This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Greenland used to be a lovely hospitable island when the Vikings settled it. It was not until the Little Ice Age that it got so cold they abandoned it. During that time, it was clearly not the frozen wasteland it is today.
Answer:
Firstly, Greenland is just a part of a single region and as such can not be assumed to represent any kind of global climate shift. See the article on the Medieval Warm Period for a global perspective on this time period. In short, the available proxy evidence indicates that globally warmth during this period was not particularly pronounced though certainly some regions may have experienced greater warming than others.
Secondly, a quick reality check shows that Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of that island. The vast majority of land not under an ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. Just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?
Here is a brief account of the Viking settlement, which was an actual historical development, based on the chapter on Vikings in Greenland in Jared Diamond's "Collapse".
Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red? :-) who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He believed that you should give a land a good name so that people want to go there! It very likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors, climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one. But it was never lush and their existence was always harsh and meagre, especially due to the Viking's disdain for other peoples and other ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate side by side with the Inuit who easily out survived them. For heaven's sake, these people starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behaviour and is in fact a bit of a mystery to this day).
Instead of hunting whales in kayaks, they farmed cattle, goats and sheep despite having to keep them in a barn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full 5 months out of the year! It was a constant challenge to get enough fodder for the winter. Starvation of the animals was frequent, emaciation routine. The pressures of grazing requirements and growing fodder for the winter led to over production of pastures, erosion and the need to go further and further a field to sustain the animals. Deforestation for pastures and firewood proceeded at unsustainable rates, leading, after a couple of centuries, to such desperate measures as having to cut precious sod for housing construction and even burning it for cooking and heating fuel.
When finally confronted with several severe winters in a row, they, along with the little remaining livestock, simply starved before spring arrived.
The moral of the story for the climate controversy? Much as you can not judge a book by its cover, you can't judge the climate of Greenland from its name.
A bit of related trivia: further indications of their stubborn reluctance to learn from the Inuit is that there is no evidence of any kind of trade whatsoever, this despite centuries of being neighbours. In fact, the first of only three accounts of encounters the Norse had with the natives refers to them as "skraelings" (wretches) and describes rather matter of factly how strangely and differently they bleed when stabbed with fatal and non-fatal wounds. How's that for diplomacy!?
See also the entry on Vineland if it happens to come up.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"Greenland Used to be Green" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Do you know, during Greenland's warm period of several hundred years, what percentage of Greenland was covered by glacers? Also, at that time, how thick were the glacial ice sheets?
Posted by: Dennis Roht | August 20, 2008 11:44 PM
Hi Dennis,
No, I do not know those details. My focus in debunking this argument is to demonstrate that its naive appeal is not merited. You think Greenland today is a cold and inhositable place? Yes, it is and it has been for a many millenia, a struggling Viking settlement hundreds of years ago does not fundamentally alter that picture.
It is interesting and informative to delve into the details of its regional climate but in terms of providing evidence against the global picture that has slowly emerged over the last few decades, it is just one region and does not represent global climate.
Posted by: coby | August 21, 2008 8:27 AM
I can't help but find it humurous when on one had, alarmists point to Greenland as a prime example of global warming. And then in the next sentence suggest that it's climate 1,000 years ago was only a regional phenomenon.
Pardon my cynicism, but you can't use an example for one side of the argument, then claim that it isn't valid for the other side. Yet, it seems that GW alarmists do this continuously. I honestly don't think they even realize that they are doing it, but it is quite humurous to observe.
Posted by: GrecRI | December 14, 2008 8:34 PM
Another example:
You state:
"The vast majority of land not under an ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. Just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?"
Isn't the claim of the alarmists that it is about to become vastly different in less than 100 years from now?
By the way, aside from the antedoctal Viking stories, there is oxygen isotope evidence of a warmer climate in Greenland at that time.
Posted by: GrecRI | December 14, 2008 8:57 PM
Hi GrecRI,
The Vikings never settled in the northern part of Greenland, presumably because it was then, as today, frozen rock and permafrost. The only habitable areas were in the southern end. But I grant you that the wording there is clumsy and really the point is best made by mentioning the 100k year old ice sheet.
I am not sure what you mean about people using Greenland as an "example of global warming" today. I think the melting icecap it is rightly used as an example of the consequences of global warming. The point is that today the warming is global, in the MWP it was regional, primarily in northern europe.
I do not dispute that Greenland had a milder climate during the Viking settlements, just that it was much warmer (ie Green then, white now) or that the warmth was global.
Thanks for the comment!
Posted by: coby | December 14, 2008 10:53 PM
I learned once in school that Iceland was named as such because Iceland was such a club med paradise compared to Greenland that the vikings wanted to keep the secret of it to themselves and named it such a discouraging name to discourage visitors. Any truth to that? I'll admit that history is a weaker subject to me than science.
