaming. The Vikings were there nearly half a millennium. There were undoubtedly half century periods of glacial advance (when the enthalpy went elsewhere on the planet). Vikings could handle themselves. They could take a lick. If those folks bailed after 500 years, no modern Carbon moonie would have survived the first week.
I’m confused. Can’t those whose work resulted in the earlier consensus simply declare the science settled. This would obviate these interminable revisions and the need for expensive studies.
Maybe it’s what I beleive is up for debate and what you beleive is the gospel truth.
Not inclined to eat that dog food.
So, they have a new toy; It gives evidence that is contrary to previous oxygen isotope analysis in both ice cores and human teeth.
Did they in any discount the previous evidence, or did they just say, “our new evidence indicates what we want it to, so all previous evidence shall be ignored (it doesn’t fit the current “settled science” dictum.
They appear to have simply ignored it. Pretty big elephant peeking over their shoulder, heh. Guess they think it’s just a big, gray, rock.
So it was already cold when the Vikings arrived? And how did they bury their dead, by chipping through the permafrost?
Lol, Art B! Didn’t you get the memo? The permafrost arrived, suddenly, in the middle of the night, on December 9th, 1947. Then, …. uh…….. around 1957, human CO2 emissions took off! Aaaand………. and it slowly began to melt……… because of human CO2 emissions……. until …. it… CAME BACK AGAIN OUT OF THE DEEP OCEAN (or from outer space)….. so, it’s cold there now….. .
So, that’s how they were able to bury their dead.
“Thus, popular authors and some scientists have fixed on the idea that nice weather drew the settlers to Greenland, and bad weather froze and starved them. But there are no early historical climate records from Greenland.”
Nice straw man argument. Because we can show ONE glacier was not in retreat, Viking always had it cold in Greenland hence MWP did not exist. Meanwhile in China, in the Austral Hemisphere…
The lack of common sense put into these attempts to do away with the MWP is very telling. Desperation and fear.
And a lovely sight it is.
The desperate tactic of a rearguard in retreat.
“Wars are not won by evacuations.” Sir Winston Churchill
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaa!
Gentlemen, to successfully raise livestock you have to feed them, do you not? And what, pray tell, do you feed the livestock? You grow crops and cut hay gentlemen. I put it to you that a growing season of sufficient length is necessary. Is that not true gentlemen?
Bloody wankers.
Rewrite history, revise data, and you can support anything, prove whatever you want.
I expect the IPCC to take on the name “Ministry of Truth”, and the UN to become the “Ministry of Plenty”.
This will be double plus ungood.
Before its sent to the forgettery
Its thought that the MWP beginning in 900AD had led to the destruction of the Dorset culture from N. America with the people being replaced by Inuits.
“The Tunit were strong people, but timid and easily
put to flight. Nothing is told of their lust to kill.”
They had disappeared from Greenland around 200. The guess is that they adopted a lifestyle when the world got colder that depended on hunting on ice and they couldn’t compete with Indians coming north to Baffin Island and New Foundland, and the maritime culture of Inuits from the west when the world warmed again.
http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/archeo/paleoesq/pec01eng.shtml
How big must have the climate change have been for such big change in culture for paleolithic people?
Intriguing. Big climate change likely needed for such an upheaval, indeed. Thanks for sharing. (just so you know SOMEONE read your comment — hard to tell on WUWT, sometimes, huh?)
I mean (sorry mod) someone besides a moderat0r.
#(:))
Thanks for the reply, Janice. I like to pretend that it doesn’t matter but it is nice when someone agrees with you.
So the same people who believe in climate change today refuse to accept the evidence that the climate changed in the past. Do I have that right?
Gifford Miller, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Colorado,
Astrid Ogilvie, a climate historian currently based at Iceland’s Akureyri University,
Wow, paleoclimatologist & climate historian …… the cool stuff you can find at the bottom of a “Crackerjack Box”
michael
Interesting paper out in Science this week suggests differently.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/12/02/science.aac9937
Tropical Pacific Ocean dynamics during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and Little Ice Age (LIA) are poorly characterized due to lack of evidence from the eastern equatorial Pacific. We reconstructed sea surface temperature, El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) activity, and the tropical Pacific zonal gradient for the past millennium from Galápagos ocean sediments. We document a “Mid-Millennium Shift” (MMS) in ocean-atmosphere circulation ~1500-1650 CE, from a state with strong zonal gradient and dampened ENSO to one with weak gradient and amplified ENSO. The MMS coincided with deepest LIA cooling and was likely caused by southward shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Peak MCA (900-1150 CE) was a warm period in the eastern Pacific, contradicting the paradigm of a persistent La Niña pattern.
See also http://phys.org/news/2015-12-el-nino-occurrences-medieval-climate.html as Science paper behind paywall.
I see where they mention that a cooling started around 1160. That made me look to see what the JG/u 2K graph shows, and sure enough it can be clearly seen that there is a precipitous drop around 1130 AD that lasts up to 1160+ AD, certainly a grand minimum. Then after warming back up it stays above average warm, except for a swift plummet at 1200 AD, until around 1230 AD when the cold comes back and stays. There are a few short streaks of warmth after 1230 AD, but otherwise temps are consistently to the cool side…http://images.sciencedaily.com/2012/07/120709092606_1_900x600.jpg
“…the idea of a consistently warm Medieval period is certainly an oversimplification and of little utility.”
I’ve never had a problem with that. Just as I’ve always thought the idea of a consistently warm MODERN period is certainly an oversimplification and of little utility.
But there is a modern warming. And there was a medieval warming. And if you doubt the Roman Warming, try paddling a boat into ancient ports like Ostia and Ephesus. (Just a matter of siltation? What’s a bit of silt against all this swamping sea level rise we’re supposed to be copping?)
This paper self-destructs, it contradicts itself.
“Climate change is not necessarily globally uniform but can be different in different regions.”
OK, so that means (logically) that a single study looking only at boulders in Greenland tells us little or nothing about the existence or otherwise of a global medieval warm period (MWP).
For that you can go to the website CO2 Science which lists about a thousand peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate reconstruction which do, collectively, clearly show what the MWP was a real phenomenon on every continent of the world.
http://www.co2science.org/
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Yes, they are trying to use glacial evidence against the MWP & LIA as global because that evidence is practically good enough alone to establish them. However, glaciers are very variable, mostly due to precipitation, and a few may be longer in warmer periods. They are just exceptions.