Climate, weather event and Polish history

While, libertarian as I am, I feel the climate change lobby deserves shooting for inflicting nuclear power on us (Carbons? No thanks!!) I do wholeheartedly thank these poor demented fools for bringing climatic changes to the fore in the context of historical analysis.

My climate/history thesis is twofold:

(i) Inherent stresses in agrarian economies are exacerbated by a worsening climate for various reasons (discussed below), and
(ii) Extreme political events will happen EITHER: (a) immediately after an unexpected one-off event OR (ii) shortly after the lowest point of a long trend is reached.

Why are inherent stresses exacerbated by worsening climate / bad weather events?

Rulers run out of money. Rulers have problems wielding power over the food-producing (wealth-producing) magnates. War unites aggressor nations, but bad weather can create chaos in tactical terms for both sides. A worsening climate = greater chance of extreme political events: military, power re-distribution, religious turmoil.

According to pinus sylvestris tree ring records in the period 1430-1490 Poland had a relative climate advantage over much of Europe, i.e. earlier, warmer springs than it had been used to, while much of Europe suffered from generally cold years than it was used to. By this, I don't mean Poles were sunbathing in January - just that in relative terms their growing seasons were better than they were used to, while other regions had worse growing seasons that they were used to.

1430-1490 saw a resurgence in Polish political and military power. Possibly, the Jagiellonians' health improved too - Casimir IV, who lived slap-bang in the middle of this period, married much earlier and had a surviving child much earlier than the rest of them.

1450-55 saw a sharp, temporary downturn - leading to an uprising against the Teutonic Knights as the peasants went hungry.

Interestingly, the nosedive in temperatures in 1500-1510 was punctuated by the Nihil Novi Act of 1505, which passed more power to the barons.

1600-1651 was the Little Ice Age in Europe, caused by the lack of solar activity (that's what we're in at the moment too - expect temperatures to lower over the next 20 years). In England this led to the Civil War, as Parliament took advantage of an impoverished King Charles to make ever-increasing demands. Charlie Boy lost his head in 1649, 2 years before the climatic nadir was reached. In Scandinavia, the Swedes faced financial and religious turmoil. In 1654 they completely ran out of money and decided that war was the answer. As Poland's attentions were elsewhere, they invaded Poland/Lithuania and Poland ended up losing 1/3 of her population.

!830/1 saw a sudden fiercely cold snap in Polish weather. An uprising ensued as a hungry population could no longer stand sending food to Russia.

The 1930s saw mild winters, but 1941 and 1942 were bitterly cold. This compounded bad tactical planning by an incompetent German govt and resulted in Soviet domination of eastern Europe throughout all the cold decades between 1940 and 1980. 1980 was the high-point of Solidarity. Now, I am not saying that Wałęsa was caused by the weather (!!), but it was an added strain to a creaking structure. The collapse came in 1989 - after the end of the long cool period.

Taking a larger viewpoint: AD 400 temperatures (end of the Roman Empire) were only achieved again in the 1880s (heyday of European empires).

Climate change has always happened.

For more information, see Theodor Landscheidt (who successfully predicted major weather events - his admirers forecast this winter's bitter start back in July) and Rajmund Przybylak.

Two things, you are confusing climate with weather and you are saying that hungry people riot!!

Globally in the past decade a full nine years have been recorded as the the hottest on record. Climate change is real and the scientists who point this out are far from poor demented fools. However people who'd deny this because its cold where they are at the moment truly do deserve to be called fools.

What we need is technology to figure out solutions to these problems. We need more scientists and less economists. Brilliant minds should go into science and technology.

When climate change happens we simply adjust but we need the technology to do it. Perhaps we can grow superfoods indoors? There are alternative food sources which are abundant in the lithosphere, but considered repulsive in many cultures. We should stop being so picky. One day, we may need to consume such monstrosities, like June bugs, because of food shortages and rising prices. I dread the day that becomes a reality but might do it rather than go without.

Nope - absolutely no confusion between weather and climate, sorry Barney. I wrote about climate change and weather events. 2 separate things.

Hungry people in agrarian societies riot, Barney. You might have missed out the French Revolution in history. (It's that country to the right of England.)

Seeing as I wrote about climate change, how can I be a climate change denier? Ho, hum!

The climate change lobby have achieved in giving us nuclear! Ho, hum! Where's the environmentalism in that?

I was talking about history. Potop was caused by people, but climate change was a real and direct trigger.

