Ancient Norse colonies hit bad climate times

Recent studies have revealed that temperatures rose and fell during Norse colonization of Greenland and Iceland, causing them to abandon Greenland altogether, after years of unprecedented warmth allowed them to colonize.

New research reveals just how bad an idea it was to colonize Greenland and Iceland more than a millennium ago: average temperatures in Iceland plummeted nearly 6°Celsius in the century that followed the island’s Norse settlement in about A.D. 870, a climate record gleaned from mollusk shells shows.
...
The shells show a large amount of variation both within years and from year to year. For instance, the researchers say, winter temperature variability increased between 990 and 1120, a time when written records suggest that crops occasionally failed. By 1250, things heated up again and summer temperatures reached 10°C, possibly the highest in three centuries. Within decades, though, temperatures began to plunge again.

While Iceland remained settled through the modern day, Norse settlements in Greenland were abandoned by the early 15th century. Many researchers believe that climate changes played at least a minor role.

www.sciencenews.org...

What by-products of Viking industrialization caused this warming and cooling?

jw

The vikings have always interested me since they probably visited america. I wonder if they did really reach America, how far south did they go and if they traded with any indians. If they did trade with Indians, how were they seen? as the "first white gods" visiting them? I know Vikings have an reputation of being savage rapists but i hear they could trade well.

Also is it possible that the Vikings could be connected to Viracocha or Quetzalcoatl? I know this is far fetched but the only people i can think that could be the White Gods of central and south america are the Phoenicians, the jews, Knights Templars, jesus or the vikings with the Templars being my favorite.

Cool article.. As for the reason of the heat up and if it was done by them, how do you think that is possible? Do you think the vikings possessed some kind of technology? I always thought them to be very smart people but with very little technology.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012

It is now pretty well documented that the Vikings and others traveled much farther than previously thought. The Chinese are known to have visited the South Pacific, South America and other places no one had suspected.

Viking boats were state-of-the-art and the were excellent sailors and navigators. I am certain that the Eastern U.S. bears traces of their visits and colonies.

As for technology, that was just a jab at AGW folks who insist that if the climate gets warm, it MUST be the result of man's technology.

jw

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
I always thought them to be very smart people but with very little technology.

Not that smart. Guess why there are so few trees in Greenland and Iceland today?

ie: news.bbc.co.uk...

There was generally high solar activity in the period 1000-1250 (Medieval Warm period), when the climate was warmer than today. This allowed for the viking colonization of Greenland. Then, there was lower solar activity in 1040-1080 (Oort minimum) when the climate of Iceland and Greenland began to become colder, but between 1100-1250, there was again high solar activity as the climate reached a new warm peak. This is not only the peak of the Viking colonization but also of the Mongols, Chinese and Arabic civilizations.

Then the solar activity declined for a long period and we had the Little Ice Age, and the settlements of Greenland were abandoned. The climate in Europe was very cold with repetitive famines. Even survival in Iceland was very difficult.

Then the solar activity increased again from 1850 until now, and the climate warmed, and this was at the same time as the industrial age developed. This is the time of our modern world. The highest solar activity in 10000 years.

Currently, there is evidence that solar activity is declining again.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
I always thought them to be very smart people but with very little technology.

Not that smart. Guess why there are so few trees in Greenland and Iceland today?

ie: news.bbc.co.uk...

interesting, didn't know that! Thanks for the link.

If the land had 60% greenery on it, i wonder what percentage could have been trees? And what did they do with all those trees, build homes and boats? Send the wood back to europe and sell it?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
I always thought them to be very smart people but with very little technology.

Not that smart. Guess why there are so few trees in Greenland and Iceland today?

ie: news.bbc.co.uk...

That was my first thought.

It's weird that what's really a lesson to be learned about man needing to make the most of the environment and not abusing it, and the consequences of what happens, somehow gets turned into a 'jab' against man-made global warming and proof of the negligibility of man's impact on the environment in the OP's mind.

maybe by cutting down all the trees the area went through a weird weather pattern, thus being man made.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
maybe by cutting down all the trees the area went through a weird weather pattern, thus being man made.

Either way it was a man-made problem.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012

And what did they do with all those trees, build homes and boats? Send the wood back to europe and sell it?

Well I guess they made some boats for exports, but I think they mainly burned a lot of wood to keep their longhouses warm during the long cold dark vinter nights.

Yepp, that sounds right! - the trees on Iceland & Greenland must have been their only natural source of energy in a very cold nordic climate IMO.

These are very cold places during vinter, good/bad climate times or not!


[edit on 12-3-2010 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Merriman Weir


It is interesting to note that the mideast was once heavily forested. They had massive ceder forests.

Once again man was responsible. The Role of Wood in World History

There is speculation that the deforestation of the Mideast let to localized climate change but I"m having trouble finding the article that I read about that.

The article is a bit confusing, They settle around A.D. 870 and the temperature drops 6 degrees Celsius in the century that followed.

Why didn't they leave then?

They abandoned their settlements in the 14th century...Why is the 6 degrees temperature drop from A.D. 870 to A.D. 1000 of relevance??

The temperature went up again by A.D. 1250, and summer temperatures reached 10 degrees Celsius.

Within decades temperatures began to plunge again.

So out of the 500 years they were there (with all that cold and temperature variation), after those last few decades of warmth and things went back to cold (normal) again they just got up and left?

I am not buying it....

S+F for the thread non the less...

Peace

[edit on 12-3-2010 by operation mindcrime]

Thanks for that last link on the mideast. I have been thinking about the sumerians a lot lately and really need to re-read gilgamesh.

I wonder, if the great deluge really happened, which it probably did, were the sumerians one of the greatest civilizations at their time and i wonder if they knew something was coming and prepared for it.

reply to post by segurelha


Great observations, even if some AGW advocates refuse to acknowledge the MWP.

I, for one, have long believed that our current state of civilization is directly related to the opportunities presented for domestication by increased solar activity.

Once we achieved a sustainable society, we were able to adapt to subsequent cool periods.

Same old story; adapt or leave.

s4u

jw

reply to post by Merriman Weir

It's weird that what's really a lesson to be learned about man needing to make the most of the environment and not abusing it, and the consequences of what happens, somehow gets turned into a 'jab' against man-made global warming and proof of the negligibility of man's impact on the environment in the OP's mind.

Unfortunately (for the Norsemen) even a Greenland fully forested would not have kept away the natural changes in their climate.

Even assuming they took every last tree out, nothing except climate prevented re-forestation.

How long have the Vikings been gone? According to your logic, the trees should have just "sprung back" shortly after the Norse left Greenland.

Too many people confuse correlation with cause in the AGW dogma.

Greenland is NOT frozen due to de-forestation.

jw

reply to post by operation mindcrime

Why didn't they leave then?

Not every "gentrification" effort succeeds. They apparently left North America, too.

I don't think anyone is claiming they deforested the Northeast, or changed that climate, but they are just as absent there as they are from Greenland.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

How long have the Vikings been gone? According to your logic, the trees should have just "sprung back" shortly after the Norse left Greenland.

Not so. In Scotland, Rannoch Moor was heavily forested until the middle ages when the tress were chopped/burnt down.

Hundreds of years later, tress have not returned, although the climate is quite suitable. The reason is that with the loss of trees, peat bog advanced and covered the areas where the trees once grew. Trees cannot restablish in such a terrain.

In Iceland there was the added problem of volcanic ash. And in Greenland, livestock may also graze any trees which may try and become established.

Greenland is NOT frozen due to de-forestation.

Nice straw man No one has said that. We're simply pointing out that the lack of trees is due to human activity - rather than climate.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan

Not so. In Scotland, Rannoch Moor was heavily forested until the middle ages when the tress were chopped/burnt down.

Not really:

Deteriorating climatic conditions which resulted in accelerating rates of leaching, the growth of acid blanket peat, and a marked increase in areas of waterlogged ground,led to the gradual decline of trees and the progressive evolution of the present-day landscape of blanket peat and heather moor.

Post-glacial environment of Rannoch Moor, Scotland

Correlation does not always equal causation.

Deny ignorance.

jw



[edit on 12-3-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by Essan

in Greenland, livestock may also graze any trees which may try and become established.
... We're simply pointing out that the lack of trees is due to human activity - rather than climate.

Or not.

Not in at least 450,000 years has Greenland been sufficiently ice-free to support a thriving forest, says new research by an international team of scientists.

Greenland once had thriving forests

How many Vikings were there on Greenland 450,000 years ago?

Even the BBC "source" does not attribute deforestation to man:

The ancient boreal forests were thought to cover southern Greenland during a period of increased global temperatures, known as an interglacial.

Temperatures at the time were probably between 10C in summer and -17C in winter.

When the temperatures dropped again 450,000 years ago, the forests and their inhabitants were covered by the advancing ice, effectively freezing them in time.

Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.

At the time the ice is estimated to have been between 1,000 and 1,500m thick.

news.bbc.co.uk...

How sad that AGW advocates continue to distort facts in the hopes that the gullible public will just believe what they are told.

If people had any education in basic science and history, we wouldn't be in the state we're in today, in which the ignorant take everything they are told at face value with absolutely no curiosity for the truth.

The Greenland ice sheet has been substantially intact for thousands of years.

I suppose man altered the ancient Antarctic forests, too?

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

It's weird that what's really a lesson to be learned about man needing to make the most of the environment and not abusing it, and the consequences of what happens, somehow gets turned into a 'jab' against man-made global warming and proof of the negligibility of man's impact on the environment in the OP's mind.

Unfortunately (for the Norsemen) even a Greenland fully forested would not have kept away the natural changes in their climate.

Even assuming they took every last tree out, nothing except climate prevented re-forestation.

How long have the Vikings been gone? According to your logic, the trees should have just "sprung back" shortly after the Norse left Greenland.

Too many people confuse correlation with cause in the AGW dogma.

Greenland is NOT frozen due to de-forestation.

jw

I think you're completely missing my point. The point I was making was that the deforestation was a man-made problem, which was a little ironic given that the thread was meant to be a rebuff against the idea of man-made problems (specifically man-made global warming).

I wasn't connecting the deforestation to climate at all. I'm not even sure why you should even think that.

Also, regarding your extrapolation of what you're assuming is my logic. I'm not sure why you think that I should think that trees would immediately forest the area. That's not how it works, and even more so when they turned a large amount of land over to grazing.