Yes, our forebears started global warming by hunting the woolly mammoth. Right. Must be the mammoth albedo effect, much like the sheep albedo effect. Oh, wait, no it’s birch trees albedo calculated via pollen proxy. The mammoths stopped eating birch trees, that’s wot did it. And those hunters used cooking fires too. Gosh. I wish I had more time to refute this, travel beckons, but I’m sure readers can lend a hand in comments.
UPDATE: Carl Bussjaeger points out in comments that;
Just last month, USA Today told us that Felisa Smith of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque discovered that…
Mammoth extinction triggered climate COOLING
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/mammoth-extinction-triggered-climate-cooling/1

Man-made global warming started with ancient hunters
AGU Release No. 10–15 Link here
30 June 2010
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—Even before the dawn of agriculture, people may have caused the planet to warm up, a new study suggests.
Mammoths used to roam modern-day Russia and North America, but are now extinct—and there’s evidence that around 15,000 years ago, early hunters had a hand in wiping them out. A new study, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), argues that this die-off had the side effect of heating up the planet.
“A lot of people still think that people are unable to affect the climate even now, even when there are more than 6 billion people,” says the lead author of the study, Chris Doughty of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. The new results, however, “show that even when we had populations orders of magnitude smaller than we do now, we still had a big impact.”
In the new study, Doughty, Adam Wolf, and Chris Field—all at Carnegie Institution for Science—propose a scenario to explain how hunters could have triggered global warming.
First, mammoth populations began to drop—both because of natural climate change as the planet emerged from the last ice age, and because of human hunting. Normally, mammoths would have grazed down any birch that grew, so the area stayed a grassland. But if the mammoths vanished, the birch could spread. In the cold of the far north, these trees would be dwarfs, only about 2 meters (6 feet) tall. Nonetheless, they would dominate the grasses.
The trees would change the color of the landscape, making it much darker so it would absorb more of the Sun’s heat, in turn heating up the air. This process would have added to natural climate change, making it harder for mammoths to cope, and helping the birch spread further.
To test how big of an effect this would have on climate, Field’s team looked at ancient records of pollen, preserved in lake sediments from Alaska, Siberia, and the Yukon Territory, built up over thousands of years. They looked at pollen from birch trees (the genus Betula), since this is “a pioneer species that can rapidly colonize open ground following disturbance,” the study says. The researchers found that around 15,000 years ago—the same time that mammoth populations dropped, and that hunters arrived in the area—the amount of birch pollen started to rise quickly.
To estimate how much additional area the birch might have covered, they started with the way modern-day elephants affect their environment by eating plants and uprooting trees. If mammoths had effects on vegetation similar to those of modern elephants , then the fall of mammoths would have allowed birch trees to spread over several centuries, expanding from very few trees to covering about one-quarter of Siberia and Beringia—the land bridge between Asia and Alaska. In those places where there was dense vegetation to start with and where mammoths had lived, the main reason for the spread of birch trees was the demise of mammoths, the model suggests.
Another study, published last year, shows that “the mammoths went extinct, and that was followed by a drastic change in the vegetation,” rather than the other way around, Doughty says. “With the extinction of this keystone species, it would have some impact on the ecology and vegetation—and vegetation has a large impact on climate.”
Doughty and colleagues then used a climate simulation to estimate that this spread of birch trees would have warmed the whole planet more than 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) over the course of several centuries. (In comparison, the planet has warmed about six times more during the past 150 years, largely because of people’s greenhouse gas emissions.)
Only some portion—about one-quarter—of the spread of the birch trees would have been due to the mammoth extinctions, the researchers estimate. Natural climate change would have been responsible for the rest of the expansion of birch trees. Nonetheless, this suggests that when hunters helped finish off the mammoth, they could have caused some global warming.
In Siberia, Doughty says, “about 0.2 degrees C (0.36 degrees F) of regional warming is the part that is likely due to humans.”
Earlier research indicated that prehistoric farmers changed the climate by slashing and burning forests starting about 8,000 years ago, and when they introduced rice paddy farming about 5,000 years ago. This would suggest that the start of the so-called “Anthropocene”—a term used by some scientists to refer to the geological age when mankind began shaping the entire planet—should be dated to several thousand years ago.
However, Field and colleagues argue, the evidence of an even earlier man-made global climate impact suggests the Anthropocene could have started much earlier. Their results, they write, “suggest the human influence on climate began even earlier than previously believed, and that the onset of the Anthropocene should be extended back many thousands of years.”
