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
“Also some of these sites were ” on neighboring Baffin Island, which the Norse may also have occupied”. So they are using sites where apparently there is NO evidence that the Norse actually inhabited, just “may have”.”
That’s about it. I haven’t done much extensive reading on the subject for 20 years since I studied the subject, but “occupied” doesn’t mean what I think they think it means…
They’ve found some Norse yarn, maybe a small building. The Norse probably hunted there, may have traded, may have explored.
But there are none, nada, zero, zip, archaeologists or historians who will say the Norse “occupied” Baffin Island like they colonized Greenland.
This is sounding more and more like this:
https://youtu.be/mjEcj8KpuJw
Hallmark of a pseudoscience: rewriting history.
‘Rewriting’ is such a harsh judgemental terror of a word. Adjusting is better.
Much like the past temperature record, history requires adjusting.
Did I read a link here at WUWT about the final days of the Greenland Settlement that indicated some may have died without burial suggesting that the remaining Greenlanders may have died under duress?
Is “adjusting” the new “rewriting”, I wonder.
So where would you put your cattle ranch today on Greenland? Grow your grain, cut your hay for a long winter. Why are farmsteads long under the ice only emerging in recent times? If a period in Greenland warmer than today’s is hard to imagine, go to the North coast of GL and see the wave sorted beaches and the driftwood. This “coast” has been icebound for thousands of years, but clearly it once had waves breaking on them and driftwood from the north being dropped there. I’m so tired of the lack of logic and the ignoring of such data. We are dipping slowly in oscillations toward a certain ice age, hopefully far enough away that the human race might do something about it. Even if one is political, they shouldn’t find illogical thinking acceptable.
Maybe someone else could explain why this report seems to base it’s conclusion the medieval warm period was not global in nature because use of a new dating technique reveals an increased likelihood a few rocks in Greenland may have been covered in something that blocked sunlight from striking them and forming a Beryllium isotope the PI expected to find? There’s nothing else that might have done this? It’s not possible for some ice to have remained in that spot during an otherwise warm period? This single observation is all that’s necessary?
All prior evidence to the contrary aside, this new finding turns the medieval warm period on it’s ear and puts the understanding it was a global phenomenon to it’s heels?
It’s very difficult to accept when the apparent preponderance of evidence says otherwise, but it’s not all that difficult for me personally. I’ve always thought “paleo” climatology was mostly a joke anyway.
Sediment cores of the Western Baltic sea show a planktonic diatom that thrives in the warmer Atlantic was also prevalent in the Western Baltic. However, this diatom no longer survives in the present Baltic Sea as it is now too cold. The sediment cores show that it disappeared around the same time the “medieval warm period” ended.
It’s pretty hard rejecting that sort of evidence of an earlier warmer climate. Sediment cores don’t lie.
If you read Ian Plimer’s book ‘Heaven and Earth’, it has all the details of that of that research in the footnotes and references.
This Video Clip starting at 1h2min6sec captures what is happening. This documentary is highly prophetic.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=1h2m6s
A nice documentation of the “local” MWP and LIA in the Gulf of Mexico:
http://www.marine.usf.edu/PDFs-and-DOCs/publications/J.Ritchie-Holivar2006.pdf
I posted it on Realclimate once and Gavin went ape.
“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global,”
Doesn’t this contradict the rationalization for homogenization?
To me this is half a dozen of one or 6 of another. Either temperatures were higher worldwide and since CO2 didn’t vary, what caused that? OR, temperatures were higher in this region (spotty) as this article claims in which case you have to explain how that is possible for hundreds of years for temperatures to be different in a specific region or set of regions. To me, either way Climate Scientists lose because they have no explanation for either. If it is global it clearly says there is some other probably cyclic phenomenon (sun, longer ocean cycle, mantle release…) that they don’t know about or deny. If it is not global they have to show how this is physically possible. What kind of phenomenon could keep a particular region warmer over hundreds of years? Continuous volcanoes? Some kind of biological manifestation? Sudden changes in ocean currents that then persists and only changes hundreds of years later. To me the former problem is a lot easier to understand and explain than the latter. I have asked a climate modeler how the latter could happen since he said the MWP was regional. He hadn’t really thought about it. That shows really lazy thinking. They are more willing to accept an interpretation that is much harder to explain and they don’t spend any time trying to understand instead of letting their cherished CO2 is king idea be tarnished. The fact is if they insist it is regional it only points out they have no explanation for the latter problem. Also, the modeler said that during the MWP temperatures were colder at the south pole and this was different than today. However, in fact the current warming has spotty characteristics like he described the MWP having in which some places like the south pole are indeed colder and gaining ice mass not losing ice.
Paper of limited value, since the authors did not sample moraines blindly. They selected moraines deliberately. “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.” Many other sources of evidence show Greenland was once substantially warmer than today.
The authors apparently ignore other evidence of a cooling climate leading to the collapse of the Viking settlements in Greenland.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html
Settlements were abandoned when Greenland cooled.
http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
It seems the authors also ignore evidence showing the Greenland glaciers were smaller 3000-5000 years ago. And thus, what is the point of their paper? Clearly, Greenland was much warmer in the past. Other evidence supports the widely-held view Greenland was indeed warmer when the Vikings settled there. These warmer periods were caused by natural processes, not anthropogenic CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/study-greenland-ice-sheet-was-smaller-3000-5000-years-ago-than-today/
There is worldwide evidence for the MWP.
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
Farming practices on Greenland in past currently difficult, if not impossible today. Although continued warming might bring these lands back to the state they were in the past. We are not there yet.
And…
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11244-greenland%E2%80%99s-not-so-rapidly-flowing-glaciers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/12.jpg
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/end_of_vikings_greenland.html