• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greenland's warm past.

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Vikings grew barley in Greenland

The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers. This encouraged them to cultivate some of the seed corn they brought with them from Iceland.
Click to expand...

Good to get a bit of perspective on the world.
 
Legend has it that Greenland and Iceland were named in an early marketing scheme.
 
bluesmoke said:
Yes. The perspective is of back then when we were warm, then went into a naturally caused ice age, and now when we are warm and getting warmer because of human contribution of CO2.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's not natural?


Do realize that US CO2 output is at a 20 year low.
 
bluesmoke said:
Yes. The perspective is of back then when we were warm, then went into a naturally caused ice age, and now when we are warm and getting warmer because of human contribution of CO2.
Click to expand...

Yet still not as warm as it was back then. At least in Greenland, and well, all other places where we can see a climate change....
 
[h=2]New Study: Greenland Was ‘4–5 °C Warmer Than Today’ ~9000 Years Ago…When The Arctic Was Nearly Sea-Ice Free[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 6. February 2020
Scientists (Syring et al., 2020) find almost sea ice-free conditions pervaded a much warmer northern Greenland region during the Early Holocene. Arctic sea ice extent has “continuously” grown for ~4800 years, with modern conditions a bit lower than the peak of the last few centuries. Image Source: Syring et al., 2020 In a new paper […]
 
bluesmoke said:
Yes. The perspective is of back then when we were warm, then went into a naturally caused ice age, and now when we are warm and getting warmer because of human contribution of CO2.
Click to expand...

[h=2]Groundbreaking AGW-Undermining Study: Greenland’s Warming, Ice Loss Due To Geothermal Heat[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 24. January 2018
‘Several Thousand’ Hot (60°C) Springs ‘All Over’ Greenland Melt The Ice Sheet From Bottom Up A few years ago, 10 glaciologists publishing in the journal Nature Geoscience asserted that “large parts of the north-central Greenland ice sheet are melting from below” due to high geothermal heat flux forcing (Rogozhina et al., 2016). In a new paper published […]
 
WCH said:
How do you know it's not natural?


Do realize that US CO2 output is at a 20 year low.
Click to expand...

"How do you know it's not natural?"

It can't be proven that it is natural. It is not for me to prove otherwise. One cannot disprove or prove what does not exist. There is more data supporting AGW than what little if any is NGW.

"Do realize that US CO2 output is at a 20 year low."

That's good news. From 2005 to 2017, US emission went down over 14%. Trump, though, is trying to reverse that. Meanwhile, worldwide it went up nearly 22%. If other countries were doing as well as the US before Trump, things would be looking good.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yet still not as warm as it was back then. At least in Greenland, and well, all other places where we can see a climate change....
Click to expand...



There are always regional extremes so to say "At least in Greenland" says nothing. The global temp in yr 1000 was 1.11 C cooler than in Jan of 2020. So, you're just plain wrong.

Global Historical Temperature Record and widget

Do you ever bother to back up what you say with statistical evidence?
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Groundbreaking AGW-Undermining Study: Greenland’s Warming, Ice Loss Due To Geothermal Heat[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 24. January 2018
‘Several Thousand’ Hot (60°C) Springs ‘All Over’ Greenland Melt The Ice Sheet From Bottom Up A few years ago, 10 glaciologists publishing in the journal Nature Geoscience asserted that “large parts of the north-central Greenland ice sheet are melting from below” due to high geothermal heat flux forcing (Rogozhina et al., 2016). In a new paper published […]
Click to expand...



More typical Jack Hays misrepresentation and pushing lies. You have been so thoroughly discredited in the past. You just can't help but repeat your pathology of lies. Kenneth Richard, like you, is not credible. All you do is spam. You can't even make a declaratory statement in your own words.

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
 
bluesmoke said:
There are always regional extremes so to say "At least in Greenland" says nothing. The global temp in yr 1000 was 1.11 C cooler than in Jan of 2020. So, you're just plain wrong.

Global Historical Temperature Record and widget

Do you ever bother to back up what you say with statistical evidence?
Click to expand...

Cherry picking a single month of instrumental record and a proxy data point from 1100 years ago amounts to plain lying.
 
bluesmoke said:
There are always regional extremes so to say "At least in Greenland" says nothing. The global temp in yr 1000 was 1.11 C cooler than in Jan of 2020. So, you're just plain wrong.

