From Springerlink: Stable climate and plant domestication linked
New study argues climate change was not responsible for the Agricultural Revolution
 |
 |
Sustainable farming and the introduction of new crops relies on a relatively stable climate, not dramatic conditions attributable to climate change. Basing their argument on evolutionary, ecological, genetic and agronomic considerations, Dr. Shahal Abbo, from the Levi Eshkol School of Agriculture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, and colleagues, demonstrate why climate change is not the likely cause of plant domestication in the Near East. Rather, the variety of crops in the Near East was chosen to function within the normal east Mediterranean rainfall pattern, in which good rainy years create enough surplus to sustain farming communities during drought years. In the authors’ view, climate change is unlikely to induce major cultural changes. Their thesis is published online in Springer’s journal Vegetation History and Archaeobotany.
Climate-based explanations for the beginning of new agricultural practices give environmental factors a central role, as prime movers for the cultural-economic change known as the Near Eastern Neolithic or Agricultural Revolution (about 8500 B.C., 10500 cal. B.P.*). Dr. Abbo and team studied the traditional farming systems which existed until the early twentieth century in the Near East, looking for insights into the agronomic basis of the early days of Near Eastern farming, and to shed light on the possible role of climatic factors as stimuli for the Agricultural Revolution.
Their detailed analysis demonstrates that climate change could not have been the reason for the emergence of grain farming in the Near East. They find that farming requires a relatively stable climate to function as a sustainable economy and therefore is not a sustainable option in times of climatic deterioration.
The authors conclude, “We argue against climate change being at the origin of Near Eastern agriculture and believe that a slow but real climatic change is unlikely to induce revolutionary cultural changes.”
*calibrated years before the present
Reference
1. Abbo S et al (2010). Yield stability: an agronomic perspective on the origin of Near Eastern Agriculture. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany; DOI 10.1007/s00334-009-0233-7
The full-text article is available to journalists as a pdf.
“Climate-based explanations for the beginning of new agricultural practices give environmental factors a central role, as prime movers for the cultural-economic change known as the Near Eastern Neolithic or Agricultural Revolution (about 8500 B.C., 10500 cal. B.P.*). ”
“Their detailed analysis demonstrates that climate change could not have been the reason for the emergence of grain farming in the Near East. They find that farming requires a relatively stable climate to function as a sustainable economy and therefore is not a sustainable option in times of climatic deterioration.”
10,000 years ago the climate was not deteriorating.
It was getting warmer.
I guess an ice age is not a good time to farm.
Farming success longterm keeps improving and i see the warmists are declaring drought. We have always had some years of drought. We can seem to have them explain why we had drought 100 years ago before warming hockey sticks came along. I had an employee that was a global expert in plant science and engineering. It was inriguing to speak with him. He is as a hobby now using legacy old seeds. It is interesting to see how they do in his garden. I do admit we need to keep the alarmists away from agriculture. They seem to have wild and unproven notions.
Reported a couple of days ago, a house was discovered in Tel Aviv that is around 8,000 years old. What is more interesting, though, is the possibility that the area was inhabited between 13,000 to 100,000 years ago.
” Flint implements ascribed to earlier periods were also discovered at the site: a point of a hunting tool from the Middle Paleolithic period (100,000 BCE) and items that date back to 13,000 BCE. ”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147866435&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
That means that people were living in the Middle East during the last ice age. Did they have agriculture, however primitive?
Seems like a pretty dumb paper. Even in times of climate change the climate can be stable over the short term.
Climate Change =/= Climate deterioration (as latitude says)
“They find that farming requires a relatively stable climate to function as a sustainable economy and therefore is not a sustainable option in times of climatic deterioration.”
So what other option is their. Hunter/gatherer? They would have to demonstrate that hunting/gathering is more stable than controlled agriculture. I don’t care how unstable the climate is – controlled agriculture is always going to be more stable than hunting/gathering, everything else being equal. For the mere fact that, instead of relying on random, naturally selected areas of plants to gather from, you take the seeds from those plants and put them closer to your front door. And those animals you were hunting? Put them in a corral and fatten them up.
Well said!
