Maya civilization's collapse linked to climate change: study

Nov 9, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

For a clue to the possible impact of climate change on modern society, a study suggests a look back at the end of classic Maya civilization, which disintegrated into famine, war and collapse as a long-term wet weather pattern shifted to drought.

Comments
1 - 20 of 38 Comments Last updated Nov 17, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
responder

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Our civilization may currently be too big to be affected by the kind of regional changes in the same way the Maya were, perhaps, but their example is nonetheless a lesson to us.

When you ignore climate, when you do things which affect it and affect the soil and water, when you ignore warnings about changes and the conflicts they can bring, you put yourself at risk of widespread collapse. It would only take a few events acting in unison to bring on such a collapse even with our sophisticated, earth-wide civilization.

You can see with the storm which recently hit the East Coast how much devastation such events can cause in the short term. Reliant on our advanced infrastructure, we are reduced to panic when our power, water, and waste disposal systems start to break down.

Will today's humans eventually walk away from a collapsing civilization and go back to living agriculturally, in small villages? Hard to imagine, but then the Mayans may have thought so, too.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The collaspe of the Maya correlates with the Early Middle Ages or also known as the Dark Ages Cold Period. There was a cooling of global temperatures and drought.

The Maya's 12-21-12 prediction is that 'half the people will eat'. They were very good at astronomy, I have wondered if they could predict the upcoming solar minimum.

Solar physicists are predicting the current and following two solar cycles to be very low. Dalton Minimum style and recently more are saying Maunder Minimum levels.

NASA is predicting a 14 year cycle 24, with other predictions as long as 17 years. Cycle 24 may have already hit maximum and it's max has been very low.

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

Only three years into cycle 24, if it lasts 14 years, that's 11 years of reduced solar activity. if cycle 24 is long, then cycle 25 will be lower and longer. At least that's the pattern.

Cold temperatures have always caused more harm to human civilizations that warmer temperatures.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

fun farts wrote:
The Maya's 12-21-12 prediction.....
Maunder Minimum levels.
NASA is predicting a 14 year cycle 24....
Only three years into cycle 24, if it lasts 14 years, that's 11 years of reduced solar activity......
Many toxic topix AGW deniers say that scientists are religious gurus.
'fun farts' has his own gurus.

Many toxic topix AGW deniers complain about scientific 'ifs, ands or buts'.
'fun farts' has his own of what ifs.

Many toxic topix AGW deniers made a big deal out of the last solar minimum that was a 100 year record setter. However, no average Earth temperatures retreated to the average temperatures of 1909.
'fun farts' is now doubling down on his bet...... which he will also lose.
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 12, 2012
 
Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012. Professional Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture. Astronomers and other scientists have rejected the proposals as pseudoscience, stating that they conflict with simple astronomical observations and amount to "a distraction from more important science concerns, such as global warming and loss of biological diversity".
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012. Professional Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture. Astronomers and other scientists have rejected the proposals as pseudoscience, stating that they conflict with simple astronomical observations and amount to "a distraction from more important science concerns, such as global warming and loss of biological diversity".
All true. The prediction is 'half the people will eat'. Nothing about the end of the world, or any catatrophic event. Because they were an agricultural based society, I wonder if they had discovered the solar patterns and could predict the upcoming grand solar minimum.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Many toxic topix AGW deniers say that scientists are religious gurus.
'fun farts' has his own gurus.
Many toxic topix AGW deniers complain about scientific 'ifs, ands or buts'.
'fun farts' has his own of what ifs.
Many toxic topix AGW deniers made a big deal out of the last solar minimum that was a 100 year record setter. However, no average Earth temperatures retreated to the average temperatures of 1909.
'fun farts' is now doubling down on his bet...... which he will also lose.
Every solar cycle has a minimum and a maximum. That's not the same as a grand solar minimum that is predicted for the next 30 years.

The minimum you mention will have an impact on climate depending on how long it takes the water that was equatorial to circulate through the ocean system.

The sun either heats or does not heat the oceans. The oceans are the earth's climate makers. The oceans distribute the heat or lack of heat. The average impact of solar activity on climate is 10 years. That's why 2012 was determined to be the time period of noticiable change, ten years after 2002.

