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.
Study may answer longstanding questions about Little Ice Age
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.

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
- 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
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.
@ur momisugly Leif,
I think that you are not fair, as usual. As a solar scientist you should promote solar/climate interactions, you seem to hate the sun. There are a lot of paper showing the good correlation betwenen solar cycles and climate cycles. This paper is nothing.
Volcano activity effect last only a few years at most. If it were true that a prolonged volcano effect would be so important we would measure it also during the last century. As I show in my paper, the volcano signals are strongly overestimated by the current models. Look at my figure
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure3new.png
The reasonable signature of the volcano signal (as prepared by other people, not me) are the blue and black curves, while the red curve is the typical GCM outputs.
So, no way that the mechanisms proposed by this paper work.
The volcanos give a contribution, but it is limited in time and duration.
It is more likely that for some reason volcano activity is influenced by the changing of the climate induced by the sun, than viceversa.
@ur momisugly M.A.Vukcevic: nice record. There are better records, which are more clear that that.
@ur momisugly Geoff “I think the TSI reconstruction used in the paper is a poor reference of solar activity. ”
Perhaps you are right, but when addressing the claim of an author there is the need of first look at the data theu use. These persons have done no attempt in estimating the solar effect on climate, so their attributions are not realistic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm
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
Another example of your own references proving you wrong. Below is the diagram you reference with my annotations in red.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/uv_deposition.png
You might need to research the Schumann-Runge bands (176-192.6nm) and their role in ozone production. The 2nd panel of the graph showing the % variation of this band, which is between10-20% (very significant).
You might also like to research papers from Solomon and also Marsh and others who have shown for decades the importance of nitric oxide and molecular oxygen diffusion from the thermosphere and mesosphere to the stratosphere and the impacts on ozone production. The Lyman-alpha range (EUV) which can penetrate to 70km being critical in this process.
Camburn says:
January 31, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Geoff, Nick:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/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?
I agree the “PDF” data after 1452 looks suspicious. Before 1452 the data agrees with solar variation (isotope proxies) expectations on Ice Growth. The “PDF” data needs to be compared with other polar ice proxies if available.
Tip. Beware of using text with the word landsch…dt included (the force that dare not mention its name). Your comment will go to the sin bin and then be moderated at a later date which usually disrupts the flow of conversation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 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.
==
Not at all! You put words -like this 1450 start- in my mouth. Either their title means what it says OR it is a smoke and mirror title made up to attract undue attention from the media -which it has considering how its author managed to get an interview extract broadcast on CBC Radio at noon- while pretending without proving. In any case, your return of serve was weak.
“Putting these records together showed that cooling began fairly abruptly at some point between 1250 and 1300. Temperatures fell another notch between 1430 and 1455.”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9040&linkbox=true&position=2
1430’s
“Majority of winters, [ perhaps 7 or 8 ] contained several weeks of widespread severe weather (NB: ‘weeks’, not the paltry ‘days’ we get end 20th / early 21st centuries.) According to Lamb, an experience not repeated / matched until the 1690’s, in the depth of the Little Ice Age (and certainly not in modern times).”
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1400_1499.htm
1430-1470 AD Ring Width < 0.035 mm (cold) LaMarche, 1978
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
So the 1430`s cooling cannot have been caused by 1452/3 the Kuwae eruption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwae#Climatic_consequences_of_the_1452.E2.80.931453_event
@Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm
“Actually the strong cooling started around 1450…
http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temperatures-2000-yrs.png”
Well actually on the graph it is warming for 50yrs from 1450.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 12:01 am
And BTW, the cosmic ray variation is not correct. The cosmic rays that reach the atmosphere vary foremost with the strength of the geomagnetic field rather than with solar activity. Here is the real cosmic ray variation: red curve at bottom: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png and here for the past 10,000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg The solar modulation are the small wiggles.
———————————————-
The correlation would be a bit better for the last 700 years with your data, but earlier an offset and a different slope.
However, Svensmark and Shaviv argue that the geomagnetic field only influences low energy rays and that these contribute only 3% to CR cloud formation. In that case, the solar activity should correlate better overall than the combined field and it does.
