Lets be honest about the ice melt season

[RollingThunder]

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists

* * * *

(Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," HarperCollins said on its website on Monday.

However, a number of scientists disputed the claim.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

"We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered."

Other scientists agreed.

* * * *

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists | Reuters

This excerpt is just another tip of another iceberg, so to speak. More available at link.

LOLOLOLOL.....The Times Atlas of the World, which BTW is not a peer-reviewed science journal, made a mistake and a number of scientists from different countries spotted it and protested. That is what scientists do. They strive for accuracy. Kind of blows your "world-wide scientific conspiracy to exaggerate global warming" paranoid conspiracy theory out of the water, doesn't it.

There is already a thread about this, so check out this: Scientists just doing their job

Greenland is still losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.

Accelerated Ice Loss from Greenland

 

[Liability]

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists

* * * *

(Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," HarperCollins said on its website on Monday.

However, a number of scientists disputed the claim.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

"We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered."

Other scientists agreed.

* * * *

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists | Reuters

This excerpt is just another tip of another iceberg, so to speak. More available at link.

LOLOLOLOL.....The Times Atlas of the World, which BTW is not a peer-reviewed science journal, made a mistake and a number of scientists from different countries spotted it and protested. That is what scientists do. They strive for accuracy. Kind of blows your "world-wide scientific conspiracy to exaggerate global warming" paranoid conspiracy theory out of the water, doesn't it.

There is already a thread about this, so check out this: Scientists just doing their job

Greenland is still losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.

Accelerated Ice Loss from Greenland

LOL!

Your data collection is fantasy.

Your reporting of the piss-poor data collected is dishonest.

Your conclusions wouldn't be scientific even if they were rationally based on even the bogus data; but as things stand, they aren't even that horrible. They're worse.

You folks lost all hope of credibility long ago.

(pssssst. It turns out the sky isn't really falling.)

 

[whitehall]

I want to get the products I need at a decent price and I want to be able to buy the car I like and the lightbulb I like without worrying about fools in the federal government who drive around in limos and have servents changing their light bulbs telling me what to do. If there is global warming don't blame it on me or my neighbors or my Country. Blame China if you need a villiain.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Whitey, China and India have a long way to go to put the amount of GHGs into the atmosphere that we and Europe have. At present, we and europe are responsible for most of the anthropogenic warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Liability, links to real scientific evidence is far more convincing than flap-yap.

 

[ScienceRocks]

LOL Whitey, China and India have a long way to go to put the amount of GHGs into the atmosphere that we and Europe have. At present, we and europe are responsible for most of the anthropogenic warming.

But we got to admit that between India and China that it will be a hell of alot harder to curve the tsunami then we thought 15 years ago. That is for sure. China has 4 times as many people to power and they are building 2 coal plants a week...They are building coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, ect.

 

[westwall]

...and yet Greenland is still not as balmy as it was when the settlers arrived...

Got supporting evidence for this assertion?

I've seen nothing indicative that turn of the first millenia 800-1200 AD was any warmer than current temperatures.

Only because you choose to ignore it. That just exposes your intellectually dishonesty.

 

[westwall]

Got supporting evidence for this assertion?

I've seen nothing indicative that turn of the first millenia 800-1200 AD was any warmer than current temperatures.

The Vikings grazed cattle and sheep there in 800-1200 AD.

Doesn't mean it was balmy. That's totally ludicrous.

The Viking colony on Greenland was able to support a cathedral, a nunnery, a monastery and 12 churches. The new estimates postulate a population as much as 13,000 which would be 10% of the entire global Viking population.

Finally the colony had enough excess to launch their own colonies further south into New Foundland and the mainland. Then factor in the slightly over 500 year duration of this supposedly marginal (only a devout warmist could ever make the claim that a colony that existed for twice as long as the US has been around was "marginal"...you guys are a hoot!)
colony and you have more than ample evidence that it was warmer there then than it is now.

 

[westwall]

and yet Greenland is still not as balmy as it was when the settlers arrived. climate changes, get over it

LIke most denier cultists, you're both extremely stupid and very ignorant. Greenland has been 80% covered in an ice sheet for hundreds of thousands of years. It has never been "green" in human history. Some fjords on the southern coast were marginally inhabitable for a few centuries but it was always a harsh cold place. There are more people and farms there now than there ever were during the Viking colonization. And BTW, just to deal with another denier cult myth linked to the MWP, they grow far more grapes in England now than they ever did during the MWP. It is not surprising that such an misinformed and retarded denier cultist like yourself would fervently believe a lot of stuff that isn't even remotely true.

