|
Post by stranger on Sept 6, 2009 19:57:26 GMT
It is notable that many of the plants supposedly discovered by Erik the Red and mentioned in the Sagas range from scarce to non-existent in modern Greenland. Most of them are not fond of the current conditions, while others suffer from soil depletion.
However, it's not surprising that cultivars of the lowly spud would grow in southern Greenland. Those are cold tolerant, with "eyes" going in the ground as early as late January in the American South and harvest starting in June.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 7, 2009 1:29:07 GMT
Re: Greenland crops: It is also possible that the vikings rapidly depleted the post glacial soil back in the MWP. (Much earlier of course) The post glacial soils of Cornwall & Devon were colonised by early Stoneage folk quite soon after the ice retreated, but these areas are now Dartmoor, Bodmin Moor and other infertile regions. (Scientists have managed to extract fertile soil samples from beneath the earliest stone monuments, and there is plenty of evidence for cropping- only after the development of better axes could the ancients descend into the forests.)
So even if Greenland warms up, the soil may not be fertile enough to support the crops it once did.
What can grow there now may not be an indicator of what was there before. Given a rich fertile soil, you can get a harvest in a short growing season.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 25, 2009 12:36:55 GMT
Didn't think this was worth starting a new thread ....
A current affairs program (Brisbane, Channel 7. Today Tonight) made a link between explosions at service stations around Australia and global warming.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 25, 2009 12:45:30 GMT
I can't understand why Greenland is not being developed as a major new farming area. After all, the Vikings managed to farm there for 300 years in the Mediaeval Warm Period and we are reliably informed that the Arctic is warmer now. I don't see any indication that it's not possible to grow crops on greenland, i think they are. www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html This is interesting. So we are nearly as warm as we were when Greenland was last colonized. It must be nice to get some fresh greens.
|
|
|
Post by inverse on Sept 28, 2009 9:18:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Sept 29, 2009 1:08:34 GMT
Writing about dodgy reporting, when the recent rains hit the Philippines, I remarked to my wife that they would blame global warming. And so they did:
Bringing home the lesson of global warming - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
And the beat goes on...
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Sept 29, 2009 1:10:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Sept 29, 2009 1:45:37 GMT
A few months ago, there was an article from that marvelous reporter George Montbiot on the BBC about how denialists falsely claim that they are being shuttered, lose their jobs and suffer all manner of outcast tactics. On a Sunday a few days after the article appeared, I posted my own story of being censured, and several other posts rebutting the real denialists. Every single one of them was deleted within a few hours, including all responses thereto.
I found it particularly comforting on an article devoted to the ridiculousness of claims that "denialists" are/were being censored that posts contraverting that claim were deleted by Montbiot. No more certain evidence supporting "denialists" claims will ever be found.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 29, 2009 6:47:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 29, 2009 10:51:48 GMT
" Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle.
But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.
The presentation at Oxford's Environmental Change Institute came as negotiators from 192 countries were gathering in Bangkok for the latest set of prepatory talks in the run-up to December's UN climate summit. " Everywhere you look, there are warnings about accelerating climate change. It's being ramped up prior to Copenhagen.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 29, 2009 10:59:09 GMT
Didn't think this was worth starting a new thread .... A current affairs program ( Brisbane, Channel 7. Today Tonight) made a link between explosions at service stations around Australia and global warming. I got a transcript of the segment; apart from the presenter trying to link the explosions to global warming, their tame expert said (when speaking about static electricity): " As our weather gets warmer, humidity increases, an essential ingredient in creating a spark. "
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 29, 2009 12:42:56 GMT
If the AGW community started critiquing for story quality and accuracy, they would very quickly run out of stories to publish or broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 29, 2009 19:34:21 GMT
If the AGW community started critiquing for story quality and accuracy, they would very quickly run out of stories to publish or broadcast. Yeah, they'd notice pesky problems like the fact that increases at that rate are so great that it's not possible to have a period of level temperatures. The temperatures would rise by about .15C every other year, not once per decade. They included a chart that had been "smoothed" so much that this actually looked reasonable but if you see the proper perspective on temperatures 4C by 2060 looks absurd
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 29, 2009 20:33:45 GMT
Yes seems BS to me. It would be nice to have more explanation, but the BBC news items never give much. For example I want to see the greenhouse gas projections are using, I suspect from a few remarks in the article that they might have projected them severely high. Edit: Found the presentation this 4C warming by 2060 is based on, it is based on high emissions and a bad carbon cycle response: www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-2betts.pdf
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 29, 2009 20:41:32 GMT
If the AGW community started critiquing for story quality and accuracy, they would very quickly run out of stories to publish or broadcast. Yeah, they'd notice pesky problems like the fact that increases at that rate are so great that it's not possible to have a period of level temperatures. The temperatures would rise by about .15C every other year, not once per decade. They included a chart that had been "smoothed" so much that this actually looked reasonable but if you see the proper perspective on temperatures 4C by 2060 looks absurd Swanson and Tsonis are also advocates of significant multi-decadal internal variation overlaying the forced trend. But their recent paper finds the forced warming trend of the 20th century has been a exponential increase. Effectively without the internal variation they find the early 20th century warming is reduced, the mid 20th century cooling negated and the late 20th century warming reduced. www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/09/09/0908699106.abstractDoesn't mean it's correct, but bear in mind that multi-decadal internal variations in climate doesn't imply the forced trend must be linear.
|
|