Study: Mediterranean Sea Was 3.6°F Hotter at Time of the Roman Empire

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Gatoragn, Jul 30, 2020.

  1. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    Interesting read regarding climate change

    Employing ratios of magnesium to calcite taken from skeletonized amoebas in marine sediments, an indicator of sea water temperatures, the researchers determined that the Roman Period (1 AD – 500 AD) was the warmest of the last 2 millennia, “about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions.”

    Moreover, the study found that “this pronounced warming during the Roman Period is almost consistent with other marine records from Atlantic Ocean and with the continental anomaly reconstruction from Europe,” a climate phase that “corresponds to the so-called ‘Roman Climatic Optimum’ characterized by prosperity and expansion of the empire.”

    “For the first time, we can state the Roman period was the warmest period of time of the last 2,000 years, and these conditions lasted for 500 years,” said team member Professor Isabel Cacho of the Department of Earth and Ocean Dynamics, University of Barcelona.

    "After the Roman Period a general cooling trend developed in the region with several minor oscillations,” the scholars note, while hypothesizing a “potential link between this Roman Climatic Optimum and the expansion and subsequent decline of the Roman Empire.”

    The study purports to offer “critical information to identify past interactions between climate changes and evolution of human societies and their adaptive strategies.”

    Last month, another study proposed that a massive volcanic eruption in Alaska 40 years before Christ’s birth sparked a global climate shock in Europe that led to the fall of the Roman Republic and the subsequent rise of the Roman Empire.

    The fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the Roman Empire “occurred during an extreme cold period resulting from a massive eruption of Alaska’s Okmok volcano early in 43 BC,” the study declared.

    Climate proxies and written documents indicate that a power struggle in Rome “occurred during a period of unusually inclement weather, famine, and disease in the Mediterranean region,” the researchers note, adding that “volcanic fallout records” show that one of the largest volcanic eruptions of the past 2,500 years occurred in early 43 BC and that 43 and 42 BC “were among the coldest years of recent millennia in the Northern Hemisphere at the start of one of the coldest decades.”
    woodlander likes this.
  2. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Guest

    Why does this article start by discussing the warmest climate in 2.5k years in the Med, then jump stating the same period (43 BC) was the coldest in 2.5k years in the Med and further transitions into could/might/perhaps led to the demise of the existence of the romans whose civilization encompassed the entire Med region and lasted another 15 century afterwards?

    glad to see the virus down time was productive for somebody doin’ invaluable research in the library stacks...

    (sarcasm off)

  3. AgedWarrior

    AgedWarrior Well-Known Member

    Interesting research, and some thoughtful speculation based on their data. Seems the article presents some interesting arguments against the global warming/climate change theories...
  4. Double20

    Double20 Active Member

    My Dad has said that for years. That the period before 1000 AD was warmer than it is today. He cites, among other sources, the fact that when the Vikings discovered Greenland, they named it that because it was green and free of ice and snow. Today (or at least up until the 1980s when my Dad first said this) Greenland is mostly ice and snow covered meaning that it had to be warmer during that period than it is now. The point being, if in fact it was warmer in the period around +-500 AD, that the warming experienced then was not caused by humans burning fossil fuels, factories, or over human population or any of the reasons cited by today's climate change group to explain our current warming trend. It would have been basically a natural occurrence of the earth's (or more likely the sun's) cycle of the ebb and flow of climate temperature. If that is what is going on now, no amount of effort by humans is going to stop it from getting warmer. That doesn't mean that we should recklessly pollute or anything like that, but it means that we need to accept that it is likely to get warmer and then at some period in the future (500-1000 years?) it will likely get cooler and that there isn't a whole lot that we as humans can do about it.
    primer1 and ellis36 like this.
  5. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    It might be interesting to have a decent timeline showing comparative data from a variety of sources on a variety of aspects: say, something like temps in the major oceans (if that can be determined); heights of the major oceans; amount of ice at the poles and the major ice caps; apparent air temps; air concentrations of various compounds (ie, from volcanic eruptions, permafrost/peat melting, etc).

    Once was, apparently, so much water was captured in the ice at the poles and elsewhere that much of what's no under water was visible and crossable. (The migrations from Africa into EurAsia, the Bering land "bridge", etc.) Wouldn't surprise me that the oceans behave somewhat like a small inflatable pool in the back yard, in the summertime; shallower water gets hotter. Though, I've no idea if that would be the case in this instance, as many factors could influence temp changes.

    How many such sources could there be, out there? Ice cores; ocean sediment; tree rings; not-fully-fossilized dead animals and plants; ... I'm sure scientists globally are examining every such possibility, in an effort to explain the processes that have occurred over time.
  6. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    Global warming is liberal hogwash.