Were you ever told this lie about the name - Greenland

This has been bugging me for literally years - the name Greenland - it was called this by the Vikings to (as my teacher said) "to encourage more people to come here".. I never believed this - it just seemed too contrived. I always thought that the obvious answer was the right one - because the country was green. Of course that made no sense as I, like many people was brought up to believe that there is no climatic change, so the weather now is the weather then, ice and snow.

As I learnt about climate variance particularly about the little ice age where the author Celia Fiennes and her book Visions of Britain, she wrote of the Thames being 6 months under snow, then I did wonder whether actually it was climate variance that made Greenland be named from Green.

And then I came across this website which seems to confirm my suspicion.

What this means to fellow ATSers is that the natural climate variance is real and recorded.

reply to post by templar knight


when i was in school they told me it was a little trick. vikings named iceland the name to discourage people from going, and greenland the opposite. i actually was discussing this the other day. weird.

You are referring to the Medieval Warm Period when not only Greenland was green, but grapes were grown in Scotland. The Warmists would like to erase this warm period, among many others, because it conflicts with theior idea of manmade global warming from carbon emissions. In fact, this whole issue is behind the "hide the decline" statement brought out in the Climategate emails.

An excellent book on this subject is

The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A. W. Montford which explains all this in detail. I would not have believed I could read a book so full of statistics, but it reads like a mystery novel.

The Global Warming fiasco is really the largest verifiable international NWO conspiracy we have. Forget about the Illuminati, the Masons, and the Bilderbergers. You want a conspiracy? This is it.

It was in fact Erik the red who named greenland, and he did it so he could attract the few freinds he had on Iceland to the new dicovered land, but you are also right about the climate at that time was much warmer.

So it's kind of both actually.

I am a viking, also called Danish

Originally posted by schuyler
The Global Warming fiasco is really the largest verifiable international NWO conspiracy we have. Forget about the Illuminati, the Masons, and the Bilderbergers. You want a conspiracy? This is it.

Spot on.
Anyone who has children at school should ask them to go to the school library and dig out books that refer to the ealier warm periods. When they cant find them they should ask why.

Greenland. When I was at school they told us it was always green, dont remember any reason being given.

Yeah I was taught the story of Eric the Red calling The place in question Greenland as some sort of real estate scam. The problem I have is the fact that there are ice core samples going back thousands of years from Greenland. I use this fact when showing Cristians that thier book holds errors and thus is not the word of the Creator. So please explain how if Greenland was green a thousand years ago where the continuous ice core samples came from.

Originally posted by Quantazero
Yeah I was taught the story of Eric the Red calling The place in question Greenland as some sort of real estate scam. The problem I have is the fact that there are ice core samples going back thousands of years from Greenland. I use this fact when showing Cristians that thier book holds errors and thus is not the word of the Creator. So please explain how if Greenland was green a thousand years ago where the continuous ice core samples came from.

No one said Greenland was entirely devoid of ice. The ice core samples came from glaciers in the middle of the island. I live in a very temperate climate, yet there are glaciers within a few miles of me. Indeed, ice core samples are one of the main ways we have records of temperature fluctuations which prove manmade global warming to be a myth. The following graph came directly from a Greenland ice core:



As you can see, when you take along term view, Global Warming can be seen in context and the Hockey Stick disappears. When you selectively choose the data for the last couple of hundred years it looks like temperatures are rising and it must be all our fault, but all you are seeing is a recovery from the Little Ice Age, when the Thames froze and people ice skated on it. You've heard of "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Well, this is a perfect example of it.

Originally posted by Quantazero
The problem I have is the fact that there are ice core samples going back thousands of years from Greenland. I use this fact when showing Cristians that thier book holds errors and thus is not the word of the Creator.

No part of the Bible makes any statement about the climatic conditions of Greenland.
So what makes you think this counts as one of the "errors of the Bible"?
I doubt that you've ever tried using this argument in practice, because any Christian would give you the same answer.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Quantazero
The problem I have is the fact that there are ice core samples going back thousands of years from Greenland. I use this fact when showing Cristians that thier book holds errors and thus is not the word of the Creator.

No part of the Bible makes any statement about the climatic conditions of Greenland.
So what makes you think this counts as one of the "errors of the Bible"?
I doubt that you've ever tried using this argument in practice, because any Christian would give you the same answer.

He wasn't claiming the Bible discusses Greenland's climate. Ice core samples look like tree rings, one for each year. The cores are deep enough to show many tens of thousands of rings, if not hundreds of thousands. If you take the fundamentalist view that the Earth was created in 4004 BC on October 23rd at 10:00 in the morning, then the ice core samples refute that.

The odd thing here is that the Bible itself does not claim a given age of the earth. The figure of 6,000 years was calculated by Arch Bishop James Ussher of Ireland in the 1600s. It has been adopted by some fundamentalist sects as the true age of the Earth.

