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.
Frank, I just noticed something very tricksy about the Luterbacher reconstruction map of temperatures that is the first of your references.
It says:
That’s comparing apples and oranges. Since the earth has warmed since then, it will make the 1816 summer look cold by comparison … sneaky. They should show it agains the 1771-1800 climatology, or at least adjust the 1971-2000 climatology downwards to reflect the difference …
Not nice at all.
w.
“The temperature of the earth is not particularly ruled by the changes in how much energy it receives.”
Eh?
Looks like we need to start each day by reciting the following,
1. Correlation does not a cause make
2. Be wary of the correlation
3. ” says who?”
I don’t believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes and even then I am not too sure.
P. Solar says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:00 pm
“Dr Dave says: “The UAH satellite data clearly shows a cooling following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption so in my mind that establishes the link.”
What reason do you have to suppose whatever data you are referring to would not have cooled if there had not been an eruption?
Don’t know what you got you doctorate in Doc”
_______________________________________________________________
I find your response unnecessarily insolent in tone. My doctorate is certainly NOT in climate science. It is in the mundane field of human health. Perhaps you do not understand the difference between “link”, “correlation” and “causation”. I specifically wrote link. You’re absolutely correct, neither Dr. Roy Spencer nor I can possibly know for sure that the Pinatubo eruption caused the cooling observed. It was a single event. However what resulted was expected and anticipated and therefore are “linked”. There are far too few data points to even consider using the word “correlate.” We would need about 30 more Pinatubo sized eruptions within the time span of the satellite record to define a definite correlation and subsequent causation.
If you pay attention you’ll notice lawyers LOVE the word “link”. Statistically it is nearly meaningless. In medicine links are established by the temporal relationship of events (e.g. patient A took Drug X for six months then developed CHF). There is no correlation because there’s only one (or just a few) patient(s) and there’s certainly no causation establsihed. But the link has been made. Lawyers don’t have to PROVE a damn thing in these cases. They only have to convince a jury.
I suggest you wander over to Dr. Spencer’s blog and explain to him why he’s wrong. You already know what HIS doctorate is in.
P. Solar says:
April 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Ummm … for stealing the Americas from the Early Asian Immigrants?
Logic didn’t work for you, so you now try insults?
If there is a bad harvest, prices rise in advance of the harvest because a bad harvest is generally obvious well in advance. In England, historically the crop year ran from Michaelmas to Michaelmas (September 29th) because the harvest was in by then. If the harvest turned out as bad as feared, then in the three months after Michaelmas, the price rise would have been even steeper.
So we should have seen some price rise in 1816 reflecting the supposed bad harvest. Instead … the prices fell. What does that tell you?
Next, if you look at the chart I posted above, 1817, like 1816, is one of the lower-priced years in the decade. If 1816 was as bad as is claimed and if (as you say) the main price rise would be seen in 1817, prices should have gone through the roof. They didn’t. Not only didn’t food prices go through the roof, prices in 1817 were the THIRD LOWEST of the 11 years I showed. How does your theory explain that?
w.
Zac says:
April 15, 2012 at 3:19 pm
The earth’s temperature is governed by thermostatic mechanisms that keep it remarkably stable in spite of fairly large changes in how much energy it receives.
w.
vukcevic says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Interesting thought, vukcevic, but I’d have to see some cites, both to the “food stockpiling” and the “increasing price to a large degree”. From what I can tell, the needs of the army were met by aggressive trade.
According to this one, much of the food used by the British Army was purchased from the US … here’s a quote:
Finally, after Napoleon’s foolish Russian misadventure, the war ended in 1814. I doubt greatly if there was a “huge surplus” of food anywhere at that point.
In any case, I find it hard to believe that a “Year Without A Summer” would fail to be reflected in English food prices, regardless of whether there were food stockpiles in 1814 or not.
Here is a graph of the farm product price index from the above-cited reference, along with a red line showing the timing of the Napoleonic Wars.
w.
climatereason says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Thanks, Tony. I agree, with the proviso that the effects were short-lived. The essence of my argument is that the temperature is not ruled by forcings, and that as a result, volcanoes don’t have the large effects ascribed to them by AGW supporters.
You see, if the current estimates of climate sensitivity are right, volcanoes should have a very marked and easily visible effect on the climate … but they don’t.
w.
For anyone wanting to follow up the effect of volcanoes on climate, I recommend “The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816” produced by the Canadian Museum of Nature. It is 576 pages and weighs 1.6 kg. Price (including postage I believe) is $15. Link:http://nature.ca/prodserv/cat/index.cfm?fuseaction=store.viewProduct&french=0&ID=4188&intCatalogID=56&WCID=F23EF296D4EE1534AC1DA08859F21BB6&intSubcategoryID=84
On the cover of the book is the image of a medallion struck in southern Germany in memory of the great famine of 1816-1817. The book was produced in 1992 and as such predates the corruption of climate science by the warmers.
For anyone doubting the effects of volcanoes on climate, I recommend reading the chapter “Climatic effects of the 1783 Laki Eruption”. The Mississippi River froze at New Orleans. Floating masses of ice were met by ships in the 28th degree of latitude, which is 100 km south of the Mississipe Delta.
Willis, a few questions…..
Did you consider; (?)
“The datasets that can be downloaded from the website make use of only the public stations series……….. Therefore results created from the downloaded datasets might not necessarily be the same as those given elsewhere on this website.”
