from the we-can-not-allow-a-precipitation-gap dept.
Papas Fritas writes:
"Everyone knows that Genghis Khan was a ruthless conqueror who founded the Mongolian Empire, which eventually became the largest contiguous empire in history. The Mongolian domination of massive swaths of territory, some researchers now say, may had been aided in part by climate change. Recent research has revealed that Central Asia's steppe shifted from drought conditions to a warm, wet climate that coincided with and possibly aided the Great Khan's expansionist campaigns.
The study, which has been published (Subscription required) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, details that when Genghis Khan united the Mongols, he did so during an extremely dry period marked by drought. Thereafter, an incredible period of wet, warm climate change began, aiding the swelling of Khan's empire in Asia. 'What makes our new record distinctive is that we can see 15 straight years of above-average moisture,' the lead researcher explained to National Geographic. 'It falls during an important period in Mongol history and is singular in terms of persistently wet conditions.'
One of the keys to Genghis Khan's military strategy was mobility, both in travel and battle. The Mongols were nomadic, so they relied on the natural ecosystem, rather than agriculture, to survive. They were heavily dependent on livestock and horses for sustenance. 'The transition from extreme drought to extreme moisture right then strongly suggests that climate played a role in human events," expained co-author Amy Hessel. "It wasn't the only thing, but it must have created the ideal conditions for a charismatic leader to emerge out of the chaos, develop an army and concentrate power. Where it's arid, unusual moisture creates unusual plant productivity, and that translates into horsepower. Genghis was literally able to ride that wave.'"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:48PM
I know TFA uses the phrase "climate change" so I can't blame submitter for doing the same. But we're talking about climate "change" over a 15-year period, which sounds to me a more like normal variability than what we usually mean when we use the words "climate change." So to preserve clarity of thinking, this is an apple, and the IPCC report is about oranges. I would not be surprised if the original paper, which I can't readily access, doesn't use the phrase "climate change" at all, and somewhere between the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and TFA [guardianlv.com] came a science reporter who somehow thought "drought == climate change" evaluates to true, and/or that using the words "climate change" is good way to get people to click on your headline.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:07PM
" that using the words "climate change" is good way to get people to click on your headline."
Sadly this would be the prevailing attitude these days (as a side note, I check on Slate.com now and then and they are becoming horrible and putting click-bait titles on what turns out to be banal articles. Even most of the comments are troll click bait).
I'd like to go high brow for a moment and think that the term "climate change" does not have the same meaning as our current disputed viewpoint. Reading the summary I noted that the context was more along the lines of, 'well, there was a drought, then the climate changed and now it was wet". With a 15 year window it it hard to say "the weather changed" for that occurs on a daily basis. However, the overall 'climate' changed for that period of time to such an extent that regions in Asia experienced significant differences from one period to the next.
What we call 'climate change'(CC) today is more attached to the general term Global Warming, but since that is such a hot button to push, CC becomes a safer way to express the overall condition of the planet. It was for me their way of saying in that region, the climate changed significantly to help KHANNNNNNNNNnnnnn while the overall planet just kept humming along like normal.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by bradley13 on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:04PM
Well, yes, but I find it entirely appropriate. The one certain thing about climate is that it does change. The current hysteria about "climate change" is so over-the-top that it's not even possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
By pointing out that climate changes that it has changed in the past and will change in the future - perhaps one can place the current change in climate in perspective and have more intelligent discussions about it.
Of course, even this carefully oblique reference to alternative points of view is likely to get me modded "troll" or "flamebait"...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Funny) by similar_name on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:35PM
Yes, and it also makes the khans spread. I wasn't worried about west nile or malaria, but we don't need khans everywhere.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:13PM
I bet it was as simple as "a change in climate" being reworded into "climate change" for all the obvious reasons that you state.
They mean very different things scientifically, but one of them is now a more or less a noun that has preceded many a heated argument.
It's the arguments that are profitable. Not a intellectually stimulating proposal of why Khan's success was due to a fortunate shift in weather.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:25PM
Speaking of intellectually stimulating, your turn of phrase made me wonder: was the fortunate shift in weather a happy coincidence that helped the Great Khan's campaigns, or did it create an opportunity that he was able to perceive and exploit?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 5, Funny) by JeanCroix on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:34PM
Or did he get his hands on a Genesis device and create the change himself?
