It is suggested here that warm wet summers may herald an era of prosperity for civilisations.
Roman rise and fall 'recorded in trees'
An extensive study of tree growth rings says there could be a link between the rise and fall of past civilisations and sudden shifts in Europe's climate.
A team of researchers based their findings on data from 9,000 wooden artifacts from the past 2,500 years.
They found that periods of warm, wet summers coincided with prosperity, while political turmoil occurred during times of climate instability.
The findings have been published online by the journal Science. [...]
Climate is weather over any extended period, ie, one cold winter is weather, 20 in a row is climate.
Never means that it is always changing, at our latitude the climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and the LIA represented a cooling from the earlier warm period.
Stable means unchanging.
All thoroughly documented from early Roman times to the present with glacial advances/retreats, tree ring evidence, and written accounts. Not a perspective, factually based statement.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Digit wrote:Climate is weather over any extended period, ie, one cold winter is weather, 20 in a row is climate.
Never means that it is always changing, at our latitude the climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and the LIA represented a cooling from the earlier warm period.
Stable means unchanging.
All thoroughly documented from early Roman times to the present with glacial advances/retreats, tree ring evidence, and written accounts. Not a perspective, factually based statement.
And all are third party interpretations of those accounts and tree rings, as you or I a) don't have those data, b) could read neither if we did, and c) let alone interpret 'm correctly.
I.o.w. we're 'operating' on hearsay and snippets here. A.k.a. gossip.
Only if you regard scientific papers as gossip of course.
Mind you I agree that some are third party work, as are reports on Tunguska, Flash frozen Mammoths, Battle of Hastings.....
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Digit wrote:Only if you regard scientific papers as gossip of course.
We have no choice if it answers to the definition.
Mind you I agree that some are third party work, as are reports on Tunguska, Flash frozen Mammoths, Battle of Hastings.....
That's civil of you. Because of course you can personally vouch for the others like the little Ice Age, the earthquake that sank Cleopatra's palace and the library, and the invention of gunpowder, can you not?
No I do not vouch for them, neither do I insist that history began the day you were born.
But if you insist that third party statements are invalid I will point out that I will use that viewpoint against you every time you make a point that you cannot personally vouch for. Deal?
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Digit wrote:But if you insist that third party statements are invalid
Assumption. I didn't and do not. And that doesn't make the reverse true either.
Don't put words in my mouth please. I don't like that.
Everything has got to be black or white for you, eh? Always either/or. For or against. Excluding any nuances in between. And you keep kicking and twisting it until you've scored.
How sad.
