Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
Funny how the Romans added lead to wine for flavor. How nutty, literally. America is going nutty with sugar, there’s even sugar added to fast food salt. Why don’t kids pay attention in class in the morning? They’re full of breakfast sugar! Why so much road rage? Likely from people being wacked out on sugar.
Anyway, back to the topic, I find it hard to believe that cooling made Rome fall. I suppose Romans in England moved back to Rome because of the cold. Rome fell because of an all-of-the-above, not from one factor. It got to the point where they couldn’t even stop the Barbarians. That’s how rotted Rome became. If cold makes an empire fall why didn’t it weaken the Barbarians too? Rome took things for granted more and more and ended up getting knocked off the hill.
Actually, the fall of the Roman empire and civilization is a myth/substandard education. Only the Western portion of the empire was dragged down. The eastern roman empire persisted for another thousand years thanks very much. We just call it the Byzantine Empire but THEY still called themselves the Roman Empire until the bitter end.
We largely have the eastern portion of the Roman empire to thank for our continuing legacy of western civilization.
Abuse of Fiat currency bought down the Roman empire.
and btw a little eruption of Krakatau around 535AD might have had something to contribute.
“Krakatau around 535AD”
Doubtful
# Sack of Rome (387 BC) – Rome is sacked by the Gauls after the Battle of the Allia
# Sack of Rome (410) – Rome is sacked by Alaric, King of the Visigoths
# Sack of Rome (455) – Rome is sacked by Geiseric, King of the Vandals
# Sack of Rome (546) – Rome is sacked and depopulated by Totila
sweet a pet “fall of rome” theory thread
the “fall of rome” was obviously caused by overcentralisation of power and money in the hands of the cleptocratic class.
i like how the authors of the article above attributed it to both the excessive wet and dry conditions caused by climate change…
All of this is very interesting. The Roman Empire is a favorite subject of mine. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire (western as Bob points out) took quit a while, and the causes are many. Its hard to see how some would say Christianity caused it, just look to the east and see how well Constantine and Justinian did with the Eastern or Byzantine Empire. Beano certainly has a point with the fiat currency. Use of foreigners to wage war probably didn’t help much, either. A growing culture or society will adapt to small changes in climate as witnessed throughout history.
But, to my point, it may be that the climate described in the article would be too much for any culture. Once again, the warmcold phenomenon as struck! But with an ironic twist. Obviously, while warmcold wasn’t specifically mentioned in the article, the inference is too blunt to miss. In fact, warmcold’s product is seen as drywet!
…a period of political and economic unrest that inaugurated the empire’s slow decline — coincided with “distinct drying” recorded in tree rings, which may have rendered European agriculture less productive. Not just that — the appearance of the Plague in Western Europe correlates with a wet period, which may have provided conditions favorable for spreading the disease.
Someone should thank Wapo for this acute observation. I would, but I’ve too much to drink and am tired.
Have fun guys! En la manana.-
I assumed the plague referred to was the Black Death but might be wrong. The Black Death certainly came at a time when the climate turned wet and cold.
I don’t think that’s what they were referring to, because the Black Death occurred towards the end of the dark ages. I suppose it would work if they are speaking as if the fall of the Roman Empire was a singular event starting circa 350 A.D. and ending over 1000 years later with Fall of Constantinople. There was a plague called the Justinian plague which affected the Eastern Empire, but as noted, the Eastern Empire lasted until the 15th century.
There have always been floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and coldwaves. Climates in the same places have shifted many times to very warm and very cold.
Weather and climate are always changing, sometimes not in a benevolent fashion, regardless of man’s involvement. So get used to it!!
Yes, yes, but not the DREADED DRYWET !!
T’was the drywet that put paid to the roman empire /sarc
Or the warmcold.
I haven’t worked it all out yet, but I’m pretty sure the drywet was caused by the warmcold. Which plunged the western world into societal collapse. See, historical precedence for all of the apocalyptic prognostications we read about today! All because of the dreaded warmcold that we now see was accompanied by drywet!
Back in the days, climate science was not politics and people could think. That’s why it was commonly thought that a drying of central Asia in the second or third century AD forced the nomadic Huns towards the West, and in a domino chain the slightly-less nomadic Germanic tribes into the Empire. The western Empire fell (fizzled out) because of the Sarmatic Plain, the Eastern portion saved by the Balkans
As for the Science piece, it not science as the author felt compelled to talk about present-time politics in the abstract of all places. These are people with a mission and their statements as convincing as a Pope addressing an atheist conference
I think you will find that it is GOOD times that make populations expand their range, not bad times.
The Vikings or American expansionism are classic examples. More population than the current territory can handle means the young of the species seek new territory in which to live. Population biology reductionism !
I wrote about this at my site. Der Spiegel had a different take: cold times are bad times, warm times are good.
I agree. History shows us mankind thrives better in warm.
I was disappointed by this paper. Lots of conclusions from not much data.
I’d like to think that we actually knew what the climate was like in Europe during the Empire, but it seems we don’t.