• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The LIA may have been anthropogenic

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,561
Reaction score
28,930
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting theory - here's the paper.

The concept is that the native population of the new world were managing the land in North America, clearing most of it with fire. Then, in the 1500s and 1600s, disease wiped out 90% of natives, thus allowing massive forest regrowth in the now-depopulated US.

The massive carbon sequestration from tree growth dropped CO2 levels, thus triggering a Little Ice Age.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
 
90% of natives died between the 1500 and 1600s? What was their estimated population to begin with? Compared to the rest of the world, how much lumber/deforestation did the natives cause that decreased? I have a hard time believing that a likely much smaller population compared to today's age was able to cut down enough trees continuously to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere and then in their absence changing things enough to trigger a little ice age. If I'm not mistaken I believe ocean algae are by far the biggest contributors behind taking in CO2 and converting it to Oxygen (could be wrong on that though).
 
digsbe said:
90% of natives died between the 1500 and 1600s? What was their estimated population to begin with? Compared to the rest of the world, how much lumber/deforestation did the natives cause that decreased? I have a hard time believing that a likely much smaller population compared to today's age was able to cut down enough trees continuously to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere and then in their absence changing things enough to trigger a little ice age. If I'm not mistaken I believe ocean algae are by far the biggest contributors behind taking in CO2 and converting it to Oxygen (could be wrong on that though).
Click to expand...

They didn't cut the trees down. They used fire to clear trees and and route game.

Read the abstract in the link. The population of pre-columbian farmers of the neotropical lowlands pre 1492 was estimated at 25 million.

Ice core C02 content coincides with the hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Oh my gawd !!


I'm just wondering if theres any set of climatic conditions that could ever possibly exist that we couldnt be made to feel guilty about in some way :roll:
 
Threegoofs said:
Interesting theory - here's the paper.

The concept is that the native population of the new world were managing the land in North America, clearing most of it with fire. Then, in the 1500s and 1600s, disease wiped out 90% of natives, thus allowing massive forest regrowth in the now-depopulated US.

The massive carbon sequestration from tree growth dropped CO2 levels, thus triggering a Little Ice Age.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...

I'm sure I posted this idea, as just a thought I had had on my own, a while back. Like 3 years or so. Perhaps this has circulated????
 
digsbe said:
90% of natives died between the 1500 and 1600s? What was their estimated population to begin with? Compared to the rest of the world, how much lumber/deforestation did the natives cause that decreased? I have a hard time believing that a likely much smaller population compared to today's age was able to cut down enough trees continuously to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere and then in their absence changing things enough to trigger a little ice age. If I'm not mistaken I believe ocean algae are by far the biggest contributors behind taking in CO2 and converting it to Oxygen (could be wrong on that though).
Click to expand...

As a store of carbon the great jungles of the world have the capacity to send sudden floods of CO2 into the air.

The population of Amazonia may well have been much higher than it is today. There is archelogical evidence of it being very highly populated. At least there is evidence of lots of villages all over it.

When the diseases of the rest of the world arrived much more than 90% are likely to have died. 90% is a low figure for each of the deadly diseases. When many such diseases attack at the same time the situation is much worse. Even the very few who somehow manage to survive the diseases face a situation where the dying have eaten all the food and planted none and then the bodies have poluted all the water. The only surviving populations of the Americas would tend to be those isolated hunter gatherers, those in the dry highlands where transmission is slower, and possibly the occaisional coastal community which would have acess to some food from the sea when everything else has gone.

Oddly this is exactly what is left of the native populations.
 
Another hypnosis being called a theory.

When will scientific malpractice ever cease?
 
Threegoofs said:
Interesting theory - here's the paper.

The concept is that the native population of the new world were managing the land in North America, clearing most of it with fire. Then, in the 1500s and 1600s, disease wiped out 90% of natives, thus allowing massive forest regrowth in the now-depopulated US.

The massive carbon sequestration from tree growth dropped CO2 levels, thus triggering a Little Ice Age.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...
Word has it you are working on linking humans to the extinction of dinosaurs. Hows that coming?
 
Threegoofs said:
Interesting theory - here's the paper.

The concept is that the native population of the new world were managing the land in North America, clearing most of it with fire. Then, in the 1500s and 1600s, disease wiped out 90% of natives, thus allowing massive forest regrowth in the now-depopulated US.

The massive carbon sequestration from tree growth dropped CO2 levels, thus triggering a Little Ice Age.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...

I call BS on both counts.