So increased water flow in the area didn’t contribute to the decision to farm at all? Hmm, my grandfather would have respectfully disagreed.
“They find that farming requires a relatively stable climate to function as a sustainable economy and therefore is not a sustainable option in times of climatic deterioration.”
Looks like the AGW escape route is going to be “no matter what the cause, climate deterioration is bad and will lead to unsustainable ecomonies so we must do something to prevent it.”
Now where did I put my grant request?
“Kath (13:28:48) :
Reported a couple of days ago, a house was discovered in Tel Aviv that is around 8,000 years old. What is more interesting, though, is the possibility that the area was inhabited between 13,000 to 100,000 years ago. ”
Nothing special. Even Europe was inhabited by Homo Erectus 400000 years ago. Some old spears found in Schoeningen: (german)
http://www.schoeningerspeere.de/
Here’s an english description of the Schoeningen spears:
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news10.htm
“(We) believe that a slow but real climatic change is unlikely to induce revolutionary cultural changes.”
That is an incredibly asinine statement.
Utter nonsense. Right now there are university departments coming up with new strains of plants that tolerate more heat, less heat, more cold, less cold, more water, less water, more bugs, less bugs, more pollution, less pollution, more Sun, less Sun, the list goes on. Plant engineering for the purpose of getting plants to grow in a different climate is driven by the market. Who doesn’t want to grow wine in Alaska?
Same thing happened with South Fork (a canyon in the Wallowa’s that was gouged out by glacier action). Hasn’t had a boat load of snow for 40 years so flat landers thought it would be keen to have a year round log cabin home in the forest. Last year those log cabins were buried beyond their roof line in snow.
Climate change clearly drives agricultural matters and markets. It also leads stupid people to make stupid choices.
“Steve (13:33:54) :
[…]
So what other option is their. Hunter/gatherer? They would have to demonstrate that hunting/gathering is more stable than controlled agriculture. I don’t care how unstable the climate is – controlled agriculture is always going to be more stable than hunting/gathering, everything else being equal.”
In a harsh climate, summers can be all wrong – too dry in early summer so that seedlings don’t grow, too wet later so that the corn fouls before ripe. Also the early varieties of corn had very little gain – you needed to preserve half of the harvest to have enough to seed the next year. Relying only on agriculture must have been like gambling for early farmers.
OTOH, when your population density is low, there will always be enough deer to hunt and fish in the river. Think again about reliability.
As the origins of agriculture also coincide with the end of the Pleistocene – or the end of the Younger Dryas event, might it be there was a lack of game available as a lot of animals died out or their populations were reduced at this time. Just a thought. The use of grain by humans in a recent article on Science Daily places it way back into the Palaeolithic so such things were semi-farmed by hunter gatherers. In addition, grass is the one thing that grows the quickest after landscape fire. It goes to seed very quickly. It is possible grasses were grown out of necessity at the end or beginning of the Younger Dryas
The common perception is based upon that statement that the agriculture revolution was established in the beginning of the Holocene.
But there are questions, about we do not know.
What we know, is that there was a rapid sea level enhancement when the glaciers, mostly in the norhern hemisphere, startet to decline.
Could there be a possibility that there maybe has been farmers near the shoreline when the sea level was 130 m lower, not only hunter gatherers?
And, a question to the audience, are there any papers that could show that there has been done research looking after pre Holocene and now under water settlements ?
DirkH isn’t corn a new world grain…
I figured the grain mentioned was rice.
same joan robinson who wrote the above:
5 Jan: Joan Robinson: Global warming and other environmental dangers may be solved by unlikely source — space technology
In what may sound like science fiction, the authors of Paradise Regained offer several examples of space technology solutions for environmental crises on Earth. Those solutions include:
•Space-based solar power plants to reduce dependence on fossil fuels
•Extracting Helium 3 from the lunar soil and building a fusion reactor using Helium 3
•Mining asteroids for resources
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/s-gwa010510.php
search robinson + global warming for more articles.
