On the Norsemen in Greenland
Putting aside the question of whether the Medieval Warm Period was a global or regional event, I wanted to touch on the Norse colonies in Greenland. Greenland was explored and named by Erik the Red between 982 and 985. Most accounts indicate he used the name Greenland to lure settlers from Iceland to join him at this far-flung outpost. Erik and found two areas in the southwest suitable for settlement, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch. Most of the rest of the island was covered with arctic tundra, snow and ice, much as it is now. Some of Greenland's ice is over three kilometers deep. The first group of settlers - 24 boatloads - set out from Iceland in the summer of 986. Only 14 ships finished the journey, with the other 10 forced to turn back or lost at sea.
The Norse colonies grew and prospered for at least the first 200 years in Greenland, with the population peaking at about 5000. Ships from Norway and Iceland visited once or twice a year, and the colonists traded live falcons, polar bear skins, narwahl tusk, walrus ivory and hides for timber, iron, tools and even some luxuries. The Greenlanders had cows, sheep and goats which grazed when the weather permitted but had to be housed in barns during the harsh winter months. As the Medieval Warm Period gave way to the Little Ice Age, Greenlanders kept their livestock in their homes for the added warmth. This was happening as early as the 12th century.
As the years passed, the farmland lost its fertility and the cutting of trees for fuel and for the production of charcoal lead to erosion. The Norsemen were stubborn, proud people. They saw themselves as European and continued to pursue a European lifestyle. The Inuit, who also were living in Greenland in the Middle Ages, adapted well to the changing climate. The Norsemen refused to adopt the clothing and hunting gear which allowed the Inuit to thrive, believing the European way to be superior.
The last written record from the Greenland Norse colonies dates from 1408. A few Norsemen remained in Greenland into the 16th century.
It's fairly clear the Greenlanders lived a hard scrabble life. They were accustomed to hardship. A program on the Little Ice Age from the History Channel mentioned that even during the period of climate optimum, most Europeans had few resources. A failed crop lead to famine. The same must have been true in Greenland. Climate change is not believed to be the sole cause of their demise, but was probably the primary stressor. They had little economic "cushion" to fall back on.
Comments (9)
Discussions of the Vikings in Greenland and their disappearance often ignore the impacts of a very large volcanic eruption which occurred about 1453. This eruption was located in the South Pacific, far from the developed nations which would have recorded the event. The eruption alone would likely have had a short term impact similar to that from the Tambora event in 1815, which resulted in the so-called "Year without Summer" in 1816, which resulted in major crop failures in New England and elsewhere.
Here's some further information:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/93/release_1993_1543.html
There is also evidence of a major change in the circulation of the North Atlantic at about the same period, which suggests a reduced flow in the Gulf Stream. Whether or not the climate in Greenland was warmer before 1400, the Vikings were already in decline by then, as the inhabitants of the "Western Settlement" were gone by that time. The short term impact of a major volcanic eruption might kill off people living as the Vikings did in Greenland, even with today's conditions.
Posted by Eric Swanson | January 16, 2007 1:58 PM
You mean Erik The Red didn't name it Greenland because it was a lush, tropical paradise!? You mean he only named it that to trick others into coming there? Wow, yet another fallacy the dittoheads spread upon us.
Posted by Mark | January 16, 2007 3:41 PM
Laura,
I enjoy your column very much and appreciate the spectrum of opinions stated. I also agree that the preponderance of evidence supports a significant human contribution to Global Warming. What that means is that the "environmentalists" got this environmental problem right. And the Right didn't, and for different motives. Implying that the Left promotes inappropriate fear is unfair, and a Right technique to discredit them. Denial of human Global Warming stems not only from economic issues, but from decades long antipathy toward the "bleeding hearts", as well as a general distrust of Science.
Well, it's time to trust Science, put aside partisanship and implement real measures to reduce Greenhouse gases and maybe even novel ideas to "treat" the atmosphere. But whatever measures are derived, they need to be safe. Is nuclear energy safe? Maybe Science can decide.
