Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Since I was a kid I’ve been reading stories about “The Year Without A Summer”. This was the summer of 1816, one year after the great eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia. The Tambora eruption, in April of 1815, was so huge it could be heard from 2,600 km away (1,600 miles). The stories were always about how the following summer was outrageously cold. Supposedly, the summer was so cold it was like having no summer at all.
Being a suspicious fellow, I got to thinking about that, and I realized I’d never seen any actual temperature data for the year of 1816. So I went off to find some early temperature data. I started with the ECA dataset, and downloaded the Daily Mean Temperature TG (162Mb). That revealed five stations with daily temperature records with starting dates before 1816—Stockholm, Bologna, Milan, Praha-Klementinum, and Hohenpeissenberg.
So once again, I found myself playing “Spot the Volcanoes”, as in my previous post on this subject. When I wrote that post, I hadn’t been able to spot the smaller eruptions of Pinatubo and other modern volcanoes, but Tambora was the big cheese, the grand gorgonzola of volcanoes. Surely I could find that one … so here’s the record from Stockholm.
Figure 1. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Stockholm
So the question is, which year is “The Year Without A Summer”? The year indicated by the blue arrow, or the year shown by the green arrow?
Actually, I fear that was a trick question. Here’s the same data, this time with the years indicated.
Figure 2. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Stockholm, including the dates.
As you can see, the 1816 “Year Without A Summer” actually was warmer than a number of other summers in Stockholm. It’s the third peak from the left in the top panel, and was above 20°C. Just in this tiny sample we see some six summers that were cooler than the summer of 1816 in Stockholm …
So, I looked at the other locations. Here are the other four European cities with records that cover the Tambora eruption—Bologna, Milan, Praha-Klementinum, and Hohenpeissenberg. In these, both the upper and lower panels are from the early 1800s. No more trick questions, in all cases, one or the other of the green and blue arrows actually indicates the “Year Without A Summer”.
Figure 3. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Bologna.
Figure 4. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Milan.
Figure 5. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Praha-Klementinum.
Figure 6. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Hohenpeissenberg.
That was all the daily temperature records I could find from that far back. There’s a monthly record from Armagh, in Ireland. Here’s that record.
Figure 6. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Armagh.
I’m sure that you can see the difficulty. If Tambora actually did something to the temperature, you sure couldn’t tell it from these records. Not one of them is readily distinguishable as missing a summer.
In “The Great Tambora Eruption in 1815 and Its Aftermath” (paywalled, Science Magazine, 1984), the author says (emphasis mine):
To Europeans and North Americans, 1816 became known as “the year without a summer” (41). Daily temperatures (especially the daily minimums) were in many cases abnormally low from late spring through early fall; frequent north-west winds brought snow and frost to northern New England and Canada, and heavy rains fell in western Europe. Many crops failed to ripen, and the poor harvests led to famine, disease, and so- cial distress, compounded by the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars.Tambora’s dust veil is often blamed by modern researchers for the cold summer of 1816. The argument given is that the stratospheric dust veil would have absorbed or reflected solar radiation that could otherwise have reached the ground (42). Not all regions,however, experienced abnormally low temperatures, and the preceding winter had generally been mild. Therefore, a few researchers deny that there was any (or at least a strong) connection with the volcano (39,43).
I’m leaning towards the “few researchers” that deny a strong connection with Tambora. What other records do we have? Well, over at KNMI I find the record for Manchester, England:
Figure 6. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in Manchester.
Moving across the Atlantic, here’s the record from New Haven in Connecticut.
Figure 6. Two ten-year periods from the early 1800’s in New Haven, Connecticut.
I’m just not feeling the Tambora love here … where are the records of years without a summer? Or at least of a summer that’s significantly colder than its neighbors?
Don’t get me wrong here. I suspect that generally, the summer of 1816 was a bit colder than most summers. But as the graphs above show, in all of these datasets there are comparable summers within a few decades either side of 1816 that have summers that are as cool, or cooler, than the summer of 1816.
