New paper speculates on volcanoes during the Little Ice Age

From NCAR/UCAR, they’re still trying to stamp out solar influence as a potential cause of the Little Ice Age. One of the things I wonder about is that during low sunspot activity, does the reduced solar-magnetic influence have any effect on Earth’s plate tectoncs and vulcanism? Does a reduced solar-magnetic influence prompt more volcanism? We may get the answer to this question in the coming years as the Ap solar-geomagnetic activity index is at an all-time low in the records.

image

Study may answer longstanding questions about Little Ice Age

January 30, 2012

BOULDER — A new international study may answer contentious questions about the onset and persistence of Earth’s Little Ice Age, a period of widespread cooling that lasted for hundreds of years until the late 19th century.

gifford miller
Gifford Miller collects vegetation samples on Baffin Island. (Photo courtesy University of Colorado Boulder.)

The study, led by the University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations, suggests that an unusual, 50-year-long episode of four massive tropical volcanic eruptions triggered the Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D. The persistence of cold summers following the eruptions is best explained by a subsequent expansion of sea ice and a related weakening of Atlantic currents, according to computer simulations conducted for the study.

The study, which used analyses of patterns of dead vegetation, ice and sediment core data, and powerful computer climate models, provides new evidence in a longstanding scientific debate over the onset of the Little Ice Age. Scientists have theorized that the Little Ice Age was caused by decreased summer solar radiation, erupting volcanoes that cooled the planet by ejecting sulfates and other aerosol particles that reflected sunlight back into space, or a combination of the two.

“This is the first time anyone has clearly identified the specific onset of the cold times marking the start of the Little Ice Age,” says lead author Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado Boulder. “We also have provided an understandable climate feedback system that explains how this cold period could be sustained for a long period of time. If the climate system is hit again and again by cold conditions over a relatively short period—in this case, from volcanic eruptions—there appears to be a cumulative cooling effect.”

“Our simulations showed that the volcanic eruptions may have had a profound cooling effect,” says NCAR scientist Bette Otto-Bliesner, a co-author of the study. “The eruptions could have triggered a chain reaction, affecting sea ice and ocean currents in a way that lowered temperatures for centuries.”

The study appears this week in Geophysical Research Letters. The research team includes co-authors from the University of Iceland, the University of California Irvine, and the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. The study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and the Icelandic Science Foundation.

Far-flung regions of ice

Scientific estimates regarding the onset of the Little Ice Age range from the 13th century to the 16th century, but there is little consensus, Miller says. Although the cooling temperatures may have affected places as far away as South America and China, they were particularly evident in northern Europe. Advancing glaciers in mountain valleys destroyed towns, and paintings from the period depict people ice-skating on the Thames River in London and canals in the Netherlands, places that were ice-free before and after the Little Ice Age.

“The dominant way scientists have defined the Little Ice Age is by the expansion of big valley glaciers in the Alps and in Norway,” says Miller, a fellow at CU’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. “But the time in which European glaciers advanced far enough to demolish villages would have been long after the onset of the cold period.”

Miller and his colleagues radiocarbon-dated roughly 150 samples of dead plant material with roots intact, collected from beneath receding margins of ice caps on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic. They found a large cluster of “kill dates” between 1275 and 1300 A.D., indicating the plants had been frozen and engulfed by ice during a relatively sudden event.

The team saw a second spike in plant kill dates at about 1450 A.D., indicating the quick onset of a second major cooling event.

To broaden the study, the researchers analyzed sediment cores from a glacial lake linked to the 367-square-mile Langjökull ice cap in the central highlands of Iceland that reaches nearly a mile high. The annual layers in the cores—which can be reliably dated by using tephra deposits from known historic volcanic eruptions on Iceland going back more than 1,000 years—suddenly became thicker in the late 13th century and again in the 15th century due to increased erosion caused by the expansion of the ice cap as the climate cooled.

“That showed us the signal we got from Baffin Island was not just a local signal, it was a North Atlantic signal,” Miller says. “This gave us a great deal more confidence that there was a major perturbation to the Northern Hemisphere climate near the end of the 13th century.”

