Ancient farmers spared us from glaciers but profoundly changed Earth’s climate
MADISON – Millenia ago, ancient farmers cleared land to plant wheat and maize, potatoes and squash. They flooded fields to grow rice. They began to raise livestock. And unknowingly, they may have been fundamentally altering the climate of the Earth.
A study published in the journal Scientific Reports provides new evidence that ancient farming practices led to a rise in the atmospheric emission of the heat-trapping gases carbon dioxide and methane – a rise that has continued since, unlike the trend at any other time in Earth’s geologic history.
It also shows that without this human influence, by the start of the Industrial Revolution, the planet would have likely been headed for another ice age.
“Had it not been for early agriculture, Earth’s climate would be significantly cooler today,” says lead author, Stephen Vavrus, a senior scientist in the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. “The ancient roots of farming produced enough carbon dioxide and methane to influence the environment.”
The findings are based on a sophisticated climate model that compared our current geologic time period, called the Holocene, to a similar period 800,000 years ago. They show the earlier period, called MIS19, was already 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.3 C) cooler globally than the equivalent time in the Holocene, around the year 1850. This effect would have been more pronounced in the Arctic, where the model shows temperatures were 9-to-11 degrees Fahrenheit colder.
Using climate reconstructions based on ice core data, the model also showed that while MIS19 and the Holocene began with similar carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, MIS19 saw an overall steady drop in both greenhouse gases while the Holocene reversed direction 5,000 years ago, hitting peak concentrations of both gases by 1850. The researchers deliberately cut the model off at the start of the Industrial Revolution, when sources of greenhouse gas emissions became much more numerous.
For most of Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history, its climate has largely been determined by a natural phenomenon known as Milankovitch cycles, periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit around the sun – which fluctuates from more circular to more elliptical – and the way Earth wobbles and tilts on its axis.
Astronomers can calculate these cycles with precision and they can also be observed in the geological and paleoecological records. The cycles influence where sunlight is distributed on the planet, leading to cold glacial periods or ice ages as well as warmer interglacial periods. The last glacial period ended roughly 12,000 years ago and Earth has since been in the Holocene, an interglacial period. The Holocene and MIS19 share similar Milankovitch cycle characteristics.
All other interglacial periods scientists have studied, including MIS19, begin with higher levels of carbon dioxide and methane, which gradually decline over thousands of years, leading to cooler conditions on Earth. Ultimately, conditions cool to a point where glaciation begins.
Fifteen years ago, study co-author William Ruddiman, emeritus paleoclimatologist at the University of Virginia, was studying methane and carbon dioxide trapped in Antarctic ice going back tens of thousands of years when he observed something unusual.
“I noticed that methane concentrations started decreasing about 10,000 years ago and then reversed direction 5,000 years ago and I also noted that carbon dioxide also started decreasing around 10,000 years ago and then reversed direction about 7,000 years ago,” says Ruddiman. “It alerted me that there was something strange about this interglaciation … the only explanation I could come up with is early agriculture, which put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that was the start of it all.”
Ruddiman named this the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis and a number of studies have recently emerged suggesting its plausibility. They document widespread deforestation in Europe beginning around 6,000 years ago, the emergence of large farming settlements in China 7,000 years ago, plus the spread of rice paddies – robust sources of methane – throughout northeast Asia by 5,000 years ago.
Ruddiman and others have also been working to test the hypothesis. He has collaborated with Vavrus, an expert in climate modeling, for many years and their newest study used the Community Climate System Model 4 to simulate what would have happened in the Holocene if not for human agriculture. It offers higher resolution than climate models the team has used previously and provides new insights into the physical processes underlying glaciation.
For instance, in a simulation of MIS19, glaciation began with strong cooling in the Arctic and subsequent expansion of sea ice and year-round snow cover. The model showed this beginning in an area known as the Canadian archipelago, which includes Baffin Island, where summer temperatures dropped by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
“This is consistent with geologic evidence,” says Vavrus.
Today, the Arctic is warming. But before we laud ancient farmers for staving off a global chill, Vavrus and Ruddiman caution that this fundamental alteration to our global climate cycle is uncharted territory.
“People say (our work) sends the wrong message, but science takes you where it takes you,” says Vavrus. “Things are so far out of whack now, the last 2,000 years have been so outside the natural bounds, we are so far beyond what is natural.”
The reality is, we don’t know what happens next. And glaciers have long served as Earth’s predominant source of freshwater.
“There is pretty good agreement in the community of climate scientists that we have stopped the next glaciation for the long, foreseeable future, because even if we stopped putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, what we have now would linger,” says Ruddiman. “The phenomenal fact is, we have maybe stopped the major cycle of Earth’s climate and we are stuck in a warmer and warmer and warmer interglacial.”
###
h/t to WUWT reader Chris C.
The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28419-5
Glacial Inception in Marine Isotope Stage 19: An Orbital Analog for a Natural Holocene Climate
Abstract
The Marine Isotope Stage 19c (MIS19c) interglaciation is regarded as the best orbital analog to the Holocene. The close of MIS19c (~777,000 years ago) thus serves as a proxy for a contemporary climate system unaffected by humans. Our global climate model simulation driven by orbital parameters and observed greenhouse gas concentrations at the end of MIS19c is 1.3 K colder than the reference pre-industrial climate of the late Holocene (year 1850). Much stronger cooling occurs in the Arctic, where sea ice and year-round snow cover expand considerably. Inferred regions of glaciation develop across northeastern Siberia, northwestern North America, and the Canadian Archipelago. These locations are consistent with evidence from past glacial inceptions and are favored by atmospheric circulation changes that reduce ablation of snow cover and increase accumulation of snowfall. Particularly large buildups of snow depth coincide with presumed glacial nucleation sites, including Baffin Island and the northeast Canadian Archipelago. These findings suggest that present-day climate would be susceptible to glacial inception if greenhouse gas concentrations were as low as they were at the end of MIS 19c.
…says Vavrus. “Things are so far out of whack now, the last 2,000 years have been so outside the natural bounds, we are so far beyond what is natural.”
I’m mystified by this reference to 2,000 years ago, as if humans had been doing nothing, zilch, nada, zip, zero for the 10,000 tgo 16,000 years prior to that. Since there is MORE than enough archaeological evidence to show that humans moved out of the hunter-gatherer state long before 2,000 years ago, I find it difficul to take this seriously.
Why does he say “the last 2,000 years”, as if the Anno Domini period is the be-all and end-all for civilization?
Per Food Timeline, flour, bread and soup were in common use 12,000 years ago, circa 10,000 BCE. http://www.foodtimeline.org/
“Remnants of wild emmer in early civilization sites date to the late Paleolithic Age 17,000 BC (Zohary and Hopf 1993). Cultivated emmer emerged as the predominant wheat along with barley as the principal cereals utilized by civilizations in the late Mesolithic, and early Neolithic Ages 10,000 BC (Helmqvist 1955; Harlan 1981; Zohary and Hopf 1993). Cultivated emmer dispersion and use by early civilizations greatly exceeded that of einkorn. Due to the addition of the BB genome cultivated emmer could be grown in a wider range of environments including regions having high growing season temperatures. Cultivated emmer became the dominant wheat throughout the Near and Far East, Europe, and Northern Africa from the Neolithic (Stone Age) through the Bronze Age 10,000-4,000 BC. Emmer utilization continued through the Bronze Age 4,000-1,000 BC, during which the naked wheats, primarily the tetraploid species slowly displaced emmer. However, emmer continued to be popular in isolated regions such as south central Russia into the early 1900s. Presently emmer remains an important crop in Ethiopia and a minor crop in India and Italy (Harlan 1981; Perrino and Hammer 1982).”
The use of wild grains such as rice, emmer and einkorn began 19,000 years ago. Cultivation of these crops began as much as 12,000 years ago. It is unclear what leads this researcher to imply that something done by humans is interfering with or exacerbating a natural cycle. I’m not sure what his purpose was, other than to imply that all progress since 0.00AD is bad. Well, it is NOT bad. There was plenty of progress before 0.00AD, which he seems to have ignored, and it is rather odd for him to say that humans have done something that implies damage to the planet while ignoring the repeated, recorded episodes of extreme cold.
I doubt that our influence on this planet consists of much more than creating large masses of plastic stuff, and creating fatbergs in London’s sewer system.
I don’t get it. The weather last year and this year at the same time are below average in temperature and above average in rainfall, and this trend has been increasing slowly since the winter 2010-2011. All it means to me is stock the pantry and freezer, and make sure the furnace gets its autumn checkup.
Whatever prestige the word “scientist”ever had is evicerated.
Science– ( Basic) High School.
a strong association is not a proof of causation
“The findings are based on a sophisticated climate model that compared our current geologic time period, called the Holocene, to a similar period 800,000 years ago. ”
Why 800,000 years ago when the uncertainty in the proxy would be closer to 1.3K than 100,000 years ago or any of the 3 warmer interglacials according to ice-cores going back 450,000.
If I was more cynical I would suggest that this was the 6th or 7th attempt to find data that fitted their theory.
