“Hunters in the Snow,” Peter Breugel, the Elder.
Droughts, wildfires, floods, storms: Climate change appears to be exacerbating these phenomena around the world. And in the United States, at least, preparations for the impact of global warming on our lives are paltry.
If history is any guide, however, these “natural” disasters may be just the beginning—at least, that’s the implication of a comprehensive new book by British historian Geoffrey Parker, “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century.” Behind a tumultuous and grueling series of revolutions, wars, and famines, which ultimately killed off a third of the human population, was a culprit, he writes: a period of global cooling known as the Little Ice Age. Extreme weather caused crop failures, which led to hunger, disease, and forced migrations, which in turn translated to political and social chaos.
The idea for “Global Crisis” first occurred to Parker nearly 40 years ago, when he heard a radio interview with solar physicist John A. Eddy, who had discovered that the reign of Louis XIV, from 1643 to 1715, coincided with a unique solar phenomenon: a lack of sunspots. (Scientists believe the lack of sunspots contributed to the Little Ice Age.) Eddy mentioned that this was particularly interesting because during this period “there were some wars, and some revolutions,” Parker recalls. “And I thought, yeah, some! That’s an understatement.”
In 1998, Parker began meticulously building a case that the strife and unusual climate conditions were connected, using both climate data—largely tree ring records—and historical archives, and eventually drawing from as many as 2,500 sources, according to one reviewer’s estimate. Parker, whose specialty is Western Europe, had to depend on translators—Chinese, Japanese, Russian—to compile his broad-ranging account. “If you’re trying to show nature as a protagonist,” he says, “it has to be global.”
While the book is set squarely in the 17th century, it’s intended as a cautionary tale. And it also offers a lesson about what seems to have worked: Parker finds that survival often hinged on the willingness of central government to take action, coercively or not. “Here’s the evidence,” Parker says, “that climate really does matter, and we need to prepare.”
‘If we don’t prepare, we will be like the 17th century. The only difference is that we have the resources to do something and they did not.’
Parker, who is the Andreas Dorpalen professor of European History at Ohio State University, spoke to Ideas from his home in Ohio.
IDEAS: You had a sense that there was a connection between climate change and this global crisis. Were you surprised by the extent of what you found?
PARKER: Yes. I was always afraid of drawing bull’s-eyes around bullet holes. That’s to say, you find something in the climatic record and it’s roughly equivalent to the human archive and you say, “Oh, wow, A must have caused B,” but then on closer inspection they don’t line up. But in this case…the two sources aligned perfectly….Once you find that, you want to find more.
IDEAS: The book details how rulers in a few areas enacted policies that limited the damage. But some of those measures were brutal and unfair and perhaps only possible in an authoritarian state.
PARKER: I’m going to disagree slightly with the second part, which is that only they could make those decisions. These rulers, particularly the Mughal emperors in India and the Tokugawa shogun in Japan, do indeed take executive action which is brutal, stifles opposition, which requires people to give up their freedoms. But they do, in return, provide protection and food. That option was also open to rulers elsewhere. The Chinese emperors, most of the European monarchs also had those powers; they chose not to use them or they used them to wage war….In return for survival, it was necessary to sacrifice liberty.
IDEAS: Can you share an example of how the cooling climate interacted with political and social realities to cause devastation?
PARKER: My favorite example occurs in Ireland on the 23d of October, 1641. There’s an uprising of Irish Catholics, particularly in Ulster, in Northern Ireland. The Catholics rise up against their Protestant neighbors. The Catholics on the whole are tenants, and the Protestants are landowners. And they rise up and they drive them out of their homes….
But the strange thing is, 1641 is the coldest year on record, and snow and ice falls almost immediately. Ireland never has snow in October. And if you read the aftermath of the rebellion, the Protestant survivors…overwhelmingly say they’ve survived in spite of the cruel cold. Twice as many of them say those who died died of the cold rather than because a Catholic killed them. So you could say that the Little Ice Age doubled if not more than doubled the casualties.
