'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:52 pm

The “Little Ice Age” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was triggered by the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas by European settlers, new research shows.

Scientists have long wondered what caused the drop in temperatures so severe it sometimes caused the River Thames to freeze over.

Now, new analysis by University College London (UCL) argues that so many people were slaughtered or died of disease that the amount of agricultural land dramatically reduced, in turn sucking carbon dioxide (CO²) from the atmosphere.

Known as the “Great Dying”, the upheavals following the first contact with Europeans in 1492 is thought to have slashed the population of 60 million living across the Americas down to five or six million within just 100 years.

Published in Quaternary Science Reviews, the study found that much of the land previously cultivated by indigenous civilisations would have fallen into disuse, becoming swallowed up by forest and grassland.

It estimates that an area of 56 million hectares, roughly the size of modern-day France, would have been rewilded in this way.

The scale of the change is believed to have drawn an amount of CO² from the atmosphere equivalent to two years’ fossil fuel emissions at the present rate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/01/31/little-ice-age-cased-thames-freeze-caused-americas-genocide/

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:55 pm

So what would happen if we evacuated Texas for a century? Be interesting to see what effect that would have on current warming.

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:58 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:So what would happen if we evacuated Texas for a century? Be interesting to see what effect that would have on current warming.

I think this further proves and shows further. What dramatic effect humans have on the balance of nature and climate.

Interesting thought provoking question you raise. Which I would go one further on.

How about if there were no longer any humans around?

Would the planet become balanced again?

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:58 pm

Thor wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:So what would happen if we evacuated Texas for a century? Be interesting to see what effect that would have on current warming.

I think this further proves and shows further. What dramatic effect humans have on the balance of nature and climate.

Interesting thought provoking question you raise. Which I would go one further on.

How about if there were no longer any humans around?

Would the planet become balanced again?

I think it probably would, if there was no more carbon being put into the atmosphere. You'd also have to factor in vegetation taking over huge areas currently covered by sprawling cities.

If we could go zero-carbon tomorrow, I do think we'd be fine. The real problem is going to be how long it takes to get to that point, and that's why I get so angry with climate deniers.

I don't know if they've ever considered this, but I see them as making my stepkids' future harder than it has to be, and that really gets me into protective-parent mode.

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:11 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Thor wrote:

I think this further proves and shows further. What dramatic effect humans have on the balance of nature and climate.

Interesting thought provoking question you raise. Which I would go one further on.

How about if there were no longer any humans around?

Would the planet become balanced again?

I think it probably would, if there was no more carbon being put into the atmosphere. You'd also have to factor in vegetation taking over huge areas currently covered by sprawling cities.

If we could go zero-carbon tomorrow, I do think we'd be fine. The real problem is going to be how long it takes to get to that point, and that's why I get so angry with climate deniers.

I don't know if they've ever considered this, but I see them as making my stepkids' future harder than it has to be, and that really gets me into protective-parent mode.

Its a big if Ben

The point to me, is more about human population and the natural resources we end up continually using. Let alone the factors played on this through Urbinization.

We simple have out gorwn this planet with needs. As again many people simple do not spare many thoughts on this..

As it simple does not factor into their normal dialy life and simple wont sadly

Technology is the key to me and colonization to places that we will not effect

by Maddog Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:45 pm

So how does a field of corn or whatever, absorb less CO2 than a field of grass?

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:51 pm

Maddog wrote:So how does a field of corn or whatever, absorb less CO2 than a field of grass?

Interesting point, but what are the biggest absorbers of CO2

Is Corn one of them?

Is animal husbandry one of them?

The question you should be asking is based on the balance of corn fields, comapred to the effects globally with urbinization and other forms of animal husbandry and many forms of farming.

by Maddog Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:56 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:So how does a field of corn or whatever, absorb less CO2 than a field of grass?

Interesting point, but what are the biggest absorbers of CO2

Is Corn one of them?

Is animal husbandry one of them?

The question you should be asking is based on the balance of corn fields, comapred to the effects globally with urbinization and other forms of animal husbandry and many forms of farming.

Urbanization was not mentioned in this study. I'm not talking about what's happening today.

I doubt there was any measurable impact on CO2 levels by land use changes brought on by the death of all of those Indians. The land was still covered in some form of vegetation.

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:00 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Interesting point, but what are the biggest absorbers of CO2

Is Corn one of them?

Is animal husbandry one of them?

The question you should be asking is based on the balance of corn fields, comapred to the effects globally with urbinization and other forms of animal husbandry and many forms of farming.

Urbanization was not mentioned in this study. I'm not talking about what's happening today.

I doubt there was any measurable impact on CO2 levels by land use changes brought on by the death of all of those Indians. The land was still covered in some form of vegetation.

Then you are not factoring everying are you mate?

The point is whilst corn fields may have a benefit, they are simple one of countless hundreds of crops

Its not a winning argument on agriculture stopping climate change really is it?

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:15 pm

So... what caused the Thames to freeze in February 1814...!?

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So... what caused the Thames to freeze in February 1814...!?

Humans

by Maddog Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:24 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Urbanization was not mentioned in this study. I'm not talking about what's happening today.

I doubt there was any measurable impact on CO2 levels by land use changes brought on by the death of all of those Indians. The land was still covered in some form of vegetation.

Then you are not factoring everying are you mate?

The point is whilst corn fields may have a benefit, they are simple one of countless hundreds of crops

Its not a winning argument on agriculture stopping climate change really is it?

But all crops are vegetation, using roughly the same amount of CO2 as non crops that are also vegetation.

If the Mayans ran steel mills, and then they died off, I can see that changing the climate.

Changing the kind of vegetation doesn't seem like it would have any kind of impact. But I can't read the article, so maybe they explain it.

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:30 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Then you are not factoring everying are you mate?

The point is whilst corn fields may have a benefit, they are simple one of countless hundreds of crops

Its not a winning argument on agriculture stopping climate change really is it?

But all crops are vegetation, using roughly the same amount of CO2 as non crops that are also vegetation.

If the Mayans ran steel mills, and then they died off, I can see that changing the climate.

Changing the kind of vegetation doesn't seem like it would have any kind of impact. But I can't read the article, so maybe they explain it.

Soory but on what level does that equalize the level of CO2 that we are producing through industries and urbinization?

The Mayans, actually like many civilizations came into ruin.

It would not have mattered if they had had steel mills.

What matters is the effect a population has on the environment. Of which the Mayans and Olmecs are a classic example of over popultion, based on the nature balance.

The thought provoking questions is based on humans being the problem constantly here.

Not suggesting any kind of ethnic cleasning or genocide. Yet we see again humans that caused genocide, ended up inadvertantly stemming the tide of climate change. For a short time.

Hence should that not mean, again humans are the problem to the planet?

We are also long overdue a pandemic

Eiether we learn to respect the plant and stop abusing it or we look to expand elsewhere. That we do not harm their environments.

by Maddog Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:34 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

But all crops are vegetation, using roughly the same amount of CO2 as non crops that are also vegetation.

If the Mayans ran steel mills, and then they died off, I can see that changing the climate.

Changing the kind of vegetation doesn't seem like it would have any kind of impact. But I can't read the article, so maybe they explain it.

Soory but on what level does that equalize the level of CO2 that we are producing through industries and urbinization?

The Mayans, actually like many civilizations came into ruin.

It would not have mattered if they had had steel mills.

What matters is the effect a population has on the environment. Of which the Mayans and Olmecs are a classic example of over popultion, based on the nature balance.

The thought provoking questions is based on humans being the problem constantly here.

Not suggesting any kind of ethnic cleasning or genocide. Yet we see again humans that caused genocide, ended up inadvertantly stemming the tide of climate change. For a short time.

Hence should that not mean, again humans are the problem to the planet?

We are also long overdue a pandemic

Eiether we learn to respect the plant and stop abusing it or we look to expand elsewhere. That we do not harm their environments.

What does urbanization have to do with the Little Ice Age?

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:36 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Soory but on what level does that equalize the level of CO2 that we are producing through industries and urbinization?

The Mayans, actually like many civilizations came into ruin.

It would not have mattered if they had had steel mills.

What matters is the effect a population has on the environment. Of which the Mayans and Olmecs are a classic example of over popultion, based on the nature balance.

The thought provoking questions is based on humans being the problem constantly here.

Not suggesting any kind of ethnic cleasning or genocide. Yet we see again humans that caused genocide, ended up inadvertantly stemming the tide of climate change. For a short time.

Hence should that not mean, again humans are the problem to the planet?

We are also long overdue a pandemic

Eiether we learn to respect the plant and stop abusing it or we look to expand elsewhere. That we do not harm their environments.

What does urbanization have to do with the Little Ice Age?

Genocide, making way for someone else to now create what is happenning all over again

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:41 pm

Thor wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:So... what caused the Thames to freeze in February 1814...!?

Humans

Wafffle!

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:44 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thor wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:So... what caused the Thames to freeze in February 1814...!?

Humans

Wafffle!

If anything, waffles would have warmed the Thames and helped to melt it.

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:45 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

What does urbanization have to do with the Little Ice Age?

Genocide, making way for someone else to now create what is happenning all over again

If you think I am wrong?

How many species are now close to extinction based off our human activities?

At present our future is below the waves to expand or the next step to colonize the moon

Night maddog

Have a good evening

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:00 am

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

What does urbanization have to do with the Little Ice Age?

Genocide, making way for someone else to now create what is happenning all over again

But it was humans that created the agriculture that was destroyed by the death of those humans according to this theory. They are claiming the lack of human activity, brought on by a lack of humans caused the Little Ice Age.

I'm not buying it. There were no large scale farms back then. A cultivated field had the same impact on CO2 levels as a non cultivated field.

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:03 am

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

Now this makes a hell of a lot more sense. Volcanic activity has altered the climate throughout the history of this planet.

by 'Wolfie Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:11 am

Maddog wrote:So how does a field of corn or whatever, absorb less CO2 than a field of grass?

Crops absorb more CO2 than grass or weeds, (with legumes 'sequestering' Nitrogen as well..)

Trees absorb more CO2 than those crops will; (and don't forget that crops are only there for a few months -- being rotated through with fallow and pasture periods..).

And also don't forget that it takes decades for many of those trees to mature; and it will take 150+ years for forests to be regarded as "old growth", with lots of added biomass and diversification to aid in carbon 'capture' and storage..

In those first few decades, rotting and burning corpses and crops would have been adding excessive amounts of CO2 and methane to the ashes, while the trees were still growing sufficiently to re-absorb them again..

by 'Wolfie Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:29 am

Maddog wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

Now this makes a hell of a lot more sense. Volcanic activity has altered the climate throughout the history of this planet.

"Volcanic activity" is a 'null and void' argument, though...

Volcanoes have been there from the beginning -- as part of the background environmental activity, they are already 'factored in' to developing and evolving the world as we know it today..

IF there had been significant increases in volcanic activity over the last 400 years (or "solar flare" activity either, for that matter -- another bogey beloved by mining company propagandists..), then you might have a case.

There simply hasn't been a significant enough change either way though -- thereby making ypur hypothesis meaningless..

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:03 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

Now this makes a hell of a lot more sense. Volcanic activity has altered the climate throughout the history of this planet.

"Volcanic activity" is a 'null and void' argument, though...

Volcanoes have been there from the beginning -- as part of the background environmental activity, they are already 'factored in' to developing and evolving the world as we know it today..

IF there had been significant increases in volcanic activity over the last 400 years (or "solar flare" activity either, for that matter -- another bogey beloved by mining company propagandists..), then you might have a case.

There simply hasn't been a significant enough change either way though -- thereby making ypur hypothesis meaningless..

It's not my hypothesis comrade.

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:15 am

Maddog wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

Now this makes a hell of a lot more sense. Volcanic activity has altered the climate throughout the history of this planet.

You never read all the opening link, did you mate?

Ed Hawkins, professor of climate science at Reading University, said: "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity.

"This new study demonstrates that the drop in CO² is itself partly due the settlement of the Americas and resulting collapse of the indigenous population, allowing regrowth of natural vegetation. “It demonstrates that human activities affected the climate well before the industrial revolution began."

Nobody is denying there is other factors at play to were a culmination that led to the mini Ice age

by 'Wolfie Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:33 am

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Volcanic activity" is a 'null and void' argument, though...

Volcanoes have been there from the beginning -- as part of the background environmental activity, they are already 'factored in' to developing and evolving the world as we know it today..

IF there had been significant increases in volcanic activity over the last 400 years (or "solar flare" activity either, for that matter -- another bogey beloved by mining company propagandists..), then you might have a case.

There simply hasn't been a significant enough change either way though -- thereby making ypur hypothesis meaningless..

It's not my hypothesis comrade.

It is you providing us with the mining&oil industry's nonsensical propaganda across some of your posts, though...

And then stating that it "makes ..more sense" to you..

by Tommy Monk Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:43 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Wafffle!

If anything, waffles would have warmed the Thames and helped to melt it.

Well... the people set up a fair on the frozen ice... roasted ox on it, and even had an elephant walk about on it... but as the ice was several feet thick, it didn't even make a dent in it...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25862141

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:51 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

If anything, waffles would have warmed the Thames and helped to melt it.

Well... the people set up a fair on the frozen ice... roasted ox on it, and even had an elephant walk about on it... but as the ice was several feet thick, it didn't even make a dent in it...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25862141

Interesting. So you are willing to put faith in the fact the earth in part on the surface was once frozen, but not basically a hot furnace on the survice and in the future to come?

You also think humans are not capable of being a cause to this

One wonders at what else you believe in based on facts, when its the same science that states humans are causing these changes. Is the same science tha shows the earth also had ice ages.

Opps

Go figure

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:14 pm

Thor wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Well... the people set up a fair on the frozen ice... roasted ox on it, and even had an elephant walk about on it... but as the ice was several feet thick, it didn't even make a dent in it...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25862141

Interesting. So you are willing to put faith in the fact the earth in part on the surface was once frozen, but not basically a hot furnace on the survice and in the future to come?

You also think humans are not capable of being a cause to this

One wonders at what else you believe in based on facts, when its the same science that states humans are causing these changes. Is the same science tha shows the earth also had ice ages.

Opps

Go figure

Dude. I'm talking about what caused the Little Ice Age.

I dont believe it was caused be a change in vegetation due to the death of millions of people.

You started a thread about the cause of the Little Ice Age and seem hell bent on making it about contemporary events.

I'm not.

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:18 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:So what would happen if we evacuated Texas for a century? Be interesting to see what effect that would have on current warming.

None, because the people living there would just live somewhere else on the planet.

Unless they are all evacuated to Mars.

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:20 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Interesting. So you are willing to put faith in the fact the earth in part on the surface was once frozen, but not basically a hot furnace on the survice and in the future to come?

You also think humans are not capable of being a cause to this

One wonders at what else you believe in based on facts, when its the same science that states humans are causing these changes. Is the same science tha shows the earth also had ice ages.

Opps

Go figure

Dude. I'm talking about what caused the Little Ice Age.

I dont believe it was caused be a change in vegetation due to the death of millions of people.

You started a thread about the cause of the Little Ice Age and seem hell bent on making it about contemporary events.

I'm not.

So you deny aspects that helped cause this but happy to buy some apsects.

Come again?

Not making about conetmporary events, as what pendamic has happened?

Its clear that the genocide of a people had an effect on the climate

Why do you find that so hard to believe based on scientific rationaliztion?

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:26 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Dude. I'm talking about what caused the Little Ice Age.

I dont believe it was caused be a change in vegetation due to the death of millions of people.

You started a thread about the cause of the Little Ice Age and seem hell bent on making it about contemporary events.

I'm not.

So you deny aspects that helped cause this but happy to buy some apsects.

Come again?

Not making about conetmporary events, as what pendamic has happened?

Its clear that the genocide of a people had an effect on the climate

Why do you find that so hard to believe based on scientific rationaliztion?

Google little ice age. The general consensus is that it was caused by volcanic eruptions.

No doubt there are other theories.

I get to have my opinions too. I dont believe a change in vegetation type changed the climate. You say it's clear that it did.

Can we stop global warming not growing wheat in Kansas and letting all of those fields return to prairie grasses?

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:30 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

So you deny aspects that helped cause this but happy to buy some apsects.

Come again?

Not making about conetmporary events, as what pendamic has happened?

Its clear that the genocide of a people had an effect on the climate

Why do you find that so hard to believe based on scientific rationaliztion?

Google little ice age. The general consensus is that it was caused by volcanic eruptions.

No doubt there are other theories.

I get to have my opinions too. I dont believe a change in vegetation type changed the climate. You say it's clear that it did.

Can we stop global warming not growing wheat in Kansas and letting all of those fields return to prairie grasses?

You mean the general concensus was caused by volcanic eruptions and even that claim is untrue to say its the general concensus

Science is an ever changing aspect of looking at the earths past, so again I ask the question.

Why do you find that so hard to believe this new theory based on scientific rationaliztion?

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:30 pm

https://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:31 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Google little ice age. The general consensus is that it was caused by volcanic eruptions.

No doubt there are other theories.

I get to have my opinions too. I dont believe a change in vegetation type changed the climate. You say it's clear that it did.

Can we stop global warming not growing wheat in Kansas and letting all of those fields return to prairie grasses?

You mean the general concensus was caused by volcanic eruptions and even that claim is untrue to say its the general concensus

Science is an ever changing aspect of looking at the earths past, so again I ask the question.

Why do you find that so hard to believe this new theory based on scientific rationaliztion?

https://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:32 pm

Maddog wrote:https://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

Well that is the history channel

Do you actually have something scientific?

Even that says new evidence suggests was caused by volcanic eruptions

Do you even read your own links mate?

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:33 pm

Little Ice Age Causes

Therefore, the only way the current warming could be because "we're coming out of the LIA" would be if whatever caused the energy imbalance resulting in the LIA cooling had since changed state to cause a positive radiative forcing, thus resulting in the global warming we've observed over the past century. Climate scientists have proposed numerous factors which likely contributed to the global cooling of the LIA.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

Have a read Maddog and know doubt this latest theory will be added to this

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:33 pm

The little ice age started in 1315.

What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:35 pm

Maddog wrote:The little ice age started in 1315.

What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?

What has that got to do with anything?

Again think of what helps cause this factor is not based on a set time frame

Hence your failure to understand

Now again

Why do you find that so hard to believe this new theory based on scientific rationaliztion?

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:37 pm

The little ice age started in 1315.

What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:39 pm

Maddog wrote:The little ice age started in 1315.

What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?

Wrong, the ice age did not start in 1315

Tempretures began to drop in 1315

So what does it matter when Columbus set sail, even more so when Vikings discovered America?

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:39 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:The little ice age started in 1315.

What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?

What has that got to do with anything?

Again think of what helps cause this factor is not based on a set time frame

Hence your failure to understand

Now again

Why do you find that so hard to believe this new theory based on scientific rationaliztion?

Because I dont think a change in vegetation would have enough affect to change the climate.

Volcanic eruptions have a long history of doing so.

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:40 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:The little ice age started in 1315.

What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?
Wrong, the ice age did not start in 1315

Tempretures began to drop in 1315

So what does it matter when Columbus set sail, even more so when Vikings discovered America?

Because your link indicated that the cause was the settlement of the new world when Columbus arrived.

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:41 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

What has that got to do with anything?

Again think of what helps cause this factor is not based on a set time frame

Hence your failure to understand

Now again

Why do you find that so hard to believe this new theory based on scientific rationaliztion?

Because I dont think a change in vegetation would have enough affect to change the climate.

Volcanic eruptions have a long history of doing so.

Well have a look at the graph of tempretures during the mini ice age and the dates

'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds 149415-004-3FCD1F93

'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds 149415-004-3FCD1F93

'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds FreuK0Lbpb1AAsUKFCgQIECLJDp8G5lXoOvwA4CLTxhar9ABhCTw2lhmmZOdlS1BspyzCrTBVKj6ekAiL7Y1AEvi35F4s5pSP5BoLPAom8YxNBR1Gkl++tZClAEUQuUTBwsvCUWvOYDRGeHq3PDNYnFbmgiXaq3QA6wqF8FW8ELhywLobO5dAoUKFCgwNfHfwHuyz1uyCIDNgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:45 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Because I dont think a change in vegetation would have enough affect to change the climate.

Volcanic eruptions have a long history of doing so.

Well have a look at the graph of tempretures during the mini ice age and the dates

I know the change happened. It's well documented. It didnt happen because the Aztecs grew less corn. Volcanic eruptions caused it.

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:45 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:
Wrong, the ice age did not start in 1315

Tempretures began to drop in 1315

So what does it matter when Columbus set sail, even more so when Vikings discovered America?
Because your link indicated that the cause was the settlement of the new world when Columbus arrived.

It states it was on e of the factors that caused the mini ice age

It never claimed to be the only cause.

In other words, it was a culmination of factors

So again, why is this so hard for you to believe, based on the evidence presented?

You need to also understand when the Ice age was, as you have gotten that wrong also

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:46 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Well have a look at the graph of tempretures during the mini ice age and the dates

I know the change happened. It's well documented. It didnt happen because the Aztecs grew less corn. Volcanic eruptions caused it.

Have a read

https://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

One of the theories is also around depopulation, due to the black death

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:47 pm

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:48 pm

Little Ice Age Causes

Therefore, the only way the current warming could be because "we're coming out of the LIA" would be if whatever caused the energy imbalance resulting in the LIA cooling had since changed state to cause a positive radiative forcing, thus resulting in the global warming we've observed over the past century. Climate scientists have proposed numerous factors which likely contributed to the global cooling of the LIA.

Decreased Solar Activity

The LIA occurred from approximately the 16th to 19th centuries. During this time frame, there were periods of significantly diminished solar activity known as the Spörer Minimum (1460-1550) and Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). These minima were discussed in a seminal study by [url=http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/Climate/Solar/Maunder Minimum.pdf]Eddy (1976)[/url]. Additionally, the Dalton Minimum was a less prominent period of diminished solar activity observed from 1790 to 1830.[url=http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/Climate/Solar/Maunder Minimum.pdf]
[/url]

'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds Delaygue_TSI

Figure 1: Reconsructed total solar irradiance (Delaygue and Bard 2010)

These periods of diminished solar activity were likely significant contributors to the LIAcooling. And solar activity has increased since the end of the Dalton Minimum to the current 'Modern Maximum'. However, solar activity has not increased on average since the mid-20th century.

'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds PMOD_TSI

Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

Studies quantifying the contributions of various radiative forcings to the global temperature change have estimated that over the past century, the increase in solar irradiance is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). However, it cannot explain the accelerated warming over the past 50 years.

'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds MeehlSolar

Figure 3: Solar radiative forcing temperature change vs. observed global surface temperature increase (Meehl 2004)

Increased Volcanic Activity

The Earth experienced heightened volcanic activity throughout the LIA. Volcanic eruptions release aerosols into the atmosphere which diffuse sunlight, causing global dimming and cooling. According to Crowley et al. (2000),

"over the interval 1400–1850, the volcanic contribution [to the decadal-scale variance in global temperatures] increases to 41 to 49% (P < 0.01), thereby indicating a very important role for volcanism during the Little Ice Age."

However, volcanic activity has had a net negative forcing (cooling effect) over the past century, particularly since 1950, and thus cannot explain the global warming over this period.

'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds MeehlVolc

Figure 4: Volcanic radiative forcing temperature change vs. observed global surface temperature increase (Meehl 2004)

Ocean Conveyor Slowdown

Another proposed contribution to the LIA cooling is a slowdown of the thermohaline circulation through an introduction of a large amount of freshwater into the North Atlantic Ocean, potentially as a result of melting ice from Greenland due to warming temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period. The Gulf Stream is part of the thermohaline circulation, and transports warm water from the equator polewards toward Europe. If the North Atlantic Ocean becomes diluted with fresh water, this current could potentially become slowed or even shut down entirely. Broecker (2000) proposed this mechanism as a contributor to the LIA cooling.

However, since the Greenland Ice Sheet has been declining due to the global warming over the past century, and the slowdown and potential shutdown of the thermohaline circulationhas become a concern as a result, quite obviously the ocean conveyor has not had a warming effect over the past century.

Decline in Human Population

The Black Death caused a decrease in the human populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during the 14th century, and a consequent decline in agricultural activity. A similar effect occurred in North America after European contact in the 16th century. Ruddiman (2003) suggests reforestation took place as a result of this reduced human population and agricultural activity, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere to the biosphere, thus having a cooling effect. Ruddiman concluded as follows.

"If the 10-ppm CO2 decreases are caused by plague-induced reforestationevents, they would cool northern hemisphere temperatures by ∼0.17°C, assuming a 2 × CO2 sensitivity of 2.5°C."

Of course, we've seen the exact opposite effect in recent centuries, as the human population has continued to grow, increasing deforestation, and of course anthropogenicCO2 emissions through burning fossil fuels. However, it's difficult to classify increased human greenhouse gas emissions as a "recovery from the LIA."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

by Maddog Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:50 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:
I know the change happened. It's well documented. It didnt happen because the Aztecs grew less corn. Volcanic eruptions caused it.

Have a read

https://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

One of the theories is also around depopulation, due to the black death

I read that.

And other theories suggest volcanos.

My theory is that the black death was in part a result of the little ice age, not a cause of it.

by Guest Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:51 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Have a read

https://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

One of the theories is also around depopulation, due to the black death

I read that.

And other theories suggest volcanos.

My theory is that the black death was in part a result of the little ice age, not a cause of it.

Eh?

Come again?

Would love to hear your explanation for that

by Sponsored content