Posted by David A Schwartz | January 16, 2007 10:31 PM
A few points. 1 - Al Gore's movie, with New York City engulfed, is proof that the Left does fear-monger. 2 - To say "let science decide" regarding the safety of nuclear energy is silly, b/c the dangers and downsides of nukes are well-known, and this form of energy has some strong pluses in its favor. But, nothing is perfect. 3 - Scientists are far from unanimous regarding the human element of global warming. The left discourages dissent from their view on this topic. 4 - Everyone knows that Greenland was never lush, but there was a warm period back then, which permitted settlement.
Posted by Paul Bjarnason | January 18, 2007 12:40 PM
Once again finger pointing and name calling preceed the real fact.
One would be wise to review their statistics book from college, before making such presumptions. This applies to both sides.
The bottom line is, there just isn't enough data to make a qualified statement on global warming.
My final statement on this controversial subject is, who likes cold weather? If you are one of those who said, "I do", then stop moving to Florida and Arizona. Snow Birds Go Home! I love warm weather. The warmer the better I always say.
Posted by J. Geils | January 18, 2007 2:13 PM
"Well, it's time to trust Science..."
Very well, show me the science that proves humans are causing the climate to change.
You say those who don't fall in line with the global warming dogma simply don't trust science. This couldn't be further from the truth. We certainly do trust science - when sound science is presented.
The problem is, there isn't any sound science that lays the "blame" for the climate changing at mankind's feet. In the place of this sound science a nebulous "Grand Consensus" has been substituted.
This is what we reject - scientific conclusion through a direct LACK of sound science.
Posted by SinJin Curger | January 18, 2007 3:41 PM
Well put SinJin. David, first of all, it's a logic fallacy to argue that since "everyone says so", it must be true. That's a hallmark of non-science. Even so, it's not true that there is a big consensus among climatologists. In reality, everything about the man made global warming theory is false. Some fundamental premises behind this easily invalidated theory are:
1) CO2 levels were significantly lower before industrial activity: NOT Established
2) CO2 levels have been constant until Man: FALSE
3) Higher CO2 levels have caused dramatically higher temperatures: FALSE
4) The global CO2 level has been determined, and is easily measured: FALSE
5) Man's effect on the Carbonic Cycle is significant: FALSE
6) Transfers between components of the Carbonic system are easily determined: FALSE
7) Man's effect on the Carbonic Cycle is easily distinguished: FALSE
8) CO2 is a major greenhouse gas: FALSE
9) Water vapor is of minor importance: FALSE
10) Greenhouse effect has no saturation point: FALSE
11) CO2 is a climate driver: FALSE
12) Historical temperatures correlate to CO2: FALSE
13) The Sun is not the completely dominent energy source for earth: FALSE
14) The temperature of earth's atmosphere and oceans are not primarily determined by the Sun: FALSE
15) The sun is not at a 8000 year high: FALSE
Posted by Gunnar | January 22, 2007 10:30 AM
SinJin-
So much of what you said makes so much sense. What I am tired of is the politization of the global warming issue. I just want to know the truth and the truth is that the climate is so complex that the truth is not easy to get at. I don't want to sound partisan, but the left side of the argument always says to "trust science" and that they don't fear monger. I haven't seen too much science on the issue, just rhetoric. As for fear mongering, just watch that movie that came out a couple years ago that shows an ice age coming about due to global warming...I forget what it was called. Then there's the Al Gore movie..."Inconvenient Truth". Total fear mongering!
Posted by Albanynyer84 | January 23, 2007 2:48 PM
There will never be a definitive answer to this debate. It is all based on models, opinion, and theory, but particularly with money and influence for those promoting the world warming idea. Therefore, forget the silliness about legitimate scientific conclusions.They are not available and never will be.
However, one aspect stares everyone in the face. It seems that every leftist supports the mankind caused warming conclusion. Period. Leftism has always meant one basic thing---top down managed collectivism, with the few privileged know-it-all elitist managers at the top, and the rest of us sucker slobbies at the bottom.
Count me out.
By the way, we never seem to hear much comment about the vast polluting effects of the thousands of daily aircraft flights-only the dirty old SUV. Could that be because the "eco-freaks" might feel a tiny twinge of guilt as they joyfully fly to their many "love-ins" all over planet earth-all expenses paid???????
Posted by Dave Colonel | January 23, 2007 11:25 PM