Tango01  | 12 Jan 2021 3:43 p.m. PST |
… Central Asia's river civilizations, research shows "The Aral Sea basin in Central Asia and the major rivers flowing through the region were once home to advanced river civilizations which used floodwater irrigation to farm. The region's decline is often attributed to the devastating Mongol invasion of the early 13th century, but new research of long-term river dynamics and ancient irrigation networks shows the changing climate and dryer conditions may have been the real cause. Research led by the University of Lincoln, UK, reconstructed the effects of climate change on floodwater farming in the region and found that decreasing river flow was equally, if not more, important for the abandonment of these previously flourishing city states…"
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 12 Jan 2021 4:45 p.m. PST |
|
| SBminisguy | 12 Jan 2021 6:04 p.m. PST |
I blame caveman-made climate change for the end of the Ice Age, what with all the campfires roasting mastadon meat and all!! |
 John the OFM | 12 Jan 2021 7:57 p.m. PST |
Let's just say that Genghis didn't help things. |
| Thresher01 | 13 Jan 2021 1:08 a.m. PST |
If only they'd embraced solar and wind power, or even foot power like the Flintstones and Rubbles did in the TV show by the same name. |
| mildbill | 13 Jan 2021 5:20 a.m. PST |
Most irrigation systems collapse due to salinization of the soil. Of course drought will speed up the process. |
| Tgerritsen | 13 Jan 2021 5:42 a.m. PST |
If only they adopted a carbon cap and trade system and switched to alternative fuel sources. |
| Dn Jackson | 13 Jan 2021 8:20 a.m. PST |
It wasn't drought. It was all the bodies Genghis used to block the rives. |
| Tango01 | 13 Jan 2021 12:01 p.m. PST |
Ha!Ha!…. Amicalement
Armand |
| Bede19002 | 13 Jan 2021 8:05 p.m. PST |
You mean climate change isn't always caused by human activity? |
Puster  | 17 Jan 2021 4:21 a.m. PST |
Anybody with a brain knows that climate change can have many causes, most of them unrelated to humanity, as they happened frequently before humanity existed. The current climate change, however, is 99.975% manmade – the debate on that is no longer open unless you are a believer.
The sheer fact that a catastrophic fall of a civilization – that we had connected to no less then a razing by Ghengis Khan – happend due to a comparatively minor natural climate change, should be telling. Well, should. Actually… That sermon done, reading the article they do not deny that it was Ghengis Khan that cut down the civilization – they just state that the dryer condition prevented a buildup AFTER he went through, and that after the Arab invasion of the 8th century Central Asia recovered quickly, while having a more favourable climate. In short: It WAS Ghengis that razed these civilizations, and either he was more thourough then the Arabs or the climate did not allow a reconstruction (probably both). |
| Marcus Brutus | 24 Jan 2021 10:30 a.m. PST |
Puster, curious where you get the understanding that current climate change is 99.75% certain? Nothing in science is settled in the manner that you suggest and certainly not anthropic induced climate change. The fact is our current understanding of Earth's climate is still quite primitive. Any predictions much remain open to continued testing and refinement. I have doubts that CO2 is the primary driver of the current warming trend and I have read widely on the subject. Please don't patronize people who disagree with you with condescending comments. |
| Puster | 31 Jan 2021 9:42 a.m. PST |
@Marcus Brutus
I will give you this site to start with:
climate.nasa.gov/evidence If a scientist is unable to be more then 95% sure he usually says "we are unsure", a politician understands this as "it it likely not so", and the conspiratist understands "is not so". Thus, communication between the scientific community and the rest of the world is complicated. Most people just hear what they want to hear, and many prefer to hear what means "nothing to do" for them. Some more official stuff:
epa.gov/climate-indicators On this note, the 99,75%. That number results if you have but TWO resarches using independent data that conclude a probability of 95%. An error of 5%, twice, is 1:20 * 1:20 = 1:400, or a probability of 99.75%. Actually we are way beyond this meagre probability and far closer by some magnituted to 100% on this particular question. IPCC report:
link
ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 That said, I will jump out of this debate at this place, though if you care to answer I will still read that. |