The team used the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations, to test the effects of volcanic cooling on Arctic sea ice extent and mass. The model, which simulated various sea ice conditions from about 1150 to 1700 A.D., showed several large, closely spaced eruptions could have cooled the Northern Hemisphere enough to trigger the expansion of Arctic sea ice.

The model showed that sustained cooling from volcanoes would have sent some of the expanding Arctic sea ice down along the eastern coast of Greenland until it eventually melted in the North Atlantic. Since sea ice contains almost no salt, when it melted the surface water became less dense, preventing it from mixing with deeper North Atlantic water. This weakened heat transport back to the Arctic and created a self-sustaining feedback on the sea ice long after the effects of the volcanic aerosols subsided, according to the simulations.

The researchers set solar radiation at a constant level in the climate models. The simulations indicated that the Little Ice Age likely would have occurred without decreased summer solar radiation at the time, Miller says.

About the article

Title: Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks

Authors: Gifford Miller, Áslaug Geirsdóttir, Yafang Zhong, Darren J. Larsen, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Marika M. Holland, David A. Bailey, Kurt A. Refsnider, Scott J. Lehman, John R. Southon, Chance Anderson, Helgi Bjornsson, Thorvaldur Thordarson,

Publication: Geophysical Research Letters

=============================================================

Here’s the paper abstract, the actual paper is not yet available (another science by press release that we can’t check).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL050168.shtml

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2011GL050168

Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks

Key Points

  • Little Ice Age began abruptly in two steps
  • Decadally paced explosive volcanism can explain the onset
  • A sea-ice/ocean feedback can sustain the abrupt cooling

Authors:

Gifford H Miller

Aslaug Geirsdottir

Yafang Zhong

Darren J Larsen

Bette L Otto-Bliesner

Marika M Holland

David Anthony Bailey

Kurt A. Refsnider

Scott J. Lehman

John R. Southon

Chance Anderson

Helgi Björnsson

Thorvaldur Thordarson

Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures over the past 8000 years have been paced by the slow decrease in summer insolation resulting from the precession of the equinoxes. However, the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived. Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430-1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.

Received 29 November 2011; accepted 30 December 2011.

Citation: Miller, G. H., et al. (2012), Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2011GL050168, in press.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
287 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kelvin Vaughan
January 31, 2012 8:55 am

LazyTeenager says:
January 31, 2012 at 4:06 am
One of the things I wonder about is that during low sunspot activity, does the reduced solar-magnetic influence have any effect on Earth’s plate tectoncs and vulcanism? Does a reduced solar-magnetic influence prompt more volcanism?
———
Doesn’t seem plausible. Its 5 nTesla for the interplanetary field vs 50000 nTesla at the earth’s surface.
Same sort of order of magnitude as CO2 in the atmosphere!

January 31, 2012 9:33 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:52 am
This paper is nothing but another computer game with no scientific meaning.
Sort of like your curve fitting with flawed data…
Come on Leif! you are not a so bad scientist, don’t you?
But you might be…

January 31, 2012 9:52 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:52 am
This paper is nothing but another computer game with no scientific meaning.
“[16] Our precisely dated records demonstrate that the expansion of ice caps after Medieval times was initiated by an abrupt and persistent snowline depression late in the 13th Century, and amplified in the mid 15th Century, coincident with episodes of repeated explosive volcanism centuries before the widely cited Maunder sunspot minimum (1645–1715 AD [Eddy, 1976]). Together with climate modeling and supported by other proxy climate reconstructions, our results suggest that repeated explosive volcanism at a time when Earth’s orbital configuration resulted in low summer insolation across the NH acted as a climate trigger, allowing Arctic Ocean sea ice to expand. Increased sea ice export may have engaged a self-sustaining sea-ice/ocean feedback unique to the northern North Atlantic region that maintained suppressed summer air temperatures for centuries after volcanic aerosols were removed from the atmosphere. “