I just derailed the whole intellectually stimulating aspect, didn't I...
(Score: 1) by dast on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:38PM
You sure did. ;)
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:12PM
Probably happy coincidence. That level of perception may have required knowledge of weather patterns far outside of his area. If we really think he was that smart he would have still needed the information to contrast the two different states of weather and come to the conclusion that it could be exploited.
I'm not sure he had that much historical and current information available to him when he first started out.
More likely he continued to press forward while conditions remained favorable, of which they did.
In retrospect he may have come to the same conclusion we did, but just thought it was mildly interesting or that the gods favored him above others.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:06PM
It was part of the deal he made with the devil.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Funny) by dotdotdot on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:51PM
I think it takes a certain amount of skill and creativity to write (good/funny/ironic)click bait headlines. This might be sacrilege to some, but maybe SN could replace the "from the ... dept." tag under each title to a humorous click bait alternative.
If you can't beat 'em, meme 'em!
Obligatory. [xkcd.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:20PM
Until Soylent actually starts writing the articles, we will have to suffer click-bait and sensationalist headlines.
All the news outlets do it now without even a hint of shame. I visit CNN and about 1/10th of the article titles are notorious click-bait. Confusing people's names with celebrities, and in general, just really pathetic reaches to associate an article with anything that is trending. There is probably a rule someplace about how they have to check their $10,000 platform that incorporates analytics from FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. to see what they can associate it with to achieve maximum 'relevance'.
That wouldn't bother me so much if the articles were well written. Journalism and reporting, even scientific reporting, is in the toilet.
That has nothing to do with Soylent.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:43PM
We don't write our own articles, but we do write our own headlines and summaries. The only things that prevents us from translating clickbait back into accurate, descriptive terms are the difficulty of doing it consistently, and lack of consensus about the importance/benefit of doing so. Both of those are surmountable.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14 2014, @06:57AM
Yep, I used a different title for SN for this story: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/03/10/192 9207 [soylentnews.org]
Compare "Gene Therapy Creates Immune T-cells in Humans"
with "Immune upgrade gives 'HIV shielding'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26451427 [bbc.com]
Should actually have been "Gene Therapy Creates HIV Immune T-cells in Humans". Hopefully I do better next time.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NezSez on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:55PM
Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (1998, pbs video 2005) was a best selling book about some ways climate, geography, and other variables affected human history.e l [wikipedia.org]e ties/dp/0393317552 [amazon.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Ste
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Soci
Those of you who found this article interesting can view the PBS info at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/guns-germs-and-stee l/ [topdocumentaryfilms.com]e l/ [topdocumentaryfilms.com]
and the full video at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/guns-germs-and-ste
and most of the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojU31yHDqiM [youtube.com]
No Sig to see here, move along, move along...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:06PM
Call me a curmudgeon if you like, but "literally" riding the wave of moisture would involve Genghis Khan putting his butt on the wet grass and being propelled along by some force as of yet unknown to science.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Sir Garlon on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:09PM
OK, you're a curmudgeon. But I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :-)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:44PM
Is the newsletter soyled with lint?
(Score: 1) by jimshatt on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:48PM
(Score: 0, Redundant) by SleazyRidr on Thursday March 13 2014, @08:13PM
I certainly hope that science (or anyone for that matter) doesn't know what goes on when I put my butt on some wet grass.
(Score: 1) by krishnoid on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:15PM
I literally [youtube.com] agree with you.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khakipuce on Friday March 14 2014, @11:10AM
"literally" was redefined by the OED last year to include the figurative meaning
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday March 14 2014, @11:53AM
Noooooooo! I am literally mismayed!
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by monster on Friday March 14 2014, @07:57AM
This comment was in the journal of this submission, but didn't get to the article. Just resposting it so people can see my point:
Just a thought: Exploitation of climate changes isn't inmediate, it usually requires some time to begin to matter. In this case, that wet period could indeed grow more vegetation that could sustain more livestock, but that extra livestock doesn't appear from thin air. It requires at least some years to grow more viable calfs which then have even more calfs and so on.
The way I think that wetter climate would have helped the Mongols would have been by allowing greater numbers of support animals to move, since there would be plenty of food for them anywhere they went.