Global Historical Temperature Record and widget

Do you ever bother to back up what you say with statistical evidence?
Click to expand...

Did you bother to think of words such as RESOLUTION, which is absent in your link.

They combine different resolution and data points of several papers onto a single chart, a classic metal analysis cabal spread onto a single page.

You have no idea how they snookered you!

:lamo
 
bluesmoke said:
More typical Jack Hays misrepresentation and pushing lies. You have been so thoroughly discredited in the past. You just can't help but repeat your pathology of lies. Kenneth Richard, like you, is not credible. All you do is spam. You can't even make a declaratory statement in your own words.

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
Click to expand...

I don't think you ever looked at Jacks link, since it has NOTHING to do with Delingpole's article. Here is the headline you avoided reading, which exposes your deflection attempt as a LIE!

Groundbreaking AGW-Undermining Study: Greenland’s Warming, Ice Loss Due To Geothermal Heat

Excerpt:

Several Thousand’ Hot (60°C) Springs ‘All Over’
Greenland Melt The Ice Sheet From Bottom Up

(SNIP)

A few years ago, 10 glaciologists publishing in the journal Nature Geoscience asserted that “large parts of the north-central Greenland ice sheet are melting from below” due to high geothermal heat flux forcing (Rogozhina et al., 2016).
In a new paper published in Scientific Reports, 4 more glaciologists (Rysgaard et al., 2018) report that “hot vents” (or hot springs) of geothermally-heated water underneath the Greenland ice sheet can explain localized rising temperatures and glacial melting.


LINK
=========

Not a single mention of saying global warming is a myth, in Jacks link, it is YOUR attempt to deflect to Delingpole's silly article, and lie about it, is why you look dumb now.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Vikings grew barley in Greenland



Good to get a bit of perspective on the world.
Click to expand...

The Vikings discovered Greenland at the very beginning of the Medieval Warming Period during the 980s. However, by 1350 the Medieval Warming had ended and the Little Ice-Age had begun. By 1408 all the Viking Greenlanders were gone. The Medieval Warming was slightly warmer (+1.5°C) than the current Modern Warming that began in 1850.

Source:
Medieval warmth confirmed at the Norse Eastern Settlement in Greenland - Geology, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp. 267-270, 2019
 
bluesmoke said:
More typical Jack Hays misrepresentation and pushing lies. You have been so thoroughly discredited in the past. You just can't help but repeat your pathology of lies. Kenneth Richard, like you, is not credible. All you do is spam. You can't even make a declaratory statement in your own words.

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
Click to expand...

Your link is irrelevant. I think you're afraid of the data.

Here are two that are relevant, and peer-reviewed.

A few years ago, 10 glaciologists publishing in the journal Nature Geoscience asserted that “large parts of the north-central Greenland ice sheet are melting from below” due to high geothermal heat flux forcing (Rogozhina et al., 2016).
In a new paper published in Scientific Reports, 4 more glaciologists (Rysgaard et al., 2018) report that “hot vents” (or hot springs) of geothermally-heated water underneath the Greenland ice sheet can explain localized rising temperatures and glacial melting.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please explain how that older article means the link Jack posted is wrong.
Click to expand...



It means the link is from a discredited source. That’s what I said. It’s not worth wasting time on information presented from a discredited source. Doubly so from Jack Hays, who I have proved in the past as misrepresenting posted information as has Kenneth Richard. It is rare that one should not look to the substance of the matter but rather consider the source except when that source has been discredited, as in this case.
 
bluesmoke said:
It means the link is from a discredited source. That’s what I said. It’s not worth wasting time on information presented from a discredited source. Doubly so from Jack Hays, who I have proved in the past as misrepresenting posted information as has Kenneth Richard. It is rare that one should not look to the substance of the matter but rather consider the source except when that source has been discredited, as in this case.
Click to expand...

If only.

It is all the argument left to you.
 
bluesmoke said:
It means the link is from a discredited source. That’s what I said. It’s not worth wasting time on information presented from a discredited source. Doubly so from Jack Hays, who I have proved in the past as misrepresenting posted information as has Kenneth Richard. It is rare that one should not look to the substance of the matter but rather consider the source except when that source has been discredited, as in this case.
Click to expand...

