From the National Science Foundation Press Release 14-032
Climate of Genghis Khan’s ancient time extends long shadow over Asia of today
Current drought in Mongolia could have serious consequences
 View of the modern-day Orkhon Valley near Karakorum, the ancient Mongol capital.
|
March 10, 2014
Climate was very much on Genghis Khan’s side as he expanded his Mongol Empire across northeastern Asia.
That link between Mongolia’s climate and its human history echoes down the centuries, according to findings reported in this week’s issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
But climate may no longer be the boon it was during the latter, wetter part of Genghis Khan’s reign. The early years were marked by drought.
Mongolia’s current drought conditions could have serious consequences for the Asia region’s human and other inhabitants.
The discovery linking ancient and modern history hinges on wood. Trees provide an extensive climate record in their rings.
The tree rings’ tales of ebbs and flows in water availability show that Genghis Khan took power during a severe drought, says Amy Hessl, a geographer at West Virginia University and co-author of the paper.
But, the scientists found, the rapid expansion of Genghis Khan’s empire coincided with the wettest period in the region during the last millennium.
“Through a careful analysis of tree-ring records spanning eleven centuries, the researchers have provided valuable information about a period of great significance,” says Tom Baerwald, a program director for the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH) Program, which funded the research.
CNH is one of NSF’s Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) programs. CNH is supported by NSF’s Directorates for Geosciences; Biological Sciences; and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences.
“The results also provide insights into the complex interactions of climate, vegetation and human activity in semi-arid regions today,” Baerwald says.
Though political realities would also have played into Genghis Khan’s power grab, the regional climate at the time appears to have supported his empire’s expansion.
The climate provided literal horsepower as armies and their horses fed off the fertile, rain-fed land.
“Such a strong and unified center would have required a concentration of resources that only higher productivity could have sustained, in a land in which extensive pastoral production does not normally provide surplus resources,” the paper states.
While the ramifications for past history are significant, so, too, are they for today’s.
The scientists believe that human-caused warming may have exacerbated the current drought in central Mongolia, similar to the drought that coincided with Genghis Khan’s initial rise to power.
“If future warming overwhelms increased precipitation, episodic ‘heat droughts’ and their social, economic and political consequences will likely become more common in Mongolia and Inner Asia,” according to the paper.
Hessl co-authored the report with scientists Neil Pederson of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Nachin Baatarbileg of the National University of Mongolia, Kevin Anchukaitis of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Nicola Di Cosmo of the Institute for Advanced Study.
-NSF-
Legatus says:March 12, 2014 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for your description, it is largely what I was alluding to in my one-liner. You said it better than I.
Ulric Lyons says:
March 13, 2014 at 6:51 am
—————————————
That was probably a grand minimum during that time. The next one after that was around 1450 AD.
Their easy assumption of human-made warming is laughable. If one has a thesis, one REALLY should make sure its key foundational assumptions are valid. As it is, all of their conclusions involving modern times are thus garbage.
Steven Devijver says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:14 pm
“No European of other Asian powers would have been able to fight off the Turkish/Mongol innovative tactics, whether is was led by Genghis Khan or anybody else. ”
Can’t concur with that…a common mistake of admirers of Turkic warfare [ myself included! I used to believe it. ]. In fact the Europeans did OK against the Arabic horse archers of the Crusades and would have halted a Mongol thrust into Europe. While Attila and his Huns had great success they struck at a different time in Europe, the Dark Ages, when heavily-armoured horse armies that could ally easily did not exist.
While the Mongols would be held up besieging the 1000s of castles a huge army of knights on armoured horses could have assembled and chased them out. Manoeuvring armies of 10000s in Europe is not so easy as on the plains and the Europeans would have home ground intelligence advantage. A split off Turkic army could be ambushed in a valley from both ends and charged into hand to hand combat, where the Euros excelled.
But the lifestyle of a climate scientist is something devoutly to be wished. It contains so many elements that would be irresistible to anyone with a taste for the occasional adventure:
generous funding
travel to exotic and pristine environments
association with others of a kindred spirit
active adventure (drilling, coring… wearing cool hats)
exploring unique cultures
creating endless, speculative associations between “science” and “history”
harvesting of unique, “hard evidence” which yields ongoing wellspring for analysis
the reassurance of protection of one’s ivory tower existence on one’s return
scholarly recognition, one’s name in print, career advancement, etc (and)
the pleasure of seeing one’s work disparaged by much-despised contingents of skeptics
In other words, what’s not to like?
I agree with you that these people are overlooking – and probably blithely unaware of – existing history. Historians of Mongolia are probably rolling their eyes.
I would want to ask the authors of this several questions:
First, cooled the planet, how much exactly, show definitive data. Next show that it was the CO2 as well, I mean, 700 million tons sounds large, but would change the % of CO2 in the atmosphere exactly how much? Oh, only that much, then I call BS.
And, he actually removed that CO2, all those burning villages and cities and crops etc released no CO2? It may have eventually turned green, but it started out black. I don’t see any “scrubbing” of carbon there, do you? In fact, the area he moved through looked rather…carbonated.
And when he decided he did not want to be outflanked when he invaded Persia, and reduced a large, fertile, green area to desert so that it remains desert to this very day, this was green…how?
And you are basically saying that being green involves mass murder and destruction on a huge scale then? Should we burn down most cities and even small towns, kill everyone in them, and reduce the whole area to wilderness? While doing that, I assume we should ignore all that CO2 (and smoke, and toxins) that will be produced, just as you have ignored that in the Mongol invasions, right? And so, if humans are so evil that they should all be killed, why have you not killed yourself? Oh, so it’s only otherpeople who are so evil, I see! So, what, exactly, makes you so special?
And exactly how did cooling the planet make things greener? Be specific. So, cooler is better right, so…ice ages are the greenest times on earth, right? Odd, half the planet looked white, not green. You do know when the next ice age is scheduled to happen, right?
So, removing CO2 from the atmosphere (somehow, despite all that burning) makes the earth greener…how, exactly? Are you aware that CO2 is plant food? What if we could remove all that evil CO2, that would be good, right? How do you explain that plant growth is up about 7% due to increased CO2 plant food? You did want “greener”, right? No? So, what does “greener” mean, exactly?
The conclusion” “green” people are people who want to kill you and your children, react accordingly.
Look at what this chart shows happening right around 1300 AD…..http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm
Using the above chart that is the second decline before the LIA. Prior to that the year 1220/30 is a deeper drop than at 1300AD. The next drop is at 1470AD. There is also the steepest drop back around 1110/30. Those are the 3 deepest drops of the LIA. The main cold spell lasts for 2 hundred years.
Steven Devijver says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:14 pm
“Where the crusades also helped by climate? What about WW1, WW2, Napoleon, Alexander the Great? Let’s not forget Hannibal, the Romans, the Egyptians, the American Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the Barbarian Wars, … . Many people will take this “link” between Genghis Khan and climate serious which is the most disheartening side of this story for me.”
I’m reading this late: but climate would have/has no doubt influenced any/every conflict whether that meant the cause of victory or defeat over generations or over shorter periods. Climate conditions would have been/are preeminent in both the planning and implementation of any offense or defense throughout history. However, short term weather fluctuations (as opposed to climate) have no doubt changed history even more. IE: Napoleon and Hitler both picked bad times to attack Russia. While the best weather forecasts available* were what determined the launch of D-Day more than the perceived strength of the forces involved.
*We haven’t done much better since except for (perhaps) the ‘hourly’ and ‘3-5 day’ forecasts. Apparently it’s complicated.