Just ask an archaeologist or paleontologist.

There are jillions of these temperature extremes in earth history. The "cold snaps" of glacier expansion are called stadials, while the warmer periods (without all the ice) are called interstadials.

Notice how we are getting away from terms that would otherwise indicate how NATURE is variable, even without/before human intervention.

Here's a hot one that Native Americans actually survived: the Altithermal.

Of course, the name has been politically correctified to "Holocene Climatic Optimum (wikipedia article)". Basically, the American plains were transformed to a blowing desert (dust bowl) for hundreds of years at a stretch. There is even some evidence that Cro Magnon man had tried to colonize the east coast of America, but was driven back by Altithermal.

Again, notice how the names are are changed to suppress the fact that nature has nearly wiped out the humans several times, and has successfully exterminated the other great apes, except for gorllias and chimpanzees.

You cannot talk about anthropology or biology in general without discussing climate change over the last 3 million years. So everything has to be discussed in code, lest we imply that humans are not in fact the shizzle.

reply to post by schuyler

The member said "I use this fact to show Christians that their book contains errors".
That logic only works if the Bible says the opposite about Greenland, so that claim was implied in his argument.
In fact, checking his post again, he seems to be associating the Bible with the claim that Greenland was green a thousand years ago, rather than with any argument about the age of the earth. The ice-core samples show the ice to be continuous, so Greenland cannot have been green so the Bible is wrong- that seems to be the way the reasoning works out.

reply to post by schuyler


A temporary warming period does not negate global meterology anymore then the Medieval cooling did.

reply to post by schuyler


The "little ice age" is a misnomer and is not considered an ice age at all by scientists.

And has no bearing on current global temperatures. You get an E for effort though.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by schuyler

 

The member said "I use this fact to show Christians that their book contains errors".
That logic only works if the Bible says the opposite about Greenland, so that claim was implied in his argument.
In fact, checking his post again, he seems to be associating the Bible with the claim that Greenland was green thousands of years ago, rather than with any argument about the age of the earth.

edit on 23-3-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what he was trying to say. If you can't read between the lines here you have no hope of understanding. You are taking him too literally. His point was about ice core samples, not the climate of Greenland. He could have used glacial varves or the Grand Canyon sedimentary layers to make the same argument. That wouldn't have meant the Bible discussed the Grand Canyon. Of course, if you had no idea ice core samples could be used in dating in the first place, his thesis would fly right over your head. I explained the issue quite adequately above.

This thread is full of misunderstandings. Quantazero completely missed the point that Greenland was actually habitable and not simply a glacier, then you come on here and completely miss Quantazero's valid point about ice cores. The funny thing is, no one is in disagreement here. No one believes the Earth was made in 4004 BC. This thread is about Greenland's name and its relationship to climate change.

reply to post by schuyler

The statement that the Bible contains errors was followed immediately, without any kind of break, by the argument that Greenland cannot have been green. If he did not mean the two to be connected, then all I can say is that the line of argument in that post was in a chaotically confused state, and the poster can hardly complain if readers are confused by it.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by schuyler

 

The "little ice age" is a misnomer and is not considered an ice age at all by scientists.

And has no bearing on current global temperatures. You get an E for effort though.

Good Lord. This thread is full of people who take things completely literally. Well, at least you are on topic. You will notice on the graph that I posted that the period of cooling is CALLED "The Little Ice Age." I did not make it up. I did not make the graph. I posted it. As you surely understand, I know full well that period was not a "REAL" ice age, complete with glaciers covering a vast area of the northern latitudes. It's completely silly to even suggest anyone thinks otherwise. It was a period of cooling, and that is all that is claimed here. My "effort" has nothing to do with it. Nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever to refute what I have said. You can toss out all the one-liners you want, but they add no substance to the discussion.

Look at the graph I posted. That should tell you a whole lot about "Global Warming." If you can duplicate that graph with data from elsewhere, then you cannot claim it is "localized" data. And guess what? You can. Similar graphs can be drawn from ice core samples taken from Anarctica.

The "Little Ice Age" DOES have bearing on global temperatures because "scientists" such as Al Gore use that period as a gimmick to convince lay audiences that "Global Warming" is going to kill us all. If you only take 200 years of data, starting with the Little Ice Age, it surely looks like we're getting warmer! It's only when you put that 200 years in context with, say 200,000 years that you can see this period of warming looks just like all the other historical periods of warming, and that it is right on schedule. Look at any longitudinal graph and that hockey stick disappears.

My thesis is in agreement with the OP, that there is no good evidence that there is such a thing as manmade global warming. Further, there is a lot of evidence that this "crisis" is a manipulation by people who want very much to manipulate the populace, crreate the fabled New World Order of global government and stifle economic growth. We are being manipulated by lies. Here's another example:

Al Gore's "other" fancy graph is a stark red line that compares CO2 with global warming historically. If you've ever seen him make this presentation he turns it into a joke. Everyone laughs. Why? because it is patently obvious that the graph shows a correlation between CO2 and global warming. No one in their right mind can look at that graph and say there is no correlation. There is.

But as it turns out, when that graph was first established the granularity of the data was such that the relationship was not clear. Each data point covered too large of a span to see what was happening. However, in subsequent years the data were refined so that a clearer picture arose. And guess what? It turns out that CO2 did rise after a period of global warming--about 1,000 years later. In other words, CO2 wasn't causing global warming; global warming was causing CO2 to rise. In other words, CO2 is not a cause; it is an effect. The graph shows the exact opposite of what Al Gore was claiming. There are many theories of why that is, but the most prevalent seems to be that warming of the oceans causes an outgassing of CO2.

I don't believe Al Gore intentionally set up a conspiracy. He believes what he says is true. But this issue is very very convenient for today's political climate, the UN, and politicians who see this as a way to further their own ends. And, unfortunately, there is ample evidence to show the data have been manipulated. Scientists, i.e.: "real" scientists, have cooked the data to match the theory. You can see this in the Climategate emails, in many references in the book I cited above, and even in the graphs where they "hide the decline" or make inconvenient truths like the Medieval Warm Period simply disappear. Politicizing science is never a good idea. This is a perfect example and one of the best "conspiracies" of the modern age.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by schuyler

 

The statement that the Bible contains errors was followed immediately, without any kind of break, by the argument that Greenland cannot have been green. If he did not mean the two to be connected, then all I can say is that the line of argument in that post was in a chaotically confused state, and the poster can hardly complain if readers are confused by it.

If you are ignorant of the issue, no wonder you didn't understand it. That "Greenland cannot have been green" was HIS mistake because he did not understand that the interior of the island could contain ample room for glaciers while the coastline could have a temperate climate suitable for agriculture and animal husbandry. He thought it was a 100% proposition: either Greenland was completely covered with ice OR it was completely barren of ice. The entire point of his post was to question the idea that Greenland was named "green" because it was green. He did not agree with the rest of us. He did not believe that, and to PROVE his assertion he brought forth his evidence. His evidence was his knowledge of ice cores. Why was that important to him? Because he used ice core evidence to refute the fundamentalist idea that the earth was made in 4004 BC among "cristsians" (sic). He invoked the Bible, and, as it turns out, the Bible doesn't discuss the age of the Earth in specific terms.

In other words, his comments about the Bible were an aside, an explanation of why he had the information about ice cores in the first place. He was documenting his evidence. It was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Here's the conversation.

Statement: "I don't believe that Greenland was green." (His major point)
Response: "Why not?"
Statement: "Because it was covered in ice."
Response: "How do you know that?"
Statement: "Because I've studied ice cores from Greenland."
Response: "Why would you do that?"
Statement: "So I can argue with the fundamentalists [BECAUSE the rings in the ice show age!]"
(No, he did not SAY that, but that's what he meant! And he's correct!)
Your Response: "But the Bible doesn't discuss the climate of Greenland!"
Statement: "Umm, Say what?! I didn't say it did!"

When you break down the issues like this your reponse to him is really quite funny. It's a perfect non sequitur. It has nothing at all to do with his point. Zero. You took him completely out of context. So thanks for that.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I thought the bible said the flood covered the entire earth. That would include Greenland. No saltwater in the core samples thus no flood. Touche.

Originally posted by Quantazero
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I thought the bible said the flood covered the entire earth. That would include Greenland. No saltwater in the core samples thus no flood. Touche.

You know, the fact is we don't disagree at all and I've also been defending you in your absence, so it pains me to say this: That's ridiculous and it is far from a "touche." You ought not to flatter yourself because if THIS is how you use your argument, it's easily refuted. The evidence in the ice cores lies in the fact that they are layered, one layer for each year, just like tree rings. We know this because we have measured it over dozens, if not hundreds of years. There are tens of thousands of layers in the ice core samples, therefore the Earth must be far older than 6016 years old. That's Inductive Reasoning, logically, reasoning from the specific to the general.

The "Flood" is said to have happened for a fairly short time. It rained for 60 days and 60 nights (ancient coded slang for "a really long time"), covered everything, then receded. Who says the salt water froze? That argument is as bad as your detractor up there claiming the Bible doesn't cover the climate in Greenland. I thought you knew what you were talking about. My bad. I retract my defense of you. You are correct, but for all the wrong reasons.

Look here's how I see it.

They go to this place, and saw it sucked, then they went over to the other side and found Iceland, which is beautiful and green etc..

So they name THAT place Greenland, so that when more people show up to the claim the land they go:

"Wow, if they called this place Greenland, then Iceland must be a hell hole! I'm going back to Europe"

Classic Troll.

~Tenth