I saw that similar issues had already been discussed at length in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/01/nir-shaviv-on-the-cloud-experiment-worth-a-read/
I was surprised to see everyone focussing on high energy cosmic rays, and when I look Svensmark’s theory up by myself, it is about intermediate energy rays, as high energy are neither influenced by sun or earth, see figure 7 here:
http://dahuang.dhxy.info/ClimateChange/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x.pdf
So, there is a high correlation of curves, multiple peaks and valleys at the same position (almost perfect after 1250) and a theory with a suggested mechanism.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 30, 2012 at 3:33 pm
The correlation between glacier/temperature changes with solar changes during the last 1000 year is well established. See for example
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/neuralnetwriter/GlobalWarming/JK_Austrian_Speleothem.jpg
————————————————
Leif marked his graph
http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png
“200 yr filtered data”.
Then the Austrian Speleothem is probably also 200 years filtered ?
200 years are just 3 ocean oscillation cycles of 60-70 years. Filtering with a multiple of a full ocean cycle may be a good idea to remove ocean cycle “noise” and make the solar effect better visible.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 5:59 pm
You might need to research the Schumann-Runge bands (176-192.6nm) and their role in ozone production. The 2nd panel of the graph showing the % variation of this band, which is between10-20% (very significant).
You might also like to research papers from Solomon and also Marsh and others who have shown for decades the importance of nitric oxide and molecular oxygen diffusion from the thermosphere and mesosphere to the stratosphere and the impacts on ozone production. The Lyman-alpha range (EUV) which can penetrate to 70km being critical in this process.
@Leif …The following paper by Hood encapsulates nearly every point and statistic that I have been trying to get across to you on this thread and previous threads re UV chemical forcing. It is a thorough document which includes all the big players in the atmospheric game. The paper shows how the different wave lengths of EUV and FUV modulate stratospheric ozone and in turn interact with planetary waves, zonal winds, the polar vortex and the AO index. The Lyman-alpha and Schumann-Rungs bands with their operating depths and influences are clearly outlined as I have shown, along with the importance of the species migration from above. All of your points are disputed.
Take the time to read the whole document and bring yourself up to speed. If after reading in full, you still think solar chemical influences from highly varying UV are not responsible for climate changes in the troposphere, I am afraid there is no hope for you.
ftp://ftp.lpl.arizona.edu/pub/lpl/lon/stratosphere/hood04agu.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 5:59 pm
You might need to research the Schumann-Runge bands (176-192.6nm) and their role in ozone production.
The bands destroy ozone.
the importance of nitric oxide and molecular oxygen diffusion from the thermosphere and mesosphere to the stratosphere
The diffusion is exceedingly slow and does not contribute significantly [working against a density gradient of a factor of a thousand].
TomRude says:
January 31, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Either their title means what it says
Since the LIA started in the 13th century, the title has nothing to do with 1450.
So the 1430`s cooling cannot have been caused by 1452/3 the Kuwae eruption
Nobody says that, as the LIA started in the 13th century.
Well actually on the graph it is warming for 50yrs from 1450.
The deep dip was in the 1450s.
Manfred says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:22 pm
However, Svensmark and Shaviv argue that the geomagnetic field only influences low energy rays and that these contribute only 3% to CR cloud formation. In that case, the solar activity should correlate better overall than the combined field and it does.
Solar activity modulates the low energy rays. Above 10 GeV there is hardly any modulation. Svensmark does special pleading by claiming that the active rays has just high enough energy not to be modulated by the Earth, and just low enough energy to be modulated by the Sun.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 31, 2012 at 5:37 pm
As a solar scientist you should promote solar/climate interactions
No, one must go where data and physics lead, not where wishful thinking and pseudo-science lure.
you seem to hate the sun.
I know the Sun.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:55 pm
The following paper by Hood encapsulates nearly every point and statistic …
The paper specifically excludes FUV and EUV [both being lower than 200 nm]:
“Previously thought to produce only relatively minor changes in ozone concentration, radiative heating, and zonal circulation in the upper stratosphere, solar ultraviolet (UV) variations at wavelengths near 200 nm are increasingly recognized as a significant source of decadal variability throughout the stratosphere”.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:55 pm
The following paper by Hood encapsulates nearly every point and statistic …
You may want to be up to speed on this topic. Since Hood’s 2004 paper we have learned that the biggest solar cycle variation is not in EUV or FUV, but in MUV near 300 nm: slide 3 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/6b_Cahalan_Sedona_9-15-2011.pdf and being likely out of phase with the solar cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 5:59 pm
You might need to research the Schumann-Runge bands (176-192.6nm) and their role in ozone production.
————————–
The bands destroy ozone.
Incredible. This is what Hood (and most of the scientific community) says.
One mechanism by which solar variability may
influence tropospheric climate involves changes in solar
ultraviolet (UV) flux at wavelengths that affect ozone
production and radiative heating in the stratosphere.