This work was funded by the Carnegie Institution for Science and NASA.
Notes for Journalists
As of the date of this press release, the paper by Doughty et al. is still “in press” (i.e. not yet published). Journalists and public information officers (PIOs) of educational and scientific institutions who have registered with AGU can download a PDF copy of this paper in press.
Or, you may order a copy of the paper by emailing your request to Maria-José Viñas at mjvinas@agu.org. Please provide your name, the name of your publication, and your phone number.
Neither the paper nor this press release are under embargo.
Title:
“Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human‐induced global warming?”
Authors:
Christopher E. Doughty, Adam Wolf, and Christopher B. Field, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA
======================
Readers, I urge you to write to newspapers and magazines that carry this story.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jose says: June 30, 2010 at 3:36 pm: “Let me see if I got this straight: If I make up stuff like this and write it down I can get lots of money??”
I make things up and write it down for money, but since I write hard science fiction it has to make some sense and have a little internal consistency. This stuff wouldn’t even hack it as Star Drek sciffy fantasy.
It’s sad that a philanthropost donated money for the advancement of knowledge by creating the Carnegie Institution for Science, only to have it taken over by left wing administrators until it became their toy for spreading garbage and superstition.
feet2thefire:
Of the various theories on the Younger Dryas, I find the impact theory most convincing.
Here’s a fairly recent link on the current evidence to which you refer:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-a-comet-hit-earth-12900-years-ago
Incidentally, anyone living in SE Arizona might be interested to know the the Dept of the Interior has created a very nice hiking trail with a series of explanatory signs at the Murray Springs site. It’s not publicized but it’s easy to find just outside of Sierra Vista. (I was down there this morning, and I would recommend it.)
How silly can this stuff get? I guess all our estimates of animal populations and human populations must have been way off. Population of the earth back then must have far surpassed the present even without agriculture phhhht How can anyone keep a straight face reading any of this tripe?
In reply to Max Hugoson- I’m sure you’re correct about only a few hundred thousand indians in what is now the US and Canada, but I think Central America had a large population at one time. I recall from “A Forest of Kings”, that someone did an analysis of pollen around Tikal, and found that the Mayas must have completely deforested the region in expanding their fields to support a growing population. The soil couldn’t continue to support such overuse, and there was a large population collapse.
Ah come on guys
It’s climate science, anything is possible, it’s like making bread, find a recipe that suits your taste or peculiarity, tap into the funds to buy the ingredients, (always good to have a supply on tap) kneed the dough carefully using the latest model of the model of the model that suits you, create some hot air in a warm place (the media) and smoke a few more…. while the dough rises as the gas builds inside and then coat it with some mysterious substance, put it in the oven and bake. Now the good thing is if you do this right, you can create a market, get more funds and make more product…. feed it to the woolly mammoths and who will keel over in due course……….
Oh no only that
if you add enough erbs (herbs) to the mix, the fresh bread when consumed creates and wafts the most wonderful and energetic farts!! well that’s my modelled climate theory that propels that mysterious warming
Based on personal fact and my own observations of course….
Actually, these animals survived in a midget form (common on islands) on an island off the east coast of Russia till about 5,000 years ago.
Those Warming-Crazed Climate Poodles!
😉
Whether humans caused warming or not, and of course they did not, the warming was an unmitigated benefit to the vast majority of species including homo sapiens who eventually evolved to the point where so little work was required to survive that some of them could write insanely stupid research studies.
ZTs: June 30, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Good one! ☺ ☺ ☺
/dr.bill
Doesnt this just prove that land use change is a first order forcing, and thus mean that any temperature record or proxy is unreliable if long term land use changes are not fully known? Doesnt this just call of of AGW into question?
DCC says:
June 30, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Once again, correlation is causality – provided it causes “global warming.”
But the general public often buys it all based on horribly botched works like Al Gore’s.
But, you see? That’s why it’s referred to as ‘CAGW,’ or Colossal Al Gore Wretchedness.’
Peter Miller says:
June 30, 2010 at 3:36 pm
[–snip for brevity–]
The expression “climate scientist” is once again shown to be an oxymoron.
Peter, here’s the deal: They’re called ‘climate scientists’ for a reason, and that’s because they CREATE the necessary ‘climate’ needed for CAGW lies to obtain purchase, where they would not have otherwise.
