What lessons from history's climate shifts?

 
Genoese map of the world, 1450 Modern Europe is a very different place from that of the 1400s - so what impacts would climate change have?

Earlier this week, the journal Proceeedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a study on climate change that is at the same time scary, comforting, insightful and a statement of the obvious.

To be more accurate, I should probably say that the paper is capable of being interpreted in all of those ways, rather than risk implying that the authors intended to do more than run the numbers and see what popped up.

What they're talking about is climate change in Europe, specifically between 1500 and 1800 AD - a period that encompasses the so-called Little Ice Age.

It also encompasses a period that historian Eric Hobsbawm dubbed the General Crisis, when Europe was beset by a number of wars, inflation, migration and population decline.

So did the cold cause the chaos?

The method employed by David Zhang from the University of Hong Kong and his colleagues was basically to look for a chain of causality in changes in things such as temperature, crop yield, migration, famine, and war.

Sun over icy river Warmth, cooling - the 1500s-1800s saw both

On the one hand, their top line conclusion, contained in the paper's title, brooks little argument: "Climate change is the ultimate cause of large-scale human crisis".

Breaking that down, the chain of causality flowed from temperature changes through alterations in biological productivity to the impacts that might make up a "crisis" - war, famine, pestilence, migration and population loss.

"We conclude that climate change was the ultimate cause of human crisis in pre-industrial societies," they write.

So let me work backwards through the list of possible interpretations that I mentioned at the top of this post.

First, a statement of the obvious perhaps, because clearly in a pre-industrial society if you have a drastic change in climate (such as the rains not falling for several years) it's going to have a dramatic impact.

On the other hand, it's an insightful piece of work, because it tracks the chain of causality in a way that hasn't been done previously (at least as far as I can see) - producing what I believe is usually termed a "fine-grained" picture of events.

Why might it be thought of as scary? Pretty obviously, because if computer model projections are correct, major climate changes are coming within decades.

They might not be especially marked within Europe compared with Africa and other parts of the tropics.

But in a way, that's also the scary bit; because as has often been noted before, countries with the least developed infrastructures are in general more likely to be facing the biggest impacts.

Flowchart It all starts with climate change...

Yet the word "development" may also give a dollop of comfort here and there.

And you can pick it up by looking at what's happening in Australia now.

As Jason Margolis from the BBC's The World co-production reports this week, the country is having to deal at the moment with a major drought, which could be here to stay - that bit's not certain, but a major regime shift to hotter and drier conditions is eminently possible.

The future is all to play for, but in Australia we are seeing indications of how a society can adapt to climate impacts - provided it has the wealth and infrastructure to do so.

One thing that I don't think can be considered comforting - though others may disagree - is that this PNAS analysis looked at a crisis caused by cooling, whereas in the near future it's warming to worry about.

As Australia among other countries shows, too little water as well as too much leads to trouble; and it surely matters not whether crop yields are cut by cold or heat.

The other big change since the 1600s is, of course, the number of people on the planet.

Dr Zhang's group notes that climatic shifts on the scale of a Little Ice Age would probably have had a small impact in North America because there was so much more land easily available for growing food.

With the human population set to top seven billion within a month or so, pushing up against the relatively small bits of forest and pristine nature we have left, that's a state of affairs that's been turned on its head the world over.

Follow Richard on Twitter

 
Richard Black, Environment correspondent Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 1.

    Yes as you say at the end Richard there's a very important difference between societies of the past and our highly advanced society today - lack of redundancy.

    About 2 yrs ago I did a brief work-up looking at nuclear winters.
    -My conclusion was that a 10 year nuclear winter like Krakatoa which the Victorians survived easily, could be truly disastrous today because our food webs lack redundancy.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 2.

    Imagine how insecure someone would feel if they lived in a small country of 61 million, already one of the most overcrowded in the world. Its government had always turned a blind eye to immigration because it supplied cheap labour and more consumers who drove up economic growth. Each year more farmland is paved over. As a rich country they will always be able to buy in more food won't they?

  • rate this
    -10

    Comment number 3.

    When all else fails, pull out 'national security' threats. The AGW Team uses the same extortion methods as the Military-Industrial Complex.

    This is only news for those ignorant of history. And climate change can contribute to conflict among species other than humans.

    But at least this new scare tactic recognizes that climate change is nothing new. Change is the only constant.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 4.

    Given the mad policies over the last 15 years to allow all our aging power stations to close and not be replaced but to build intermittent renewable objects like wind turbines, we won't be able to adapt to the ongoing cold winters without sufficient electricity. We will be like a third world country and millions will die of the cold and starvation.

  • rate this
    -7

    Comment number 5.

    Change is inevitable & often good. Embrace it.

 

Comments 5 of 65

 

This entry is now closed for comments

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.