Photodissociation of molecular oxygen (leading to ozone
production) occurs in the Schumann-Runge bands and in the
Herzberg continuum at wavelengths less than 242 nm (e.g.,
Brasseur and Solomon [1984]). Radiation at these
wavelengths (190 – 240 nm) can penetrate into the upper
stratosphere (30 to 50 km; Herzberg [1965]) where the
increased atmospheric number density results in the
formation of the ozone layer.
the importance of nitric oxide and molecular oxygen diffusion from the thermosphere and mesosphere to the stratosphere
————————
The diffusion is exceedingly slow and does not contribute significantly [working against a density gradient of a factor of a thousand].
Some references please?
From:
Mesosphere-to-stratosphere descent of odd nitrogen in
February–March 2009 after sudden stratospheric warming
S.-M. Salmi
“High NOx amounts were transported from 80 to 55 km altitude in about 40 days”
Read the Hood paper. You are grossly out of touch.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 9:15 pm
The paper specifically excludes FUV and EUV [both being lower than 200 nm]:
Read the whole paper. He states 200nm because he has reliable data near that level. One excerpt:
The penetration depth into the stratosphere of solar UV
radiation is also a strong function of wavelength (e.g.,
Herzberg [1965]). At the 121.5 nm solar Lyman α
wavelength, the penetration altitude is approximately 70
km. In the Schumann-Runge bands (~180 – 200 nm)
radiation penetrates to an altitude range between about 40
and 60 km. At 205 nm, the altitude of penetration
approaches a minimum of 30 km. At wavelengths between
205 nm and 300 nm, where solar spectral irradiance
variability decreases gradually to zero, the altitude of
penetration varies between 30 and 35 km. Thus, the
maximum depth of penetration occurs near 205 nm where
UV flux changes as large as 6% are observed on both the
solar cycle and solar rotation time scales.
Since Hood’s 2004 paper we have learned that the biggest solar cycle variation is not in EUV or FUV, but in MUV near 300 nm: slide 3 of
Slide 3 shows nothing of the sort (output not irradiance is the key). The slide also incorrectly incorporates EUV (Lyman) in the FUV range. EUV has the largest variance over the solar cycle, this is recognized by all science, perhaps not in your universe tho.
Well, at least they are admitting there WAS a Little Ice Age…
FWIW, any article of the form “Our Computer Model Experiment Showed” ought to be seen as of the form:
“Given these conclusions what assumptions can we draw”…
OK, back at volcanoes and quakes: As Wilson (of Australia I think) has shown a change in Length Of Day correlation with solar cycles, it’s not hard to figure that changes in the rotation rate might set off some marginal volcanoes. Basically, I think the two come together when they come.
IFF Volcanoes and solar shifts happen at the same time, BOTH will give the same correlation coefficients. Only the multiplication plug number in front of the equation need change.
So model runs saying “Look! With our plug number FOO is 95% correlation coefficient! So Causal.” are just bad logic.
WHY spin change with solar cycle is an interesting question. Could be anything from some kind of spin / orbit coupling to a solar current driven homopolar motor effect to a magnetosphere interaction to… But all these things tend to come together when they come too. So sorting out what is 90% causal and what is 5% causal and what is caused is going to be a bit hard. (And impossible via ‘computer simulations’…)
At any rate, looking at a long term graph of temperatures and volcanoes shows the volcanoes cycle about the same time as climate cycles, and that is about in sync with various planetary motions.
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/4-gtemps.gif
Thanks to Orbital Resonance, all sorts of bodies in space get into related ‘resonant’ motions. This means you can’t do correlation coefficients to find causality. The Moon, for example, is in an 179.x year period orbital shift pattern. The sun has a 179.y year cycle. Which is causal, which is correlation, which is coincidence, which is error band? “Good luck with that”…
There are a bunch of lunar / tidal cycles that look to tie with climate cycles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18099/
These same lunar tidal cycles have 1800 year nodes (that sit on top of some of the Bond Event dates) and even a 5000 ish year node. The faster nodes look to sit on top of the cycles of weather we see.