You could almost refer to them as ‘climate engineers,’ but I’ve a feeling that Real Engineers® would have severe case of heartburn on that score!
Steven’s first comment sums up the whole thing nicely. You know when alarmism has reached the tipping point of ludicrousness when this kind of article appears.
Climate perverts…that’s what they are!
all i can say is
hahahhhahahahahahahah. hehehehehehehhe. *holds side* ahahahahahahahahahahahahah. *gasp*
The same people that say ancient man changed the global climate probably used to believe that man could not build the pyramids without alien intervention.
The twits pushing this prattle, well, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Re: feet2thefire says:
“This has led – along with the nanodiamonds, fullerenes, Iridium, Helium-3 and spherules – to the new (dating only from 2007) hypothesis of what is called the Younger-Dryas Impact Event, which is currently being researched widely.”
—
Ah, yes, I can explain that. You see in the year 2525 the climate wars were still raging, partly due to archaeologists having discovered tens of thousand of buried, massive concrete blocks deep under the remains of Europe and North America. Some of our climate scientists promptly drilled holes in them and used the cores to create new historical temperature records. Others speculated the fixings may have been for actual thermometers, and the concrete provided a simulated UHI effect to correct these rural sites.
But that year, two scientists, Drs Zager and Evans perfected a time machine. The intention was we’d travel back in time with some precision thermometers, and settle this debate once and for all. However, there was an instability in the flux capacitor, but fortunately I managed to eject, and landed here. So technically it should be referred to as the Zager-Evans Impact Event and the rest will become history.
“The trees would change the color of the landscape, making it much darker so it would absorb more of the Sun’s heat, in turn heating up the air.”
Ah, so now trees cause global warming? But, what about all that C02 they soak up? By the AGW conjecture aka “settled science” wouldn’t that counteract the reduced albedo? I wish these whacky Warmists could at least get their stories straight.
Taking this semi-seriously, it looks like they estimated the increase in northern birch forest area from pollen deposits, then fed this into a climate model to get a planet-wide warming of 0.1 degrees C, only part of which was due to mammoth deaths. Considering the likely error bars in the pollen and forest area figures alone, the error bars on the model result must be huge. Could we even detect a difference of 0.1 degrees in ancient climate proxies?
Given our limited information about the period, this looks to be unfalsifiable, which makes it pure speculation, right?
stevengoddard says:
June 30, 2010 at 3:06 pm
“….The bird poop is decreasing the albedo of my car, and thus causing Polar Bears to suffer. For the good of the planet, I’d like to take a 12-gauge to the birds – but city ordinances prevent me from rescuing the planet.”
lol,……here’s one…..all very true.
My dog found a timber rattler in his doghouse once, at the time I lived in a small town. Being the law abiding, not wishing to be snake bit person that I am, I called the ‘animal control officer’. Being a small town, ‘animal control’ happened to be, also, the city police. I told them there was a rattle snake in my doghouse. They asked me what my intentions were regarding the snake. I told them my intentions were the ‘animal control officer’ would control the animals. There was a long pause over the phone. Finally, he stated that I should let the snake go. I informed him that the snake was an uninvited guest and that I didn’t really have him captured, but rather has intruded upon my dogs living quarters. The dog was very upset, but not willing to get any closer to the snake than I. After a long pause on my part, I inquired the address of the animal control officer. The person on the phone asked my why. I responded; so that I could “let the snake go there.” Yet, another long silence over the phone. I broke the silence with a “never mind, I’ll just shoot it and not worry about the holes in the dog house.” The response I got was, “It is against the law to discharge a firearm within city limits.”……:-| In the end, I used my rake to withdraw the snake from the doghouse and pin his head, and a neighbors hoe…….
As an archaeologist, what I want to know is, “who ended the three previous glacial epochs?” There are four major glacial epochs discernible in the Vostok ice core and apparently at least five major interstadials including the Holocene. Since mankind was barely present during the earlier episodes we’re left to assume “aliens,” if intelligent agents are necessary to end ice ages. And again, what causes the shifts from “green house” to “ice house” climate states, more aliens?
Assertions like those made in that paper aren’t just poor science, they ought to embarrass the authors every time they remember publishing the paper.
Agreeing that the publication probably will not hold up, I would like to remark that it would be appropriate to await the publication of the paper, review the evidence in detail and then draw conclusions. Just thinking out loud here.