Climate in the Iron Age

[TiagoJRToledo]

Well, I concur with Brennus' response, to a degree.

There wasn't really a huge difference from today's climate, but I would argue that that isn't necessarily true in places like Northern Africa and Mesopotamia. Evidence points towards the climates of these places being much more temperate and the land more fertile than today's arid predominance. The great productive centres of common ceramics and Terra Sigillata of Northern Africa (those known in Tunisia) are actually located inland, as opposed to near the great populated hubs or water streams, which would indicate perfect living conditions were today you can only pass by.

In Mesopotamia, the same would apply. Accounts report that the climate was much more forgiving than today's, and the land was much more fertile and lush. We have to remember that Mesopotamia owes much of the state it is in today to Genghis Khan ordering the destruction of dams and irrigation systems to transform Mesopotamia into a frontier land.

In regards to Roman industry affecting climate change, I would contest that. I do agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere only surpassed the Roman levels in the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, but I would argue that the planet has been moving towards an heating period far before the Romans ever came. We only have to have in mind that in 12000 BC, Egypt and the Sahara were covered in tropical forest, and that same forest disappeared with no interference from Man.

And as the side note, we have to always consider the changes that occurred in the geomorphology when we study a culture or a territory. Just to give some examples: the Tagus estuary (Lisbon, Portugal) was much more wide, and at least 50% of today's Lisbon territory was under water; this same river was navigable up to Madrid until the 17th century, and now you can't even get to Santarém; Cadiz (southern Spain) was settled by Phoenicians not because it now is a peninsula, but because it was an island in the 8th century B.C.
This is why I think many places are not found, or are misinterpreted, because people look to the ground as it is now, and not as it was 2000 years ago.

Hope I was of assistance

[Brennus]

Thank you for filling in the glaring gap I left which is North Africa and the Near East.

When you say the planet had been moving towards a warming period does that just apply to the Roman period or extend until the 19th century?

And as the side note, we have to always consider the changes that occurred in the geomorphology when we study a culture or a territory. Just to give some examples: the Tagus estuary (Lisbon, Portugal) was much more wide, and at least 50% of today's Lisbon territory was under water; this same river was navigable up to Madrid until the 17th century, and now you can't even get to Santarém; Cadiz (southern Spain) was settled by Phoenicians not because it now is a peninsula, but because it was an island in the 8th century B.C.
This is why I think many places are not found, or are misinterpreted, because people look to the ground as it is now, and not as it was 2000 years ago.

Very true. In Northern Europe many areas of the modern coastline were now submerged, such as the Norfolk Fens or the Dutch coast. Interestingly though the coast was larger in some areas, such as Yorkshire.

[TiagoJRToledo]

You are most welcome.

When you say the planet had been moving towards a warming period does that just apply to the Roman period or extend until the 19th century?

It applies to the first and second millennium as a whole, even though periods of cooling existed. We know that between extreme cooling periods (Ice Ages) there are extreme warming periods. The difference is that in this warming period, the human species is mass-connected and they view their actions as damaging. What would we be discussing if we we're in a cooling period?

This is not to say that human action is harmless, but I truly believe that the Planet has taken more damage the last 4,5 billion years than it has taken in the last 200 years, and it is still rotating with life in it. The world will change, whether we like it or not, and this alarmism is just the human race feeling threatened.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Thank you to Brennus and TiagoJRToledo. I read bits and pieces about this but there doesn't seem to be very much literature on the differences between what is and what was. I know that silting has had an effect on river courses and that erosion has had effects on coastlines etc.

Brennus, when you say that Yorkshire's coastline was greater...I was under the impression that there were flood-plains around the humber, and that there was a great deal of marshland, particularly in North Yorkshire. Am I wrong (or was that at a later date)?

Of particular interest to me is the coastline/rivers/marshes around East Anglia (particularly Norfolk). Any good sources for this kind of thing?