January 31, 2012 10:12 am

At Leif, “Our precisely dated records demonstrate…..”?
What do they demonstrate? that a 20-year large ice cover increase peak from 1430 to 1450 was induced, according to the authors, by a volcano eruption occurred in their data in 1452 instead by the great solar Sporer minimum in 1420-1450 so evident in their own data?
The data demonstrate the opposite of what these authors claim. The sun initiated the LIA in the late 13th century because of the Wolf solar Minimum and kept it alive for 4 centuries with alternate periods.
Are you blind?
See my own pictures, see the great correlation between temperature and solar reconstructions, for example
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=454

January 31, 2012 10:24 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:12 am
What do they demonstrate?
Read their paper, instead of staring yourself blind on your own delusions.

January 31, 2012 10:53 am

Hate to interrupt the “discussion” but a couple of questions.
If volcanism explains the LIA, shouldn’t it or its absence also be able to explain most of the climate of the last 2,000 year up to 1900? Shouldn’t its absence explain the MWP, for example, if the solar influence is not involved? Why shouldn’t the model be able to be extended?
When I go to this page
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
I can’t see a whole lot of difference between the number of eruptions in the various time period of the last 2,000 years. I do notice, however, more eruptions are more recent which probably means the number and size of eruptions may be grossly inaccurate when we go back more than a few hundred years. How sure are we about the volcanism data?
What does this do to the debate over whether the LIA was mainly Northern Hemisphere or worldwide? Shouldn’t the volcanic explanation settle the LIA as a worldwide phenonmenon?

January 31, 2012 11:02 am

Leif, I think that it is you who are a little bit deluding yourself here.
I try to repeat.
What do they demonstrate? that a 20-year large ice cover increase peak from 1430 to 1450 was induced, according to the authors, by a volcano eruption occurred in their data in 1452 instead that by the great solar Sporer minimum in 1420-1450 so evident in their own data? Does it make sense?
Why are you not capable to address the real scientific issue?

January 31, 2012 11:14 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:02 am
that a 20-year large ice cover increase peak from 1430 to 1450 was induced, according to the authors, by a volcano eruption occurred in their data in 1452 instead that by the great solar Sporer minimum in 1420-1450 so evident in their own data? Does it make sense?
The eruption in 1452 was not the cause of the LIA [which started a long time before], and they don’t claim that. The LIA [according to the paper] is a self-sustaining event over hundreds of years, helped along by the occasional eruption during the centuries.

January 31, 2012 11:19 am

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:12 am
See my own pictures, see the great correlation between temperature and solar reconstructions, for example…
Anybody who still uses the old Lean 2000 reconstruction automatically disqualifies himself from serious discussion.

Mycroft
January 31, 2012 1:12 pm

So if Greenland coastal ice expanded and weakened the Atlantics deep convective zones and caused colling why hasn’t it happened in the early 20th century when we know ice loss was large and why hasn’t happened again it the the last 30 years of supposed AGW.
Thought climate scientists stated that Greenland and Arctic ice melt wouldn’t change the Gulf stream enough to off set AG…W now?? this study say’s different????

MSinIllinois
January 31, 2012 1:33 pm

Ok, so there are frozen plants under the glaciers.
The glaciers grew in response to the little ice age caused by volcanoes.
The little ice age was an aberration, so the glaciers extent “should” be where they were before the little ice age?
Sounds like glacier retreat is just reversion to the norm.

January 31, 2012 2:21 pm

According to Wikipedia, the LIA was 1550 to 1850. If you allow for 50 years before the start, there were about 3.0 volcanic events per decade during this time.
Fro 1850 to the 2000, there were 6.1 volcanic events per decade.
From 1850 to 1900, there were 4.8 volcanic events.
I am defining a volcanic events as one appearing on this list.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

January 31, 2012 2:25 pm

Leif
“The eruption in 1452 was not the cause of the LIA [which started a long time before], and they don’t claim that. The LIA [according to the paper] is a self-sustaining event over hundreds of years, helped along by the occasional eruption during the centuries.”
This theory, by excluding the Sun, is based on nothing and does not agree with the data. and mumerous other papers.
They claim that the cooling periods are caused by volcano eruptions alone, and the sun does not matter, and consequently, for example, they are not able to explain the strong cooling in 1430-1450 with no significant volcano activity from 1350 to 1450 .
About my works, I am not using Lean 2000 reconstruction alone, I am using a variery of solar reconstructions, including Lean 2005. Read better my papers, Leif!

