Are you drunk? Because you are not making any sense.Laromi wrote:It will seem like only yesterday and all those Greenland folk will be back into viticulture and cavorting in paddocks green AGAIN.
dorlomin wrote:Are you drunk? Because you are not making any sense.Laromi wrote:It will seem like only yesterday and all those Greenland folk will be back into viticulture and cavorting in paddocks green AGAIN.
Laromi wrote:dorlomin wrote:Are you drunk? Because you are not making any sense.Laromi wrote:It will seem like only yesterday and all those Greenland folk will be back into viticulture and cavorting in paddocks green AGAIN.
Just grabbed the closest reference on agronomy, Iron age (1500 B.C. onwards) - The Little Ice age (1450 A.D.–1870 A.D.): Beginning about 1450 A.D. is a marked return to colder conditions, often called. ‘The Little Ice Age’, a term used to describe an epoch of renewed glacial advance. Glaciers advanced in Europe, Asia and North America, whilst sea ice in the North Atlantic expanded with detrimental effects for the colonies of Greenland and Iceland.
Ref:A textbook of Agronomy Copyright © 2010, New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers. B. Chandrasekaran, B.Sc., M.Sc. (Ag.), Ph.D. Director of Research Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Coimbatore. K. Annadurai, B.Sc., M.Sc. (Ag.), Ph.D. Associate Professor of Agronomy Agricultural Engineering College and Research Institute, Kumulur Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. E. Somasundaram, B.Sc., M.Sc. (Ag.), Ph.D. Associate Professor of Agronomy Agricultural Research Station Aliyarnagar, Tamil Nadu.
The point I am making is perhaps we are heading back to the future when Greenland was an arable country, rather than a perpetual winter wilderness. Grapes, as I remember, were believed to have grown there, ergo the green paddocks. A light hearted look at GW.
Lore wrote:Laromi wrote:dorlomin wrote:Are you drunk? Because you are not making any sense.Laromi wrote:It will seem like only yesterday and all those Greenland folk will be back into viticulture and cavorting in paddocks green AGAIN.If you do a little more research you'll find that Greeland was never that hospitable to general agricultural crops in all of human history. The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. The fact that the ice is now rapidly disappearing should greatly worry us.
Lore wrote:And we're seeing ancient ice melt there that predates Norse settlements.
Utter, utter, utter bilge.Laromi wrote: Grapes, as I remember, were believed to have grown there,
Laromi wrote:Lore wrote:And we're seeing ancient ice melt there that predates Norse settlements.
Which really only goes to prove GW is episodic, does it not?
dorlomin wrote:Utter, utter, utter bilge.Laromi wrote: Grapes, as I remember, were believed to have grown there,
Grapes cannot grow below about 15C. So the UK is about as far north as it gets, yet the UK does not even have a single glacier many hundeds of miles to the north and over 1km above where grapes are grown.
You are trying to tell us that southern Greenland had UK style summers but still icesheets?
Your ability to think through a problem is abysmal. Yet that very lack of any intellectual skill no doubt leads you to a supreme confidence in your wacky theories.
The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old. Certainly it was alive and well when the island was named around 1000 years ago. So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green.
http://skepticalscience.com/greenland-u ... -green.htm
Lore wrote:Laromi wrote:Lore wrote:And we're seeing ancient ice melt there that predates Norse settlements.
Which really only goes to prove GW is episodic, does it not?
The evidence points to rapid melting due to climate change. Primarily driven by anthropogenic causes. Changes in climate always have a reason and are not necessarily cyclical in nature.
Lore wrote:It's an old denier meme that never seems to die...The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old. Certainly it was alive and well when the island was named around 1000 years ago. So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green.
http://skepticalscience.com/greenland-u ... -green.htm
dissident wrote:This is funny, some ancient myths about "green" Greenland are taken seriously, while modern physics and observations are dismissed as hoaxes. The "green" Greenland BS reminds me of the nonsense fed to settlers in the late 1800s in Ontario who were told snow fertilizes the soil as they were directed to good-for-nothing (in the agricultural sense) real-estate such as Muskoka. Similar propaganda was fed lemmings back in the days of Erik the Red: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red. This not about science but about money.
Laromi wrote:dorlomin, it appears you have poor skills in comprehension
As I said it was a light hearted
dorlomin wrote:Laromi wrote:dorlomin, it appears you have poor skills in comprehension
I don't. You are just a clown.
You have even admitted your contributions to this thread are merely clowning around.As I said it was a light hearted
Grapes in Greenland tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge, but you will insist on inflicting this thread with that painful lack of knowledge.
This is a thread for sober and sensible discussions.
You have even admitted your contributions to this thread are merely clowning around
and not pretend you are not an amateur spin doctor?You have even admitted your contributions to this thread are merely clowning around
then play your part in responsible discussion, not spin.This is a thread for sober and sensible discussions.
Then demonstrate it, you haven't convinced me to the contrary.I don't.
If you only knew the effort to be a clown. But since I am only just a clown, further tuition appears warranted.You are just a clown.
Oh dear.Elsewise
dorlomin wrote:Oh dear.Elsewise
Anyway.
I suggest you start here
Then read this.
So you have a minimum level of knowledge to enter the conversation.
, oh dear. Both references virtually within the same paragraph.An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[19];
More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[20]
No.Laromi wrote:Wikipedia is your source of information?
There is a thread for conspiracy theories, cranks and other fools here.You do know the difference between GW and AGW
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests