Climate change in history

Past and present. You can't make this stuff up.
Post Reply
User avatar
Apollonius
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Climate change in history

Post by Apollonius »

Over the last few weeks I've been reading two books in which descriptions of climate change and its effects on human history are covered in incredible detail.




Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century by Geoffrey Parker (Yale University Press, 2013) is largely the story of humankind's reaction to the 'Little Ice Age', which peaked in the seventeenth century.

The direct effects were mainly on agriculture, with poor harvests leading to famine, plague, riots and repression, and war.

The deteriorating climate even affected tropical areas. For example, in Africa the Sahara, Sahel, savanna, dry woodland, and tropical rain forest belts all moved a couple hundred miles south as the areas formerly suitable for some form of agriculture, or at least pastoralism, suffered repeated drought. Naturally, people were forced to move too. The Sahel region, which had been prosperous in the late middle ages, declined. Many of the migrants ended up in the orbit of the newly emergent African kingdoms along the coast whose power was based on the expanding transatlantic slave trade, and naturally, not a few got caught up in that.


Northern areas didn't just suffer from cold. London, Moscow, Istanbul, Edo, and many other cities all suffered catastrophic fires, inflamed at least in part from drought conditions.




The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World by Cyprian Broodbank (Oxford University Press, 2013) covers a much longer time-period, and therefore includes descriptions of large swings in climate.

As background, the author reminds us that the last Ice Age lasted for a long time. There were major fluctuations in climate though, especially as we pulled out of the Pleistocene. The warmest period since more than 100,000 years ago was immediately after the 1,100 year-long Younger Dryas, when, in about 10,700 BC, after more than two thousand years of melting, ice age conditions returned. The subsequent warming period saw average temperatures about 2 degrees celsius warmer than at present. This was followed by the so-called '6200 event', another cold snap, this one lasting only 200 years. Both of these reversals were produced by large scale iceberg calving in the North Atlantic, accompanied in each case by an enormous and sudden rush of cold water draining from post-glacial lakes in North America and northern Eurasia.

The end of the Younger Dryas reinstated sea level rise, with a peak rate of 2.3-4.0 cm (0.9-1.6 in.) per year, or up to 4 m (13 ft) a century, at about 7500 BC. The sea still stood 55 m (180 ft) below its present level in 9600 BC; by 8000 BC it lay at -35 m (-115 ft), at which stage most coastal outlines resembled today's, and by 5500 BC at only -10 m (-50 ft), after which the rate of rise petered out to reach approximately current levels a millennium and a half later.


... Encroachment on the remnants of glacial plains was largely over by 8000-7000 BC, bringing the sea in certain areas right back to the feet of the mountain façade. The generation of islands from land hitherto joined to the mainland continued for longer -- even the British Isles only became such again around 6200 BC.
User avatar
Apollonius
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by Apollonius »

Someone at the BBC has been reading the same book that I have:



A Point of View: Here comes the flood
- Sarah Dunant, BBC News, 21 March 2014
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26671041
Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the 17th Century, by the British historian Geoffrey Parker, is a stonking work of scholarship. Erudite and exhaustively researched - the book weighs as much as a small sandbag - it amasses and analyses vast amounts of global data, from first-hand accounts to archaeological remains, to Stradivarius violins made from trees grown in this period where the rings show the impact of shorter growing seasons. Parker's argument is that while climate was not the sole cause of global crisis it was a powerful trigger. While communities might survive one failed harvest, two or more in a row threatened famine, which in turn could unleash pestilence and plague and massive social disruption. Rulers, backed by the concept of divine right, cared less about their subjects suffering than pursuing their own ambitions through wars and the taxes that financed them. When life became unbearable, as it did, there were revolts and rebellions.


Includes a good reproduction of a painting showing how the Thames would freeze over so solid that they held street fairs on it in the mid-seventeenth century, the height of the Little Ice Age.


The book is Braudelian in scope, with masses of economic and socio-demographic data for the entire planet, not just one country or continent.


I suppose my biggest criticism is that the author tries too hard to find an explanation for every disaster in terms of climate conditions. It's not that I disagree that this is important, just that it isn't always the biggest factor. Sometimes a bad personality can do as much damage as a bad winter.

And there is no comic relief in this book. It's one massacre or famine or plague after another. It gets to be a bit draining after a while.




On the up side, once you've read this book, almost no matter how miserable your circumstances, you'll be happy to be living now and not then.
noddy
Posts: 11335
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by noddy »

And there is no comic relief in this book. It's one massacre or famine or plague after another. It gets to be a bit draining after a while.
thats the usual problem with history, the outbreaks of peace are boring and skipped over - its much like our news on those levels.

it is good that climate change without human causation is being talked about, might add a sprinkling of sanity to the current pseudo religious political power grabs.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6191
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Climate change in history

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

noddy wrote:
And there is no comic relief in this book. It's one massacre or famine or plague after another. It gets to be a bit draining after a while.
thats the usual problem with history, the outbreaks of peace are boring and skipped over - its much like our news on those levels.

it is good that climate change without human causation is being talked about, might add a sprinkling of sanity to the current pseudo religious political power grabs.
Religious power is always sublimated to political/human causation. An extended hand is not always a "power grab".
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
noddy
Posts: 11335
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by noddy »

Nonc Hilaire wrote: An extended hand is not always a "power grab".
you can call it whatever you wish - happyness fairies of eternal wonder sounds nice.

for me, when they want extra control and more money from every component of my life from my transport to my housing to diet and then give all those extra taxes to well connected industries - ill call it a power grab.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8421
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Please correct me here; but have we gotten to a point, or we are nearing a point, where we will be able to start to engineer our climate on a large scale? Isn't this what why this has become such a topic of interest? You have governments and VIPs telling us we have the ability to warp our climates, and so the various VIPs on centrally planned committees should have full power to regulate and dictate these changes?

Apollonius criticizes the author for trying to tie climate into every disaster; wouldn't that suggest that the zeitgeist of the moment is to encourage a human response to every nimbus?

Maybe I'm out on a limb on this one; Apollonius, did either book get into the psychology of men experiencing these periods of change?
User avatar
Apollonius
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by Apollonius »

Thanks for your reply, NapLajoieonSteroids!



Broodbank's book deals mainly in prehistory, so we don't have much to go on about people's attitudes towards natural disasters. Although in most cases likely to be only dimly aware of it, if at all, humans have had a major effect on environments since at least the Neolithic, when large-scale slash-and-burn agriculture was bound to have consequences for landscapes and perhaps even the atmosphere. The typically 'Mediterranean' vegetation cover for the basin, for example, is recent:

Major environmental changes played out across the Mediterranean basin during the 4th and 3rth millennia BC. Some of the first hints came from shifts among dominant plant communities: at the risk of over-simplification, from deciduous trees and lowland woods to greatly reduced, typcially dry-leaf or coniferous tree cover and the spread of tough, often thorny, scrub (prickly oak, wild olive, pistachio and other hardy plants), interspersed with low, herb-rich growth, open savannah sparsely dotted with trees, or steppe, blending into semi- or full desert in the driest areas. In a theatre as varied as the Mediterranean, such shifts were neither simultaneous nor uniform in incidence and degree. Manly thinly soiled limestone uplands had long been cloaked with nothing more than scrub, while in certain relatively well-watered areas, including rain-snaring mountain ranges, the broadleaf woods survived in strength until Roman or later times, and sometimes are still with us. Thousands more years were neeeded to create in full the remarkable ecology seen there today, but individually signficant details cannot mask a fundamental truth: the 'long' 3rd millennium's transition denotes the end of the earlier Holocene Mediterranean, and the emergence of a familiar regime, ancestral to that of modern times.

One school of thought hold that the triggers of this momentous change were primarily anthropogenic and signifiy the stage at which Mediterranean people's impact first becomes widely detectable, as communities expanded out of their intial farming zones to clear and exploit more of the landscape. There is definitely some truth to this. Broadleaf oaks grow best on the same soils that farmers sought to cultivate, and the reduction of their woodland was accordingly only a matter of time. Traces in certain areas of growing soil erosion and more frequent fires accompanying the vegetational changes are themselves causally ambiguous, but today, at least, it is a combination of freshly exposed, sun-parched earth (burnt, bulldozed, ploughed up or overgrzed - though the last less than the goat's many detractors would have us believe) and violent summer rainstorms that results in the worst soil loss. ...


[...]


It would be naive to identify climate as the sole cause of the extraordinary social changes we shall witness in this chapter; several are of wider incidence than the Mediterranean, or originate beyond it, others were rooted in a deeper past, and, last but not least, we need to distinguish between meteorological statistics, the complexity of real-world environments, and people's engagement with both. But equally, climate change has too long been the missing element in our understanding of what happend in the Medtierranean over the 'long' 3rd millennium, and it is high time we asked how the environmental mediterraneanization it engendered meshed with other currents to reshape life throughout the basin.


-- Cyprian Broodbank, The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World (Oxford University Press, 2013)




Parker's book can offer more written testimony and it does include many statements by contemporaries observers who remarked on the exceptionally cold and/or dry conditions prevalent during the seventeenth century. In Europe, certainly, most people related the ongoing disasters to the Wrath of God. In China, similarly, it was a failure of the Mandate of Heaven. So yes, in essence, these people thought cold, drought, famine, plague, and war were caused by an impious people.



Personally, I don't see why there is even a debate about at least some human agency in climate change. Even Biblical literalists appreciate that: look at the passages about the Flood. Religious people and secularists even agree about the cause: selfish and destructive humans.
noddy
Posts: 11335
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by noddy »

is the tendancy for humans to put themselves at the centre of the universe really a good argument for human caused climate change ?

it pushes me in the other direction.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Climate change in history

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:is the tendancy for humans to put themselves at the centre of the universe really a good argument for human caused climate change ?
Well, yeah. I can't think of a better argument! Indisputable, actually...

noddy wrote: it pushes me in the other direction.
You should focus more on your soul-lip-schtick and let the smart people deal with this one.
noddy
Posts: 11335
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:is the tendancy for humans to put themselves at the centre of the universe really a good argument for human caused climate change ?
Well, yeah. I can't think of a better argument! Indisputable, actually...

noddy wrote: it pushes me in the other direction.
You should focus more on your soul-lip-schtick and let the smart people deal with this one.
im only bitter n twisted about not being in the inner circle and collecting the centre of the universe taxes.

this will change when my enviro-undies get released and i can corner the market in personal emissions monitoring
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Climate change in history

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
im only bitter n twisted about not being in the inner circle and collecting the centre of the universe taxes.

this will change when my enviro-undies get released and i can corner the market in personal emissions monitoring
now yer talkin!

