Arguments
Greenland used to be green
The skeptic argument...
Greenland was green
“CfA's Sallie Baliunas […] refers to the medieval Viking sagas as examples of unusual warming around 1003 A.D. ‘The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium, but they died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder,’ she notes.” (William Cromie)
What the science says...
This argument is based on the idea that as climate has changed naturally before, current climate change must be natural also. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the main driver of climate during the Medieval Warm Period (eg - solar variations) cannot be causing global warming now. More on the "Climate's changed before" argument...
Did Greenland used to be green?
The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old. Certainly it was alive and well when the island was named around 1000 years ago. So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green. So once again, I refer you to the Climate's changed before argument.
Ancient Greenland DNA
I recommend reading what the authors are actually saying about their own study. The study connects past warming to natural variations in Earth's orbit—obliquity, or how tilted the planet is in relation to the sun. Author Martin Sharp points out "One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account." In other words, their study "really has nothing to say about the mechanisms driving the current warming."
According to author Eske Willerslev, the Greenland ice shelf "has not contributed to global sea level rise during the last interglacial. Importantly, it does not mean that we should not be worried about future global warming as the sea level rise of five to six meters during the last interglacial must have come from somewhere."
Finally, Martin Sharp warns the study "does not prove the current global warming trend is not human induced". If anything, "we may be heading for even bigger temperature increases than we previously thought".
Last updated on 26 June 2010 by John Cook.
AB: Radiocarbon dates of emergent organic remains along the western margin of Istorvet ice cap (70.8°N, 22.2°W) indicate a time when the ice cap was smaller than at present. This ice cap, similar to others in east Greenland, exhibits "historic" moraines ~1-2 km in front of the presently retreating ice margins....
Moreover, it indicates warm conditons at this latitude at the time of Norse colonization of Greenland."
The reason I came here is to ask the question where do we look to see where the earth is today on all these reported orbital and processional cycles and where is the earth in these cycles during an ice age?
If it was a propaganda tool they would not have named iceland as such. We still can't locate vineland due to the cooling since the discovery.
Possibly because the places were named by different people, 100 years apart?
Possible but not probable. Vineland was named by the greenlanders of that time, we can't identify it to this day because the climate changed.
"What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?
Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002). "
Don't these "scientists" know the difference between an ice age and a glacation? We ARE in an ice age. So I guess they mean it will end in 50K years or will it reach another glacial maximum? - From the people that brought you AGW.
"Unstoppable global warming every 1500 years".
We are currently in another upswing in the solar cycle, which started about 1750, and which will probably rise about another 0.5-1 degree C over the next few hundred years. Current T to the 21st century is entirely in line with this solar cyle trend. C02 is irrelevant to this cycle,it has been traced 600 times over the last 1 million years in ice cores, and is a result of an overlap between the 87 and 210 year solar cycles.
It is well documented, world wide, and climatologists have conveniently forgotten about it (see reference given above).
Greenland was settled by vikings during the last solar warming period, which is also why they travelled so far in general during this time period-the northern world was warm.
Vinland has been found. It's Lanse Aux Meadows on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland where Norse settlements were discovered in the 60s.
The mistranslation of Vinland leads many like yourself to think that it means "wine" when in fact, it's a Norse word for "meadow."
Which is where Lanse Aux Meadows gets its name today.
Iceland was named that before they realized that naming something "Ice" land would deter settlers. Greenland was an attempt to correct that.
And, thingadonta, I suggest you check out the argument "it's the sun." Fred Singer is the last person on Earth that you should be listening to when it comes to climate change. He is the same Singer that was also a "expert" when it came to the tobacco industry and proclaimed that second-hand smoke was not harmful to our health.
Guess how that worked out?
You should get your facts from the climate scientists, not those paid by the energy sector to be experts in the field:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
I think you got it straight! What you describe with an example, certainly seems to be the way in which the advocates of AGW work, whether they are scientists loyal to IPCC, or just well-read opinion makers. They pick out the data that support the trend that they want to prove, and ignore the data that do not support it. Then they make impressive-looking graphs, where the proper 'corrections' are always added, so that the desired slope of the curve is achieved.