Then you are now on record as saying that the TWO Published papers from the following two publishers are NOT credible sources:

Nature
Nature Geoscience

Then you after making that ridiculous cop out, decline to address the two published papers altogether, the ones Jack posted about, which means you have nothing against them.

It appears you indeed running on bluesmoke, as you have no desire to engage in a real debate here, just clumsy retorts is all you have.

:2wave:
 
Tim the plumber said:
Cherry picking a single month of instrumental record and a proxy data point from 1100 years ago amounts to plain lying.
Click to expand...



Let me take you by the hand and walk you through.

You cited an article, on which your entire claim is based, which stated:

“The Vikings are both famous and notorious for their like of beer and mead, and archaeologists have discussed for years whether Eric the Red (ca. 950-1010) and his followers had to make do without the golden drink when they settled in Greenland around the year 1,000.”

“The Greenland climate was mild when they landed, but was it warm enough for growing corn?”

The data point I gave is that of a year, not of a month as you state (which if anything would make you the one that’s lying) as given in the article YOU cited as the basis for YOUR argument. That’s why I picked the year 1000. That was the yr cited as being warm enough and from when it could be said those barley grains originated.

YOU’RE the one using a single data point to justify your argument. I’m merely pointing out that even in that citation, you are dead wrong in saying that now is “still not as warm as it was back then” as you falsely state.

If anyone is lying, it's YOU. Or, you're just mistaken and can admit being wrong, like an adult.
 
bluesmoke said:
Let me take you by the hand and walk you through.

You cited an article, on which your entire claim is based, which stated:

“The Vikings are both famous and notorious for their like of beer and mead, and archaeologists have discussed for years whether Eric the Red (ca. 950-1010) and his followers had to make do without the golden drink when they settled in Greenland around the year 1,000.”

“The Greenland climate was mild when they landed, but was it warm enough for growing corn?”

The data point I gave is that of a year, not of a month as you state (which if anything would make you the one that’s lying) as given in the article YOU cited as the basis for YOUR argument. That’s why I picked the year 1000. That was the yr cited as being warm enough and from when it could be said those barley grains originated.

YOU’RE the one using a single data point to justify your argument. I’m merely pointing out that even in that citation, you are dead wrong in saying that now is “still not as warm as it was back then” as you falsely state.

If anyone is lying, it's YOU. Or, you're just mistaken and can admit being wrong, like an adult.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the climate was cooler in 1000 than now even though they grew crops then that would not survive the current climate as it is too cold for them.....
 
Sunsettommy said:
Did you bother to think of words such as RESOLUTION, which is absent in your link.

They combine different resolution and data points of several papers onto a single chart, a classic metal analysis cabal spread onto a single page.

You have no idea how they snookered you!

:lamo
Click to expand...



I responded directly to, and refuted, the claim made. At the point in time made by the OP, the global temp was warmer now than then. And, one region is not representative of the entire globe, which my global temp proved. It could very well be that the very southern tip of Greenland, which is the region in question, was warmer then than now. That does not mean the whole of Greenland nor of the globe was. There are always regional differences. In terms of snookering, prove any of what I said wrong.
 
The Vikings in Greenland grew barley. They did not grow corn, despite the claim from the OP's article. Corn would not be discovered in the Americas until 1492 by Christopher Columbus, who introduced the grain to Europe. Corn will only grow as far north as 58°N. Which means that even today corn could not be grown in Greenland or Iceland. The OPs article misuses the term "corn" for "barley", as if it were some generic grain.

From their shape and size, the grains of corn were identified as barley with complete certainty.
Click to expand...
 
Glitch said:
The Vikings in Greenland grew barley. They did not grow corn, despite the claim from the OP's article. Corn would not be discovered in the Americas until 1492 by Christopher Columbus, who introduced the grain to Europe. Corn will only grow as far north as 58°N. Which means that even today corn could not be grown in Greenland or Iceland. The OPs article misuses the term "corn" for "barley", as if it were some generic grain.
Click to expand...



I got the mix-up in terminology but don't think it went to the point of the OP so much as it may have been just another item, though relatively minor, on the list of what was errant with the OP. NBD, No Big Deal. Still, a valid point that goes more to what a BS article it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom