The Greenland Story

By Lloyd Graff

What do you do when you go for a brief vacation to the Bay Area to visit family?

Naturally, you study up on the history of Greenland.

Greenland is getting some interest these days.  Donald Trump, still a real estate developer at heart, recently tossed out the idea that the United States should buy it from Denmark.  Of course, the Danes put a kibosh on the deal, which may mean negotiations have begun.

A recent scholarly article published by Northwestern University geologists has proven that Erik the Red, the Viking who fled Iceland after a murder and conviction in 985, colonized a much more temperate Greenland than was previously thought.  It was in the 50° range many months of the year, making it a good place to raise animals, fish, and harvest ivory.  About 350 to 400 years later a “little ice age” seemed to discourage many Greenlanders, and they left.

In the last few years, old Norse settlements have been discovered as the climate appears to be becoming more temperate, and real estate developer types are finding renewed interest.

Why this is so interesting today and so disturbing to me in the heart of Silicon Valley, with one of the most benign climates in the world?

It seems like so many folks here are paranoid about “the existential threat of climate change.”  Living in the Midwest, climate change is generally a footnote to most political and economic discussions.  Even most of the Democratic politicians running for the Presidency in 2020 do not make it a major emphasis, probably because their polling data indicates it does not move the needle in the crucial early primary states.

But in California, among the intelligentsia of Silicon Valley and malleable young people who hear the voice of doom about the planet burning up in their lifetime which is expounded almost every day in school and their media, it is a real fear. They do not know that Greenland was mild 1,000 years ago, then got very cold, and now is getting more tolerable again.  They don’t know what they don’t know.

I do believe the climate on Earth is getting slightly warmer now, but it does not worry me.  People are very smart, and a capitalist economy will adapt very quickly and make it into a net positive.

What does worry me is that kids are being indoctrinated in school and by Facebook and TV on the huge danger they face, and, ultimately, bad public policy decisions will be made that seriously undermine our prosperity.

If one bought into conspiracy theories, the manipulative tentacles of Vladimir Putin and Russia could be seen all over “the existential threat of climate change.”

Putin did not invent “climate change,” but long ago he came to the conclusion that Russia’s economy was backward and almost totally dependent on oil and gas for hard currency.  Nobody wants a Russian dishwasher or car or machine tool.  If you are Putin, and his new buddies the Saudis, you desperately want American oil fracking to end and the 6 million barrels a day it produces to go away.  If he can shrewdly manipulate American public opinion to embrace the climate change disaster theory and boost the “kill dirty fracking” line he wins the game, and we have $80-$100 per barrel oil again.

Theories about the weather go hot and cold.  Check out the Greenland story.

Question: Do you believe climate change is mainly caused by people?

SHARE THIS

Share this post

36 thoughts on “The Greenland Story

  1. AvatarDoug G.

    The intelligentsia are some of the most closed minded individuals in the world. When the inconvenient truths are brought up, such as Greenland, all they can resort to is name calling (you flat earther). Obama recently spent 15 million on ocean front property on Martha’s Vineyard. Doesn’t sound like he is too concerned about it. Weather has trends, we may happen to be in a warming trend. The hatred of “Big Oil” has created an entire industry of researchers whose funding only continues if they can create a link to human activity. If the research doesn’t meet the desired outcome the funding would stop. Follow the money.

     
  2. AvatarBlue Max

    NO! We’re in a Grand Solar Minimum, the Sun is the deciding factor. Weak Sun equals weak Earth Shields equals more Volcanism, straying polar poles, Weather peaks and valleys of epic proportions. MSM doesn’t want to talk “Sun” or “Volcanism” or “Earthquakes” or “Cern”. It doesn’t fit the Rob Peter (the people) to pay Paul (the .Gov He/She’s) scenario.

     
  3. AvatarPeter

    Man made Global warming is one giant hoax.
    The earth was warmer long before fossil fuels and co2 levels were 10 times higher than today when the earth went into an ice age .

     
      1. AvatarPeter

        Hi Steven
        How does the graph showing that CO2 is just about at it’s LOWEST point ever in history – and temperatures dropping in the past at CO2 levels 10 times higher than today prove anything other than temperature can’t possibly be anything to do with CO2 levels and that CO2 levels are way to low and need to increase for the good of all life on the planet

         
      2. AvatarPeter

        what is interesting is , that as you see ice / glaciers retreating as it has been for the past 400 years as we inch out of the little Ice Age , we are discovering fossilized forests ect
        Meaning that the ice WAS MUCH LOWER in the past when the earth was much warmer .
        All without fossil fuels .
        All science shows CO2 increases after the temperature has increased not the other way round .

         
  4. AvatarGordon Erickson

    Back in 1978 when I was in engineering school, I needed an elective so I tool Environmental science. Dr. Lathrop was apparently more forward thinking than I thought back when I was 18, and he went through climate change and the sine curve that had been generated over the years since temperature began being recorded and deeper into the topic with the drilling into ice caps and such.

    He stated, in that class that long ago, that the earth is still on an upward trend, would be for some time, and that during our lifetime someone would most certainly misinterpret that to be a change in the climate caused by the industrial revolution and the use of automobiles.

    IHO, he called it, and while it may not happen in our lifetimes, it will cycle back to being cold again.

     
  5. Lloyd GraffLloyd Graff

    Some world class grapes and wines are being produced in Norway these days. Of course the French turn up their noses at Norwegian wines, like they used to do about California vintages. This is the beauty of Capitalism adapting to change. The doomers look only at the negatives of change. The entrepreneurs see opportunity.
    Climate change is probably a phony issue we will joke about in a decade or two. It could be a “trillion dollar “whoops, we goofed” on that one.

     
    1. AvatarSteven Ignots

      Ok, so the Earth is warming up by the Sun or aliens or whatever and man has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Granted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Shouldn’t we do what we can do reduce our introduction of it into the atmosphere?

       
      1. AvatarPeter

        WHY on earth would you want to ??
        CO2 is plant FOOD – the more of it the better .
        At 0.04% (400 parts per MILLION ) of the atmosphere it is completely inconsequential .
        Water Vapour is BY FAR the largest greenhouse gas and it absorbs the same spectrum of radiation as co2 so if CO2 reached as high as 9000 pars per million ( where it was in the good old days when the earth cooled into an ice age ) it would make NO difference to the global temperature .
        Secondly – a planet warmer than it is today would be GOOD .

         
  6. AvatarMike Birdwell

    I hope that you are right that a peak in atmospheric CO2 not seen since long before humans evolved is not going to destroy life as we know it.
    99.9% of climate scientists think it is.
    Follow the money.
    The oil company CEO’s, and owners have trillions in profits to lose if they get shut down.
    What single industry has something comparable to gain if we switch to “green” energy ?

    The push to change our energy infrastructure to a less monopolized system will be a boon to manufacturing and job growth, with clean air as a side benefit.
    Green energy Is a win even if the smart guys are wrong.

    And don’t forget that eventually the oil and coal will run out.

     
    1. AvatarPeter

      So CO2 levels way higher in the past did not do anything to the planet except help life thrive but now we should spend trillions of dollars , condemn the middle class to abject poverty through loss of jobs and hugely expensive power to stop CO2 from going from 0.04% of the atmosphere to 0.05% of the atmosphere ( noting that of the 0.04% MOST of the Co2 is natural as only +/- 4% is anthropogenic – so ever if you reduced the economy to the STONE AGE – ie heating only by fire and back to horses and carts you COULD maybe reduce co2 levels from 0.04% to 0.0396% .
      The whole thing is a complete joke and nothing to do with oil and gas companies and more to do with Goldman Sachs ( Al Gore ) trying to make the next billion off the backs of the rubes and scientists to scared to be honest and risk their paychecks .

       
    2. Avatarr in nyc

      we were supposed to run out of fossil fuels years ago.
      We have found hundreds of years worth just recently.
      They have found oil and gas many miles down, way below any life.
      New science shows that the earth replenishes oil and gas.
      And goes back to clean NON CARBON nuclear energy

       
  7. AvatarSteven Ignots

    Peter you say:
    WHY on earth would you want to ??
    CO2 is plant FOOD – the more of it the better .
    At 0.04% (400 parts per MILLION ) of the atmosphere it is completely inconsequential .
    Water Vapour is BY FAR the largest greenhouse gas and it absorbs the same spectrum of radiation as co2 so if CO2 reached as high as 9000 pars per million ( where it was in the good old days when the earth cooled into an ice age ) it would make NO difference to the global temperature .
    Secondly – a planet warmer than it is today would be GOOD

    You say water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. Then you say a warmer planet would be good. Warmer planet means more water vapor (and bigger and more powerful storms). Sounds bad to me.

     
    1. AvatarPeter

      well the minute you find a way to control water vapour you will be able to prevent bigger storms .
      At the moment the IPCC says there is no link between warming and hurricanes etc and if you look at the records it has been the quietest patch of storms over the last 10 years in recent USA history .
      https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

      So don’t believe the hype of the fake main stream media -pushing the global warming hoax .

