How inevitable was the little ice age by the 9th century?

earthquakes and volcanos aren't random. They're a result of set physical forces, and they happen for a reason.

So, your opinion is that if the timeline changes 500 years ago, all and I want to repeat myself here all tectonic , vulacanic and what have you events stay exactly the same and the butterfly effect does not apply?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Effect on the other populations of animals on Earth, yes. The climate? I doubt it.
There is some evidence that the lower amount of farming (less methane release, more carbon uptake on a short scale) caused it.
Some.

Specifically, one major blame factor is the Black Death, but another one is the plague-based depopulation of the Americas - that had a major effect on the population, and since they had quite a sophisticated agriculture system beforehand then the sudden perturbation could have had an effect.


This is not a settled scientific theory, but nor is it discredited.
 
So, your opinion is that if the timeline changes 500 years ago, all and I want to repeat myself here all tectonic , vulacanic and what have you events stay exactly the same and the butterfly effect does not apply?
Does the timeline change for humans or for geology? If Henry VIII stays married to his first wife, and Martin Luther's 95 theses are accepted by the church, then I assume that all tectonic events stay the same ...
 
There is some evidence that the lower amount of farming (less methane release, more carbon uptake on a short scale) caused it.
Some.

Specifically, one major blame factor is the Black Death, but another one is the plague-based depopulation of the Americas - that had a major effect on the population, and since they had quite a sophisticated agriculture system beforehand then the sudden perturbation could have had an effect.


This is not a settled scientific theory, but nor is it discredited.

Tiny amounts at best. We aren't talking a huge number of people nor are they advanced enough to have much of an impact.
 
There is some evidence that the lower amount of farming (less methane release, more carbon uptake on a short scale) caused it.
Some.

Specifically, one major blame factor is the Black Death, but another one is the plague-based depopulation of the Americas - that had a major effect on the population, and since they had quite a sophisticated agriculture system beforehand then the sudden perturbation could have had an effect.


This is not a settled scientific theory, but nor is it discredited.

the little iceage started before the outbreak (black death started 1338, reached europe in 1347), little iceage started somewhere between 1250-1300. so you might be mixing up cause and effect.

also considering that the event took place at the same time in both the northern and southern hemisphere reduces the chances of a human origin or influence.
 
Very marginal at best. I doubt it would be measurable.

Actually, there are measurements that show a drop of several PPM in CO2 levels at the right time, between 1525 and the early 1600s, which would be consistent with billions of tons of carbon being absorbed by regrowing forests over formerly agricultural or otherwise managed land. The isotopic ratios are right for the drop to be caused by plant growth, too (plants preferably absorb carbon-12, leaving more carbon-13 in the air, which is what is observed).

There's good reason to believe that human actives played a role in the Little Ice Age at several points, probably by making it more severe and longer-lasting. Was human activity solely responsible for the Little Ice Age? No, of course not, but it still did play a role.
 
Does the timeline change for humans or for geology? If Henry VIII stays married to his first wife, and Martin Luther's 95 theses are accepted by the church, then I assume that all tectonic events stay the same ...

There's lots of tectonic events that HAVE been altered by human action. Take the increase in earthquake activity due to fracking for example. While the effects of medieval-era mining on stresses in the Earth's crust don't have as easily measured effects as fracking for natural gas does, I'm sure they have some effect.

The point is that volcanism is a chaotic system. Chaotic means that small changes can have larger effects (i.e. the 'butterfly effect'). For example, let's say that deep in the earth's crust there's an upwelling of magma, and there are two possible weak points where the magma could escape through and erupt. Say in OTL, one of those weak points was the site of a mine, and, because of this mine, that particular weak point was the weaker of the two, so the volcano erupted in a particular way. In another TL without that particular mine ever being dug, maybe the other weak point would have been weaker, so the volcano would have erupted in a different direction.

If a TL in which Henry VIII stayed married to his first wife resulted in a less prosperous Great Britain, then maybe fewer mines would be dug in a certain area, which would in turn cause volanoes to erupt differently. The point is that human actions (like mining) do have effects on geology. They're not drastic effects, but they are effects, and centuries and centuries of human action can change things like when and where a given volcano will erupt.

To be honest, I think it's perfectly plausible to write a TL in which all geological event go the same as OTL for centuries after the POD. However, in such a situation geological events are going the same as OTL despite changes in the Earth's crust due to different mining patterns, etc. I think it would also be perfectly plausible for different mining patterns to result in different geological events, and I would not call a TL ASB because, in that particular TL, human actions had geological consequences. It's a fact of reality that human actions DO have geological consequences, and sweeping such geological consequences under the rug by calling them 'ASB' is simply unrealistic.
 
Actually, there are measurements that show a drop of several PPM in CO2 levels at the right time, between 1525 and the early 1600s, which would be consistent with billions of tons of carbon being absorbed by regrowing forests over formerly agricultural or otherwise managed land. The isotopic ratios are right for the drop to be caused by plant growth, too (plants preferably absorb carbon-12, leaving more carbon-13 in the air, which is what is observed).

There's good reason to believe that human actives played a role in the Little Ice Age at several points, probably by making it more severe and longer-lasting. Was human activity solely responsible for the Little Ice Age? No, of course not, but it still did play a role.

A few parts per million out of four hundred is unlikely to have any effect at all.
 
A few parts per million out of four hundred is unlikely to have any effect at all.

It means a fraction of a degree change in temperature, which as it happens is a non-trivial portion of the difference between the "Little Ice Age" and earlier cool periods.

EDIT: More specifically, it corresponds to a further fall of 0.1-0.2 degrees (assuming a fall of 8 PPM), which is very significant when you consider that the Little Ice Age as a whole involved a decline of about 1 degree (Celsius, in both cases). Eliminating this impact by removing Genghis Khan and the discovery of the New World would have, as I said, a noticeable effect on the severity and, likely, the length of the Little Ice Age, even if the overall climate would probably still cool over that period.

So, yes, it would have an effect. Not, as I said, a dominant one, but certainly it impacted the severity of the Little Ice Age at the margins. I can cite actual research by actual scientists who actually studied this to show that the notion that human actions were a factor in the Little Ice Age has some actual support. What do you have?
 
Last edited:
Top