Why does that matter? Because it’s the scale of the killing that inspires the Protestants for revenge. Eight years later, Oliver Cromwell will arrive in Ireland, he will depopulate the areas with Catholics, send them beyond the Shannon River. There is a huge changeover of land ownership in Ireland that is the root of the problem in Ireland today.
IDEAS: People might read the book and say, “That was then, these things could never happen now.” What do you say to that?
PARKER: Let’s start with last [May], shall we, and the millennial floods in central Europe, for which there was very little preparation, so hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes and a number of people were killed. We could go back to Sandy, to Katrina. Natural catastrophes happen, and some countries prepare for them and some don’t.
We need to protect ourselves, and pay now to avoid paying much more later. If we don’t prepare, we will be like the 17th century. The only difference is that we have the resources to do something and they did not.
IDEAS: It seems making the necessary changes can take a long time. You write about how barriers on the Thames were first proposed after devastating floods in the 1700s, but they weren’t actually funded until 1972.
PARKER: Gradually, those opposed—shipping interests, local governments who said they can’t afford it—were overruled by the central government. It’s the Tokugawa solution. You have to accept a greater view of central government action….All over the countries of the world there is a fear of central government. It’s not unjustified. But when it comes to preparing for climate change, only big government has the resources to act in advance. That’s the dilemma we face.
IDEAS: How can history help us in terms of trying to ease resistance to central government actions?
PARKER: History is the best argument for being willing to concede a certain degree of our own autonomy for the greater good. That’s the problem with civil society, isn’t it? Hobbes and Locke both wrote about it in the 17th century, both get enshrined in the Constitution. The reason we have the Bill of Rights, the amendments, is because the Constitution was thought to give too much power to central government. But the more you look at history, the more you realize we’re in a slightly different situation with regard to the climate. The dilemma is, do we pay now to prepare or do we pay a whole lot more later to repair? It’s an individual choice. The decision in the US lies with the states. They have to accept a greater degree of intervention by the federal government.
For serious scientific researchers of unexplained aerial phenomenon, one thing that cannot be overlooked is the possibility–no, the likelihood–that certain phenomenon of a very natural variety can often account for the seemingly inexplicable. Time and time again I have been watching the sky on a clear, starry night, to look up and behold something that I felt may have been extraordinary at first glance, only to find out later that what I had been observing was not what it seemed.
At the site of amateur astronomer Adam Marsh, a number of different kinds of astronomical oddities are featured, ranging from parallel or “double” meteors flying together side by side, as well as the theory that electromagnetic propagation could cause the appearance of sound as a meteor passes through the sky. Other varieties of phenomenon include “Black Meteors,” believed to be a trick of light or possibly even eye fatigue, as well as “fuzzy” meteors and those that fly along kinked or otherwise irregular paths (the most similar, perhaps, to the “erratic” meteors Corliss describes). To review a listing of these different celestial phenomenon, you can visit Marsh’s page here.To reiterate something I mentioned earlier–and despite my persistent interest in reports of seemingly valid UFO phenomenon–I have on many occasions witnessed things that fascinated me in the night sky, some of which have appeared to remain inexplicable. I have never, on the other hand, managed to convince myself that these were truly “UFOs” in the sense that they were technologically controlled objects of some variety. Thinking back, I can recall seeing everything from the moon diffused through clouds and atmospheric phenomena, to double iridium flares and, yes, meteors behaving in an odd or inconsistent fashion.Had I ever seen anything that really stirred my curiosity enough for me to consider extraterrestrials, I might feel differently about the UFO phenomenon in general; but this is not to say that I base my entire perspective on the phenomenon solely on what I alone have experienced, or that I dismiss what others have seen out of hand either. Instead, I merely wonder if there aren’t varieties of natural phenomena that could account for strange instances of UAP. To assume that we know all there is to know about nature and the cosmos is the height of arrogance; but to leap to conclusions about the nature of unexplained phenomenon based on a lack of data is also a problem… and hence, we are left pondering what the real unknown quantities are in relation to UFO reports.
The Paranormal Corner 