And I would guess that a careful search would reveal some records with cooler summers than the ones I’ve found here. But overall, let me suggest that over the years the Tambora story has gotten greatly exaggerated, just as we do today with our stories of “Cold? You haven’t seen real cold. Why, when I was a young man it was so cold that …”
Conclusions? Well, my main conclusion is what I’ve been saying for some time. The temperature of the earth is not particularly ruled by the changes in how much energy it receives. Tambora cut off a huge amount of sunlight, but the effect was small. Yes, some areas had a summer that was a bit cooler than most summers. And I’m sure there were certain locations where it hit harder than others. But overall? The thermostatic mechanisms of the planet kept Tambora from having a much of a cooling effect.
My best to all. I append all of the figures below, with the dates, so you can see the lack of effect. Note that in many of them, the temperature in 1815 was about the same as 1816 … and that despite the size of the volcano, if there was any effect, it was totally gone by 1817.
w.
If that’s what a really big volcano can do, I’m not impressed. Well, I am impressed, but what’s impressive is the strength of the thermostatic mechanisms that keep the earth’s temperature within a very narrow band. Even a huge volcano can’t put it out of sorts for much more than one summer, and even then not too much.
The place to look for the effect of volcanic eruptions on the climate is in food commodity prices. That is where climate change has its greatest impact on human society. In those records the Tambora eruption is unmissable.
Paul80 says:
April 17, 2012 at 11:35 pm
…
That was the point, Paul, that without knowing the years you can’t spot the volcano. It seems you didn’t notice the lower plots, which do have the years so you can see if your guesses were correct.
My best to you,
w.
“That was the point, Paul, that without knowing the years you can’t spot the volcano. It seems you didn’t notice the lower plots, which do have the years so you can see if your guesses were correct.”
You can’t spot that particular volcano.
Here’s an interesting look at the effects of an earlier volcanic eruption in Iceland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8624791.stm
“It is the second greatest eruption of the last 1,000 years, behind only the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia, says Stephen Self, visiting professor of volcanology at the Open University.
Laki’s output of sulphur dioxide dwarfs the 1990 eruption of Pinatubo in the Philippines, which is famous for halting global warming for several years. While that eruption produced 17 mega tonnes of sulphur dioxide, Laki was pumping the same amount out every three days at its peak, says Self. He estimates Laki’s power was over 100 times greater than the current eruption.
“The 1783 eruption pumped out so much sulphur gas, creating a huge cloud of sulphuric acid droplets which began to drift over Europe travelling eastwards over the whole world,” he says.
‘Apocalypse’
The noxious fog travelled down through Norway, Germany, France and across to Britain, causing panic when farm labourers began dropping like flies. People at this time had no idea where the fog had come from or that sulphur dioxide was mixing with water vapour in the lungs to choke victims. Research into parish records has led to estimates of more than 20,000 deaths in Britain alone during the summer of 1783.
The extreme heat – not connected to the volcano – would have made the fog all the more unpleasant, says Philip Eden, former BBC weatherman.
“July 1783 is the equal warmest month in 300 years of records for the UK. Because of the ash the sun shone from a white sky – it must have felt like the apocalypse.”
The Icelanders stopped dancing and unlike the Norwegians and Faroe Islanders we lost the old dances
Professor Gunnar Karlsson
UK flights grounded for second day
It was only in the autumn that the fog finally lifted. But soon an even worse problem was on the way – the most severe winter for 250 years, caused by the build-up of heat absorbing sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere.
But nowhere suffered more than Iceland. It was not the eruption itself that proved deadly but the environmental consequences, says Gunnar Gudmundsson, a geophysicist at the Icelandic Meteorological Office.
“People died not because of the eruption, but because of starvation,” he says. “The farm animals died, the crops died – it affected the whole country.”
Toxic gases poisoned the plants and vegetation, which in turn killed the livestock. Eight of every ten sheep are thought to have died, while half of all the cattle and horses perished. The extreme winters that followed – caused by the sulphuric gases – ensured that a fifth of the country’s population died, historians estimate.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8624791.stm
Hutch: good link. Did not take a look at the full source. But apart from wheat and such there are also wine quality (anna v mentioned wine too). So are there any particular records of good/bad wine harvests for 1816-1817?
I mentioned the “Finnish famine” which struck with cold and “strange” weathers in 1867 (mainly). it looks like this in the classic Stockholm series. I.e. the coldest year on record (equally cold years, or winters, probably occurred in the end of 1600s) http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.2849!image/temp_ar_stockholm.png_gen/derivatives/fullSizeImage/temp_ar_stockholm.png
Myrrh above linked to the BBC report about Laki, the Icelandic volcano of 1783. True to the BBC’s tradition of climate alarmism, they say:
First off, July 1783 is not the “equal warmest month” in the Central England Temperature record, it’s the second warmest July. Typical BBC exaggeration.
More to the point, elevated death rates in England happened all the time during that period. The Population History of England, 1541-1871 lists no less than 25 years with death rates which were more than 10% above the trend. 1783 is a minor year (16.7% above the trend).
In particular, deaths in both 1779 and 1781 were more than 10% above the trend, just like 1783 … but there were no volcanoes in those years. So while it is certainly likely that Laki raised the death rates in England, given the elevated death rates two years and four years previous to the volcano it is very difficult to determine how much Laki changed the picture.
My point is that these kinds of eruptions build up stories, and that the stories are often repeated uncritically. For example, I find no record of “farm laborers … dropping like flies”, and I suspect this is a claim made up by the BBC author. There is a much less hysterical account of the effects of the Laki volcano here. It points out that even in Iceland the fog wasn’t what killed people. Don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of deaths in Iceland. But by and large they were because the livestock and plants died from fluorine poisoning from the volcanic ash, and the people starved.
w.
The nominal price series that various people are citing are not what one should look at. In the couple of years after the Napoleonic wars, there was a general deflation associated with demobilization and pressure on labor markets. Unemployment spiked and the price of labor went down… even more than commodity prices did. As a result, most economic historians agree that there was a trough in all prices and real incomes and GDP, beginning in 1816 and lasting through 1817, at least in the UK.
This is the conclusion one gets from both the “optimist” camp in economic history and the “pessimist” camp in economic history. Lots of blood has been spilled analyzing this period in England because of the (never-ending) debate as to if and when the English industrial revolution actually started to have benefits for the average family. (The optimists say yes; the pessimists no.)
Here is a classic optimist paper:
English Workers’ Living Standards during the Industrial Revolution: A New Look
Peter H. Lindert and Jeffrey G. Williamson
The Economic History Review Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 1-25
Here is a classic pessimist paper:
Pessimism Perpetuated: Real Wages and the Standard of Living in Britain during and after the Industrial Revolution.
Charles H. Feinstein
The Journal of Economic History Vol. 58, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 625-658
Both agree that there was a trough in real wages in 1816, 1817 and 1818. Meaning, wages fell even faster than the prices of most goods.
The macroeconomic fundamentals are too confounding at this particular point in time to tell much about the effect (or lack of effect) of an 1816 volcano on prices. And looking at nominal prices is just an econ 101 blunder.
Stick with the temperature data, meager as it is.
Willis, – Sorry I did not appreciate the intention of posing the graphs as trick questions, as I already knew of such a problem with the Tambora eruption, which blew a massive amount of solid material (rocks) into the air. My main intention of including the reference was to draw your’s and others’ attention to it – well worth studying, the whole 109 pages.
From Lamb’s paper (the reference above, Appendix I, p. 512 ):
“For 3 days there was, darkness at 500 km from the volcano. ‘Extrusion of much larger quantities of material than that thrown out of Krakatau in 1883.’ Sapper quotes various workers’ estimates of the solid ejecta ranging from 100 to 300 km^3, doubtless mainly as solid blocks of great size and only a small proportion as dust Many reports of remarkable sunsets in London and luminous twilight from 15 May 1815 to the end of the year. The eruption continued in some degree until 1819. Estimate of Tambora veil by subtraction of figures for other eruptions from d.v.i. for total veil 1g12-18. 320003• q = 15 km^3 would give d.v.i. equivalent to that here deduced from other approaches, possibly implying that of the total solid matter blown away only about 15 km^3 was carried as dust.”
