Comments on: When Scientists Dabble in History http://ancarett.com/?p=168 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:04:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: ancarett http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-662 Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:37:29 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-662 Mike, welcome to the blog and the conversation! Your explanation certainly sounds a more plausible construct than what the newspapers have reported of the research. If the argument for persistence rather than causation is what they're making, I'll give their analysis another chance. Mike, welcome to the blog and the conversation! Your explanation certainly sounds a more plausible construct than what the newspapers have reported of the research. If the argument for persistence rather than causation is what they’re making, I’ll give their analysis another chance.

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: mgr http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-660 Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:26:40 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-660 Not having read the article (big sin), but having worked on some climate reconstructions, it would appear that the argument being made is why the Little Ice Age persisted, not when it began. What is appears is that the authors are postulating a positive feedback, that enhanced the cooling initiated by change in insolation that initiated the LIA. Mike Not having read the article (big sin), but having worked on some climate reconstructions, it would appear that the argument being made is why the Little Ice Age persisted, not when it began. What is appears is that the authors are postulating a positive feedback, that enhanced the cooling initiated by change in insolation that initiated the LIA.

Mike

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: JS Narins http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-629 Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:17:35 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-629 Seems like the perfect response would be the high school era "achoo" which ends up sounding like "b*llsh*t" Science doesn't have generally agreed upon dates for either. Seems like the perfect response would be the high school era “achoo” which ends up sounding like “b*llsh*t”

Science doesn’t have generally agreed upon dates for either.

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: ancarett http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-627 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:51:34 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-627 Ricki! Long time no (virtually) see! Let me know how you're managing. I hope the weather's warmer at your end than ours (if not, we're heading into another "Little Ice Age). Ricki! Long time no (virtually) see! Let me know how you’re managing. I hope the weather’s warmer at your end than ours (if not, we’re heading into another “Little Ice Age).

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: Ricki http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-626 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:19:12 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-626 Okay... so last night I was shopping online... Oh.. wait... wrong topic... :-) Okay… so last night I was shopping online… Oh.. wait… wrong topic… :-)

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: New Kid on the Hallway http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-625 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:19:39 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-625 Ah. Well, I have to say that I have a hard time thinking that the level of crops vs. forest BEFORE the Black Death was so high that the population loss and crop decrease could really lead to a significant change in climate overall. That is, Europe was a lot less densely populated in general, and more highly forested, in the Middle Ages, and I have a hard time seeing that there was such radical reforestation - crop loss, yes, but reforestation? (all those lost villages in England don't seem to be buried under new forest!). But you know, I'm not a scientist, so doubtless I'm underestimating the impact we humans have! (And yeah, there's that whole cold-in-1300 thing!) Ah. Well, I have to say that I have a hard time thinking that the level of crops vs. forest BEFORE the Black Death was so high that the population loss and crop decrease could really lead to a significant change in climate overall. That is, Europe was a lot less densely populated in general, and more highly forested, in the Middle Ages, and I have a hard time seeing that there was such radical reforestation - crop loss, yes, but reforestation? (all those lost villages in England don’t seem to be buried under new forest!). But you know, I’m not a scientist, so doubtless I’m underestimating the impact we humans have! (And yeah, there’s that whole cold-in-1300 thing!)

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: wolfa http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-624 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:16:54 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-624 Oh, come on, I only sat through a single lecture on the little ice age (course shopping) and I even knew the timing was off. This is why it is bad when people don't have grounding in humanities AND sciences. Oh, come on, I only sat through a single lecture on the little ice age (course shopping) and I even knew the timing was off. This is why it is bad when people don’t have grounding in humanities AND sciences.

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: ancarett http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-623 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:22:17 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-623 I think their argument is fewer people led to a sudden drop in crops (which I buy) which led to reforestation (mebbeee. . . ) which led to increased carbon dioxide (well, only if there's significant reforestation!) which led to the Little Ice Age. But as we historians know that Europe was feeling much colder circa 1300, that just doesn't work for me! I'm glad I'm not the only one who went "Hey, what?" at the very proposition they put forward! I think their argument is fewer people led to a sudden drop in crops (which I buy) which led to reforestation (mebbeee. . . ) which led to increased carbon dioxide (well, only if there’s significant reforestation!) which led to the Little Ice Age.

But as we historians know that Europe was feeling much colder circa 1300, that just doesn’t work for me!

I’m glad I’m not the only one who went “Hey, what?” at the very proposition they put forward!

]]> Comment on When Scientists Dabble in History by: New Kid on the Hallway http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-622 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:09:04 +0000 http://ancarett.com/?p=168#comment-622 Umm... yeah. I'm going to commit a cardinal (or at least venial) sin by commenting without reading the articles you link to, but didn't anyone consider that cereal pollen would decline post 1347 not because of climate change, but because, you know, all those people who great the cereals DIED? And that because you didn't have so many people to grow cereals, people switched from cereal production to livestock (less labor intensive)? Are the arguing that demographic decline makes it colder, or do they argue that b/c pollens decrease, climate must have also worsened? (Sorry, I should go read the article, but it sounds pretty ridiculous to me!) Umm… yeah. I’m going to commit a cardinal (or at least venial) sin by commenting without reading the articles you link to, but didn’t anyone consider that cereal pollen would decline post 1347 not because of climate change, but because, you know, all those people who great the cereals DIED? And that because you didn’t have so many people to grow cereals, people switched from cereal production to livestock (less labor intensive)? Are the arguing that demographic decline makes it colder, or do they argue that b/c pollens decrease, climate must have also worsened? (Sorry, I should go read the article, but it sounds pretty ridiculous to me!)

]]>