       
    2. AvatarPeter

      yeah – but the POINT is Category 5 storms were WAY more frequent in the 1940’s -1950’s
      and the earth is warmer today .
      NOAA can’t see any link
      https://www.cfact.org/2017/04/06/noaa-refutes-link-between-global-warming-and-hurricanes/

      Globally, however, the IPCC says it’s likely the number of tropical cyclones will “either decrease or remain essentially unchanged”.
      so at the moment even the bought and paid for scientists can’t link weather to global warming .
      It probably means there is a link – as they have been wrong about everything else . ha, ha,

       
  8. Avatarr in nyc

    will post in sections since it seems i exceeded max characters

    Why the hysteria about this?

    CONTROL!!!

    Our youth and lots of dimwits have been brainwashed that we are killing the planet by our existence.
    I am the first to want pollution controls and be responsible – but this is just political global control
    BUT CO2? it is what plants NEED and what ALL animals exhale.
    It just gives justification to control energy.
    Control energy you control the population!
    How and where they travel,
    how warm, cold and comfortable,
    Food and life in general.
    This is just another money grab – they want “carbon tax”
    to take more of our hard earned income, again to control the population.

    why don’t the hot air, CO2 spewing politicians turn off the AC in the capitols and statehouses? Lead by example!
    Why do the climate warriors fly around the world in private jets spewing more carbon emissions than a normal family could in a dozen lifetimes?

    Algore told us Manhattan would be UNDER WATER by last year, I was just at the new Freedom Tower and my feet stayed dry.
    He is now worth some 200 MILLION by selling carbon credits
    He has a half dozen unoccupied mansions that are heated and cooled
    gas powered mowers, blowers and wackers maintaining the manicured lush green lawns spewing exhaust
    as he is flying around the world in private jets telling us how we should live.

     
      1. Avatarr in nyc

        Regarding animals expelling CO2 and plants breathing CO@, guess you missed 5th grade science.
        the posts with external links are “AWAITING MODERATION”

        so google following:
        “Climate change backers use 114 private jets, Maseratis and mega yachts”
        if I post links it may or may not show up.

        and
        “Al Gore’s Nashville estate expends 21 times more energy a year than typical U.S. home, study says”

         
  9. Avatarr in nyc

    Lets look at the so called renewables

    The pollution and destruction created by strip mining the rare earth materials for solar panels is horrific, the only good thing its happening in China so it don’t bother me, how about you? {sarc}

    Look at California
    Blackouts for a week because the wind is blowing
    NO ELECTRICITY
    hope you charged the Tesla
    and they are running GAS generators to survive

    Most understand that best efficiency is on cruse control.
    Base load fossil power plants are spewing more pollution now from ramping up and down every-time the wind stops & starts, the sun shines & gets covered by clouds.

    Last year in the PNW renewables provided NOTHING
    solar farms covered in snow don’t work and the wind farm were iced over
    The windmills took power from the grid for for keeping controls & gearboxes warm.

    remember our entire transportation system is based on fossil fuel
    and three quarters of our electric generation is fossil fuel

    The infrastructure cannot support much more electric use
    the grid is maxed out

    You can cover the country with windmills and solar panels and not come close to supplying our needs.

    remember batteries last some 3 years, then have to be recycled at great expense and energy consumption
    and you are going to base your life & economy on that?

    To increase the range of your electric car, just add batteries, which adds significant weight which requires more energy to move and reduces efficiency.

    Get a commercial airliner off the ground on batteries? Lemme know how that works.

    Want to eliminate CO2?
    Go nuclear, best & cleanest energy around – but the uneducated are against that as well
    are you against anything & everything nuclear?
    lets eliminate nuclear medicine saving lives each and every day!

    I could go on and on…

    the bottom line: too many want to tilt at windmills…

     
      1. Avatarr in nyc

        I am not that arrogant – Man does not cause this slight fluctuation. As I said it is all about CONTROL
        You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is 4.5 Billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later multicellular life, then complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some 3 billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Plants were POLLUTING the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is NOTHING. A million years is NOTHING. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

         
  10. AvatarPeter

    The only reason anyone even thinks humans can influence the climate is the IPCC used some “models” to try and show that that if co2 increased there would be some “forcings ” that would result in increased warming .
    They estimated a transient climate response to a doubling of co to between 1.5-4.5deg C .
    ( of course the climate loonies never mention anything but the 4.5deg figure ) .
    In the intervening 30 years many studies have come out showing a probably max TCR of 1.5deg C and the models have been shown by actual results to be running way too hot .
    And that’s if you believe the “models” .
    In reality whilst CO2 is a greenhouse gas there is so little of it and the absorbtion spectrum is so well covered by water vapour any impact by humans must be so minor as to be safely mitigated .
    They first need to be able to estimate the formation of clouds to accurately estimate anything .

     

Comments are closed.