January 31, 2012 3:01 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:25 pm
This theory, by excluding the Sun, is based on nothing and does not agree with the data. and mumerous other papers.
It is based on the data described by the authors and makes a lot of sense.
I am using a variery of solar reconstructions, including Lean 2005. Read better my papers, Leif!
Lean 2005 is not much better and you do use Lean 2000 as well, so as I said you are automatically disqualified.

January 31, 2012 3:08 pm

Dr.S
Has solar wind gone to a rest for few hours?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/Sis_24h.gif
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
and finally for Dr. Scafetta
a strong-ish 60 year component in the Tokyo magnetic oscillations spectrum

January 31, 2012 3:09 pm

and finally for Dr. Scafetta
a strong-ish 60 year component in the Tokyo magnetic oscillations spectrum
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/JMF.htm

TomRude
January 31, 2012 3:14 pm

As I was listening to the CBC Radio 2 channel in my car this morning, the anchor mentioned this paper -Baffin Island is in Canada- and the author Miller was even interviewed!!! This is of course hardly coincidental: this paper is being promoted heavily.
Leif quotes:
“[16] Our precisely dated records demonstrate that the expansion of ice caps after Medieval times was initiated by an abrupt and persistent snowline depression late in the 13th Century, and amplified in the mid 15th Century, coincident with episodes of repeated explosive volcanism centuries before the widely cited Maunder sunspot minimum (1645–1715 AD [Eddy, 1976]).”
Yet, NO geological data pertaining to these eruptions and their recurrence are offered. In fact their [12] does not even offer ONE reference supporting any of their assertions. Quite annoying when in fact this paragraph is the crux of their assumption! The subsequent Schneider etc… references are convenient model related stuff, hardly geological evidences. As shown in the Jiang et al. 2012 paper posted by Dave Wendt http://www.igsoc.org/journal/current/207/j11J138.pdf , one cannot say the period in question is exceptional regarding volcanism. Again, concomitance is not causation. That is precisely why the Miller paper is imo unsupported and pure conjecture. It only carefully describes the advance of ice cap on Baffin Island. Fine!
Leif says: “The eruption in 1452 was not the cause of the LIA [which started a long time before], and they don’t claim that. The LIA [according to the paper] is a self-sustaining event over hundreds of years, helped along by the occasional eruption during the centuries.”
So what’s the title of Miller’s paper for? It’s called “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks” is this not?

January 31, 2012 3:24 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 5:02 am
Geoff, to better prove my point, may you prepare again the figure by adding the solar record depicted in Figure 2A too? Figure 2A, 2B and 2C should be together. You also need to add two red lines in concomitance of the two Ice cup peaks around 1275 and 1435, and show that they correspond to the two grand solar Wolf and Sporer solar minima exactly. Thank you.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/miller2.png
I think the TSI reconstruction used in the paper is a poor reference of solar activity. They should have used a direct isotope record in my opinion.
I also call into question the accuracy of the “moss” records used in the paper used to calculate their PDF values. We have seen via the satellite ice records that every year can be different in spatial extent probably brought about by prevailing weather patterns.The data after 1452 is not convincing and simply assuming no more ice growth because of a permanent positive feedback mechanism caused by the 1452 explosion is not sufficient. Volcanic events have a very limited and short term affect on climate, but interesting how Leif will always jump on the wagon as it is all he has got in this area. More about agenda than science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 6:57 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:33 am
FUV penetrates down to a height of 30km (within the highest ozone band).
—————————————–
http://www.leif.org/research/Atmospheric-Structure.png