missed out on commenting on the earlier carbon fraud thread, but:
(mother of rupert) Murdoch backs green school curriculum
Dame Elisabeth is the patron of the Global Green Plan Foundation, which along with corporate company Fuji Xerox, will distribute the curriculum materials to other schools…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/murdoch-backs-green-school-curriculum-20090508-axbt.html
Australia, Belgium Find More Cases of Carbon Fraud
In the case of Global Green Plan, the company had participated in a government program designed to encourage home owners to use green power, reports SmartCompany. Under the GreenPower scheme, Global Green accepted payments from customers and promised to purchase renewable energy certificates on their behalf, but the company was eventually deregistered from the program, and didn’t use all the money to buy the certificates, according to the article.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/07/australia-belgium-find-more-cases-of-carbon-fraud/
Murdoch’s Daughter Hosts Obama Fund-Raiser
David Blood, who runs an investment fund with former Vice President Al Gore that specializes in environmentally-friendly companies, is also listed as an “event host.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/murdochs-daughter-hosts-obama-fund-raiser/
the above explains why – apart from fox on occasion – murdoch media remains pro-AGW.
and the following recent NYT smear piece is self-explanatory:
9 Jan: NYT: A Fox Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics
He played a well-chronicled role in the decision in 2004 by Lachlan Murdoch, Mr. Murdoch’s eldest son, to leave the company; he thought Mr. Ailes was intruding on his corporate turf. Two other Murdoch children, Elisabeth, a television producer in London, and James, the only Murdoch scion employed at the company, are sympathetic to Democratic causes and frequently voiced concerns to their father during last year’s presidential campaign about Fox News’s coverage of Mr. Obama…
“I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’s horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to,” said Matthew Freud, who is married to Ms. Murdoch and whom PR Week magazine says is the most influential public relations executive in London….
At a town hall forum on Oct. 26 sponsored by one of his newspapers, he had a heated exchange with Richard Shea, a Democratic councilman who was running for town supervisor. “I turn around, and there he is,” said Mr. Shea, who won the election. “He starts right in on the zoning. He says, ‘What are you trying to hide from me in the zoning?’ He said, ‘I own the newspaper.’ ”
Mr. Shea continued, “My takeaway was that this guy is pretty much threatening me.”
Mr. Ailes said he simply asked for Mr. Shea’s phone number and complained about “environmental zealots” in the town. “I am a conservationist,” he said. “I try to put the bottle in the right can.”..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?hp
Climate is always the determining factor regarding the type of crop farmers grow.
For example, the Romans grew wheat in England, as when they first invaded they found our warm climate was ideal for this crop – they also grew grapes as far as York. When the climate cooled, they gradually withdrew from England and one of the factors which speeded this was the loss of grain production.
The same thing will happen in northern USA when the cold starts to bite, and again short season cold resistant crops will replace grain as the staple food.
More turnips anyone?
Well evidently there are some folks who claim the exact opposite.
Scientific American March 2005; Front cover Story; Did Humans Stop an Ice Age; 8000 years of Global Warming.
William F Ruddiman. Anybody ever here of him. The first heading of his first paragraph is “The Scientific Cnsensus.”
This is his famous paper that shows data from two Antrctic ice cores With carbon dioxide abundance goign in exacrtly the opposite directions at the same time; and all in the last 1000 years.
And for sheer statistical genius he gets an overall trend line, by joining the very first data point from ice core 1, about 750 BC, to the very last data point of ice core 2 around 1950. Sheer genius if you ask me.
So Ruddioman says humans stopped the ice age which we should have had by now by agriculture; so these new researchers have it all backwards.
Man I mayk a lot of typos, when I’m laughing my hed off.
What do we call those who claim to predict the unpredictable and those who read shakespear in the writings of monkeys?
My two cents: I believe agriculture was truly started when fermentation was discovered. Yeah, I think the original farmers were growing grains for beer. Actually, there’s some evidence for this, and, frankly, I can’t think of a better reason to grow crops.
As far as corn (*warning educational content*): the word corn is derived from an Old English / Middle English word ‘korn’. It meant ‘small grain’ and could refer to small grains of anything. In the Christian Bible, ‘corn’ usually refers to grains of rye. The ‘corn’ in your corn beef, or more properly corned beef, is salt – it is beef that has been preserved using the small grains of salt. The vegetable, corn, or Indian Maize (sorry, I know that’s not a PC term) is indigenous to the Americas The European invaders, er settlers, had no word for it, and the generic term ‘corn’ was applied.