Do you believe these data have not be considered in the scientists that would disagree with you’s work, or were they were and previously misinterpreted?
Should Dr. Spencer be removing the ‘Mt Pinatubo cooling’ graphic from his work?
Cheers, Nick.
John K. Sutherland. says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Say what? I find nothing on the Wiki page (which of course I had previously read) regarding the banning of the export of foods. Much of what is on the page is un-cited. I know that’s the legend. I’m trying to see what the truth content of the legend might be.
For example, they say of the Northeastern US:
I find nothing to support that. In the Cincinnati area, in 1814 oats were $0.50 per bushel, $0.34 per bushel in 1816, and $0.40 per bushel in 1817. And the least they ever were there was $0.21 per bushel in 1805. (SOURCE)
So as usual, Wikipedia is a source of urban legends, and you should have stuck with hating to direct anyone there …
w.
vukcevic says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:32 pm
The Brits stockpiled some grain, but they stockpiled it in France. I can’t find any evidence that they brought it back to the UK.
Your graph is meaningless without a source. And you still haven’t provided any citation for your claim of a “huge surplus available”. Cite?
w/
I think the graphs are too small a study for what was likely to be a phenomenon that was both cumulative over years/decades and regionally variable.
The years prior saw several large eruptions which probably had a cumulative effect, so the ‘year without a summer’ probably was part of a longer trend with regional variations, not necessarily shown in averaged temperatures from small sample sizes.
On another note, with volcanoes I think the idea of tipping points applies, i.e. longer term climate disruptions from volcanic episodes generally correspond to longer- lived volcanic events, such as the Siberian Traps and the Permian extinction. The ‘year without a summer’ may have been an anecdotal and largley regional response to a phenomenon that involved several years of volcanic effects.
Willis, you said “Tambora was the big cheese, the grand gorgonzola of volcanoes.”
Remarkable simile! Thanks for the grins!! Excellent analysis also, well done.
Tim Folkerts says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Was 1816 cooler than average most places in Europe? Seems like.
Is this unusual? No way. When one place in Europe is cold, many times most places in Europe are cold.
Was the 1816 cold unique or extreme? Hardly. As my graphs show, in every place I looked colder summers were easy to find.
Was the Europe-wide summer of 1816 unusually cold across the board, or as you put it regarding 1816, “below average in all the spots”? Not very, see the Luterbacher reconstruction above. According to Luterbacher that was true in 1821, but not 1816.
Remind me what I’m missing?
w.
From Willis Eschenbach on April 15, 2012 at 3:35 pm:
Both real shortages and war speculation drove up prices before 1816. For 1816, resumed trade, increases in domestic production taking advantage of earlier higher prices, and earlier hoarding all together reduced prices due to a temporary market glut.
There is also a time delay in information going between the US and Great Britain. Heck, took two months to learn the War of 1812 was over. If the British markets were expecting US production to make up some shortfalls in 1816, the full impact of bad US harvests would have largely missed 1816 British prices. (Oh, I scanned the study and it looks like standard years were used.)
(Not my theory, that’s just included in the quote.)
In my comment I looked at field-grown crops. That would hopefully identify something affecting the growing of plants. And I found something for 1817-19, a large price index increase for “Arable” crops, which can indicate the 1816 field harvest was lousy. Note I didn’t state what the cause was, just noted how 1816 field-grown crops looked negatively affected by something.
If you have a late frost especially after warm weather where the trees are budding. It can kill the buds and then it seems like you have no summer regardless of how warm it gets. You can have a normal year and because the buds died, a lot of the crops fail.
I’ve seen written records (published in the later 1800’s based on recollections of those who lived through it) indicating that there were severe crop losses occasioned by a killing frosts in Juna and then in early July in areas of the Northeast US (6 weeks into the normal growing season). A simple web search (e.g. 1816 July frost) will turn up many similar recountings (e.g. http://wermenh.com/1816.html). Irrespective of mean temperatures, low temperature events made the crop year a disaster.
macromite says:
April 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Sure, I try to look at all the links. I agree that 1816 was unusual. I also think that the story, over the years, has been greatly hyped and exaggerated.
At best the effect lasted for a part of a year (one summer) over a part of the globe (parts of the Northern Hemisphere) … and I don’t find that too impressive.
w.
Regarding agricultural commodity prices:
hen, as always, commodity prices where heavily influenced by the monetary base. The late Dr Milton Freidman did not invent this phenomenon he merely discovered it and put it in the literature.
Eli Rabett says:
April 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Thanks, Eli, interesting point about UV. I think you meant it would affect the NH more than the SH. My point, which your contention supports, is that the volcano affected only part of the world for part of a year.
w.
I was in northern Minnesota a couple of summers ago, in early August. Several locals referred to this as a year without a summer.
I may have missed something in all this long posting but at the time of the Tambora eruption what was the sun doing? The past few years have seen low solar activity and there has also been cooler summer maximums for the past few years so, although the volcanism probably did have some effect on weather it may have been allied to the low solar activity as seems to have been the case for the past couple of years.
Willis,
Have you had any luck in finding the source for “The Year Without A Summer” claim? and who tied it down to the summer of 1816?
Here’s a funny coincidence, Swiss astronomer Rudolf Wolf was born during the summer of 1816.