Did manmade phenomena cause the place to be named Greenland? There are multiple arguments with physical evidence supporting the arguments to believe that the warming that is occuring is just a natural phenomena, not anthropogenic. And while increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations sounds like a plausible reason for increased temperature, the historical record from geological investigations show that the increased carbon dioxide concentrations occred after periods of warmer temperature, not before. Do you need more links?
"n 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Rohde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming.
There are multiple arguments with physical evidence supporting the arguments to believe that the warming that is occuring is just a natural phenomena, not anthropogenic.
Any of these arguments is flawed in some manner. What's your favorite?
And while increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations sounds like a plausible reason for increased temperature, the historical record from geological investigations show that the increased carbon dioxide concentrations occred after periods of warmer temperature, not before. Do you need more links?
I am totally and repetitively familiar with this flawed argument, and I've got all the links I need. Such as this one:
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
"A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fuctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then 800 years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5000 to 10000 years (the coolings lasted ~100kyrs) so for the majority of that time (~90%) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this wonderful archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause while also revealing it can be an effect."
"The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight in the northern hemisphere. This is a very small forcing. But it caused ice to retreat in the north which changed the albedo increasing the warmth in a feedback effect. Some ~800 years after this process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise and this also amplified the warming."
Next?