The difference between climate and weather is both temporal and spatial. The average of weather makes climate. The period 1430-1490 is characterised by cool/icy winters, of course its possible that the springs were warmer when the growth was laid down but it would be interesting to see the paper. You mention climate and extreme events yet talk about extreme events in a localised context.

This idea has been around for a long time, on the face of it the idea seems sound yet you fail to mention all the other things that happened when the climate was different or the same. All you are saying is that hungry people riot.

The underlying tone that there is no evidence for human activity in influencing the climate is wrong and driven by an agenda. I googled yer man you mentioned and he was an astrologer, so I googled the dates you mentioned and they all correspond to so called significant astrological events.

There's lots of opposition to nuclear which is why we need something better, like super conductor technology and hydrogen based energy.
Govts are pushing for nuclear but that only creates waste.

Barney
Try reading my initial post. Obviously, I had to keep it short and needed to leave points undeveloped - it is a forum, not a history essay. I wrote about how people in extreme circumstances tend to react in extreme ways.

While absolutely all historians throughout time have noted how bad harvests have led to heightened political tensions at all levels, I made the point that there is a bigger picture to all this. typically, politicians have followed threads of political, social and economic development - I was followed the thread of climate change and one-off extreme weather events as being a trigger down the ages. It's not a surprising trigger, but one historians have generally lent too little weight to.

Landscheidt, by the way, have some wacky interest in astrology - but he was the only one to predict el Ninos, way back when people were not doing that sort of thing. He also said in 2004 that by 2010 AGW believers would be faced with a crisis of faith as the winters would start getting colder as solar cycle 24 would be a very inactive one characterised by very few sunspots.

He was right, NASA was wrong. Funny you should mention astrological events ... probably some sort of attempt to discredit him. Still, people see what they want.

Oh - 1430-1490 was generally much warmer (winter/spring), not cooler. Read more carefully.

Varsovian
You are suggesting that astral events have a disproportionate effect on human habitation, you also say that all historians note these events but give them too little weight. The reason for this lack of gravitas is that other earthly events don’t have “an astrological trigger”. You don’t think other factors may have more of an influence on events, are you seriously suggesting that the Nazis did what they did in the early 1940s because it was cold? The triggers for political events are as likely to be meteorological or climatologically as not. The entire thesis is based upon superstition that is why I believe it is wrong.

This whole perfectionist idea has been knocking about for a long time...a place for everything and everything in its place..a search for a biblical utopia that doesnt exist. There is a place in the rational world for neo Catastrophism (Geomorphology for example) but applying it here is just not correct. You need to separate out cause and effect.

Landscheidt, this guy is a perfect example of anything goes science, you take known phenomena and try to marry them. The rational behind this thought process was astrology.

Read more carefully!!

The latter half of the 15th Century was characterised by Icy winters it was the Little ice Age when we had two significant down turns in the 15th and 17th Centuries.

Barney
Good wind-up, you almost got me going for a while there - trying to make me believe you missed several points entirely and thought I based my theories on astral planes.

LIttle ice age - sorry - wikipedia will inform you when it was, I won't waste my time.

Your quip about the Nazis and the cold was a bit flaccid though - could do better ...

What does wiki say


Hmmmmm not sure

so another site


From The National Climatic Data Center In the US (ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/resource1000.html)
The same organisation has also started to archive global tree ring data, you can browse.

You said "Extreme political events will happen EITHER: (a) immediately after an unexpected one-off event OR (ii) shortly after the lowest point of a long trend is reached." This is clearly nonsense and is not backed by historical sources.

You dont like the word superstition lets use the term anecdotal evidence instead. Of course famine causes unrest as does changes in taxation or land use to give two examples. Do all other upheavals that occurred within a period of climatic stasis count, If not is it because they dont fit the description?

History doesnt have to be like science and trying to make it so betrays an agenda.

I think people on this thread can be forgiven for having to guess just what it is you do believe.

I think we can all agree that climate changes, that times of bad climate (usually cold in Europe) historically did create hardship and that hungry people riot etc. You have a theory that although all historians include climate as a factor they have, for some reason (you don't mention) not given it enough weight.

OK, good luck with your history theory, but for some reason you started the thread by labelling the climate change lobby poor demented fools and even calling for them to be shot for inflicting nuclear power on us.

Who are the climate change lobby? I presume you mean anyone who believes that current climate change might be man made.
Who is getting the nuclear power inflicted on them? China, India, South Korea, Russia? These are the places building significant numbers of nuclear reactors. Hardly the countries most likely to be pandering to a 'climate change lobby'?