Greenland Vikings
(excerpt)

In 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Röde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming.

Greenland ice sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Greenland Ice Sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,235 sq mi), roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. ...The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[3] It is generally thought that the Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. It did not develop at all until the late Pliocene, but apparently developed very rapidly with the first continental glaciation.

Medieval warmth and English wine
(excerpts)

Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes – changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn't a match for that!

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that climate is actually the dominant control – so what does the history of English vineyards show?

Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in 'Punch' (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it – one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate….

As usual you cherry pick from devout warmists. However the Domesday Book very clearly describes wineries where none can exist today. They did the book to calculate the taxes that had to be collected. They were very careful to get their facts right (after all their heads were riding on that line) unlike you loser devout warmist types who have made a art form of.

Fortunately though, the people have figured out you're full of crap so they are ignoring you.

 

[westwall]

Liability, links to real scientific evidence is far more convincing than flap-yap.

Ain't that the truth! How about linking to something that isn't driven by crappy computer models! Or how about those "studies" that ended up being opinion pieces from environmental NGO's like most of the last IPCC report proved to be.

Practice what you preach buddy, practice what you preach!

 

[westwall]

LOL Whitey, China and India have a long way to go to put the amount of GHGs into the atmosphere that we and Europe have. At present, we and europe are responsible for most of the anthropogenic warming.

What anthropogenic warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Whitey, China and India have a long way to go to put the amount of GHGs into the atmosphere that we and Europe have. At present, we and europe are responsible for most of the anthropogenic warming.

But we got to admit that between India and China that it will be a hell of alot harder to curve the tsunami then we thought 15 years ago. That is for sure. China has 4 times as many people to power and they are building 2 coal plants a week...They are building coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, ect.

Absolutley. That statement was not an excuse for Asia's present contribution, just an acknowledgement of our responsibility for where we are at present.

 

[Old Rocks]

Liability, links to real scientific evidence is far more convincing than flap-yap.

Ain't that the truth! How about linking to something that isn't driven by crappy computer models! Or how about those "studies" that ended up being opinion pieces from environmental NGO's like most of the last IPCC report proved to be.

Practice what you preach buddy, practice what you preach!

USGS Release: Glaciers Retreating in Asia (8/25/2010 10:33:00 AM)

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Whitey, China and India have a long way to go to put the amount of GHGs into the atmosphere that we and Europe have. At present, we and europe are responsible for most of the anthropogenic warming.

What anthropogenic warming?

What atmosphere?

 

[westwall]

LOL Whitey, China and India have a long way to go to put the amount of GHGs into the atmosphere that we and Europe have. At present, we and europe are responsible for most of the anthropogenic warming.

What anthropogenic warming?

What atmosphere?

Here is what your experts say......


By Gerard Wynn - Analysis

LONDON | Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:51am EDT

(Reuters) - New research, to be published in the journal Climatic Change in November, suggests humankind may have to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere on a vast scale if emissions keep rising after 2020.

The series of articles provide scenarios which will form the basis of the next report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 and 2014.

At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full, meaning every extra tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted would have to be removed to stay within safer climate limits, one lead author says.

That so-called "negative emissions" approach, where excess carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, is a less radical step than direct manipulation of the climate, called geo-engineering, which includes blocking sunlight using artificial clouds or mirrors in space.

Both approaches are getting more serious consideration, reflecting concern at rising emissions and a target held by world governments to keep average warming below 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels.

Some scientists say that the 2 degrees limit is too arbitrary and not proven to link to dangerous weather events.

It was calculated partly as a threshold beyond which Greenland ice sheets may melt irreversibly, adding seven meters to world sea levels over centuries.

"If we want to stay below 2 degrees and possibly achieve 1.5 in the 22nd century then we're not going to get around these negative emissions," said one lead author, Malte Meinshausen, of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

"This is a crucial change in perception, that there is a point and it is very close at which time if we put CO2 into the atmosphere future generations will have to take it out again."

Sharp emissions cuts now could avoid or would delay that moment to later this century.

NEGATIVE

In its next report, the IPCC will for the first time estimate what the world must do to have a likely chance of keeping long-term warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Temperatures have already risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times.

Meinshausen's study calculates that the world would have to halt rises in global greenhouse gas emissions within five years.

By 2070, humans should have a net output of minus 3.5 billion tonnes CO2 annually to reduce temperature rises further below 2 degrees in the long-term and so slow sea level rise.