If you like this sort of thing, check out the origin of ‘pumpernickel’ or George Carlin’s 7 forbidden words.
I understood that the generally accepted driver of the development of agriculture was that, as another poster pointed out, a lack of game animals and fish in the Levant, as well as ready availability of animals and grains suitable for domestication.
The interesting effect of this was not all beneficial:
“…During the Neolithic, population density increased from 10 to 50-fold over the Paleolithic, supported by the spread of grain-farming. .. meat consumption fell to 10-20% of the Paleolithic level with this transition in subsistence.
Neolithic sites show an increasingly settled way of life as exemplified by evidence of food storage. However, farming was hard work, and skeletal evidence shows signs of the heavy effort needed, which–combined with a diet adequate in calories but barely or less than adequate in minerals from the depleting effects of phytate (phytates in grains bind minerals and inhibit absorption)–led to a state of low general health. The considerable decrease in stature at this time (roughly 4-6 inches, or 12-16 cm, shorter than in pre-agricultural times) is believed to have resulted from restricted blood calcium and/or vitamin D, plus insufficient essential amino acid levels, the latter resulting from the large fall in meat consumption at this time (as determined by strontium/calcium ratios in human bone remains).
Most disease stressors in evidence at this time came from crowded settlement, and included hookworm, dysentery, and malaria …”
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml
Since agriculture developed independently on different continents by domesticating different locally found potential food crops at different periods during the last say 10,000 years, it’s unlikely to be attributable to one factor and assuming favorable conditions, may have more to do with the human brain.
Most of human population in the ice age likely lived near the coast which moderated the cold weather. Today those areas are all underwater as sea levels have increased 100 meters. A large population lived in the Black Sea basin having migrated during the cold Younger Dryas. Then the Black Sea abruptly filled up as a result of rapid warming, maybe the basis for the Biblical Flood.
Agriculture likely developed as a result of increased population making hunting and gathering more difficult as a result of shortages in animals and edible plants (wild wheat). Agriculture meant more leisure time in non-growing seasons, and freed men up to build pyramids and fight wars to build empires.
Civilization began in Western Asia (Europeans call it the Near East), so no surprise agriculture developed there first. Europeans were barbarians for most of mans civilization, perhaps due to the harsher climate. In fact, during the MWP agriculture flourished in Europe driving the economy and increasing prosperity to the point men in Europe had enough time and energy to launch the Crusades and liberate Jeruselum and Spain.
As a result of deforestation, some scientists suggest the LIA was due to changing albedo as crops reflected more light that trees. Interesting that in the NH there has actually been reforestation over the last 60 years, and one wonders if some part of our warming over this period is due to more trees and less cropland (more CO2, fertilizers, warmer temps, better irrigation, increase crop yields and require less crop land).
It’s interesting that starting from the 17th century wheat futures were dictated in part by sunspots. Wheat futures dropped when many sunspots were spotted, and increased when there were few spots. They knew many sunspots met warmer temperatures and more wheat, and no spots meant cooler temperatures and wheat shortages. Despite our scientific progress, the suns role in climate is still not well understood, perhaps less so than it was 400 years ago.
The 1977 book “The Food Crisis in Prehistory” by Mark Nathan Cohen proposed that the move to agriculture was motivated by overpopulation pressure on the hunter/gatherer resources. Basically, that people knew how to farm but preferred the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. This made a lot of sense to me at the time. After all, hunting and gathering was probably an easier lifestyle than dirt farming. That is, as long as the resources were plentiful. Is it possible that the increasing human population had outrun the increasing hunter/gatherer resources; both due to a warming climate?
Dang, now I’ll have to reread the book to see if it still makes sense and if the climate aspect was addressed.
I recall from reading that book on the little ice age that advances in agricultural technology helped mitigate the food shortages and starvation caused by global cooling. As I recall it was crop rotation. Many times adversity is the mother of invention.
There is one theory (supported by some archaeological measurements) that humanoids advanced more during the ice ages than during interglacial periods.