Because cycle 23 was long, cycle 24 will be longer and at a lower value. So far that's what we see. Cycle 24 compared to the last 3 cycles.

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

TSI data shows an increase for cycle 24 from the minimum, but still very low and it is now thought that cycle 24 has hit it's max.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data....
responder

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
The collaspe of the Maya correlates with the Early Middle Ages or also known as the Dark Ages Cold Period. There was a cooling of global temperatures and drought.
The Maya's 12-21-12 prediction is that 'half the people will eat'. They were very good at astronomy, I have wondered if they could predict the upcoming solar minimum.
Solar physicists are predicting the current and following two solar cycles to be very low. Dalton Minimum style and recently more are saying Maunder Minimum levels.
NASA is predicting a 14 year cycle 24, with other predictions as long as 17 years. Cycle 24 may have already hit maximum and it's max has been very low.
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html
Only three years into cycle 24, if it lasts 14 years, that's 11 years of reduced solar activity. if cycle 24 is long, then cycle 25 will be lower and longer. At least that's the pattern.
Cold temperatures have always caused more harm to human civilizations that warmer temperatures.
That cold period ended 200 years before Mayan civilization collapsed, unfortunately.

Where's that 'half the people will eat' prophecy thing coming from? Why are you obsessed with solar minimums and maximums, other than the obvious reasons a Denier would push that ahead of anthropogenic causes?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

responder wrote:
<quoted text>
That cold period ended 200 years before Mayan civilization collapsed, unfortunately.
Where's that 'half the people will eat' prophecy thing coming from? Why are you obsessed with solar minimums and maximums, other than the obvious reasons a Denier would push that ahead of anthropogenic causes?
The end of the Dark Ages Cold Period is at 900 to 950 CE. Also known as the Early Middle Ages. The Late Middle Ages has a start date of 950 CE and is also known as the Medieval Warm Period.

"half the people will eat" is the prophecy. There is no indication of any event in the prophecy other than the change in precession. The Maya dated precession with a specific alignment of the various entities in our galaxy. December 21 2012, is the end of winter precession and the beginning of spring precession in the Maya calendar.

Yes, I am pretty much 'obsessed' with solar activity. I realize that big orange/yellow ball in the sky is what heats this place up. Since we live in an ice age, I realize that our warmth is the exception to the rule. Since our interglacial is at 14,700 years with 10,000 to 20,000 years being the average, we could go back into glaciation at any time.

I also know that the largest extent of glaciation since the Younger Dryas, 10,500 years ago, happened during the Little Ice Age. In fact, villages from the MWP have been uncovered as the glaciers retreat. Don't forget many witches were burned at the stake to prevent the advancing glaciers from destroying towns during the LIA. Solar activity was in the tank. But man always finds a way to blame himself, or other men/women. It's really a bit arrogant, but it's how we're made.

The low activity (minimums) of the last half of the 20th century were higher than the max activity during the LIA. The same time period, the last half of the 20th century, had the highest recorded activity in the last 400 years and was in the top 10% of all activity, as determined by proxy studies, in the entire holocene.

http://www.google.com/imgres...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

fun farts wrote:
The minimum you mention will have an impact on climate depending on how long it takes the water that was equatorial to circulate through the ocean system.
'fun farts' still doubles down, that large solar minimums will cool the planet. That's why he uses sunspot numbers because the numbers are so radically different from minimum to maximum. However, what he really bets on, is 2 parts per thousand change in the total TSI solar cycle. All he talks about is a cycle, not the non-cyclical gathering of man-machine generated CO2 & other GHGs in the bio-sphere.

Like any worthless prophet, he is already in error, & now, puts his predictions too far down the road to do real soothsaying for the short tomorrow. Also, he has no science or mathematics background to produce a peer reviewed science paper, to oppose the thousands of AGW scientists, who have 10-16 years more science & mathematics training than he has.

