- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers. This encouraged them to cultivate some of the seed corn they brought with them from Iceland.
Yes. The perspective is of back then when we were warm, then went into a naturally caused ice age, and now when we are warm and getting warmer because of human contribution of CO2.
Yes. The perspective is of back then when we were warm, then went into a naturally caused ice age, and now when we are warm and getting warmer because of human contribution of CO2.
Yes. The perspective is of back then when we were warm, then went into a naturally caused ice age, and now when we are warm and getting warmer because of human contribution of CO2.
How do you know it's not natural?
Do realize that US CO2 output is at a 20 year low.
Yet still not as warm as it was back then. At least in Greenland, and well, all other places where we can see a climate change....
[h=2]Groundbreaking AGW-Undermining Study: Greenland’s Warming, Ice Loss Due To Geothermal Heat[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 24. January 2018
‘Several Thousand’ Hot (60°C) Springs ‘All Over’ Greenland Melt The Ice Sheet From Bottom Up A few years ago, 10 glaciologists publishing in the journal Nature Geoscience asserted that “large parts of the north-central Greenland ice sheet are melting from below” due to high geothermal heat flux forcing (Rogozhina et al., 2016). In a new paper published […]
More typical Jack Hays misrepresentation and pushing lies. You have been so thoroughly discredited in the past. You just can't help but repeat your pathology of lies. Kenneth Richard, like you, is not credible. All you do is spam. You can't even make a declaratory statement in your own words.
FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
There are always regional extremes so to say "At least in Greenland" says nothing. The global temp in yr 1000 was 1.11 C cooler than in Jan of 2020. So, you're just plain wrong.
Global Historical Temperature Record and widget
Do you ever bother to back up what you say with statistical evidence?
There are always regional extremes so to say "At least in Greenland" says nothing. The global temp in yr 1000 was 1.11 C cooler than in Jan of 2020. So, you're just plain wrong.
Global Historical Temperature Record and widget
Do you ever bother to back up what you say with statistical evidence?
More typical Jack Hays misrepresentation and pushing lies. You have been so thoroughly discredited in the past. You just can't help but repeat your pathology of lies. Kenneth Richard, like you, is not credible. All you do is spam. You can't even make a declaratory statement in your own words.
FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
More typical Jack Hays misrepresentation and pushing lies. You have been so thoroughly discredited in the past. You just can't help but repeat your pathology of lies. Kenneth Richard, like you, is not credible. All you do is spam. You can't even make a declaratory statement in your own words.
FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
Please explain how that older article means the link Jack posted is wrong.
It means the link is from a discredited source. That’s what I said. It’s not worth wasting time on information presented from a discredited source. Doubly so from Jack Hays, who I have proved in the past as misrepresenting posted information as has Kenneth Richard. It is rare that one should not look to the substance of the matter but rather consider the source except when that source has been discredited, as in this case.
It means the link is from a discredited source. That’s what I said. It’s not worth wasting time on information presented from a discredited source. Doubly so from Jack Hays, who I have proved in the past as misrepresenting posted information as has Kenneth Richard. It is rare that one should not look to the substance of the matter but rather consider the source except when that source has been discredited, as in this case.
Cherry picking a single month of instrumental record and a proxy data point from 1100 years ago amounts to plain lying.
Let me take you by the hand and walk you through.
You cited an article, on which your entire claim is based, which stated:
“The Vikings are both famous and notorious for their like of beer and mead, and archaeologists have discussed for years whether Eric the Red (ca. 950-1010) and his followers had to make do without the golden drink when they settled in Greenland around the year 1,000.”
“The Greenland climate was mild when they landed, but was it warm enough for growing corn?”
The data point I gave is that of a year, not of a month as you state (which if anything would make you the one that’s lying) as given in the article YOU cited as the basis for YOUR argument. That’s why I picked the year 1000. That was the yr cited as being warm enough and from when it could be said those barley grains originated.
YOU’RE the one using a single data point to justify your argument. I’m merely pointing out that even in that citation, you are dead wrong in saying that now is “still not as warm as it was back then” as you falsely state.
If anyone is lying, it's YOU. Or, you're just mistaken and can admit being wrong, like an adult.
Did you bother to think of words such as RESOLUTION, which is absent in your link.
They combine different resolution and data points of several papers onto a single chart, a classic metal analysis cabal spread onto a single page.
You have no idea how they snookered you!
:lamo
From their shape and size, the grains of corn were identified as barley with complete certainty.
The Vikings in Greenland grew barley. They did not grow corn, despite the claim from the OP's article. Corn would not be discovered in the Americas until 1492 by Christopher Columbus, who introduced the grain to Europe. Corn will only grow as far north as 58°N. Which means that even today corn could not be grown in Greenland or Iceland. The OPs article misuses the term "corn" for "barley", as if it were some generic grain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?