From the University of California, San Diego Press Release
A team of chemists from the U.S. and France has found compelling evidence of a previously undocumented large volcanic eruption that occurred exactly 200 years ago, in 1809.
The discovery, published online this week in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters, offers an explanation as to why the decade from 1810 to 1819 is regarded by scientists as the coldest on record for the past 500 years.
“We’ve never seen any evidence of this eruption in Greenland that corresponds to a simultaneous explosion recorded in Antarctica before in the glacial record,” said Mark Thiemens, Dean of the Division of Physical Sciences at UC San Diego and one of the co-authors of the study. “But if you look at the size of the signal we found in the ice cores, it had to be huge. It was bigger than the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which killed hundreds of people and affected climate around the world.”
 |
| Jihong Cole-Dai of South Dakota State U. headed the research team. Credit: South Dakota State U. |
Led by a chemist from South Dakota State University, the team of scientists made its discovery after analyzing chemicals in ice samples from Antarctica and Greenland in the Arctic, where the scientists visited and drilled ice cores three years ago. The year-by-year accumulation of snow in the polar ice sheets records what is going on in the atmosphere.
“We found large amount of volcanic sulfuric acid in the snow layers of 1809 and 1810 in both Greenland and Antarctica,” said professor Jihong Cole-Dai of SDSU’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, who was the lead author of the paper.
Joël Savarino of the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environment in Grenoble, France, and a former postdoctoral fellow at UC San Diego, was also part of the team.
Cole-Dai said climate records show that not only were 1816 — the so-called “year without a summer”— and the following years very cold, the entire decade from 1810 to 1819 was probably the coldest for at least the past 500 years.
 |
| The team drilled ice cores in Greenland’s ice sheet. Credit: Mark Thiemens, UCSD |
Scientists have long been aware that the massive and violent eruption in 1815 of an Indonesian volcano called Tambora, which killed more than 88,000 people in Indonesia, had caused the worldwide cold weather in 1816 and after. Volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect on the planet because they release sulfur gases into the atmosphere that form sulfuric acid aerosols that block sunlight. But the cold temperatures in the early part of the decade, before that eruption, suggest Tambora alone could not have caused the climatic changes of the decade.
“Our new evidence is that the volcanic sulfuric acid came down at the opposite poles at precisely the same time, and this means that the sulfate is from a single large eruption of a volcano in 1809,” Cole-Dai said. “The Tambora eruption and the undocumented 1809 eruption are together responsible for the unusually cold decade.”
Cole-Dai said the Tambora eruption was immense, sending about 100 million tons of sulfur gas into the atmosphere, but the ice core samples suggests the 1809 eruption was also very large — perhaps half the size of Tambora — and would also have cooled the earth for a few years. The researchers reason that, because the sulfuric acid is found in the ice from both polar regions, the eruption probably occurred in the tropics, as Tambora did, where wind patterns could carry volcanic material to the entire world, including both poles.
 |
| UCSD’s Mark Thiemens (upper left) pulls a cylinder in Greenland containing an ice core. Credit: UCSD |
Cole-Dai said the research specifically looked for and found a special indicator of sulfuric acid produced from the volcanic sulfur gas in the stratosphere.
The special indicator is an unusual make-up of sulfur isotopes in the volcanic sulfuric acid. Isotopes are different types of atoms of the same chemical element, each having a different number of neutrons (but the same number of protons). The unique sulfur isotope composition is like a fingerprint of volcanic material that has reached the stratosphere, said Cole-Dai.
The stratosphere is the second major layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, reaching from about six miles to about 30 miles above the Earth’s surface at moderate latitudes. To impact global climate, rather than local weather, the sulfur gas of a volcanic eruption has to reach up into the stratosphere and once there, be spread around the globe.
“The way in which that these volcanoes affected the average temperatures of our planet gives us a better idea of how particulates in the atmosphere can affect our climate,” said Thiemens. “People talk about the possibility of geo-engineering our climate, but the question is how? In this case, nature has done an experiment for us.”
Other members of the research team were South Dakota State post-doctoral researcher David Ferris and graduate student Alyson Lanciki; and Mélanie Baroni of CEREGE (Le Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement) at L’Université Paul Cézanne in Aix-en-Provence, France.
The researchers were funded by the National Science Foundation, French Polar Institute (IPEV) and the Institut National des Sciences del’Univers (INSU).
maz2 (09:31:26) :
Will someone please decode/explain these words:
“… world emissions would have to peak by 2015 to avoid the worst of desertification, floods, extinctions or rising seas.”
Here is the entire paragraph:
“All sides agree progress has been too slow since talks began in 2007, spurred by findings by the U.N. Climate Panel that world emissions would have to peak by 2015 to avoid the worst of desertification, floods, extinctions or rising seas.”
__________________________________________________________
I believe that this is alarmist language stating that the world will experience far greater Desertification (transformatin to desert), Flooding, rising seas and extinctions if our current CO2 output levels do not begin to show signs of curtailment activities with a steady decline being measured by 2015
The surface temperature impact of the volcanoes is short-lived and is within the variability that exists normally. They do show up, but the impact is over-stated.
The large volcanoes do have a much bigger impact on the stratosphere however. There is an initial rapid increase in temperatures in the layer as the volcanic particles absorb sunlight but then there is a longer-term cooling (0.5C to 1.0C cooler than prior to the eruption) as ozone is destroyed/converted. It can take decades for the ozone to rebuild.
Technically, this should produce a short cooling event at the surface and then warming in the longer-term as less UV radiation is intercepted in the stratosphere. (Just something that should be explored by someone).
blondieBC (10:27:53)
Re Dia et al 1991. How accurate are these techniques? Can anything about the probable location be reasonably inferred from the difference in ratio to the Tambora signal in the Greenland and Antarctica cores? i.e. Further north than Tambora? Too many other factors in play I guess.
“Does this mean Berkleyism is making a comeback?” Bill Sticker
I read in The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline that the existence of infinitesimals has been proven.
I am tired of just a BS so to get my honorary PHD in climatology here is my theory of climate change
1. for some reason the earth cools and the crust contracts causing increased pressure in the mantle.
2. this causes a volcano to erupt.
3. The release of sulfur compounds reflects sunlight and causes further cooling causing more crustal contraction and more volcanoes.
4. The CO2 released from the volcanoes reverses the cooling and the crust expands releasing the pressure on the mantle.
5. Plant life sequesters the CO2 and the planet cools repeating the cycle.
Junk science is easy.
The volcanic effect cannot be world wide & thus effect world climate unless an eruption is large enough to punch through to the stratosphere, ie VEI 5 or more.
Otherwise it is just a local effect.
The “Year Without a Summer” was accompanied by massive crop failures- if indeed this rapid cooling was the result of volcanic activity- would not excess CO2 be a valuable insurance policy (using IPCC logic)? Rapid temperature decline is far more dangerous than slow temperature increase to an industrialized society. Do we not have more to fear from another “Year without a Summer”
I’m sure I read, perhaps on this site, that the summer that wasn’t was caused by a massive and sustained eruptive event on Iceland that released perhaps even “unprecedented” SO2 and that this event lasted several months. Yes, no maybe so?
Sorry for not having a source link… but I read an abstract a while back that seemed to indicate that tropical volcanoes were much less efficient at getting the SO2 into the upper atmosphere. Seems the higher humidity of the tropics allows for more H2O reaction and a pre-leeching from the eruptive column.
All I could make of it was that tropical eruptions have to be more intense to have as great an effect as higher latitude volcanic eruptions.
Jeff (11:39:43)
How reliable are the VEI figures, especially (pre satellite and pre aircraft)?
Mildly OT, but why not tag it volcanism rather than vulcanism? Vulcanism is an archaic spelling. Nobody in the business of studying volcanoes uses vulcanism. I am just curious why you chose to do so here?
Ben
Jeff (11:39:43) : Is not all weather local and regional? Is not all climate data from mathematical constructs of local and regional weather data over time spans of several decades? What is your point?
Tony Hansen (13:04:25) :
Jeff (11:39:43)
How reliable are the VEI figures, especially (pre satellite and pre aircraft)?
It’s largely based on volume of ejecta so I would think it’s pretty accurate unless the the eruption in question is so old that erosion can significantly distort the eruptive results.
Paddy (13:45:15) :
Jeff (11:39:43) : Is not all weather local and regional? Is not all climate data from mathematical constructs of local and regional weather data over time spans of several decades? What is your point?
The point is that unless the volcanic eruption can punch through the lower atmosphere & into the stratosphere, the jet stream cannot pickup & distribute the ash, SO2 & etc. world-wide.