'fun farts' is doubling down(after one fiasco). Those toxic topix AGW deniers who believe business, oil, coal & energy propaganda, better double down with him. Its the only way to save face..... or feel your faces smeered all off from the future warming Earth.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
'fun farts' still doubles down, that large solar minimums will cool the planet. That's why he uses sunspot numbers because the numbers are so radically different from minimum to maximum. However, what he really bets on, is 2 parts per thousand change in the total TSI solar cycle. All he talks about is a cycle, not the non-cyclical gathering of man-machine generated CO2 & other GHGs in the bio-sphere.
Like any worthless prophet, he is already in error, & now, puts his predictions too far down the road to do real soothsaying for the short tomorrow. Also, he has no science or mathematics background to produce a peer reviewed science paper, to oppose the thousands of AGW scientists, who have 10-16 years more science & mathematics training than he has.
'fun farts' is doubling down(after one fiasco). Those toxic topix AGW deniers who believe business, oil, coal & energy propaganda, better double down with him. Its the only way to save face..... or feel your faces smeered all off from the future warming Earth.
Actually, I think the minimums are already 'cooling the planet'.

What we see is the rate of warming has decreased.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...

Solar activity started to decrease after the max of cycle 23 in 2000. If as predicted, the minimum continues for this and the next two cycles, we should see cooling.

Here's your grand experiment. Will CO2 be able to prevent cooling? We will see, we don't have any choice but to watch.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

fun farts wrote:
I am pretty much 'obsessed' with solar activity.
But, he can't get astronomers to sign on to the idea that present Earth warming for the last 100 years is all due to the sun. & he can't get away from the fact that the Earth's average temperature would be about (-18degC) without GHGs that warm Earth to its present temperature..... which is rising because AGW non-phase change GHGs are rising in percentage.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
But, he can't get astronomers to sign on to the idea that present Earth warming for the last 100 years is all due to the sun. & he can't get away from the fact that the Earth's average temperature would be about (-18degC) without GHGs that warm Earth to its present temperature..... which is rising because AGW non-phase change GHGs are rising in percentage.
The sun heats or does not heat the oceans. The oceans make the climate, not the sun.

It does take a lot of study to get the layered impacts of the various climate systems into your head so that one variable is understood within the total process.

No one thing makes it rain. It takes the right combination of things to make rain. Same with temperatures.

We do know the sun is our primary source of energy. If we get less energy over a long enough period of time, we cool down. This is readily seen in the glacial/interglacial relationship. We are further from the sun during glacial periods than during interglacial periods.

But distance is not the only variable that determines how much energy we get from the sun. The sun's output changes over time and our earth's orientation to the sun also changes over time. In addition our magnetic field strength determines how much solar activity enters our system. And cloud cover determines how much of the insolation is sent back into space before getting to the oceans.

And when our oceans get the energy, they do many things with it. During high solar activity the positive phases of the ocean oscillations are enhanced. So El Ninos are more frequent and more impactful during high solar activity. When solar activity is low, La Ninas are more frequent and more impactful. Each phase, El Nino and La Nina produces it's own climate impact. When the arctic oscillation is positive it impacts glacier mass balance in Europe. And the NAO/Gulf Stream determines the weather of Europe.

Our sun's activity also determines how many cosmic rays enter our heliosphere. Higher solar activity expands our heliosphere and results in fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds; more cosmic rays, more clouds.

In this system it is not possible to blame or hold accountable any single factor as making 100% of anything. To do so demonstrates a lack of understanding of the system.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I think the minimums are already 'cooling the planet'.
What we see is the rate of warming has decreased.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/f...
Solar activity started to decrease after the max of cycle 23 in 2000. If as predicted, the minimum continues for this and the next two cycles, we should see cooling.
Here's your grand experiment. Will CO2 be able to prevent cooling? We will see, we don't have any choice but to watch.
The science says to expect new record highs within the next few years.

Then will you go away and piss your pants?

