Posted on 12/06/2016 10:00:44 AM PST by JimSEA
Large-scale forest fires started by prehistoric hunter-gatherers are probably the reason why Europe is not more densely forested. The finding -- by an international team, including climate researcher Professor Jed Kaplan of the University of Lausanne and archaeologist Professor Jan Kolen of Leiden University -- was published Nov. 30 in the journal PLOS ONE.
Deliberate or negligent
This research has generated new insights on the role of hunters in the formation of the landscape. It may be that during the coldest phase of the last Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago, hunter-gatherers deliberately lit forest fires in an attempt to create grasslands and park-like forests. They probably did this to attract wild animals and to make it easier to gather vegetable food and raw materials; it also facilitated movement. Another possibility is that the large-scale forests and steppe fires may have been the result of the hunters' negligent use of fire in these semi-open landscapes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Searching for evidence of this human impact explains why there are conflicting reconstructions for this period. Reconstructions of the vegetation based on pollen and plant remains from lakes and marshland suggest that Europe had an open steppe vegetation. But computer simulations based on eight possible climate scenarios show that under natural conditions the landscape in large areas of Europe would have been far more densely forested. The researchers conclude that humans must have been responsible for the difference. Further evidence has been found in the traces of the use of fire in hunting settlements from this period and in the layers of ash in the soil.
My interpretation: "when our model comes in conflict with facts, the facts have got to go."
I'm very pro science, as anyone reading my posts knows. This is manufactured "people are bad, very bad" rhetoric by AGW believers. Core samples are, properly, the source for past environments.
Normally models are constructed based on facts at hand to explain and project those facts. The model doesn't work? Revise the model to attempt and explain the facts. Unless, of course, you are in an authoritarian regime where the conclusions come first to support the party line.
My usual caveat, "The answer to bad science is more science"
Those hunters will do almost anything to bag a deer or two.
Ah yes, the days before lightning.
Once again white people are to blame.
So now we know what caused the glaciers to melt. Humans playing with matches.
The densely forested hills of Germany, the only break in the plains of northern Europe between the Pyrenees mountains and the Volga basin, was probably the only thing preventing the Romans from further conquest.
lol
I know, they are so deep in their bubble they cant see the truth when it is staring at them.
It must be the negative influence of our Neanderthal ancestry.
Nice. Very nice.
Humans, what despicable bastards!
I’ve read previously where there were massive, wide-spread extinctions of megafauna shortly after humans arrived anywhere, and that widespread forest fires were the simplest way to explain which species survived and didn’t. It was speculated that the fires were the result of humans.
D@^^n that Prometheus!
Believe Indians in both North and South America were pretty cavalier about setting forests on fire. Basic tool of both hunting and agriculture for primitive stone age people.
But I don’t want to interrupt the narrative of “white Europeans are bad”.
So far, I haven't read anything that even remotely resembles 'science.'
It’s possible.
You can do a lot when you’re at the top of the food chain.
“Large-scale forest fires started by prehistoric hunter-gatherers are probably the reason why Europe is not more densely forested”
forests generally regrow after fires, in fact, most conifer seeds generally MUST undergo fire before they’ll germinate. Forests in temperate climates also easily regrow when clear cut. Just look at fields left fallow too long in such climates: they quickly revert back to forest.
They’re using the “WAG” method.
I’m sure the Neanderthal version of Smokey the Bear was found to be tasty! lol
And fire trucks Professor scratches a$$.
So the claim is that thousands or ten of thousands of years ago, some trees burning made the composure of the modern forests and vegetation thickness? That sounds absurd. If it was True, south-east Tennessee should now be a great plains for the next 10,000 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.