In the main text (p. 463), are some temperature plots, (not easy to make comparisons), but then Lamb continues:
“The strongest features of these curves are the lower average temperatures lasting a year or two after a number of great volcanic eruptions whose dust veils have been recorded by observation, notably those in 1783, 1811-13, 1815, 1835-37, 1875, 1883, 1888–92 and 1902. Temperature drops bringing the average for the whole year down by 0.5 to 1 °C apply to most of the cases mentioned. After 1783 the temperature difference probably exceeded 1 °C. The great Tambora eruption in 1815 was followed by an anomaly of annual mean temperature for 1816 averaging -1°C in middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere and – 0.7 °C for’ the whole Earth’ (actually northern hemisphere land data between 13 and 65 °N – Madras to Archangel and some in New England), according to Koppen’s estimates. The year 1816 became famous in much of Europe and North America as ‘the year without a summer’ (Brooks 1949, p. 118; Hoyt 1958). Cyclonic activity seems to have been abnormally concentrated in positions near Newfoundland and from central Ireland across England to the southern Baltic. In Merionethshire there were only 3 or 4 days without rain in the 6 months May to October 1816, and the average temperatures of the summer months in London and other parts of England ranged from 2 to 3 oc below normal. In eastern Canada and New England there was widespread snow between 6 and 11 June 1816 and frosts in each month. Dearth ensued in many countries, amounting to famine in places, e.g. in parts of Wales and northern Ireland. (Some crops did not ripen, others rotted or sprouted in the fields; stocks of flour were exhausted by the end of the year. This led to numerous small farms being abandoned in Co. Tyrone and to begging, vagrancy and food riots in Wales also.)”
So temperature is not the only factor in a “Year without a summer,” add rain, lack of sunshine and crop failure will be implanted in those people’s memories.
A small correction and explanation: for “d.v.i. for total veil 1g12-18. 320003• q = 15 km^3” —
“for d.v.i. (dust veil index) for total veil, 1812-18, 32000, q = 15 km^3 … “
Thanks, Paul. I agree that there were a variety of effects from the eruption of Tambora, you’ve done a good job listing a bunch of them.
My point is that the Tambora eruption did not significantly depress the global temperature, as has been claimed for volcanoes.
Here’s why that’s important. The AGW alarmists claim that the “climate sensitivity” is high, and that temperature is a linear function of downwelling radiation.
This means that if downwelling radiation decreases, the temperature has to go down. It is clear that volcanoes cause a large, sometimes very large reduction in downwelling radiation … but the global temperature doesn’t seem to drop much. It didn’t drop much with Pinatubo. It didn’t drop much with Krakatoa. And it even didn’t drop much with Tambora.
That’s my point here. Sure, volcanoes play havoc with the weather. But they don’t cause the global drop in temperature that the AGW supporters claim is an inevitable result of the reduction in downwelling radiation.
All the best,
w.
Willis:
Thanks for your kind comments and I am pleased and flattered you are willing to challenge knowing that you won”t get a hysterical and angered reaction – it is critical we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Your position that your comments apply to a wide variety of crops is fine, but you must consider acreages, the location of my trip, the vastness of Canada and the nature of meridional Rossby Wave circulation that occurred after Pinatubo, as it had in 1816-17 following Tambora. Cereal grains including Wheat (corn for the English), Barley, Oats and Rye dominate the landscape with the yellow of Canola (formerly Rape) interspersed. They all ripen at different times yet in 1992 were uniformly green (except for the yellow Canola). Pulse crops (peas, beans, lentils) have increased in acreage but were still relatively small in 1992.
The pattern of Rossby Waves in 1816-17, as identified in my two articles given at the 1992 Conference on Tambora;
“Climatic Change, Droughts and Their Social Impact: Central Canada, 1811-20, a classic example.” In C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa
“The Year without a Summer: Its Impact on the Fur Trade and History of Western Canada.” In C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa
show a distinct and extreme meridional pattern similar to those, although regionally varying, to those in 1992.
