Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by skepticalmike, Aug 24, 2019.
Of course they farmed. They also buried corpses in deep graves which are now in the permafrost. (Source - “Climate History and the Modern World” - H. H. Lamb.
Why is it that the Vikings who settled Iceland in the MWP and were keen observers of their environment did not mention glaciers ??? (source - Sofia Gustofs, Globus Tour Director and Icelandic citizen).
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
But if there was sea ice for most of the year, they wouldn't have settled there.
They most certainly did. They had no other way to survive.
So you admit your claim was false. Good.
I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind," the Vikings, who had already successfully settled Iceland and had thousands of years' experience living at high latitudes, were so stupid that they settled in a place where they were certain to starve to death.
No, it is not.
Actual farming was done and actual trees grown there in the MWP.
Strengthened, but too small to break ice.
Wrong. It was 1944, and it shows that sea ice has been low before, indicating that it is cyclical, and the recent decline merely the down-phase of an established cycle.
Nope. It was until 2012, but has increased since then.
No. Google isn't showing me the more complete 20th century data I saw before, but here's a Canadian government page showing sea ice increased in the Canadian arctic for DECADES after 1968:
Notice that the average sea ice extent for the first four years was 1.395Mkm^2, and by the four years ending in 1992, it had increased to 1.49Mkm^2. That is a modest but clear increasing trend over a period of 25 years.
It shows that shipping companies, who have to know a lot more about sea ice than you, are not buying the anti-CO2 hysteria narrative.
There is what is called the Greenland Pompei which is a Viking town of ~ 1500 buried under glacial sands. They didn't live on fish alone. They have also found deep fresh water wells in Greenland now full of ice.
Are you under the impression that nobody knows about the very localized warmup in the North Atlantic area at that time, called the MWP?
Are you unclear on the word "global"?
The flat earthers tell me the same thing. All paranoid conspiracy cultists use the same lines.
So, you think the whole world is plotting against you, and that the whole world is faking all the data. And yet you think you're _not_ a paranoid consiracy cultist. How, in your mind, do you justify your paranoia and narcissism?
That's kind of the point. There's no sea ice there now, there was no sea ice there then, there's never been sea ice there. And yet you think the lack of sea ice around southern Greenland, the normal state of affairs, means something.
The Greenland vikings mainly fished and killed seal and walrus. The climate was too cold to grow anything meaningful. They had to trade walrus ivory for grain. Grass would grow in sheltered valleys for cows to eat, they could make a little barley grown, and that was it,
My, my. Someone needs to learn a little history, concerning the banishment of Erik the Red. But that's expected. Those who understand history, science and logic don't get sucked something like the denier cult. Smart people instantly see through the idiot denier lies.
The fanaticism with which you cling to your wrong beliefs does not make them any less wrong. I have to point that out, because apparently you think sheer repetition of your nonsense will make that nonsense less crazy.
It is much warmer now in Greenland than it was during the MWP. Vegetables and trees now gerow in Greenland. That has never happened before, not in recorded history.
That's nice. But since it's rarely necessary to break ice, why does it matter? It's mainly a matter of pushing through floating ice floes. You don't seem to understand the Arctic.
It wasn't a matter of pushing through floes now. Unlike 1944, the strait is wide, wide open. A fiberglass sailboat could sail through it. And it's an every year thing now.
Crazy talk. Your fallacy is illustrated by this graphic. You've seen it before. I'm not sure why you can't understand it, as grade-schoolers have no problem with it. (Bonus: This will trigger hoosier into having weeping fits about a "cartoonist".)
Here's the graph you linked to.
If you're saying that shows Arctic sea ice increasing after 1968, you're either lying, or you're blind, or you're stupid. Whatever the case, it shows why nobody should pay attention to you -- the things you say have no connection to reality
The MWP was global and was warmer than it is today. There are hundreds of papers on that fact.
The “flat earthers ???
Those of us who do a complete job on our homework are used to personal attacks and insults as seen above. ^^^
The MWP was global, and has been measured by proxies in many locations outside the North Atlantic basin. But like all century-scale global temperature changes caused by the sun, it was just less pronounced in the Southern Hemisphere because the Southern Hemisphere is 90% ocean, which has orders of magnitude more thermal inertia than land. The Northern Hemisphere is almost 50% land, so all temperature variations that don't last long enough to change deep ocean temperatures are bigger in the Northern Hemisphere.
That is just $#!+ you made up. Inevitably. There is a small group falsifying climate data, a much larger group accepting the falsified data because it is professionally prudent to do so, and none of them are plotting against me.
No. Only a small number of people are deliberately faking a small amount of data: the NASA and NOAA aggregations.
There was during the LIA, when southern Greenland and Iceland were sometimes isolated by sea ice.
Thank you for admitting your error.
That's just baldly false. Both trees and vegetables were growing there when the Vikings lived there.
<yawn> Then why was it impossible to force a way through for hundreds of years before 1944, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
It wasn't then, either.
I notice it conveniently stops in 2015, just three years after the minimum. I wonder why?
It indisputably shows Arctic sea ice increasing for 25 years after 1968, as I already proved to you, directly disproving your claims.
I proved you wrong. Sorry.
It shows that one cherry-picked data point is higher than a another cherry-picked data point. But the linear regression trend which is computed from ALL data points is indisputably down.
Can you post a dataset which you feel is immune from data tampering and which publishes a mean surface temperature that is global in scale to backup this claim?
A data set which is not corrupted by urban heat island, land use effects, and using sea surface temperatures does not exist today and has never existed. All that is possible is regional analysis.
Then how do you know the MWP was global or that it occurred at all?
From the regional data.
That is a bald falsehood. I gave the average of four adjacent data points at the beginning and end of the 25-year period.
So? The linear regression trend from 1968-1993 -- 25 years -- is indisputably UP. That proves me right and you wrong: Canadian arctic sea ice was cyclically increasing for DECADES before the cyclical decline that ended in 2012. It's a cyclical variation, not a secular trend determined by atmospheric CO2.
Huh?? Of course not. No such data set exists even for recent decades, let alone 1Kya.
No, it hasn't. You made that up. Or, more correctly, you parroted a lie that your cult fed you.
If you didn't make it up, you'll be able to back it up.
And you won't, because you can't. Like I said, the best you'll be able to do is parrot a blog that lied outright about the science.
You seem to define "a complete job on our homework" as skimming a single propaganda piece.
Needless to say, that's not the definition most people use. Most people would say that you've done no homework at all.
So back to the original question...how do you know the MWP was a global phenomenon?
Then how do you know the MWP was global or that it even occurred it all if you have no data upon which you can test this hypothesis?
How do you know this?
What test can you construct by which a falsification attempt can performed? I'll get us started on tests that I feel could falsify this hypothesis.
Direct a ~15um radiation flux toward CO2 and observe that the flux received equals the flux sent.
Identify a set of physical processes sans CO2 that can explain the ebb and flow of the cryosphere over the paleoclimate and instrumental record.
There you go again.
I just told you as well as posted information from a source which uses over 600 references. You can also review the material on the MWO from H. H. Lamb's book "Climate History and the Modern World" 2nd Edition, "Evidence Based Climate Science" by Don Easterbrook, "Climate Change Reconsidered II - Physical Science", and "Inconvenient Facts" by Wrightstone.
Now of course you will instantly launch a series of personal attacks and insults about these sources rather than reading and learning from them.
298 Soon, W. and S. Balliunas (2003) Clim. Res. 23, 89--‐110
Separate names with a comma.