So is it driven by tides? Perhaps changing how much cold water hits the Drake Passage? Or how much cold ocean water is stirred to the surface? Or perhaps the same tides set magma to wobbling and cause a few more volcanoes from time to time…
Trying to disentangle things that are inherently tangled can be a bit of a fools errand…
What matters far more to me is to realize that it may ALL be driven by the same metronome, and that CO2 is not part of the machine…
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:21 pm
The penetration depth into the stratosphere of solar UV radiation is also a strong function of wavelength
That depth is not where most of the radiation ends up. It is like sunlight in the ocean, it may penetrate to a depth of 200 m, but it is extremely feeble at that depth. “only 73% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 centimeter (less than a half inch)
only 44.5% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 meter (3.3 feet)
22.2% of the surface light reaches a depth of 10 meters (33 feet)
0.53% of the surface light reaches a depth of 100 meters (330 feet)
0.0062% of the surface light reaches a depth of 200 meters
Bottom line — most of the light is absorbed or scattered within the top few meters of the ocean.”
Same thing with UV. A few photons may make it in very deep, most do not.
E.M.Smith says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Thanks to Orbital Resonance, all sorts of bodies in space get into related ‘resonant’ motions. This means you can’t do correlation coefficients to find causality. The Moon, for example, is in an 179.x year period orbital shift pattern. The sun has a 179.y year cycle. Which is causal, which is correlation, which is coincidence, which is error band? “Good luck with that”…
Hi Cheifo, I hate to be picky and off topic but I must point out that there is no 179 year period in relation to the solar system or Sun. The closest period is a rough 172 years. I give examples of this in a recent forum article that may provide some insight.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/226
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Slide 3 shows nothing of the sort (output not irradiance is the key). The slide also incorrectly incorporates EUV (Lyman) in the FUV range. EUV has the largest variance over the solar cycle, this is recognized by all science, perhaps not in your universe tho.
Watt/m2 is the key, not silly percentage change. The FUV band definition differs a bit from field to field. A common definition is 100-200 nm, another one 120-200, but you can find still other ones out there, even 122-200 nm, straddling Lyman alpha.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm
(…) TomRude says:
January 31, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Either their title means what it says
Since the LIA started in the 13th century, the title has nothing to do with 1450.
So the 1430`s cooling cannot have been caused by 1452/3 the Kuwae eruption
Nobody says that, as the LIA started in the 13th century.
Well actually on the graph it is warming for 50yrs from 1450.
The deep dip was in the 1450s.
==
You are putting your own words (the 1450 date) in my mouth and then proudly debunk your own creation! Moreover you are also attributing comments to me that were not mine… Overload. EOM.
TomRude says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:16 pm
You are putting your own words (the 1450 date) in my mouth
this is what you said:
“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?”
I grant that it is a bit obscure, but one interpretation is that your “so what’s the title of Miller’s paper for?” was a sort of rebuttal of what I said [the ‘so’ connecting the two statements], i.e. that you think that 1452 was the cause etc. It is possible that that interpretation is not what you meant, in which case I’m at a loss as what you meant.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Watt/m2 is the key, not silly percentage change. The FUV band definition differs a bit from field to field. A common definition is 100-200 nm, another one 120-200, but you can find still other ones out there, even 122-200 nm, straddling Lyman alpha.
There is some fluctuation in the scale boundaries, especially if reading older material. But most these days refer to the Lyman-alpha portion (125.6nm) as the top end of the EUV scale with 10 being the baseline and XUV below 10. This is certainly the scale that NASA has adopted.
The primary function you are deliberately hiding from is that different parts of the UV spectrum are absorbed at different levels of the atmosphere. Each layer of the spectrum performs a different function that is responsible for the total package. EUV and FUV are major players and if there are changes in the output of these parts of the spectrum, there are downstream changes that affect the mesosphere,stratosphere AND troposphere. You can resist the accepted science, but it only makes you look silly.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Hi Cheifo, I hate to be picky and off topic but I must point out that there is no 179 year period in relation to the solar system or Sun. The closest period is a rough 172 years. I give examples of this in a recent forum article that may provide some insight.
Well, I was just paraphrasing that article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18099/
So you can be “pickey” at them.. 😉 . Me? Frankly, I can’t keep track of all the various ‘cycles’ folks seem to find… There seems to be about a hundred just for the sun 😉
Add in ‘average smearing’ and you get things like Bond Events with an average of 1470, but it has two nodes at 13xx and 1800 (and the average in the middle – kind of like sunspot cycles with an average of 11 years that it tends to avoid actually having 😉
Ultimately to make the case the LIA was caused by volcanic activity it seems you need to be able to show that volcanic activity before and during it was significantly higher than activity either before or after it.
From what I have read, there is no evidence at all to support this.
Just cherry picking some eruptions and running them through a model really isn’t evidence at all.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“I know the Sun.”
Those who know know that they don’t know. And vice versa.