Robert,
Maybe, but the interglacials of MIS 19 and MIS 11 are often cited as the nearest Milankovitch simulacra to the Holocene.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737911500150X
Interglacial analogues of the Holocene and its natural near future
Unfortunately this paper suffers from CO2itis, but it does rightly point out that the interglacial of MIS 11 lasted a long, long time. Which fact wouldn’t be good for Ruddiman’s hypothesis. Hence, go with MIS 19!
MIS 11 appears to have been the warmest and longest lasting interglacial of the last 500,000 years. If the Holocene turns out to be like MIS 11, Earth might experience natural “catastrophic global warming”, with loss of much of the Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
“And unknowingly, they may have been fundamentally altering the climate of the Earth.”
Ahhhh, there it is once again . . . that hard science phrase “may have been”. How about getting back to me when you have a science-based conclusion supported by data, instead of speculation supported by nonsense.
I simply don’t have time for such BS.
“It also shows that without this human influence, by the start of the Industrial Revolution, the planet would have likely been headed for another ice age.”
I’m curious, has anyone put forth a truly plausible mechanism that explains the “Ice Age”? And by plausible, I’m referring to evidence based.
We can’t control the weather? I thought only Star Trek and whales could do that?
Seems to me the modelers are just trying to come up with more reasons why their models didn’t work when they were doing hind casting… had to come up with some more excuses that it isn’t the model that’s bad… just that the data we are putting into it is bad.
“I noticed that methane concentrations started decreasing about 10,000 years ago and then reversed direction 5,000 years ago”
Which means that the earth must have been cooling even more since the end of the previous ice-age since the GHG level determine temperature, of course.
Funny how the evidence isn’t there for such a simple application of logic to GHG/temperature correlation!
Just as well we have models.
There is an interesting article about ice ages by Donald Rapp, on Judith Curry’s site…
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/08/beyond-milankovitch
R
So, essentially we’re talking puter models yet again! Sheesh!
I Think it is much more likely that a nearly infinite number of bugs and bacteria responding to natural cycles that are billions of years older than any nearly insignificant effect of hypothesized manmade farming cextrapolate the results they purport to extrapolate.
“Global warming induced by “Ancient Farmers” may have staved off ice-age” It must be true because computer models tells us so. Now that’s funny. LOL
In short, until we greatly increase our understanding of the workings of our closest star , our solar system and it’s history , and our galaxy , every single one of these hypothesis will have huge holes of uncertainty which preclude accurately predicting the Earth’s future climate .Predicting the future of any extremely complex chaotic system assumes knowledge of all variables influencing the system. Glaring assumptions inherent in all these models is 1) We understand how the energy output from the Sun ( and possibly the energy input into the Sun, yeah -we do not know it’s inner workings )in all it’s manifested forms, influences our Planet 2) the past energy input into the Earth has not varied to any large degree from what’s presently observed(if even understood) , and the future, with respect to these external forces, will not vary from the present. We should be humble , the predictive power of these models, for the foreseeable future , will remain very low .
That fact that this type of garbage gets published shows that “Peer Review” does not work and has been compromised. You write a paper about anything causing you want, and as long as you tie it to AGW you’ll get published. Absolute nonsense.
Possibly the authors would be happier if the earth was in a glaciation period? During the last one most of Canada and the northern part of the US were under 1/2 mile of ice. Would they like that better?
And another thing! The temperature data determined from ice cores at Antarctica and Greenland don’t correlate with atmospheric CO2. Over the last 6000 years CO2 went up but temperature went down.
If global warming were to stave off the next stage of glaciation, that would indeed be good news!
Maybe I missed something* but it appears to be “the models show this … the models show that …” Is there any actual measurement of anything in here or is this more of the “science can be done with computers” stuff** that implies the real world has no significance.
*If I missed the real world references it’s because I can only take so much of “it’s the models, stupid” before giving up because I know which side of the writing the stupid is on.
** avoiding more accurate but less objectionable words.
“The findings are based on a sophisticated climate model that compared our current geologic time period, called the Holocene, to a similar period 800,000 years ago. They show the earlier period, called MIS19, was already 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.3 C) cooler globally than the equivalent time in the Holocene, around the year 1850. ”
Models are useful. But models based on estimates, guesses, supposition, and proxies are just sophisticated guesses. They are not facts, and treating them as such is foolhardy at best.
There is nothing wrong with building castles in the clouds.
The trouble starts when you try to move in.
P. Dolan
Earth’s climate would have been much cooler today, says Stephen Vavrus, senior scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Climatic Research at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies Ancient roots of farming produced enough carbon dioxide and methane to influence the environment. ”
________________________________________________
Correct knowledge with wrong reasoning:
Not carbon dioxide and methane were the triggers, but the change of albedo from that of an ice ball to that of a green planet.