You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Norway: Viking Age temperatures same as now
2007-12-13
Researchers have evidence that arctic Svalbard has not been as warm as it is now since the balmy days of the Viking age. Ten-year-old ice core samples from Lomonosovfonna, and snow samples from 2000 and 2001 show record high temperatures, the Norwegian Polar Institute said in a press release.

"By comparing the composition in the ice core with snow on the glacier we have found comparably warm summers have not occurred since the 1200s, the end of the Viking era," said glaciologist Elisabeth Isaksson.

A range of European scientists have take part in the project, analyzing the cylinder of ice brought up using a special drill. The tests also reveal a slightly warmer period around 1750. Except for this the ice cylinder is dominated by the cold period known as the Little Ice Age.
Posted by:mrp

#25  This story really leads to this:

http://www.vikingkittens.com/
Posted by: Glung McGurque2454   2007-12-13 23:15  

#24  IOW, the Sun's gonna blow [unless mankind can quantify/control the Sun's treasonous rebellions], all humanity is gonna cook once the oceans = skies evaporate, and humanity can no longer make air conditioners = live underground becuz humanity no longer has cheap access to resources??? MAD MAX versus TANK GIRL versus JERICHO versus ......@???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-12-13 22:43  

#23  Unless you just like arguing, the best way to eliminate this garbage about "Global warming/Climate change" is to simply ignore the liars who spout it.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-12-13 17:00  

#22  Well, IMHO, I think we don't know even 1/100th of the data needed to decide if we are causing Global Warming. The engineer in my cries "BULLSHIT!", since one volcanic eruption puts out more crap than the entire human race does in a decade, the rest of the planets are showing signs of warming at the same rate of earth, and the sun is the biggest energy producer in the solar system and our pathetic attempts to compare our output with the sun's is ... well ... stupid as well as arrogant.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-12-13 16:29  

#21  There's carbon dioxide in PMS?
Posted by: SteveS   2007-12-13 16:17  

#20  I meant $6,000 per minute.
Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611   2007-12-13 16:16  

#19  who cares? If Al Gore wants to raise $6,000 per hour from a bunch of suddenly-scientist followers more power to him. Fools and their money. I suggest if you really want to save the eartn, don't have children, and if you really care, off yourself. Consider yourself a carbon offset for Al's jetsetting and the ever important Save The Earth rock concerts.
Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611   2007-12-13 16:16  

#18  Fine. How much Carbon Dioxide in PPM is normal?
Posted by: eLarson   2007-12-13 16:08  

#17  Good question, ed. I think the answer is NO. We could so use that ole' fashioned Viking Age Spirit from the boyz in Northern Europe, but it's not going to be forthcoming. They were emasculated years ago.
Posted by: Mark Z   2007-12-13 15:55  

#16  "there is no demonstrable link between GHG and global tempratures... the ice core data from antartica and elsewhere clearly show that previous cooling has happened during periods of increased GHG and that warming periods are independent of GHG levels."

Previous increases in global violence in the last hundred years, like 1914-1918, and 1939-1945, were independent of the level of power of radical Islam, ergo there is no evidence of a link between radical Islam and global violence.

D'uh.

Of course there was no link in earlier warming periods, cause there was no surge in GHG levels comparable to those since the industrial revolution. Saying GHG causes warming does NOT imply all warming is caused by GHG (see the violence and Islam comparison for parallel logic)



Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-12-13 15:50  

#15  local National Association of Damnable Statistics says my chances of 5"-7" of climate change have increased 20% for tomorrow from just this morning (up 50% since last week) so they can't even get that right. To make a computer model of sun activity over the next 100 years they better use a better model than that. Next they will tell me Georgia O'Keefe paintings are proof that flowers bloomed more vibrantly 50 years ago.

And why in the world when the technology and manufacturing is at a point where 'safer for the environment' products could be widely distributed, taxing and increasing the price of such products would put them out of the range of most consumers? Are we supposed to throw away all of our cars to buy so many million made from scratch hybrids? Climates change, always have - my part of the prarie has ocean fossils all over the place. Recockulous.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2007-12-13 15:32  

#14  Eric the Red called his discovery "Greenland" because it WAS green. People were raising cattle and crops on the coast. Cooling in the 13th century rendered farming impossible. Remains from colonist cemeteries from that era show that the last colonists in Greenland were smaller, died younger, and were seriously malnourished. The Greenland tribes, who did not depend on farming, kept on going.
Posted by: mom   2007-12-13 15:28  

#13  It was during that period that dear Leif Eriksson settled Vineland. Perhaps this time round we can settle the moon?
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-12-13 14:45  

#12  Does this mean the Scandinavians get their nads back?
Posted by: ed   2007-12-13 12:58  

#11  Astronomers agree the Sun will become a red giant, and when that happens we are all going to die. So send me some money so I can research how to keep the Sun from becoming a red giant (send enough so I can do this research in St. Barts.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-12-13 12:51  

#10  there is no demonstrable link between GHG and global tempratures.

A recent look at ice core data shows CO2 levels lagging behind rising temps by about 800 years. Rather suggestive that temp change drives CO2 levels rather than the other way around.

There is no question that human contribution to CO2 level is increasing, but water vapor and the Sun have a much greater effect on climate than CO2 level. Water vapor always gets ignored in the hysteria about CO2. Bottom line is we are still figuring out how planetary climate works and it is a little soon to start living in the Stone Age again.

My suggestion, unless we want to adjust the Earth's orbit, is to terraform Mars. And guys, let's do it right this time!
Posted by: SteveS   2007-12-13 12:28  

#9  Yes, and do you know how many thousands die every year from exposure to the Sun nuclear energy? Safe energy my ass. Time to get the UN to shut it down. I sense another global conference junket in the making. How about St. Tropez?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-12-13 12:09  

#8  Does GHG stand for Global Heat Generator, aka the Sun? How do we get control over this unconstrained independent variable in our precise computer models? We need a federal program to harness the Sun and put it under UN control.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-12-13 11:59  

#7  one problem LH

there is no demonstrable link between GHG and global tempratures... the ice core data from antartica and elsewhere clearly show that previous cooling has happened during periods of increased GHG and that warming periods are independent of GHG levels.

of course, science and global warming are not co-related.

global warming is an ideology.
Posted by: Abu do you love   2007-12-13 11:52  

#6  We're doomed! Doomed! The End is Near. Send Money.
Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611   2007-12-13 11:45  

#5  "So at worst what we're really dealing with is Global REwarming"

except thats NOW, and even with current GHG concentrations, warming will continue.

But we're not even keeping GHG concentrations constant, theyre increasing. Cause we have net positive GHG emissions. So temp will rise even faster, and would, if we had constant positive GHG emissions.

But we DONT have constant positive GHG emissions. That would require freezing global GHG emissions. We have RISING GHG emissions, which means GHG LEVELS will rise even FASTER, and temps, faster than that.

Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-12-13 11:41  

#4  With spinners, ground effects package, and tree-shaped air freshener in "Drakkar"
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-12-13 10:53  

#3  SUV Longboats?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2007-12-13 10:31  

#2  Raiding and pillaging cause global warming. It's all Bush's fault.
Posted by: danking70   2007-12-13 10:11  

#1  Researchers have evidence that arctic Svalbard has not been as warm as it is now since the balmy days of the Viking age.

So at worst what we're really dealing with is Global REwarming. So they're saying the rising of the oceans back then permitted the Scandinavian tourists to hit those classical vacation sites down south which had all those neat trinkets and hot babes to bring home and show the folks?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-12-13 09:09  

00:00