When the Vikings farmed on Greenland the only part of the country they could inhabit was the southwestern extremity as the rest was ice. Today, they could have landed anywhere as almost the entire coastal region is ice-free, up to 200km (120 miles) wide in some places.
What I'm wanting to know is how much more land is available now as a consequence of global warming? Ideally compared to when the Vikings landed there 1000 years ago or when temperatures peaked during the 'Medieval Warm Period'.
To avoid any confusion - Greenland was so named to attract settlers, it never was a green land. The story of how Greenland was settled and the propoganda behind the name can be read in the biography of the first person to settle there - Eric the Red.
2007-11-22 23:05:32 · 3 answers · asked by Trevor 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Nearly all the coastal strip is currently ice free. There are towns and villages (with farmland) dotted all around the coast now, whereas when Eric the Red landed only the southwestern tip was ice free. Glaciers retreated during the MWP and settlements were established. The ice is retreating now and some settlements are being revealed, in other places the ice has retreated much further than was previously settled. There's approx 20 times as much land available now. 220 cubic km of ice is lost each year (net loss), and the coastline is approx 45,000 km, nearly all of which is ice free.
2007-11-29 05:38:38 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Archaeologists are now excavating settlements in what is now permafrost. This would lead me to suggest that the farm area during the times of the Vikings was greater than today.
The problem with using the accounts of Eric the Red is that he colonized Greenland during the beginning of the Medieval warm period in 986, when temperatures were still low. The medieval optimum occurred around 200 years later.
2007-11-23 11:45:21 · answer #2 · answered by eric c 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
When the glaciers withdraw they may just leave bare rock having scraped off any soil into the ocean. The rate of soil creation in such a climate is also very low.
So there may be more land, but not productive farmland. The choice of crops that grow in greenland is very limited anyway.
Any extra land surface will be less than that lost to the Sahara.
2007-11-23 09:44:23 · answer #3 · answered by fred 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