Not near enough exposure to wipe out the natives and not nearly enough deforestation to make a difference.
 
digsbe said:
90% of natives died between the 1500 and 1600s? What was their estimated population to begin with? Compared to the rest of the world, how much lumber/deforestation did the natives cause that decreased? I have a hard time believing that a likely much smaller population compared to today's age was able to cut down enough trees continuously to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere and then in their absence changing things enough to trigger a little ice age. If I'm not mistaken I believe ocean algae are by far the biggest contributors behind taking in CO2 and converting it to Oxygen (could be wrong on that though).
Click to expand...

Well,that's what the paper describes.

They actually claim 95% of natives died- I've read that number in several texts before also. The reports of people like Joliet are striking - he records hundreds of villages on the Illinois river in his late 1600s travels, and later explorers report very few.


I don't know if the hypothesis is still tenable - this is a paper from 2010 - and unlike all the other posters commenting here, I don't consider myself an expert in the field.
 
WCH said:
I call BS on both counts.

Not near enough exposure to wipe out the natives and not nearly enough deforestation to make a difference.
Click to expand...

Because you were there and verifed it right? LOL At least the scientists are humble enough to admit it as a theory. You OTOH know more than the scientists and have it all figured out. Carry on.
 
Fletch said:
Word has it you are working on linking humans to the extinction of dinosaurs. Hows that coming?
Click to expand...

When you can't sucessfully debate the poster it's always a good idea to go after him personally. Got it.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
When you can't sucessfully debate the poster it's always a good idea to go after him personally. Got it.
Click to expand...

When he posts something worthy of debate I will have at it. Until then...
 
EnigmaO01 said:
They didn't cut the trees down. They used fire to clear trees and and route game.

Read the abstract in the link. The population of pre-columbian farmers of the neotropical lowlands pre 1492 was estimated at 25 million.

Ice core C02 content coincides with the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

The problem is that orbital variation (which is what drives most natural climate cycles) does the same thing. Less solar forcing > cooling climate > colder oceans sequester more carbon > removes carbon from the atmosphere which results in further cooling.

This is why its popular in right wing anti-science mythology for them to argue that C02 changes lagged past climate cycles thus C02 can't drive climate change (and thus the rules of thermal physics are magically invalidated). In fact, what happened in the past is that orbital variations (solar forcing) was an initial catalyst for climate changes and C02 was a positive feedback when either warming oceans sequestered less carbon and thus more was released into the atmosphere, or cooler oceans sequestered more carbon and thus less was in the atmosphere.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is why its popular in right wing anti-science mythology for them to argue that C02 changes lagged past climate cycles thus C02 can't drive climate change (and thus the rules of thermal physics are magically invalidated).
Click to expand...

Why are you lying?

"Popular right wing..."

I'm sure you can find some denier blogger stating such a thing, but there are bloggers of the faith that lie as well.

To imply they are popular...

Wow...
 
One cartoon at Skeptical Science actually gets it somewhat correct:

2016Toon4.jpg


It only takes one piece of evidence to disprove a hypothesis.
 
digsbe said:
90% of natives died between the 1500 and 1600s? What was their estimated population to begin with? Compared to the rest of the world, how much lumber/deforestation did the natives cause that decreased? I have a hard time believing that a likely much smaller population compared to today's age was able to cut down enough trees continuously to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere and then in their absence changing things enough to trigger a little ice age. If I'm not mistaken I believe ocean algae are by far the biggest contributors behind taking in CO2 and converting it to Oxygen (could be wrong on that though).
Click to expand...

It's silliness digsbe. The AGW folks need to bolster how "Bad" man is, so here, see, man can cause terrible things, we need to be 100% do nothing to the earth else climate... will change.

And they claim those that scoff them are the "climate change deniers!" maddening.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why are you lying?

"Popular right wing..."

I'm sure you can find some denier blogger stating such a thing, but there are bloggers of the faith that lie as well.

To imply they are popular...

Wow...
Click to expand...

Dude I have read that argument on here literally dozens of times over the years. Hell better than half of conservatives reject evolution, do you honestly think they understand covalent bonds in co2 molecules and their role in the greenhouse effect?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Dude I have read that argument on here literally dozens of times over the years. Hell better than half of conservatives reject evolution, do you honestly think they understand covalent bonds in co2 molecules and their role in the greenhouse effect?
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't given no definitive value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 has ever been established so its effect on temperature is all just so much speculation.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Because you were there and verifed it right? LOL At least the scientists are humble enough to admit it as a theory. You OTOH know more than the scientists and have it all figured out. Carry on.
Click to expand...

It's not possible...that's why it's BS.
 
flogger said:
Clearly you don't given no definitive value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 has ever been established so its effect on temperature is all just so much speculation.
Click to expand...

Says someone that routinely posts garbage from crackpot sites like Ice Age Now.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom