Some of those writings occurred during the transition period between a cold period and a warmer period so it was just them trying to find reasons for the change when in reality said change had nothing at all to do with humans. The Crete section at the top, for example, would align with the Iron Age Cold Epoch.. It can't be argued they didn't understand local changes in an area could have local impacts but that wasn't unique to the Greeks and Romans and it wasn't at all them thinking more globally.
This is also true. If we look at the articles posit, it does indeed indicate that connections between human activity and noticeable local change were duly noted. For us, all we need to understand is that industrialization has scaled this for our time. We would be better off understanding it from that viewpoint?
but this isn't about being unique, but them understanding that the climate did in fact change with the time, they had recorded stories of places that were once habitable but stopped being so. In the case of the article, the greek author was recounting reports that would date 700 years before his time.
About local change, yes they did know it, and the harapiams from four thousands years ago in india learned that the hard way, and the societies that came after clearly learned the lesson, with new building practices and with less deforestation. But the article isn't about local climate, but world climate, and they did in fact already knew that climate did in fact change with the centuries.
They knew climate changed, and they knew harming the local environment changes it, but it's a long stretch to say they knew those two were linked (i.e. man-made climate change).
By what definition? If you are saying GLOBAL climate change, then i would have to agree, even if we could assume the greeks in specific, arrogant and self centered as they were, would probably extrapolate any local change would also be global.
But the true point is that they knew that altering the environment with man made actions did in fact change the local climate.
In the article, the cited "climate" changes were temperature changes happening due to draining bodies of water. To me which sounds more like Romans knowing the direct cooling properties of water (they built aqueducts and baths after all) and applied that to nature. It's not about affecting the weather or the seasons. Technically local temps are part of the climate, but the scope of "climate change" talked about here is much smaller than the modern definition that the title feels like clickbait.
Most of the examples they give are temperature differences either in relation to diverting bodies of water or "people were [able/unable] to farm here in the past".
The statement from Pliny they hinge this on is rather vague:
>"We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life.
Urban life in general was messy, with the reek of charcoal fed fires creating an unpleasant miasma over any urban area with more specific industries like tanning and waste being dumped into rivers adding to the bouquet.
This however is a very long walk from "we're causing climate change"; outside of the local changes diverting bodies of water did, no connection is drawn between what Pliny talks of and the larger climate environment, just that human habitation reeked.
The notion that humans were putting sufficient CO2 and methane into the atmosphere to contribute to climate change before the Industrial Revolution seems pretty far fetched.
I don’t know if there’s any good accounting of the impact of ploughing during the Paleolithic, but as it coincided with an already occurring warming, it’s hard to believe all that plowing didn’t have some influence.
Felevion | a day ago
Some of those writings occurred during the transition period between a cold period and a warmer period so it was just them trying to find reasons for the change when in reality said change had nothing at all to do with humans. The Crete section at the top, for example, would align with the Iron Age Cold Epoch.. It can't be argued they didn't understand local changes in an area could have local impacts but that wasn't unique to the Greeks and Romans and it wasn't at all them thinking more globally.
YourOverlords | 20 hours ago
This is also true. If we look at the articles posit, it does indeed indicate that connections between human activity and noticeable local change were duly noted. For us, all we need to understand is that industrialization has scaled this for our time. We would be better off understanding it from that viewpoint?
zennim | 19 hours ago
but this isn't about being unique, but them understanding that the climate did in fact change with the time, they had recorded stories of places that were once habitable but stopped being so. In the case of the article, the greek author was recounting reports that would date 700 years before his time.
About local change, yes they did know it, and the harapiams from four thousands years ago in india learned that the hard way, and the societies that came after clearly learned the lesson, with new building practices and with less deforestation. But the article isn't about local climate, but world climate, and they did in fact already knew that climate did in fact change with the centuries.
cleon80 | 10 hours ago
They knew climate changed, and they knew harming the local environment changes it, but it's a long stretch to say they knew those two were linked (i.e. man-made climate change).
zennim | 8 hours ago
By what definition? If you are saying GLOBAL climate change, then i would have to agree, even if we could assume the greeks in specific, arrogant and self centered as they were, would probably extrapolate any local change would also be global.
But the true point is that they knew that altering the environment with man made actions did in fact change the local climate.
cleon80 | 2 hours ago
In the article, the cited "climate" changes were temperature changes happening due to draining bodies of water. To me which sounds more like Romans knowing the direct cooling properties of water (they built aqueducts and baths after all) and applied that to nature. It's not about affecting the weather or the seasons. Technically local temps are part of the climate, but the scope of "climate change" talked about here is much smaller than the modern definition that the title feels like clickbait.
Sgt_Colon | a day ago
Trying to draw a long bow here.
Most of the examples they give are temperature differences either in relation to diverting bodies of water or "people were [able/unable] to farm here in the past".
The statement from Pliny they hinge this on is rather vague:
>"We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life.
Urban life in general was messy, with the reek of charcoal fed fires creating an unpleasant miasma over any urban area with more specific industries like tanning and waste being dumped into rivers adding to the bouquet.
This however is a very long walk from "we're causing climate change"; outside of the local changes diverting bodies of water did, no connection is drawn between what Pliny talks of and the larger climate environment, just that human habitation reeked.
skimcpip | a day ago
The notion that humans were putting sufficient CO2 and methane into the atmosphere to contribute to climate change before the Industrial Revolution seems pretty far fetched.
scriptchewer | a day ago
If you cut down a forest, it will affect your local climate patterns.
Kiyan1159 | a day ago
Or level a mountain. They did that with water to get raw ore deposits.
Aledanxer | a day ago
Pre-industrial land use changes absolutely impacted the global atmosphere. Maybe not enough to cause an apocalypse. But measurable
Kaurifish | 12 hours ago
I don’t know if there’s any good accounting of the impact of ploughing during the Paleolithic, but as it coincided with an already occurring warming, it’s hard to believe all that plowing didn’t have some influence.
ScienceAlien | a day ago
So did the founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin was a big compost nerd.
judgejuddhirsch | 11 hours ago
Change the course of a river and BAM! Climate change
CorticalVoile | 4 hours ago
The world has been ending since it began
CHICAGOIMPROVBOT2000 | 19 hours ago
It's not that people making decisions and policies in regards to climate today don't know, of course they know, it's that they simply don't care.
[OP] Evening_Lawyer6570 | a day ago
The Greeks and the Romans knew about this anomaly ahead of time but we ignored it.
aVarangian | a day ago
Pliny said that elephants worship the moon and that porcupines carry fruit on their backs. If it's on an ancient source then it must be true.
PandaRot | a day ago
Do you have any evidence that elephants don't worship the moon??
aVarangian | a day ago
If I was an elephant I would worship the moon.
Worried-Basket5402 | a day ago
no they didnt. They knew about cause an effect in some circumstances but nothing of the underlying science required to understand it or explain it.