We can only hope you'll let the realists deal with the problem and give up your lies.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The science says to expect new record highs within the next few years.
Then will you go away and piss your pants?
We can only hope you'll let the realists deal with the problem and give up your lies.
We will see if CO2 can hold the temps up when solar energy is decreased. This is the 'experiment'. Embrace it, knowledge is accumulated from such occurences.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
We will see if CO2 can hold the temps up when solar energy is decreased.
It did: temperatures have continued to warm even in a period of decreased solar activity.
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

responder wrote:
<quoted text>
That cold period ended 200 years before Mayan civilization collapsed, unfortunately.
Where's that 'half the people will eat' prophecy thing coming from? Why are you obsessed with solar minimums and maximums, other than the obvious reasons a Denier would push that ahead of anthropogenic causes?
"Anthropogenic" one of the longest words in the English language. You made an improvement with the selection of your descriptive words without using useless babble tainted with hate. No thanks required.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It did: temperatures have continued to warm even in a period of decreased solar activity.
Our solar activity decreased beginning in 2002. The impacts are just now beginning to be observed. The average lag time in solar activity and climate impact is 10 years. The actual time is determined by ocean circulations. Some areas impact sooner some later depending on where they are in the circulation pattern.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our solar activity decreased beginning in 2002. The impacts are just now beginning to be observed. The average lag time in solar activity and climate impact is 10 years. The actual time is determined by ocean circulations. Some areas impact sooner some later depending on where they are in the circulation pattern.
You'll have a hard time explaining record temperatures over the next few years then.

The lag is actually only a couple of months.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fa...
responder

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The end of the Dark Ages Cold Period is at 900 to 950 CE. Also known as the Early Middle Ages. The Late Middle Ages has a start date of 950 CE and is also known as the Medieval Warm Period.
"half the people will eat" is the prophecy. There is no indication of any event in the prophecy other than the change in precession. The Maya dated precession with a specific alignment of the various entities in our galaxy. December 21 2012, is the end of winter precession and the beginning of spring precession in the Maya calendar.
Yes, I am pretty much 'obsessed' with solar activity. I realize that big orange/yellow ball in the sky is what heats this place up. Since we live in an ice age, I realize that our warmth is the exception to the rule. Since our interglacial is at 14,700 years with 10,000 to 20,000 years being the average, we could go back into glaciation at any time.
I also know that the largest extent of glaciation since the Younger Dryas, 10,500 years ago, happened during the Little Ice Age. In fact, villages from the MWP have been uncovered as the glaciers retreat. Don't forget many witches were burned at the stake to prevent the advancing glaciers from destroying towns during the LIA. Solar activity was in the tank. But man always finds a way to blame himself, or other men/women. It's really a bit arrogant, but it's how we're made.
The low activity (minimums) of the last half of the 20th century were higher than the max activity during the LIA. The same time period, the last half of the 20th century, had the highest recorded activity in the last 400 years and was in the top 10% of all activity, as determined by proxy studies, in the entire holocene.
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Funny: I saw the Dark Ages Cold Period listed 300-700 CE. Looks like the droughts were starting about the time the Cold Period was ending, at least in Europe. Wouldn't a WARM period more likely lead to droughts, too?

And aren't you supposing a lot about what's going on in an industrial world based on what happened in a far more sparsely-populated, PRE-industrial world? Does huamn activity even factor in to your beliefs?

Many local droughts and climate change periods have occurred all over the world throughout human civilization. They're not particularly relevant to whether humans cause warming or not.
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

responder wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny: I saw the Dark Ages Cold Period listed 300-700 CE. Looks like the droughts were starting about the time the Cold Period was ending, at least in Europe. Wouldn't a WARM period more likely lead to droughts, too?
And aren't you supposing a lot about what's going on in an industrial world based on what happened in a far more sparsely-populated, PRE-industrial world? Does huamn activity even factor in to your beliefs?
Many local droughts and climate change periods have occurred all over the world throughout human civilization. They're not particularly relevant to whether humans cause warming or not.
So your answer is pointless. You can't tell all you suppose. You answer a question with a question. Do you need to see your name posted?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 13 min Cheech the Conser... 255,590
Global warming risks being irreversible, draft ... 45 min Jim the Hoax Denier 3
Study Shows Ethanol Produces Worse 'Global Warm... Aug 23 Brian_G 16
Faith Groups Divest From Fossil Fuels Aug 22 litesong 4
Declining Relative Humidity Is Defying Global W... Aug 22 litesong 9
How Will Latino Voters Change the Global Warmin... Aug 21 Jim the Hoax Denier 4
UM study warns of health impacts from fracking Aug 21 FatLadyMe 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Environment People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••