Why does the 17th century crisis interest us again? Recent works of climate scientists have confirmed that the 17th century was the worst period of the Little Ice Age. However the 17th-century-crisis debate launched by Hobsbawm has considered climate factors in the discussion from the very beginning. Utterstroem and Ladurie are the central names in the birth process of climate history. Despite the long history of the climate historical perspective, the deterministic assumptions and methodological fallacies are deeply entrenched in the climate historiography and hardly corrected. The publication of the epic study of Geoffrey Parker, Global Crisis (2013), reminds us how important and timely to revisit the 17th-century-crisis in the 21th century when the climate crisis escalates everyday. However disaster-oriented narratives are still very dominant in the climate history writing including Parker’s Global Crisis . This paper will take the 17th-century-crisis as a window to discuss the problem of writing the history of the 17th century crisis from a climate historical perspective, and argue that the 17th century crisis can only be properly explained, when the socio-cultural diversity and transnational connectedness, not the regional climatic variation in the first place, are actively considered.