But, you’re right, it isn’t climate at all but a world-wide weather event of only a few years duration.
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:06), you said:
As is sometimes my practice, I wrote to the lead authors asking why this was “new” and “unknown”. I received a very quick and detailed response from Dr. Jihong Cole-Dai. As it was a private email I am loath to quote it. However, he said:
1. By “previously undocumented” they meant that there is no written historical documentation, and 2) there has not been any evidence that this was one big eruption and not two small eruptions.
He goes on to say that they believe that they present “new and compelling” evidence that a single large eruption occurred in 1909.
While this seems a bit weak to me, and the claims in the press release still seem quite overblown, I must give full points to Dr. Cole-Dai for the promptness and the pleasant tone of his response to my questions.
Would that all climate scientists were so honest and forthcoming.
w.
Regarding the Previous research about the evidence of major eruption as in this comment:
“How embarrassing it must be for them to learn that what they’ve done is not discover something new, but to have replicated a study reported on 18 years previously.”
I understand the new research to have been done in Greenland, while in 91 the results were from Antarctica only. So they have evidence from both polar regions now and therefore the most likely eruption point was in the tropics.
THis seems most likely that they were looking for a similar record in Greenland to what they found in Antartica.
Mauna Loa erupted in 1907. Seems like there were a LOT of volcanic eruptions at around that time.
Aha!
Ksudach erupted also in 1907 and that was the largest eruption recorded so far on Kamchatka.
What is interesting about that one is this:
So we saw about the same aerosol effective radii from Ksudach as from Pinatubo as measured from Mount Wilson in California and in Washington DC in 2007 to 2008. And I would imagine it would rain in over the following year or three and get deposited in ice.
This study of atmospheric aerosols makes no reference to any “mystery” eruption in 1909 but so far between 1907 and 1909, I have managed to locate several significant eruptions in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere. That seems to have been a very active period.
Had there been a single eruption in 1909 as large as implied by the authors of the study in the original post of this thread, one would think the signature would have been noted by the study then going on of stratospheric aerosols. No such aerosols were noted as far as I can tell.
Crosspatch, the study quotes 1809, not 1909.
Ice cores from both Arctic and Antarctic record both the 1809 unknown and the 1815 Tambora event, as do some coral studies, which have the added benefit of being able to analyse codeposited O18 isotopes to check the ocean temperature at the time of incorporation into the coral.
Crowley, T. J., T. M. Quinn, and F. W. Taylor, 1997. Evidence for a volcanic cooling signal in a 335 year coral record from New Caledonia, Paleoceanography 12, 633-639
The evidence from the above work indicates the eruption started in 1808, somewhere in the tropics, corroborating the ice core data. There were 16 interannual cooling events following volcanic eruptions in the 355 year (1657-1992) period studied, several at the beginning of the 19th century.
Using CET as an indicator of N.H. departures from normals for this period:
1809 2.0 5.7 6.0 5.2 13.1 13.7 15.1 14.8 12.7 10.2 4.6 4.1 8.93
1810 2.2 3.5 4.9 8.2 9.2 14.6 15.2 14.6 13.9 9.8 5.4 3.6 8.76
1811 1.2 4.6 7.1 8.9 12.8 14.1 16.1 14.4 13.7 12.3 7.7 3.1 9.67
1812 2.6 5.3 3.5 5.5 10.9 13.0 14.2 14.3 13.2 9.3 4.9 1.7 8.20
1813 1.9 5.8 6.8 7.6 11.6 13.6 15.0 14.5 12.5 8.1 4.3 2.8 8.71
1814 -2.9 1.4 2.9 9.6 9.2 12.2 16.0 14.7 12.8 8.1 4.7 4.3 7.75
1815 0.3 6.5 7.3 8.1 12.6 14.3 14.9 15.3 13.4 10.3 3.4 2.3 9.06
1816 2.7 2.1 3.9 6.6 9.9 12.8 13.4 13.9 11.8 10.3 3.9 3.1 7.87
1817 4.5 6.4 5.5 7.6 8.7 15.1 14.1 13.6 13.2 6.4 9.1 2.5 8.89
1818 4.4 2.7 4.5 6.9 11.3 16.4 18.2 15.3 13.3 12.0 9.5 3.6 9.84
1819 4.4 4.3 6.8 8.6 11.5 13.4 16.4 17.4 13.4 9.1 4.1 1.4 9.23
we can see 1818/19 are not cold, nor is 1811. The very cold 1814 winter is 5yrs after 1809, and is obviously due to another cause. Apart from 1816, the remaining years typically have cold winters and warm summers, the opposite of what is claimed of volcanic effects in this region.