The uniformity, the flaw-less consensus, and the lack of debate within the group of AGW supporters, all just works together to make me more skeptical. It would be a healthy sign if they sometimes disagreed, if they ever showed doubt, or if they once in a while agreed that a skeptic arguments had some merit.
It seems to me that they make a strong case (but perhaps not completely airtight one?) for the assumption that a warmer Greenland was a local phenomenon. Its not just an empty claim, there are various data to back it up.
I have no idea about what you are hinting at with those Siberian trees, so I can't answer that.
Argus> You have a certain not too favourable impression of AGW supporters. I don't share your point of view, and for instance it is not my "impression" that AGW supposters on this site always agree on everything. However, it is very hard to answer such general claim except by similar but opposite generalizations.
Maybe you could be more precise about who it is that in your opinion ignores data etc., and give some precise references. Then we could examine the situation together.
Argus, I do not believe your description of "AGW supporters" are reasonable, particularly if you include in that group the IPCC, which has staked out a very middle-of-the-road territory, avoiding extreme claims on either side.
For example, from time to time people make claims that climate sensitivity is > 6C per doubling of CO2, but those are generally rejected by mainstream climate scientists. Although the IPCC offers support for a range of 2.0 - 4.5 C, most people seem willing to settle on a probable 3C, in the middle of that range.
As for claims that supporters of AGW "never disagree" ... they generally agree on the big picture, but there is lots of disagreement (sometimes vehement!) over the details.
(Nor would the Vikings have been unfamiliar with the idea of inland glaciers, or thought them remarkable, as both Norway and Iceland have plenty of them.)
There are a lot of theories as to why the Greenland settlements failed. "Climate change" is only one, and in my (non-professional) opinion, at best at minor contributing factor. More likely is that the colonies were just too small to be self-sustaining, so that when regular European trade stopped, they dwindled and failed.
More information on past & present Greenland can be found here: http://www.greenland-guide.gl/
Grayman... Your comments about it being warmer in the past based on Greenland once being green are inaccurate. Please look at the website of Dr Jason Box and you can see what the modern temperature record is for Greenland. I would also highly suggest you read two papers on Greenland:
Miller 2010... Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
Alley 2010... History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights
I think you'll find the issue is vastly more complex that Vikings living in Greenland.
original source:
Þat sumar fór Eiríkr at byggja land þat, er hann hafði fundit ok hann kallaði Grænland, því at hann kvað menn þat mjök mundu fýsa þangat, ef landit héti vel.
1880 translation:
In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, "Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.
http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html
http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm
By the way, I don't seem to hear about volcanic activity in the Arctic & Antarctica areas but you won't hear about that in the mainstream green media. There was an underwater active volcano found in the Sandwich Islands near Antarctica. There was a volcano that went off in Iceland; has any of the data mentioned that? Theres bound to be some volcanic activity going on and thats usually hot. Another thing the Arctic & Antarctica use to be semi tropical. Things change[DB] You already posted on these off-topic issues here. You were responded to immediately afterwards. Please read those responses. If you have any questions on those responses, place those questions there, not here.
Off-topic struck out.
Big deal. It's a load of rubbish. Did you actually read the article above, and pursue scientific studies? Or do you subscribe to the theory that if you read it on the Internet, it must be true?
Example... from your page:
And yet from this page:So the claim that it was so warm that there were vinyards in England, but not today, is specious.
Don't be so gullible.
Use the search box in the upper left hand corner. Type in volcano, read and learn.
All of this stuff has been covered over and over again. It only takes a moment to read and learn, rather than throwing out questions and comments and links that really just help to make other people as confused as you are.
Also note that there is a strict comments policy. Comments are expected to stay on topic. If you have a comment about another topic, find a relevant thread and post your comment there.
Off topic comments will be deleted.
The Saga of Erik the Red - Icelandic Saga Database
1880, English, transl. J. Sephton, from the original 'Eiríks saga rauða'.
Now, afterwards, during the summer, he proceeded to Iceland, and came to Breidafjordr (Broadfirth). This winter he was with Ingolf, at Holmlatr (Island-litter). During the spring, Thorgest and he fought, and Eirik met with defeat. After that they were reconciled. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, "Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."