Skip to comments.Romans, Han Dynasty were greenhouse gas emitters: study
Posted on 10/04/2012 8:37:26 AM PDT by jmcenanly
(Reuters) - A 200-year period covering the heyday of both the Roman Empire and China's Han dynasty saw a big rise in greenhouse gases, according to a study that challenges the U.N. view that man-made climate change only began around 1800.
A record of the atmosphere trapped in Greenland's ice found the level of heat-trapping methane rose about 2,000 years ago and stayed at that higher level for about two centuries.
Methane was probably released during deforestation to clear land for farming and from the use of charcoal as fuel, for instance to smelt metal to make weapons, lead author Celia Sapart of Utrecht University in the Netherlands told Reuters.
"Per capita they were already emitting quite a lot in the Roman Empire and Han Dynasty," she said of the findings by an international team of scientists in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
Rates of deforestation "show a decrease around AD 200, which is related to drastic population declines in China and Europe following the fall of the Han Dynasty and the decline of the Roman Empire," the scientists wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
correlation is not causation
oh so now they admit that going backward to more primitive circumstances still won’t make the eco-nuts happy??
Or.... the reason these dynasty’s flourished, was because of the consequences of “Green House Gas” which had entirely natural causes.
I like to remind Greenies that they Romans managed to grow grapes in vineyards in Northern Britain when they reference climate change...
I suppose now they will say that is because the Romans were polluters lol
Yeah, they probably had SUVs, too. We just haven't found them yet.
So much methane is released from the oceans, that there is no way to even reasonably estimate what escapes. And what about Tsunamis spewing the guts of our oceans.
Wow, they really got their warm on back then!
I wonder what the ozone layer looked like...
My favorite point also. Drives the locals nuts.
The obvious answer is to reduce our civilization’s technology level to below that of the Romans and the Han.
After all, the Bronze Age wasn’t so bad, once you got used to it.
And c02 is a LAGGING INDICATOR, don’t forget that.
The key word in that article is probably.
The scientists have no idea, they are guessing.
Don’t tell me “probably” when you are making your argument.
I’ll be the Greenie here.
SEE! SEE! What happened to the greatest civilizations empires the world had ever known? Collapse! Destroyed!
So bad they had to turn to Christianity!
And then a thousand year Dark Age!
Makes pretty good sense, actually! ????????????? wow
a)humans have ALWAYS thrived more, and more abundantly in warmer climates and in warmer times, and failed to thrive or survived only in smaller numbers in colder climates and colder times
b)human ability to adjust to, put up with, and generally get along in life has always been easier toward the warmer end of climate extremes than toward the colder - when the earth is at its coldest, humans survived mostly only in the latittudes furthest from the poles and not closest to the poles
c)humans have found the ability to, and developed body metabolisms for adjusting to heat more energy efficient than adjusting to cold
d)continuing today, with all our modern technology, when faced with the most extreme temperature conditions more humans die from circumstances related to extreme cold than they do circumstances related to extreme heat
c)earth’s climate and “average weather conditions” have been changing, constantly since earth began, and humans have survived adjusting to earth climate changes from the start
d)yet, for purely political reasons, we are told, whether or not it is true, that we are to fear “global warming” simply because some earth conditions may change, and under the further myth that all changes from “global warming” will be bad and catastrophic, and as if only the chances of catastrophe await us because we are incabable of adjusting to the conditions of “global warming”.
As much as “man made” global warming might be a failed scientific premise, I believe it is also anti-historical with regard to human history that even were it true it would automatically be catastrophic to continued human history.
Humans and all life on earth are much more resilient to change and capable of adapting to change than the doom-and-gloomers would like to admit, because that admition would divorce them from the success they have from wringing public monies out of our politicians.
So Reuters we are not ignoring the Medieval Warm Period anymore? That seems like a change in tactics.
Where are the SUVs they used?
Well there is this 2003 report on 14,000 heat wave deaths in France. Odd, though that 12,000 or so of those deaths were elderly patients in France’s state-run nursing homes. Shows that Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming can really have an impact on your bottom line.
“Well there is this 2003 report on 14,000 heat wave deaths in France. Odd, though that 12,000 or so of those deaths were elderly patients in Frances state-run nursing homes. Shows that Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming can really have an impact on your bottom line.”
Large segments of French society go on vacation, at the same time every summer.
Apartments in France’s major cities are notoriously NOT air conditioned.
While man and dad and the kids escaped to the countryside, where shade, escape from the urban-island heat effects, and country breezes can compensate for warmer temps, but gran mama and gran papa were either left in the city home or resident in an unairconditioned nursing home, while hospitals, clinics and emergency rooms operated with summer staffs.
It was not the heat per se that cost so many lives that summer in France, in particular, as it was the pareticulars of French society and life style that did not make sufficient use of technologically available and operationally prudent adjustments for the hot spell.
My whole point is that humans are more than capable of dealing with extreme hot or cold, when given the opportunity and the will to do so, and also that it has been proven time and again that it is economically and energy-use more efficient for humans to adjust for hotter temperatures than colder.
Were that not the case, history - past and current, would not coninually find human settlement always more dominant and always more successful where it is warmer as opposed to colder.
Thanks, I did not expect a serious reply, it was intended to be funny.
But yes, humans are adaptable. Even if we have to go naked or if we must live in caves or houses made of ice.