For example, in 1816 the eastern Prairies had record colds and a severe drought that lasted from 1816 to 1819. It was well documented by Hudson’s Bay Company reports, especially by Peter Fidler, who was given thermometers through the Royal Society for his interest and contributions. Western Prairies had no severe cold or drought in 1816, in fact at Fort Chipewyan in the northern regions it was excessively wet. This reflects the pattern in Europe of that year with extreme cold in western Europe and normal conditions in the central and eastern regions.
It is also my experience that crop yields are a relatively poor indicator of the weather and environmental conditions that occurred. For example, in western Canada or any of the grain growing regions, which as natural grassland regions have relatively low precipitation, it is not the amount of precipitation in a year, but when it occurred relative to the plants growth and ripening cycle. I had always referred to this as the “effective precipitation.” Koppen addressed the issue partially in his climate classification when he distinguished between 70% summer rain, 70% winter rain, and even rain throughout the year. Thornthwaite struggled with it in differentiating between actual evapotranspiration and potential evapotranspiration. Irrigation famers struggle with the problem all the time – when to irrigate.
We saw this problem in a recent UK headline that said drought continues despite the rain. It speaks to the problems of how you define drought. The story was defining it in terms of low reservoirs and ground water, which do take time to recharge, but it was no longer a drought for the plants. This is addressed in classic climatology by the different definitions of drought.
The same is true of temperature. Average for a growing season is not as important as when the hot and cold spells occur. Variation is still the overlooked variable in weather climate and plant growth.
A further factor I have discussed elsewhere is the failure to include condensation in the total amount of moisture available for plant growth. One year authorities predicted below average harvest for the Prairies. The yield was at or above average. I examined several stations and discovered that low overnight lows produced significant condensation equal in some locations to 6 cm of moisture for the last two weeks of August, sufficient to “fill out” the crop but not included in the precipitation totals. This is moisture widely and evenly distributed, delivered at ground level so it absorbs quickly, and at night when evaporation and transpiration are low.
As an aside, one of the problems with weather data is that it is almost always inadequate and specifically collected. This began when pilots in WWI wanted forecasts so weather stations and the data they collect became dominated by the needs of aviation. Many agencies, such as power utilities and forestry collect their own data. In Canada I recently was provided with data from agricultural stations set up because the government data was of little value. Where the data sets coincide there are disturbing differences between them and on initial observation with temperatures always being warmer in the government records.
So I must respectfully and agreeably disagree with your disagreement.
Tim, many thanks for your agreeable disagreement. I don’t think we disagree that much.
My main point in all of this is that the temperature depression from volcanoes is local rather than regional, and intermittent rather than constant. It seems that you are saying the same.
I am interested in your thoughts and claims that the volcanoes affect the Rossby waves. This seems quite likely, given that the main effects seem to be in the more northern regions, and appear to involve the blocking of normal frontal movement.
My main issue is that the IPCC says that a) change in temperature is equal to change in forcing times climate sensitivity, and that b) climate sensitivity is ~ 0.8°C per watt/metre^2.
If that is true, then volcanoes should cool the whole planet, and cool it quite strongly … but they don’t. Pinatubo didn’t, Krakatoa didn’t, and even Tambora didn’t. Instead, all of them warmed some areas and cooled others, without a great effect on the planetary average. Or as you say,
One remaining point. You say:
I would refine that a bit and say that low crop yields are not an indication of any particular kind of bad weather (e.g. low temperature), but (absent insect infestations) they do indicate some kind of bad weather (late frost, water at the wrong time, etc.) … and that high or unchanged crop yields, particularly across the board, are an indication that the weather wasn’t all that bad.
That was the point I was trying to make above, that if the weather really had been all that bad in 1816 the crop yield would have reflected it, and it didn’t. Not for any type of produce, not for tubers, not for legumes, not for vegetables, not for fruits, not for grains.
My best to you, keep up the good work,
w.