Researchers say that allowing emissions to continue to rise after 2020 would involve passing 2 degrees as early as mid-century.

After that, the only way back would be CO2 removal from the atmosphere on a massive scale -- a net output of minus 18 billion tonnes of CO2 annually during the next century and for about 100 years, they calculated in the new series of studies.

That compares with actual emissions of 33 billion tonnes CO2 last year from burning fossil fuels. Emissions have risen 2-3 percent per year over the last several decades.

The view that extreme steps are needed is therefore becoming more accepted.

"If we really are going to avoid more than 2 degrees of warming, we're either looking at geo-engineering in the sense of sun shields in space, or negative emissions type of geo-engineering in the second half of this century," said Oxford University climate scientist Myles Allen.

"That's increasingly where the thinking is."

Technologies which drive negative CO2 emissions include burning plant matter called biomass and trapping the resulting carbon emissions and burying these underground.

That achieves net negative emissions because the plants themselves absorbed CO2 from the air. But the idea only exists in the lab and pilot projects.

Other techniques could include crushing limestone, which absorbs CO2, but appears improbable because of the vast quantities of rock to be quarried. Engineers have also suggested using artificial photosynthesis to mimic plants.

Instead of mopping up CO2, an alternative geo-engineering approach is to screen out sunlight, for example, by spraying sulphur into the upper atmosphere. This causes water droplets to form and create hazy clouds and is to be trialed by British engineers next month.

The problem is a threat of unforeseen consequences.

"It's not the same as just rewinding things back to where we were in terms of greenhouse gases. You're doing another change which will potentially bring the temperature back but could lead to less rainfall," said Reading University's Peter Stott.

CONCERN

Some climate scientists are alarmed by how far predictions have been borne out or exceeded since the last IPCC report.

Other experts say it isn't clear how far specific changes are the result of emissions or simply natural effects.

"There's no final decision," said the Potsdam Institute's Vladimir Petoukhov.

For example, last week it emerged that Arctic sea ice this summer melted to a record low extent, or a close second. Natural weather effects partly explained the previous record in 2007, scientists say, and may help explain this year's, said Petoukhov.

In other climate changes, a study last week found rapidly rising temperatures in the northeast Atlantic Ocean driving major shifts in fish stocks.

And scientists say they can now detect a human fingerprint on trends in global rainfall.

"What's clear is that the changes do seem to be happening and consistent with the projections," said Reading's Stott.

"That's indicating that the climate is already changing, not just the global temperatures but the rainfall patterns. Then we're getting to things that actually affect people."


Analysis: Extreme steps needed to meet climate target | Reuters




Interesting how they forget that the Earth has had 20 times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. This is why you folks are losing. You are all pathological liars and the people have figured it out.

 

[RollingThunder]

...and yet Greenland is still not as balmy as it was when the settlers arrived...

Got supporting evidence for this assertion?

I've seen nothing indicative that turn of the first millenia 800-1200 AD was any warmer than current temperatures.

Only because you choose to ignore it. That just exposes your intellectually dishonesty.

Actually, walleyedretard, it's only because you can never produce any actual evidence even though you always claim you did sometime previously and we should all just go find it somehow. LOL. All of your idiotic and mistaken claims get refuted by actual evidence that you choose to ignore. You have no intellect to speak of and absolutely no honesty so your last comment is very ironic.

 

[RollingThunder]

and yet Greenland is still not as balmy as it was when the settlers arrived. climate changes, get over it

LIke most denier cultists, you're both extremely stupid and very ignorant. Greenland has been 80% covered in an ice sheet for hundreds of thousands of years. It has never been "green" in human history. Some fjords on the southern coast were marginally inhabitable for a few centuries but it was always a harsh cold place. There are more people and farms there now than there ever were during the Viking colonization. And BTW, just to deal with another denier cult myth linked to the MWP, they grow far more grapes in England now than they ever did during the MWP. It is not surprising that such an misinformed and retarded denier cultist like yourself would fervently believe a lot of stuff that isn't even remotely true.

Greenland Vikings
(excerpt)

In 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Röde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming.

Greenland ice sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Greenland Ice Sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,235 sq mi), roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. ...The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[3] It is generally thought that the Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. It did not develop at all until the late Pliocene, but apparently developed very rapidly with the first continental glaciation.

Medieval warmth and English wine
(excerpts)

Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes – changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn't a match for that!

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that climate is actually the dominant control – so what does the history of English vineyards show?

Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in 'Punch' (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it – one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate….

As usual you cherry pick from devout warmists.

LOLOL....you are such a fraud, walleyed. Show us this "cherry-picking", you moronic dipshit. Show us your 'evidence' that Greenland used to be so much warmer and 'green' than it is now, and I mean 'evidence' other than the fact that the place got named 'Greenland" (I know things like that confuse retards like you).

However the Domesday Book very clearly describes wineries where none can exist today.

Just another of the clueless BS claims that you can't back up with any actual evidence. I posted a link to an article with links to sources that show that there are many more wineries in England now than there was during the MWP and quite a few of them are farther north too. You've got nothing but your half-witted denier cult myths.

Here's a couple more excerpts from that article I posted before.

Medieval warmth and English wine
(excerpts)

The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) – an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively ‘frenchified’, the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lamb’s 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.

Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren’t many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it’s probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don’t necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England.

By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits.

However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a ‘counter-proof’ to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not…. well, why talk about them in this context at all?

 

[westwall]

LIke most denier cultists, you're both extremely stupid and very ignorant. Greenland has been 80% covered in an ice sheet for hundreds of thousands of years. It has never been "green" in human history. Some fjords on the southern coast were marginally inhabitable for a few centuries but it was always a harsh cold place. There are more people and farms there now than there ever were during the Viking colonization. And BTW, just to deal with another denier cult myth linked to the MWP, they grow far more grapes in England now than they ever did during the MWP. It is not surprising that such an misinformed and retarded denier cultist like yourself would fervently believe a lot of stuff that isn't even remotely true.

Greenland Vikings
(excerpt)

In 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Röde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming.

Greenland ice sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Greenland Ice Sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,235 sq mi), roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. ...The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[3] It is generally thought that the Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. It did not develop at all until the late Pliocene, but apparently developed very rapidly with the first continental glaciation.

Medieval warmth and English wine
(excerpts)

Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes – changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn't a match for that!

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that climate is actually the dominant control – so what does the history of English vineyards show?

Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in 'Punch' (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it – one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate….

As usual you cherry pick from devout warmists.

LOLOL....you are such a fraud, walleyed. Show us this "cherry-picking", you moronic dipshit. Show us your 'evidence' that Greenland used to be so much warmer and 'green' than it is now, and I mean 'evidence' other than the fact that the place got named 'Greenland" (I know things like that confuse retards like you).

However the Domesday Book very clearly describes wineries where none can exist today.

Just another of the clueless BS claims that you can't back up with any actual evidence. I posted a link to an article with links to sources that show that there are many more wineries in England now than there was during the MWP and quite a few of them are farther north too. You've got nothing but your half-witted denier cult myths.

Here's a couple more excerpts from that article I posted before.

Medieval warmth and English wine
(excerpts)

The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) – an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively ‘frenchified’, the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lamb’s 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.

Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren’t many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it’s probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don’t necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England.

By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits.

However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a ‘counter-proof’ to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not…. well, why talk about them in this context at all?

You're nothing if not incredibly predictable! Regurgitating the same mindless crap doesn't make you correct doofus! I have to hand it to you though, your brainless acceptence of the devout warmists religious dogma would make old Orwell proud. He described you to a T.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting how you kind of forget that the times when there was a rapid increase in GHGs in the atmosphere were times of rapid extinctions. The proxy evidence strongly indicates that the weather of those times was unstable and violent.

Mystery #2: What caused oceanic mass extinctions?

 

[westwall]

Interesting how you kind of forget that the times when there was a rapid increase in GHGs in the atmosphere were times of rapid extinctions. The proxy evidence strongly indicates that the weather of those times was unstable and violent.

Mystery #2: What caused oceanic mass extinctions?

Kind of intersting how you ignore the fact that there are many other more likely scenarios for the extinctions. The predominate one being COLD! You see the asteroid impact theory states that the asteroid threw so much material into the atmosphere that the globe cooled for thousands of years thus denying the dinosaurs their massive amounts of plant life to support them.

Or how about the Deccan Plateau eruptions which carried on for thousands of years and lowered the global temperatures? Hmmm? How about those theories MENSA boy? They have far more evidence to support them then your "proxy data" nonsense.

The only extinction that has any support for your AGW crap is the PETM and as I have shown you repeatedly the terrestrial critters did extraordinarily well. Only a few species of forams died out thus giving you clowns your hyperbolic "mass extinction".

Give it up, you havn't a clue what's going on and never will.