Little Ice Age linked to the Black Death

Did the "Black Death" play a significant role in the so-called "Little Ice Age"? Scientists from Utrecht University, in the Netherlands, seems to think so. Their hypothesis is backed up by monitoring the oscillation of cereal pollen and tree pollen, embedded in lake-bed sediment in the southeast Netherlands.

The pattern they observed, shows that from 1200 AD onward cereal pollen was steadily increasing, that is until the year 1347 AD when they observed an extremely steep decline, along with I assume a sharp increase in tree pollen, which supports the teams conclusion that after the Black Death reduced Europes population by roughly a third, vast tracts of former Agricultural Land when untended and was rapidly repopulated by indiginous trees, which lead to a decline in atmospheric CO2.



Some remain skeptical, saying that any "small" changes in atmospheric CO2 content would be balanced out by the Oceans.

Very interesting.

But I fear this will lead to clear-cutting to prevent ice ages. Kind of a reverse Luddite effect.

That's the most retarded thing I ever heard.

To think that the native trees (of which there was almost no regrowth and they can't back up their claims historically...because the rural country-side witnessed almost no Plague) of Europe impacted the world's climate is about as egotistical or political as Bush stating that there is no Global Warming.

The obvious and near exact correlation of Global temperatures with Sun Spots suggests that Solar intensity is due to Global climate.

These scientists should be smacked in the face by a historian.

"Untended farms..." haha...yeah whatever...maybe they were untended enough to grow weeds, but someone would come along to buy them-up real quick.

This is where capitalism was born and the death of feudalism, in the land-grabs during the plagues.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
To think that the native trees (of which there was almost no regrowth and they can't back up their claims historically...because the rural country-side witnessed almost no Plague)

History is subjective. Sediment samples are not and are falsifiable by continued observations.

Can you back up your claims that there was no regrowth following the massive depopulation caused by the Black Death, using empirical methods?

Note, they did not say that the Black Death caused the little Ice Age, it played a factor, that is all.

Massive Depopulation in Urban Centers = Smaller Market for Farmers to Sell their wares = Abandonment of their property to find better opportunities elsewhere = Repopulation of native plant and tree species = More CO2 absorbtion = Less localized Greenhouse effect. It doesn't take long for native species to repopulate an area, a few decades is really all it would take.

It seems to be backed up by Sediment samples in one locale, the next step is to try to replicate the findings.

The obvious and near exact correlation of Global temperatures with Sun Spots suggests that Solar intensity is due to Global climate.

Consensus still states that Atmosphere Chemistry content is the Primary factor for mean temperature fluctuations. It's easily shown that this is the case by comparing Mercury and Venus.

The average temp for Mercury is roughly 623 K while the more distance Venus is 737 K. Then by comparing their Atmospheric Chemistry, you can easily see how greenhouse gasses affect an atmosphere.

These scientists should be smacked in the face by a historian.

History is completely subjective. I don't trust anything written before, well ever. I only trust falsifiable data, which is why History is considered to be a propaganda tool, and a psuedoscience by many people, me included.

"Untended farms..." haha...yeah whatever...maybe they were untended enough to grow weeds, but someone would come along to buy them-up real quick.

You're thinking in a modern context. As I said above it only takes a few decades for the forests to come back, especially if the conditions were right.

This is where capitalism was born and the death of feudalism, in the land-grabs during the plagues.

Again more subjective History, and no it was the birth of Mercantilism according to the history I was taught, not that I completely buy it, or take it for gospel.

There is a lot of rethinking of pre-1789 American history going on. Many historians are taking a new and more critical look leaving out the Betsy Ross flag, George Washington’s throw of a coin across the Potomac and the persecuted looking for religious freedom. It is even being suggested the 1775-1783 brouhaha is more accurately described as a COUP than as a revolt.

Around 1780, the 13 colonies’ population was estimated at 2.4 million, plus .5 million slaves. By the first census in 1790, the population had grown to a little over 3 million plus .6 million slaves. I’m interested in what role the unusually cold weather in Western Europe may have had on migration to the fledgling United States. The time period for the Little Ice Age is usually given as 1300-1850. That might fit into the Black Death scenario pointed to in Holland. It does seem the weather phenomenon was coffined to the North Atlantic rim.

Sardion I'm very limited for time; but firstly:

No there was no regrowth of forests on a large scale; not that it'd matter, the entire forestry of Europe has never been equal to even just the Sierras; or the Amazon; or the Congo. So if you have a forestry of say 10% (very very very liberal figure) then you cannot expect much more impact than that; even if it was the only factor.

History is very sufficient at that time.

And I'll comment on the rest later.