[moonburn]

marshlands and estuaries are wierd concepts that depending on the author can be interpreted as land or as see depending on the person making the interpretation

also todays coastlines have clearly been changed by human action the aral sea desert the pakistani coastline continous recess all cause by damms for agricultural use

as for the sahara rain forest disapearing without human action thats bogus ever since the appearance of agriculture that a culture of burning up a place to make it suitable for agriculture exists i mean if humans turned australia into a massive desert by doing this and overhunting you mean to tell me that the same didn´t happened in the sahara ? the poeni agriculturalist practics made far more temperate areas of north africa into deserts then other areas less forgiving that where inhabited by the garamantines wich managed to keep those areas fertile until the 17th century (last time the sahara gained large tracts of land over the humans )

as for if this was a cooling period you can go and read the 70´s and 80´s articles on global cooling that was scaring everyone we live in micro periods so even if in a micro period (30-50 years) it might seem it´s going on one direction the trufh is that it might actually go in the opposite direction

climatologists don´t know whats trully going on atm with our planet atm all they keep discovering are mechanisms that the earth has to regulate itself like over eating and the trees free carbon dioxid that trees are growing 30% faster then 50 years ago and how does the heat and carbon that keeps going into the north atlantic carbon drain hasn´t turned the sea water acid yet some defend that new micro organism will develop (absorbing the carbon) others defend that it will stop the ocean chain but in the end they don´t know all they know is mechanisms and that we have passed the amount of carbon in the air that ever existed on earth before

only the study of the oceans is far more complex then what people imagine much more the wider area of all climatology some dudes defend the dumping of iron in the pacific to feed organism that can suport the water acidity and can use that carbon to create shells others defend that it will kill the sea cause it will allow the expansion of poisenous algae and jelly fish so if you wanna be honest what you can trully say is that we don´t know but the clues aren´t positive and yes we humans have a big hand on it mercury in the atmosphere acid and trash and toxics in the streams

just for example go and search the effects of bisphenol a in the gender atribution in mamals and how just a litle plastic can screw up an entire eco system and then multiply that by the thousands of chemicals we create and unleash on the enviroment without knowing it´s effects ofc humans have no impact ...

sorry if the tone might seem agressive but sometimes i can still feel the flame lighting up luckly it doesn´t go off as much as in the past

[TiagoJRToledo]

marshlands and estuaries are wierd concepts that depending on the author can be interpreted as land or as see depending on the person making the interpretation

also todays coastlines have clearly been changed by human action the aral sea desert the pakistani coastline continous recess all cause by damms for agricultural use

as for the sahara rain forest disapearing without human action thats bogus ever since the appearance of agriculture that a culture of burning up a place to make it suitable for agriculture exists i mean if humans turned australia into a massive desert by doing this and overhunting you mean to tell me that the same didn´t happened in the sahara ? the poeni agriculturalist practics made far more temperate areas of north africa into deserts then other areas less forgiving that where inhabited by the garamantines wich managed to keep those areas fertile until the 17th century (last time the sahara gained large tracts of land over the humans )

as for if this was a cooling period you can go and read the 70´s and 80´s articles on global cooling that was scaring everyone we live in micro periods so even if in a micro period (30-50 years) it might seem it´s going on one direction the trufh is that it might actually go in the opposite direction

climatologists don´t know whats trully going on atm with our planet atm all they keep discovering are mechanisms that the earth has to regulate itself like over eating and the trees free carbon dioxid that trees are growing 30% faster then 50 years ago and how does the heat and carbon that keeps going into the north atlantic carbon drain hasn´t turned the sea water acid yet some defend that new micro organism will develop (absorbing the carbon) others defend that it will stop the ocean chain but in the end they don´t know all they know is mechanisms and that we have passed the amount of carbon in the air that ever existed on earth before

only the study of the oceans is far more complex then what people imagine much more the wider area of all climatology some dudes defend the dumping of iron in the pacific to feed organism that can suport the water acidity and can use that carbon to create shells others defend that it will kill the sea cause it will allow the expansion of poisenous algae and jelly fish so if you wanna be honest what you can trully say is that we don´t know but the clues aren´t positive and yes we humans have a big hand on it mercury in the atmosphere acid and trash and toxics in the streams

just for example go and search the effects of bisphenol a in the gender atribution in mamals and how just a litle plastic can screw up an entire eco system and then multiply that by the thousands of chemicals we create and unleash on the enviroment without knowing it´s effects ofc humans have no impact ...

sorry if the tone might seem agressive but sometimes i can still feel the flame lighting up luckly it doesn´t go off as much as in the past

You mean to tell me that Peniche, an ancient island of the West coast of Portugal, became connected to land during the 12th-13th century A.D because of human interaction? No my friend, that does not stick. There are geomorphological studies made regarding the Tagus estuary and other estuaries of Iberia that clearly show that they were once much larger, and this correlates well with written sources and archaeological remains.

