Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Research team suggests European Little Ice Age came about due to reforestation in New World
http://www.physorg.com ^ | 14 Oct 2011 | Bob Yirka

Posted on 10/17/2011 6:43:48 AM PDT by Red Badger

A team comprised of geological and environmental science researchers from Stanford University has been studying the impact that early European exploration had on the New World and have found evidence that they say suggests the European cold period from 1500 to 1750, commonly known as the Little Ice Age, was due to the rapid decline in native human populations shortly after early explorers arrived.

Following up on their paper published in 2008, the team has now brought their findings before the Geological Society of America. The researchers say that the population decrease, which came about due to the introduction of previously unknown diseases, led to the rapid reforestation of the Americas. This led to a sudden increase in the amount of carbon dioxide being pulled from the air, which meant the atmosphere wasn’t able to hold as much heat, which led to colder air covering Europe.

The team, led by visiting scholar Richard Nevle, came to this conclusion after analyzing charcoal remnants in soil and lake sediments left behind by early American inhabitants as they burned forests to make room for farmland. They found that starting approximately 500 years ago, the charcoal accumulations came to a virtual standstill, coinciding with the death of native peoples.

Nevle et al then got out their calculators and crunched the numbers. They estimate that for a population of some 40 to 80 million indigenous people, the total amount of deforested land would likely have amounted to something the size of California. And since most estimates suggest that close to 90 percent of the native peoples died or were killed after the Europeans arrived, that meant most of that land returned to forest. That many trees, they say, all of a sudden appearing, almost as if out of nowhere, could have resulted in a loss of some 2 to 17 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air.

To further bolster their argument, they say that core samples taken from the ice in Antarctica have air bubbles in them that show a reduction of carbon dioxide by 6 to 10 parts per million between 1525 and the early 1600s.

Of course this isn’t concrete proof that humans caused the Little Ice Age, as others in the field point out. Events such as volcanic eruptions, solar flares or even colder ocean currents could also be at play. But so far, the evidence is certainly intriguing, pointing out that human activities, even those that are inadvertent, could be the cause of serious global climate changes.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: agw; catastrophism; globullwarming; godsgravesglyphs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: Red Badger
From the reading of their methodology and then their conclusions, it appropriate to say that one is not related to the other. Their conclusions do fit, however, their agenda.
21 posted on 10/17/2011 7:05:51 AM PDT by Rudder (The Main Stream Media is Our Enemy---get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrKatykelly

The good news is that this “study” should drive a stake through the heart of the story that native Americans were living in simple harmony with Mother Gaia.


22 posted on 10/17/2011 7:06:34 AM PDT by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Oh. The Black Death didn't have any effect? But when the Europeans (mean, nasty, European, whitemens...--/s) showed up, THEY caused the "little ice age"...by making all the indigenous folks who were living in harmony with nature (and whacking heads and chopping out hearts and burning trees) to fall over dead.

Got it.

Hmmmm.

This is so PC, what's not to like?

>Gaaaaack!

23 posted on 10/17/2011 7:07:42 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

So to the environmentalist left, Columbus should be a hero. Thanks to Columbus, both global warming and deforestation were halted and reversed, and the “population bomb,” as Paul Ehrlich called the menace of over-population, was defused.


24 posted on 10/17/2011 7:09:40 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

“since most estimates suggest that close to 90 percent of the native peoples died or were killed after the Europeans arrived”

That figure was pulled out of a hat, of course. But even if it is true, I might ask, “90 percent of what?” And no one would be able to answer me.

What evidence do these scientists have that the Americas had been deforested before they were reforested only to be deforested again? There were civilizations in South America and varying amounts of agriculture here and there, but weren’t these by and large pastoral/hunter-gatherer people? They weren’t clear cutting to build condos, is what I’m getting at.


25 posted on 10/17/2011 7:11:44 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
They are saying that the people came, the Indians all died of disease, that caused more trees to grow, which sucked up the CO2, which caused global cooling? Geez.. that's a stretch

Maybe the cooling came from the sun and THEN the people all died.

I suspect if you had a time-lapse movie of the sun it would flicker like a candle over thousands of years time.

26 posted on 10/17/2011 7:13:28 AM PDT by Mr. K (We need a TEA Party march on GOP headquarters ~!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I burn my garbage.


27 posted on 10/17/2011 7:14:27 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Author Charles Mann makes a case for this based on the following;

Early mound builders in the continental US and their like in Central and South America had only stone tools and no draft animals, yet built massive structures in a relatively short period of time (carbon dating.)

For a good read, I’d recommend Mann’s “1491” and “1493” about the Americas before and just after the arrival of Europeans.


28 posted on 10/17/2011 7:15:58 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Sooooo, deforestation is a good thing, then?


29 posted on 10/17/2011 7:15:58 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Genghis Khan got a lot of credit recently for his marvelous work in combating global warming through horrendous massacres of conquered peoples.

Want to bet ol’ Chris Columbus gets any similar praise? ‘Cause I’ve got a little money to wager.


30 posted on 10/17/2011 7:18:49 AM PDT by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Johhny Appleseed caused the Little Ice Age.


31 posted on 10/17/2011 7:20:20 AM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Another travesty to blame on white European males.
32 posted on 10/17/2011 7:23:09 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (I love how the FR spellchecker doesn't recognize the word "Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I don’t, I dump it on Liberal’s front lawns so they can compost it or seperate it for recycle. Just doing my part to make sure they feel good about themselves.


33 posted on 10/17/2011 7:30:02 AM PDT by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to preserve it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
So the Little Ice Age is now the fault of those evil European white men.

I think the population estimates for what is now the US and Canada are guesses based on very little information. Definitely a lot of Indians died because of the newly-introduced diseases, but determining the previous population level is hard--and the life expectancy had been low. In Mexico there is better information, showing a dramatic decline in the population after the conquest, but the population density had been a lot higher there.

If there were fewer Indians killing deer, there would have been more deer eating young trees, so would the forests have increased so dramatically?

Did they consider the impact of reforestation in China under the Ming dynasty?

34 posted on 10/17/2011 7:36:49 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

The ecology of North America would not have supported such a number of people? It would have requires dozens of settlements on the scale of Cahokia. In any case, the decimation of the indian population was probably no more than that of the Black Death in Europe.


35 posted on 10/17/2011 8:00:17 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Correct, that would lead to where are the roads, and farming system to feed all of those people. Population of united states 1850 was 23 million.
36 posted on 10/17/2011 8:06:06 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
that caused more trees to grow, which sucked up the CO2

Which sucks up more CO2 and puts out more O2?
An acre of trees or an acre of grass land.

37 posted on 10/17/2011 8:10:46 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
In any case, the decimation of the indian population

The article claimed 90% not 10%.

38 posted on 10/17/2011 8:14:23 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Some people here seem to be having some difficulty separating issues. I agree the study is bogus, but the misconception of pre-Columbian America as a couple of hunter-gatherer Indians roaming through the forest is false. There were massive civilizations in Central America, South America and some southeastern parts of North America (Mississipi). They didn’t grow maize in a forest.


39 posted on 10/17/2011 8:22:52 AM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: douginthearmy

They used ‘slash and burn’ methods, same as the South American native do to this day........when the land wore out, they moved to a new area and repeated the process. The old areas became meadows as they regenerated the land and eventually forests.............


40 posted on 10/17/2011 8:29:11 AM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson