Greenland is located on the North American continent. The capital of Greenland is Nuuk. Its total land area is 2,166,086 square kilometers.

The Labrador Sea lies between Canada and Greenland.

As per the 'Realkreditforeningen' (who is an indutry organisation for finansing institions) the average for 3rd quarter 2009 was 1.600 Euro per m2. In general I would say that the prices in the Capital is twice that of the province.

80 degrees west, 60 degrees west, 40 degrees west

eirik the red

anywhere the is completely covered by water

See etymology at the Wikipedia link below.

Latitude: N 71° 42' 24.9696" / Longitude: W 42° 36' 15.4908"
(71.706936, -42.604303)

Greenland is not considered to be a continent, as it is too small. On some map projections it is distorted because of its position so far north. It is, however, the world's largest island situated north-east of Canada.

no they don't have a president in greenland

It began forming in the late Pliocene epoch.

someone still trying saturdays sun crossword the answer is Davis Strait

the main occupation is fishing.

Roughly where it is now between N America and Europe. Pangea first split east west (in the Triassic) forming Laurasia (northth) and Gondwanaland (south) with an ocean called 'Tethis' in between.

In the Cretaceous Laurasia spilt north south to open up the North Atlantic and Greenland moved with the N American continent to its present position.

Yes it snows almost everywhere in Greenland.

The Greenland Sea on the east coast and the Baffin Bay on the west coast.

Greenland is an autonomous country, but it is still governed in part by Denmark and considered to be a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. In 2009, Greenland transferred from a "home rule" to a "self rule" governing system which means that now, Greenland governs all of their own affairs except foreign policy which is still handled by Denmark.

The correct spelling for the west coast of Greenland is qeqertarsuatsiaq.

Because its closer to the equator.

Labrador is between Greenland and Newfoundland.

This is an incredibly controversial subject in academic circles. For example, a history student would probably give a completely different answer to one studying environmental science. I will give all the competing theories that I know of.

I'll begin with a short summary of events. The Icelandic Sagas and historical and archaeological evidence tell us that a Norse colony was founded in South Greenland around 985 AD. In 982 AD Erik the red was banished from Iceland for three years. During this time he sailed to Greenland and explored the island. Erik returned to Iceland in 984. Erik returned in 985, traveling with a fleet of 25 boats (only 14 of which made the journey). Two colonies were then set up on the South-west coast; the Eastern settlement and the Western settlement. It is generally accepted that Christianity came to Greenland around 1000 AD. In 1124 Arnald was appointed as the Bishop of Greenland. In 1261 the population of Greenland accepted the Overlordship of Norway. in 1282, the Greenland Norse paid Tithes to Rome in the form of polar bear hides and Walrus tusks. In 1341 the Bishop of Bergen was sent to Greenland to record churches. Norwegians sailed to the Western settlement this same year and found no one. They accused the 'skraeling' (inuit) of killing of destroying the settlement in their notes. We know the population must have died recently, as domestic animals were still alive. nevertheless, the Eastern Settlement remained alive for a while and the last record we have from Greenland is of a marriage there in 1408. This was reported in 1410 by Icelanders who had traveled there. What really happened to the Norse remains a matter of considerable debate and there are a number of competing theories.

The first theory is the most simple. The Norse may have simply left when they came to believe that living on Greenland was no longer a viable option for them. The problem with this theory is that the inuit were able to survive in Greenland, despite having come later. The difference is that the inuit developed techniques to adapt to the Greenland climate. Would the Norse not simply have adopted these techniques?

It is generally accepted that the Norse did not adapt to the conditions of Greenland like the inuit did. This in turn is split into various different theories. It is notable that there appear to be scarcely any fish bone remains in the Norse settlements. Jared Diamond suggests, in his best-seller 'Collapse' that it may have been a sort of taboo after Erik the Red came back from Greenland after getting food poisoning from the fish there. The most commonly cited reason for the Norse refusal to adapt is their religion. The Eastern settlement posessed 12 parish churches, a cathedral, a nunnery and a monastery. The western settlement contained four churches. The evidence (documentary as well) certainly indicates that the Greenland Norse were incredibly religious. This may explain a lot. Even today, if an inuit hunter teaches you how to hunt in the ice they will often tell you which prayers to say in advance. In the church's point of view this would be tantamount to filling your head with voodoo nonsense. it is therefore quite probable that the Norse were keen to keep their distance from the inuit. Archaeological evidence, at least, suggests that the Norse never adapted the kyaks, harpoons and fishing gear that their inuit neighbours used so successfully.

Another theory is that there were in fact open hostilities between the Norse and the Inuit. This is certainly what some of the records would have you believe. It is not all that hard to imagine, if the Norse attitude was anything similar to that mentioned above. It needs to be understood that, despite their economic isolation, the Norse saw themselves as European Christians and likely did not want to distance themselves from this identity. They may have even outright refused to trade with the Inuit. it is also possible that the Inuit did not take lightly to the Norse attitude and may have indeed taken some action against them. However, this is just conjecture. Nevertheless, it is almost certain (judging from the records) that the Norse saw the Skraeling (Cloth-Skin) as hostile savages and there must be some reason for this.

The economic isolation of Greenland is one factor that almost certainly did contribute to the eventual dying out of the Greenland Norse. It was written in the 13th century that 'all that is taken there (Greenland) is costly because it lies so far from other countries'. Furthermore, Greenlanders had to pay a heavy tax on their trade for the protection of the Norwegian king. Given Greenland's climatic conditions, trade would have reduced in the winter due to the hazard of sea ice. Greenland generally exported ivory and hides and imported timber, metal and clothes. Europe may have been unable to keep up trade with Greenland when it was hit by the black death in 1348 and it is quite possible that the link never quite recovered before it was too late.

Perhaps the most 'current' explanation for the decline of the Greenland Norse is the environmental one. The soil in Greenland is volcanic and therefore quite fertile, but erosion problems were not foreseen. When the vegetation cover is removes volcanic soils become extremely susceptible to erosion. This would have made it difficult on agriculture, as there was not enough harvest to feed the animals. Cows became so weak that they had to be carried inside in the winter and conditions simply grew worse as time went on. Indeed a series of cold years in the 1340s coincides with the end of the western settlement. Greenland also became more isolated to to surrounding sea ice. in 1492, the Pope complained that no bishop had been able to visit Greenland for 80 years because of the ice. The idea of how bad conditions became is illustrated by this quote from Eva Panagiotakopulu: "It seems the farmers were trapped in their house during a very long winter, ate their livestock then their dog and then their beds, prompting the flies to move from larder to bedroom" (The flies of which she speaks are puparia flies).

It is generally conceded that it was probably some combination of all the above factors which led to the eventual disappearance of the Greenland Norse, but the extent to which each factor played a part is the real debate. The consensus is generally that the Norse would have lived if they had borrowed the techniques of the inuit. However, that was not to be the case.