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.
You may find a just published paper on this topic interesting: ” Extreme climate, not extreme weather: the summer of 1816 in Geneva, Switzerland”, by Renate Auchmann and colleagues.
http://www.clim-past.net/8/325/2012/cp-8-325-2012.html
It states that the weather was very cloudy, which makes the perceived temperature lower. Thus maybe both the people and the measurements are right.
Yes Rick – I recall the cancellation of the 2009 re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham – perhaps we should have let the French win this time. 🙂
It is worthwhile to examine Quebec history in the context of this controversy. Like the global warming scam, the Quebec separatist movement is largely based on the BIG LIE.
For 40 years, Canada and Quebec have been held hostage by separatists, who have spread many falsehoods, including the alleged cruelty of living “under the British boot”.
In fact, France was a poor and uncaring administrator, and Quebec habitants were much better off and thrived under British rule.
Here is some of the evidence:
In the ~160 years to 1763 under French rule, Quebec population grew by only about 1 person per day.
In the 60 years of British rule from 1784 to 1844, Quebec population grew by about 26 people per day.
Quebec population growth shows two distinct linear trends, with a steep upward shift after commencement of British rule.
In 1765 Quebec’s population was 69,810. By 1844 it was ten times higher, at 697,084. This impressive growth rate certainly does not indicate that the habitants were badly treated.
Several generations of Canadians, ESPECIALLY the Quebecois, have had their lives and careers emotionally and economically blighted by Quebec separatism.
It is apparent that the alleged grievances of separatists are, to a large extent, based on falsehoods.
It is long past time to move on, and leave this foolishness in the dust.
**************************************
Source of population data: Quebec Yearbook, 1970, p. 137
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/stats/pop05-44.htm
Rick werme said
“Given the steady decline in sunspot magnetic fields that Livingston and Penn are tracking, I’m expecting this period to become a named minimum. The next couple of decades will be interesting.”
The problem is that the data(historic and today’s) is getting more and more UNFCCC conform. Because the reality(historic and today’s) is not. So they will probably make it a maximum?
Willis, you couldn’t find it so it doesn’t exist? Really? Take a look at this site:
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1/index.html
You can find the timeseries of summertemperatures for a lot of stations around the alps (like Bologna, Milano, Hohenpeißenberg…). You will find the “year without summer” in quite a lot of stations. For example Geneve:
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/images/stationmode/T01_GNV_summer.png
Nearly as interesting are the air pressure series:
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/images/stationmode/P01_GNV_summer.png
Thanks to David Archibald for referencing the publication of proceedings of our Ottawa conference on Tambora and 1816 titled, “The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816″.
A major issue in planning the conference was the relationship between the Dalton Minimum and the volcano. We invited John Eddy as the keynote presenter because he was giving publicity to the idea of sunspots and temperature and we were interested in the impact of a volcanic eruption when global temperatures were declining. How much impact would Tambora have had if global temperatures were increasing?
We were also interested in the extent of impact so we organized a workshop in which researchers from all over the world brought data on temperature and precipitation in their region. We plotted these on a world map, which is included in a pocket at the back of the publication.
The map and information discussed in the workshop and published in the book clearly indicate extreme meridional flow with blocking that resulted in extremes of temperature and precitipitation as well as dramatic changes in areas of arctic ice. I discussed the latter in this article
http://drtimball.com/2011/another-climate-change-scare-is-on-thin-ice/
because it was Cynthia Wilson who produced the Royal Society/Admiralty story at our Tambora conference.
However, there were large areas of ‘normal’ weather. The region I examined was central Canada and it was a transitional zone between the extreme cold of easter North America and the normal pattern in the west. It is naive to assume that a change due to a forcing is detectable over the entire globe. This is especially true for precipitation. It is also naive to assume that only temperature and precipitation have an impact on plants and thereby agriculture yields.
For example, in the impact of volcanoes on weather and crop production one factor overlooked is decrease in yellow light by the sulphur dust forming water droplets (sulphuric acid), which is critical to crop growth, especially in the ripening phase. A similar impact was evident after Pinatubo. it was like trying to grow a crop under a normal neon light. You need one with added yellow light if you are going to grow plants. I wrote about this in a 1993 article available here (#3).
http://drtimball.com/_files/volcanoes001.pdf
Tim Ball says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:04 am
Tim, I felt bad in not mentioning your patrinomy as the source of the recommendation. At under $10/kg for high level science, it is a great book.
Kasuha says:
April 16, 2012 at 5:46 am
Yes, humans can perform “anomaly evaluations”. But you are arguing against a straw man. I said we don’t respond to average temperatures, not that we can’t perform anomaly evaluation. For example, the average temperature of the earth has gone up a half a degree in my lifetime. We can evaluate that anomaly. But we can’t respond to it, heck, we can’t even sense it. Why?