As far as evidence goes, there is none that supports the introduction of agriculture in the areas that are now the Sahara. Agriculture was implemented along the Nile because it was the only source of water that remained after the desertification of a once lush place. So my argument is not really bogus, as much as it is fact. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Swimmers and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saharan_rock_art

And if you study a bit of Pre-History and Geological History, you will find that the climate on Earth has been marked by a clear cycle of warmings and coolings, that have happened over and over again. The problem is that Al Gore wasn't alive in 10000 B.C, or he would've written about the catastrophic consequences of Global Cooling. Just you wait when the planet starts heading for another Ice Age, and the panic will be the same.

As I said earlier, the Earth has had catastrophes happen much more severe than the "Human Infestation", and it always finds a way to achieve balance. I believe it is a bit to arrogant of us to think that we have more impact than meteors and magnetic shifting of the poles.

[moonburn]

tyrus was conected to the mainland by men

estuaries where larger because there weren´t damms back then controlling the river flows (thus the easy example of the pakistani coast but you got a few more complex ones like whats happening in florida )

before those damms those areas weren´t safe to live in since during hightides and storm they could easily flood (like the disaster that almost happened in the netherlands a few years ago when a massive storm threatned to blow the damms while the rhine was overflowing threatning to trap the people beteween the hightide and the rising river waters biggest test to the rotherdam sea gates so far and in case you´re wondering it has happened to london and the entire thames rivers in the 18 century ) i didn´t say the sahara desert was exclusive human fault cause it wasn´t but according to my examples human actions do have a big impact (particulary the australian example where the slash and burn culture turned an entire continent into a semi desertic wasteland changing the vegetation and unbalacing the eco sistem and all done by a small amount of human setlers ) i also gave the example of the garamantines who had a more rational use of the resources wich preserved the sahara trade routes and the litle fertility that was still able to be maintained

climatology is one of my fields of interest so i might know more about climate cycles then what you can imagine and once again i gave you a small example 30 years ago the global opinion was that the world was cooling down not warming up

as for the dangers and what happened to earth in the past we´ve had for the past couple of thousands of years a relative time of peace so the only new thing in earth during that time period is a new animal specie that explains the anomalies felt because volcanoes are pretty quiet lately meteors even the one in the beggining of the 19th century over siberia was very small in comparison with a few from the past and we´re in the most peacefull time in terms of the 3 solar cycles (wich according to some is ending and it explains the current period of warming up that we´re experiencing atm and explain the warming and cooling down periods of earth) even earthquakes we´ve learned to live with them the turks have even found ways to make mosques earthquake resistant for the most part in the 15 and 16th century

so i believe it´s a bit naive of us to ignore our impact on the planet considering how we change and select the vegetation and fauna we change climates trough our practices (the 1st emperor of china demolished half a mountain to create miles and miles of wet producing rice land where there where unfertile plains before ) ( easter island )

i´ll read your wiki articles but i must consider that if humans where living in the sahara during this time frame they had a hand in it just like the poeni had an hand in shortening the time of growth of the sahara by 1000 years (with the help of the romans ofc but they started the new processes wich depleted the land the romans just kept up what they where already doing )
so if humans were there they where burning shit up making up damms digging in the wrong places using their catle to destroy the weak lairs of fertile land and so forth (just like the biggest danger in the american midwest atm the catle is destroying the fertile land and patches and patches of desert are popping up all over the midwest where once the bufallos grazed and the cows are now destroying )

i´ll read your articles but it won´t change my perception of the human behaviour