Free Dating Site    

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).

Erik the Red - Leif Eriksson's father.
In the 960s Erik the Red, a fiery Norwegian, was exiled from his home in Norway. He went to Iceland, where he married Thjodhildur. He was later banished from there for three years. Erik headed west and discovered a land with an inviting fjord landscape and fertile, green valleys. He was greatly impressed by the land's resources, and he returned to Iceland and spoke about this land, which he called "the green land".

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red , who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It 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 meager, especially due to the Viking's disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

I don't understand why people make such a big deal about this. Whether global warming is a reality or a hoax, does it really matter? Shouldn't we work on cleaning up the environment either way? Whether we reduce emissions from cars to prevent global warming or to make the air cleaner for us to breathe, isn't the process the same?

Also, is it just me, or does it seem that people who are strongly vocal in either direction on global warming seem to be tied strongly to one political pole or the other? Shouldn't scientific research be about more than politics?

1. Human beings release about 7 billion tons of CO2 into our atmosphere every year. Nature has been releasing an estimated 100-200 billion tons of CO2, removing the same amount through natural processes.

I think the global warming ploy is destined to be exposed as the fraud that it is . It will take time though .

Greener than you think
Colourful flowers, plants, bushes and heaths make beautiful contrasts to the icebergs and the white expanse of the ice sheet in Greenland.

CHURCHVILLE, VA—The most awful thing about man-made global warming is that it’s our own fault. It’s our own greedy materialism that has the planet’s climate headed toward disaster. Or so we’re told.

The world has been through climate guilt trips before, however. During the 400 years of the Dark Ages (540 to 950 AD) the climate turned cold, cloudy and stormy, with poor crops and widespread hunger

What really happened was a climate shift. The earth had enjoyed 800 years of the pleasant Roman Warming, with good crops and few storms. Then, about 540 AD, the earth shifted into a harsh, unstable global cooling.

Then, God’s anger seemed to disappear. About 950 AD, sunny skies warmed the planet again for 350 years. The growing seasons became long and fruitful, populations doubled, and plague was only a memory. A huge proportion of the world’s now-famous cathedrals and temples were built as people expressed their gratitude.

After the year 1300, came another climate shift—into the Little Ice Age.
Today, too, global warming is our fault: our sport-utility vehicles, our air conditioners, our energy-hungry lifestyles. But as climatologist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama/Huntsville has written, “This myth continues despite that fact that there have been NO scientific papers published with evidence that our current warmth is not due to natural climate variability.”

In your quote is according to Wikipedia,

It's a well established fact that climate changes naturally and sometimes dramatically. The pertinent question isn't "has climate changed in the past?" (of course it has) but "what is causing global warming now?" To begin to answer that, it's helpful to look at the major causes of natural climate change in the past.
Solar activity

Solar variations have been the major driver of climate change over the past 10,000 years. When sunspot activity was low during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600's or the Dalton Minimum in the 1800's, the earth went through 'Little Ice Ages'. Similarly, solar activity was higher during the Medieval Warm Period.

However, the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures started rising while solar activity stayed level. This led a team of scientists from Finland and Germany to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." More on the sun & global warming...
Milankovitch cycles

Earth's climate undergoes 120,000 year cycles of ice ages broken by short warm periods called interglacials. The cycle is driven by Milankovitch cycles. Long term changes in the Earth's orbit trigger an initial warming which warms the oceans and melts ice sheets - this releases CO2. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes further warming leading to interglacials ending the ice ages.

For the past 12,000 years, we've been in an interglacial. The current trend of the Milankovitch cycle is a gradual cooling down towards an ice age.
Volcanoes

Volcanic eruptions spew sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere which has a cooling effect on global temperatures. These aerosols reflect incoming sunlight, causing a 'global dimming' effect. Usually, the cooling effect lasts several years until the aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere. In the case of large eruptions or a succession of eruptions such as in the early 1800's, the cooling effect can last several decades. Strong volcanic activity exacerbated the Little Ice Age in the 1800's.
Summary

The usual suspects in natural climate change - solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles - are all conspicuous in their absence over the past 3 decades of warming. This doesn't mean by itself that CO2 is the main cause of current global warming - you don't prove anthropogenic warming by eliminating all other options. But the primary causes of commonly cited climate change in the past have played little part in the current warming trend.

As for CO2, empirical observations show that CO2 has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming you would get from greenhouse gases is occuring. Any alternative theory that found a different cause of global warming would also need to explain why the expected (and observed) warming from CO2 has not eventuated.

...there have been NO scientific papers published with evidence that our current warmth is not due to natural climate variability.”

At the same time there have been NO scientific papers published with evidence that our current warmth is 100% due to natural climate variability. Anyone who thinks we have little or no impact on this planet and it's climate (as the two are inextricably linked) and we can continue to behave the way we are without consequence to future generations.....simply have their head in the sand.

If the average temperature on the earth increases , then , more co2 is going to be produced.
Nobody will argue that the earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling naturally.
If a heating phase produces more co2 , and more co2 produces higher temperatures , then , there would be put into place an unstoppable cycle , and the earth would have over-heated long long ago

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

So , it's a very good thing that increased atmospheric co2 does no result in increased overall global temperatures .
G.W. has been de-bunked , yet again .

Are you saying that the puney contribution of fossil fuels are a greater incidence of excess on the owrld than nature has produced itself ?

If the average temperature on the earth increases , then , more co2 is going to be produced.
Nobody will argue that the earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling naturally.
If a heating phase produces more co2 , and more co2 produces higher temperatures , then , there would be put into place an unstoppable cycle , and the earth would have over-heated long long ago.

First it was an ice age

What 1970's science said about global cooling
A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970's. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970's (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70's climate scientists predicting global cooling?

The evidence for global cooling consensus
Most cited is a 1975 Newsweek article The Cooling World that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production":

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
However, these are media articles, not peer reviewed scientific papers. Does a consensus on global cooling emerge from the scientific literature?

Skeptical quote mining of 1970's scientific literature
Most mentioned is Rasool 1971 which projected that if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it may trigger an ice age. While Rasool underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, its basic assertion that the climate would cool with a dramatic increase of aerosols was correct. However, aerosol levels dropped rather than increased. More on Rasool...

A 2003 Washington Post op-ed by James Schlesinger, Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled, quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."
The full quote from the report is as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.

For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.

When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"

Schlesinger's op-ed has been quoted widely including James Inhofe's Senate testimony. Skeptic citing of the scientific literature have taken conclusions out of context, overlooking qualifications and stated uncertainties. What does a broader look at the scientific literature reveal?

A new paper exposing the myth of 70's global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70's research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970's, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.


Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

Posted by John Cook at 11:44 AM

What 1970's science said about global cooling
A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970's. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970's (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions.

But this is what happened....thats why it ranks #7. Thats pretty impressive, no?

It is all VERY MUCH like the 70s, to many of us.

I grew up in the 60's and 70's. The issues of the day were the ever-escalating cold war and the threat of nuclear war. Civil rights. The women's movement. The Viet Nam conflict and for those of my generation the fear of being drafted into a senseless waste of human life. It seemed that key leaders were getting assassinated left and right.

Global cooling? I vaguely remember a passing reference to it as a possibility. It didn't catch anywhere near the headlines the above issues did, and certainly wasn't more than a distant blip on my radar screen even though I was very engaged in environmental and human rights issues.

Many of us were still duped by global cooling. How fortunate that you werent, & dismiss us all out of hand.

You seemed to dismiss out of hand anyone under 35 being able to accurately research the legitimacy of the claims of widespread fears of global cooling during the seventies. You acted as a spokesperson for our generation by expressing that 'many of us' were duped by the global cooling scare.

Sorry its all a bit off topic, but I smell revisionist history bubbling up a wee bit.