Because an average is not real. It cannot be sensed. It cannot be felt. It is a mental construct.
In any case, your claim is that plants and animals can also perform “anomaly evaluations”, saying “this summer is really warm, must be AGW” or something?
I doubt that greatly, Kasuha. I can believe they experience “I’m hot” and “I’m cold”, sure, every creature senses the temperature. But plants and animals aren’t thinking “this spring is warmer than average”, that’s not happening. A plant is aware of what the temperature is now.
w.
Don says:
April 16, 2012 at 4:47 am
What on earth are you talking about? That makes no sense at all.
w.
rgbatduke says:
April 16, 2012 at 6:09 am
Thanks, Robert. I have shown how the sun is coupled to the albedo, through the “warmer = cloudier” relationship in the tropics. Here’s a graphic demonstrating it beyond doubt:
This shows the albedo in August (NH summer) and February (SH summer). You can see that when the sun goes north of the equator, the albedo follows, and when the sun goes south, the albedo goes south. Since it is clear that the albedo is not making the sun move north and south …
Not sure why this would even be in question, but some folks seem to think that it is …
w.
Joel Heinrich says:
April 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
Oh, please. I’ve taken a very nuanced view of this question. I’ve stated that the Tambora volcano seems to have had effects, but they were both local (parts of Europe and North America) and short-lived (one summer).
Now you want to twist that into your fanciful, simplistic, and false claim that I said “it doesn’t exist”?
Learn to read.
w.
Tim Ball says:
April 16, 2012 at 9:04 am
Dr. Tim, thanks for your reference to your article on volcanoes. Regarding the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, you say in that article:
Presumably you must mean that there was a reduction in the Canadian crop yield in 1992 … but I find no evidence of such a reduction in any of the Canadia crops. Here’s the FAO data on the subject:
As you note, not one of the crop groups suffered any kind of significant decline in yield, and in fact, for three out of five of the groups, the yield was better in 1992 than in the previous year, and for three of the five groups the yield was better in 1992 than in the following year.
Just what “effect” are you referring to from Pinatubo, and what kind of Canadian farmers were affected?
To me, this is a recurring problem with volcano research. Everyone has lurid tales of what happened, but when I look at the data, far too many times I don’t find the effects that would necessarily flow from the claims of the proponents.
w.
Willis
Just in case you might be thinking of doing any sort of follow up on the effects of volcanos you might be interested to know that in the UK we were treated to daily updates from the Met office in the shape of maps accompanying the weather forecast on the TV news in connection with the 2010 icelandic dust cloud, and specfically in connnection with flights
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/latest/volcano
The interesting thing was how much the computer model scenarios changed day by day and how some parts of Britain were affected whilst others werent. Translate that to a bigger eruption affecting sunlight and it would be easy to see how some parts of the country would be very badly affected leaving other parts totally unaffected and the following week it could be all change. As I said previously, it all comes down to wind patterns I suspect.
Eventually one of the Budget airlines who were fed up with their planes being continally cancelled forced the Govts hand by deliberately flying a plane into the ‘affected’ ash cloud area and found nothing at all there, which started a big row as to the accuracy of Met office computer models.
I suspect other countries must have had similar maps and you might feel it worth seeing if there is any relation between reality and computer models as regards the effects of ash on our climate using them as a template.
all the best
tonyb
climatereason says:
April 16, 2012 at 11:03 am
Thanks, Tony. I followed that debacle as it went on, and I was amused to see the computers having a hard time with it … which was surprising since it is generally accepted that the same computers can tell us the climate a century from now …
Regarding the effect of the wind, that is true for a nearby ongoing volcano. For a distant single eruption, however, the SO4 is distributed widely once it reaches the stratosphere, so the surface wind is less important.
w.
Tim Ball
I wrote about the melting Arctic ice around 1817-1860 in my 2009 article carried here, which also referenced the Admiralty report.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
It was interesting this melting occured even though temperatures generally were declining at the time and despite (because of?) Tambora, but I traced the records of Whalers from my home port on the English South Coast and they had commented that the sea ice was declining some 20 years previously. However, due to a little local difficulty with some troublesome North Americans at the time, the Royal Navy didnt have the ships to investigate. Enough ships became available to mount an expedition once Napoleon was dealt with . The First great Arctic scientist-who I reference in the article- William Scoresby, is buried not 10 miles away from my home.
tonyb
Willis
I was thinking more of the jet stream than ordinary winds which I suspect have a greater influence on our climate than we are yet aware of, but your comment on SO4 distribution probably applies to the Jet stream also.
As regards the Met office computing ability, my wife has an Iphone with a met office app that displays our local weather. She was quite thrilled to see the self same logo app on the Met Office entrance sign as we went to visit the library at their HQ near Exeter-only 15 miles from where we live.