Turning self-pity and bitterness into malice and avarice is only a matter of perspective. Some call it career path planning!

When life hand you lemons, get a gun and make the other people buy your lemonade! :)

For the southern US market, I would recommend camo style, with sound amplification, and methane sensing auto ignition!
For the northern US market, I would recommend Kim Kardashian as your model/spokes babe and make sure the word green in on the label.

Hell, you'll probably get rich just off the Roo market alone!
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8421
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Apollonius wrote:Personally, I don't see why there is even a debate about at least some human agency in climate change. Even Biblical literalists appreciate that: look at the passages about the Flood. Religious people and secularists even agree about the cause: selfish and destructive humans.
My comment was directed at your biggest criticism of Geoffrey Parker's book. You say, "I suppose my biggest criticism is that the author tries too hard to find an explanation for every disaster in terms of climate conditions. It's not that I disagree that this is important, just that it isn't always the biggest factor. Sometimes a bad personality can do as much damage as a bad winter."

I suggest such reductionism is the effect of a paradigm shift where climate (always a human problem) is viewed as another artifact for humans to develop. It reminded me of this passage in "The Coming Insurrection":

"There is no environmental catastrophe. The catastrophe is the environment itself. The environment is what’s left to man after he’s lost everything. Those who live in a neighbourhood, a street, a valley, a war zone, a workshop – they don’t have an "environment"; they move through a world peopled by presences, dangers, friends, enemies, moments of life and death, all kinds of beings. Such a world has its own consistency, which varies according to the intensity and quality of the ties attaching us to all of these beings, to all of these places. It’s only us, the children of the final dispossession, exiles of the final hour – the ones who come into the world in concrete cubes, pick our fruits at the supermarket, and watch for an echo of the world on television – only we get to have an environment...What has congealed as an environment is a relationship to the world based on management, which is to say, on estrangement. A relationship to the world wherein we’re not made up just as much of the rustling trees, the smell of frying oil in the building, running water, the hubbub of schoolrooms, the mugginess of summer evenings. A relationship to the world where there is me and then my environment, surrounding me but never really constituting me. We have become neighbours in a planetary co-op owners’ board meeting. It’s difficult to imagine a more complete hell."

This is where the two parties of the debate (if you want to call it that) have their fault lines.

Either our climate is something we can manage (now) and engineer (in the near future) or it isn't; and how you answer has deeper metaphysical conceits going unaddressed.
User avatar
Apollonius
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Re: Climate change in history

Post by Apollonius »

There is frequent talk about developing a space program which will enable humans to leave planet earth and spread throughout the galaxy, an idea I support.

I tend to think that humans have the capacity to turn the whole earth into a sort of ark. However, whether we will do so is something I just don't know.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Asteroid Powered Earth Moving Ark......

Post by monster_gardener »

Apollonius wrote:There is frequent talk about developing a space program which will enable humans to leave planet earth and spread throughout the galaxy, an idea I support.

I tend to think that humans have the capacity to turn the whole earth into a sort of ark. However, whether we will do so is something I just don't know.
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Apollonius.
There is frequent talk about developing a space program which will enable humans to leave planet earth and spread throughout the galaxy, an idea I support.
SECONDED!
I tend to think that humans have the capacity to turn the whole earth into a sort of ark.
I believe we can if we are willing....

And from what I have read it will likely be necessary...

Unless a Higher Power intervenes...**

According to current theory as the Sun ages, it brightens... IIRC ~30% since its birth.... Eventually going off the Main Sequence..... Becoming a sub giant and eventually a Red Giant star*.....

Various processes such as the loss of greenhouse gases as part of the Oxygen Catastrophe are said to have kept the Earth habitable for life so far.....

Sometimes just barely as with the Snowball/Slushball Earth when it nearly froze solid as part of the Oxygen Catastrophe....

Eventually though. the increased light & heat from the Sun will become too much if Earth remains at its present distance.....

But if we have a robust & diligent space program we can move the Earth outward in its orbit by passing asteroid(s) in front of the Earth in its orbit and thus pulling the Earth into an orbit a little further out from the Sun with each pass....

Naturally you have to be DILIGENT to make sure that the asteroid(s) do not hit the Earth like Dinosaur Killer did.. :shock:

And there will eventually be complications such as when the Earth's orbit gets closer to Mars...

Will have to move Mars too.....

But IMVHO it could be doable.....

*Before it gets even more problematic......

** G_d, the Culture etc....
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Post Reply