The US creates the most nuclear power and France has over 50 reactors, I think, all built before any significant 'climate change lobby' existed.
You're probably talking about Poland, but again Poland has long had plans to build nuclear power not instigated by climate change. It wants to secure its energy independent of Russia.

Nuclear power is unpopular and and any politician is now going to say they are doing it to reduce Co2 emissions blah, blah, blah. But I just don't believe any government has yet been that green to do it for environmental reasons. In the UK environmentalists and the Lib Dems have only just come around to the idea of nuclear in the past year so where was this pressure to build nuclear coming from? I think it is just plain wrong to think that some climate change lobby has achieved this. The cold hard fact is that we really are going to need some energy from nuclear, and more besides.

Uważam Rze just printed an article on the effect of climate change on Polish history. As I said, an underexplored area of history in Poland - my original point and real agenda before the thread got sidetracked onto climate change belief/denial etc.

Global warming again proven to be a hoax.
Now another obstacle has surfaced with a report that European scientists have unveiled a new scientific model based on solar cycles that shows a "mini ice age" is on the way, due to decreased solar activity.

Poland can expect colder temperatures coming even though this coming Saturday will be close to 38C.
So, finally, can the dire predictions of life-destroying "climate change" and "global warming" be put to rest?
Doubtful.

There's no credible doubt that it's real and that it's man-made.

Yeah right. Nice excuse to give corporations more room to exploit the natural environment. This one ain't got no wings I'm afraid.


You really believe this debunks centuries of scientific evidence?

Thank you for your opinion jon however I will have to go with the scientists findings which says climate change is a hoax.
The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

This thread is about climate change and triggers in Polish history

Yes we've all seen that meme/article floating around social media Tori. Its certainly not an explanation worthy of carrying on emitting Co2 as business as usual...as much as vested interests may wish that to be the case.


The scientific evidence of which that finding is based no where near stacks up against the evidence proving that C02 is man made. Are you willing to potentially gamble billions of lives on it? are you willing to gamble the loss of massive proportions of all life on this planet on that article?


You got to be fcuking joking me.

Check the title of the thread

If we talked about fracking in Poland and that being a potential contribution to future climate change triggers, would that be OK Barney?

If its on topic then yes however as fracking is not an historical event it would be difficult.

You could start a thread about climate change if you wish.

pls whats the weather like right now in poland ,so that I can prepare for it against next year when coming for my masters program in any polish university

Let me introduce you to a wonderful invention called "Google"
Maybe you've not heard of it before.
But, you type out questions hit the Enter button and hey-feckin-presto, it searches this thing called "The Internet" for answers to your questions.

Click on this link to find out more :)
lmgtfy.com/?q=weather+in+poland

The historical variations that Varsovian mentioned in his first Post are neither here nor there - they don't tell us anything about man-made climate change either as an argument for it or against it.. A bad winter in the Fifteenth Century is simply an irrelevance. The real damage started much later and is continuing now.

You could justifiably talk about fracking in this thread if you believe it is simply exacerbating a process that already started in history - basically the industrial revolution as a whole. Not Varsovians examples which cover a period when there were simply too few humans to make any impact.That came later to Poland than the UK or most of the industrial regions of Germany which are much cleaner than they were. The thread title does say and history, rather than in history, too. Also, it's very hard to separate one issue from another here - the damage from the past is not being allowed to heal. Fracking however won't be happening much in Poland and doesn't contribute on its own to global warming. The way gas is used, yes, the way it's extracted, no.

There are still problems in Poland. In Katowice, there's been a century of damage for example. As for fracking, some is dirty and some is clean - it all depends on how near the reservoir is to the ground surface. Unfortunately in Poland (as in Southern England) it is mostly shallow.

The big baddie for climate change is the ethyl lead that the Americans poisoned the planet with for a century. This isn't a Poish thing however the air pollution round Warsaw is severe - they took the public display board outside DH Smyk away because the readings were usually off the scale. This is in part due to the (historical) push for industrialisation after the last war and partly due to (state owned) companies being above the law - just dumping industrial waste.

China and India are the problem now. A mushrooming population, massive industrial growth and using dirty fuels and tech. If anyone thinks that isn't relevant to Poland they're deluded. The man-made global warming that it causes (and has already caused) affects Poland too.

Some of Varsovian's examples are interesting, but as somebody just said, all they prove is that hungry people riot. The 'year without a summer' caused by Krakatoa brought governments down and there have been similar problems. There will be more. It just shows how vulnerable we are and how badly man-made climate change is damaging the earth - these examples from history are just a taste of what's to come.

My central point was that hungry people riot.