Too many treckies???
Willis Eschenbach (22:27:10):
Cole-Dai responded promptly and courteously because he is a chemist, not a “climate scientist.”
Ulric Lyons (07:15:22):
CET is quite localized; it by no means provides an indication of hemispheric temperatures. And in its earliest stretches (prior to ~1750) it may be reasonably doubted that it it provides a reliable indication of temperatures in Central England.
Major volcanic eruptions do have a perceptible effect on global temperatures. However, that effect is episodic and short-lived. As Bill Illis (11:05:36) correctly points out, that effect is quite minor vis a vis persistent natural variabilty. There is no detectible ongoing “signal,” even on a decadal scale.
The descent into the Daulton minimum and the recovery therefrom took a few decades. The role of volcanism during that remarkable period, which also saw a cluster of Richter 8+ earthquakes, should be studied by means more rigorous than hand-waving association, hyped by a UCSD (sic!) press release.
John S. (11:03:41) :
There is no detectible ongoing “signal,” even on a decadal scale.
And how do we know that what detected in 1809-1819 was not the decadal signal?
“Crosspatch, the study quotes 1809, not 1909. ”
DOH!
My guess still would be Africa or different eruptions at about the same time. Anything in Indonesia would have been recorded. Philippines would have been recorded. Hawai’i would have been recorded.
A VE6 volcanic event is not easy to conceal unless it happened under the ocean. The Dutch had an established penal colony in Indonesia in 1809 and a VE6 eruption would have been noticed.
There seems to be a report of a tsunami in South Africa in 1809 but that was likely due to local earthquake. There was a tsunami-like phenomenon in Italy on July 4, 1809:
There was some kind of unrest around Guam in 1810 with several islands being swamped by tsunami.
I can find no evidence of anything that would show a massive volcanic event. No evidence of strange weather, odd clouds, strange sunsets, or diminished sunshine as seen with other large volcanic eruptions. There are no reports of major tsunami. There are no reports of unusual pumice floats on the high seas.
So if the release of sulfur was larger than that of Pinatubo, could it have been by other means? Maybe a magma chamber somewhere found a way to release its gas by less violent means without as violent of an eruption?
The Tambora eruption resulted in two days of darkness within 600km of the volcano. That makes it even more difficult to hide such an eruption. It is pretty difficult to draw a 600km circle in the tropics and have it not fall on an area of at least some population unless it is well out at sea.
The year after Tambora, 1816, saw widespread reports of “dry fog” but there are no such reports in 1810 that I can find. How can you have a larger eruption with more sulfur but no reports of any impact from that sulfur other than in ice cores?
The eruption of 535 also produced strange clouds, dry fog, etc. But nothing from 1809/1810.
Tambora blocked about 25% of the sun’s light globally. A larger eruption would have surely been noticed. The 535 Krakatau eruption blocked about 1/2 the sun’s light. Toba is extimated to have blocked enough as to have prevented photosynthesis blocking over 90% of the sun’s light.
There is no evidence of any reduced sunshine in the 1809/1810 years.
I do not dispute that there is a layer of acidic precipitation that is dated to 1809 but there really does not appear to be any other corroborating evidence of there having been a large eruption at that time. There must be some other explanation for it or it was an eruption of a type that is very rare.
There was no serious Volcanolgy until after the Krakatau event of 1883.
Events in the tropical regions to this period were chronicalised by ships logs, military reports or colonists anecdotes. No serious scientific study.
Indonesia has the most active Volcanoes. Many are not been studied – many with only cursory reports. The Indonesian Volcanlogical Institute concentrate mainly on the Volcanoes that are known to cause population impact – there is no funding for comprehensive studies.
There are some current ethnic groups within Sumatera with a written language and history. Some of these groups have historical documents that chronicle geophysical events such as Earthquakes, Tsunamis and eruptions.
Some years ago I was based in Tanjungkarang-Telukbetung at the bottom of Sumatera. While there I have met various geophysical groups doing studies of Krakatau. Some of these different group studies contradict each other.
I have also seen film crews making documentaries with some – make a bold statement – rent a scientists