That you would use that diagram as proof of FUV penetration is laughable. Once again your poor knowledge on this topic is exposed. I have found the following table provided by NASA to be mostly accurate. If you want to debate the deposition levels of FUV I have many papers and references that will back up the NASA table. Please spare us the boredom.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html

January 31, 2012 3:34 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:25 pm
they are not able to explain the strong cooling in 1430-1450
Actually the strong cooling started around 1450…
http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temperatures-2000-yrs.png
But you are missing the point of the paper, namely that the LIA was a self-sustained event that once started would run on for centuries [which it did].
Personally, I don’t think the volcanoes are the whole answer, but just part of it. The sun, on the other hand, clearly has nothing to do with the LIA. It is even very likely that our indicator of solar activity is contaminated by climate, so the relationship goes the other way, see W. R. Webber et al. (A comparison of new calculations of the yearly 10Be production in the Earth’s polar atmosphere by cosmic rays with yearly 10Be measurements in multiple Greenland ice cores between 1939 and 1994—A troubling lack of concordance, manuscript in preparation, 2010) suggest that “more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to nonproduction related increases.” [read: deposition, i.e. climate] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf

January 31, 2012 4:02 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 3:24 pm
If you want to debate the deposition levels of FUV I have many papers and references that will back up the NASA table. Please spare us the boredom.
I think we have debated that enough. You have no real knowledge of this and hunt around until something that looks promising shows up. The primary absorber of FUV is molecular Oxygen above 100 km at 150 nm [and that is the part that varies up to 30%]. Very little just below 200 nm [which varies a lot less] penetrates deeper and has no effect. See e.g. Figure 1 of http://lpce.cnrs-orleans.fr/~ddwit/publications/UVproxies.pdf Note that there are three humps corresponding to different physical processes: The radiation in the MUV range (200–300 nm) mostly affects the stratospheric O3 concentration; the FUV range (122–200 nm) affects the upper mesospheric O2 excitation production and the lower thermospheric O2 dissociation; the EUV range (10–120 nm)
affects the thermospheric O, O2 and N2 ionization and excitation productions.
You have in the past tried to state that the EUV [and now the FUV] are the primary climate drivers. Simple physics demonstrates that they are not.

January 31, 2012 4:15 pm

TomRude says:
January 31, 2012 at 3:14 pm
So what’s the title of Miller’s paper for? It’s called “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks” is this not?
They did not claim it started in 1450, but much earlier. People can make up their own minds about what they want to believe depending on their own biases.

Camburn
January 31, 2012 4:28 pm

Geoff, Nick:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/miller2.png
The results of this image show that the variation in the sun has no correlation in the Ice Growth of the LIA.
Do you agree with this assesment?

JustMEinT Musings
January 31, 2012 4:41 pm

Mitch Battros and others (Extinction Protocol) etc have done much to link solar flares to serious Earth Changes… that BIG orb in the sky surely must have some pull / influence on our planet otherwise it is simply taking up valuable space….. in space! 🙂

Eimear
January 31, 2012 4:46 pm

Volcanoes, even the biggest would only cool the planet for a few years at most , unless a deccan traps type event occurred during the little ice age that no one noticed.
Solar cycles last much longer and as data indicates, (not models) a large grouping of low solar cycles occurred during this time and thus are a more likely a factor in the cooling of the planet at that time.
Of course as we are now experiencing such a low cycle, we may all know the answer in years to come. This paper is just a cheap swipe from the warmists, they have to say that the sun, the big freaking ball of plasma 8 light minutes away has little effect on our planets thermal dynamics, that instead a bunch of mammals scratching around on the surface of this planet is controlling the thermostat for an entire planet.

January 31, 2012 5:20 pm

Eimear says:
January 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm
This paper is just a cheap swipe from the warmists, they have to say that the sun, the big freaking ball of plasma 8 light minutes away has little effect on our planets thermal dynamics
Actually, the warmest promoters of the solar cause are the warmists, as that is the only thing in their mind that will explain the LIA and the MWP [apart from claiming there were no LIA and MWP]. You want to jump on their bandwagon?

1 6 7 8 9 10 12