Posted by: Mrs. W | January 3, 2009 12:03 PM
Hi Mrs. W,
I have not heard that one before, but I am positive that the Vikings settled Iceland long before they went to Greenland.
Thanks for your visit!
Posted by: coby | January 3, 2009 12:18 PM
on march 24, there was a report of a study by an MIT team studying methane gas. It concluded the data they developed was contradictory to the AGW models and theory.
Posted by: gutsmo | March 26, 2009 10:45 PM
gutsmo -
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten everyone with who reported the study, who performed the study, what their specific conclusion was, how it contradicts the current theory, and why it should be considered more valid than the existing theory.
Unintelligible verbal vomit certainly does not support your case.
Posted by: Adam | March 27, 2009 9:50 AM
Hi Coby
I think it is also worth pointing out that, according to Jared Diamond, the only places settled by by Eric the Red and his followers were two deep sheltered fiords on the SE coast of Greenland. Greenland was never widely settled.
Your final comment about the settlers' "stubborn reluctance to learn from the Inuit" puts me in mind of the Franklin expedition of the mid-1800s which perished with all 129 hands whilst attempting to find the north west passage. Here the emphasis was in equipping the two ships of the expedition with European comforts and technology. The result was that the crew were unable to hunt seals or build igloos for shelter and the the expedition was far too large to for the environment to support even if with those skills.
It seems to me that the real lessons of the Greenland settlements (and the Franklin expedition), of far greater relevance to our present predicament than anything they might (or might not!) tell us about climate change, is that human populations that fail to understand the workings and the limits of the environment in which they live will sooner or later perish.
Posted by: Slioch | April 18, 2009 2:59 AM
Hi Slioch,
Yes, that is a good point about the very limited extent of Viking occupation of Greenland. And it would be nice if we learn those lessons without feeling the pain for ourselves.
Thanks for the comment!
Posted by: coby | April 18, 2009 10:28 AM
Actually from 800 to 1300 AD Greenland experienced very mild temps and was farmed and grazed.Then of course the Little Ice Age started. But natural cooling and warming of earth has always happened.
Posted by: Dennis D | August 9, 2009 4:33 PM
You are obviously ignorant of the greater facts in this case, and are merely regurgitating talking points. I wrote several college papers on climate change for my history degree back in the early eighties, and used the experience of the Greenland colonies often, as it was well known and the ice cores were well attested.
Starting about 950 A.D. a warming cycle began, pretty much destroying the American Southwest culture called Anasazi, but resulting in increased warmth and food supply for Europe, Canada, and the Asian steppe. This brought about the rise of the Native Americans that would recolonize the southwest as Navajo, Comanche, Apache, etc. It also engendered the final end of the European dark ages, the rapid rise in prosperity and population of the Vikings, the conquest of England, the discovery of Iceland and Greenland, and Scandinavian exploration of Russia and extended trade, also the rise of the Turks and Mongols.
Eventually global cooling damaged these areas and economies, freezing the rivers in winter and injuring crops, and forcing the Canadian Native Americans south. The Zuider Zee and other bays and rivers in Europe also froze, damaging trade and bringing about the primacy of Venice and Florence in Italy, and, of course, the end of the Greenland colonies.
Going back in time, in 406 A.D there was another cooling event, finally destroying the Western Roman Empire--the rivers froze and the Visigoths were able to cross en masse, sacking Rome; three centuries later the empire of Charlemagne was formed at the end of a more short lived warming period.
Obviously I am painting with a broad brush; these are merely three paragraphs, I wrote many pages about this during my college career. The Greenland colonists came from a rough cold land, and made a life for several centuries. Scandinavian sources show that in the mid 1300's the smaller colony was abandoned, with most choosing to go to Denmark, in the early 1400's the larger colony evacuated, leaving a small remnant that eventually starved.
The effects of global warming and cooling are obvious over millenia to those who take the time to honestly study the facts. You seem to have a quasi religious fixation, and this talking point sheet seems suspiciously like a paper that a Mormon friend showed me from when he was doing his two year mission. You might want to consider this similarity at length, and perhaps study Eric Hoffer's book True Believer.
Please stop ruining my civilization.
Posted by: badfrog | August 9, 2009 6:15 PM
badfrog, have you put together the fact that Greenland is a source of ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years and your claim that it was a nice toasty place to live c. 950?
Posted by: Philip Machanick | November 19, 2009 3:56 AM
Badfrog, care to explain what you mean with the primacy of Venice and Florence? Linking it to the supposed onset of the LIA has the minor problem that Venice in particular lost its position as a prime trading city in the 15th century. Moreover, the Dutch and English trading system really kicked off in the 15th century, while the Zuiderzee did not even exist until 1200 (there were just lakes), and did not become of relevance for trade until the 15th century.
But well, you are the one who wrote the college papers, I'm just the one who asked the local (European) historians who have studies these things all their lives. The words "not even wrong" passed around a few times...
Posted by: Marco | November 20, 2009 7:40 AM