Even she has to admit that even though they are so close the Met Office app is rarely right (except when the weather is settled) which surely illustrates that ;
a) The effects of micro climates are little understood
b) Their forecasting ability is limited for even the next few days
c) It is hilarious that anyone should believe they have the ability to forecacast 100 years in the future.
d) Unfortuately, that ‘anyone’ includes our government who, on the strength of their advice, seem determined to bankrupt the country through the imposition of green taxes and an unhealthy obsession with wind power.
tonyb
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.
Willis
That is worth a good laugh.
http://images.wikia.com/genealogy/images/d/d4/Europe_map_1812.PNG
state of the Franco-British ‘entente cordiale’ in 1812
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conversation_across_the_water.jpg
There were at least 90 major eruptions in the Little Ice Age –
“Whenever SOLAR RADIATION has DECREASED and VOCANIC ACTIVITY has INCREASED, global temperatures SUDDENLY PLUMMET, often within weeks or months.”
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
From (600 B.C. to 2000 A.D.) : http://www.longrangeweather.com/Long-Range-Weather-Trends.htm
“The information on this website shows weather and historical trends from approximately 600 B.C. to the present day. Much of this data was put together by the Weather Science Foundation in Illinois back in the early to mid 1970s. At one time, over 60 people were employed to gather worldwide data.
Unfortunately, funding for this project evaporated and the Weather Science Foundation shut down its operation. However, some of this unique information was given to Climatologist Cliff Harris. By an agreement, Cliff did not use or publish any of this information for 30 years.”
Concerning the British agricultural prices of the time:
While people are arguing about quick market reactions and such nearly 200 years hence, I found a contemporaneous account:
On the depressed state of agriculture
James Cleghorn, Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, Edinburgh
A. Constable and Co., 1822
Google Books, free download, click on “EBOOK-FREE” and select pdf or another choice.
Link.
From the pages I have looked at, it’s an interesting accounting of market manipulation with information on imports, exports, warehousing to control market prices, etc. An ebook has now made me wish I had the paper version in my hands. Fascinating.
The following are manual transcriptions:
pg 77-8:
“The very bad season of 1816 having opened the ports, very large imports were made till February 1819, when the ports finally closed against wheat, and have never been opened since.”
pg 79:
“But it is to be considered, that like crops 1799 and 1800, crops 1816 and 1817 were greatly deficient, particularly the former, which is said not to yield more than about 12 bushels the acre, in the best corn district in Scotland, where the average produce is about 30 bushels.”
pg 80:
“If, on the other hand, as there can be no doubt was the fact, only a small proportion of this foreign grain was not disposed of before the ports shut in February 1819, its effect in reducing prices must have been chiefly confined to those of the years 1817 and 1818, that is to say, to the prices of the two very inferior crops 1816 and 1817, which then came into consumption. We are told that these large importations displaced an equal quantity of British wheat, as if the produce of 1816 and 1817 had been a full average produce; whereas the fact is, they were required to supply its deficiency. They could not displace or supersede what had no existence.”
1816 had a lousy harvest. 1817 wasn’t great either. Here is the proof, from an observer at the time. Prices alone will not show this due to market manipulations at the time.
Galane says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Back in the day when money was backed by metal (silver in the case of the pound) rapid inflation was less likely. So I doubt greatly that there was a big change in the value of the British pound from 1810 to 1820, although I’ve been surprised before … let me look …
…
…
OK, in constant pounds, one pound in 1810 was worth 1.05 pounds in 1816, a slight deflation, and was worth 1.01 pounds in 1820. So the chart is valid as it stands within a few percent.
w.
Myrrh says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Myrrh, this citation reminds me why I very rarely answer your posts, because they are usually full of CAPITAL LETTERS and FALSE INFORMATION.
First, global temperatures don’t “SUDDENLY PLUMMET” when a volcano goes off, that’s alarmist nonsense. See my posts here, here, here, and here for a host of citations and evidence that shows that the effects of volcanos have been greatly over-rated.
Second, no way there were “90 major eruptions” in the Little Ice Age. Your reference shows the LIA lasting from 1350 to 1850, which is odd in itself, but never mind. A major eruption is often taken as one with a “VEI”, or volcanic explosive index, of 5 or more. Wikipedia has a list of “large volcanic eruptions”, VEI of 5 or more. There are exactly nine eruptions on that list during the Little Ice Age.
Let me give you the advice I gave you before, which is, read and learn, and think very hard before posting. Claiming things like “90 major eruptions in the Little Ice Age” just makes people point and laugh. Your posts are so bad I usually just skip over them, or simply read them, laugh a bit and move on … and I doubt that’s the effect you are looking for.
Do your homework first, look for opposing opinions, find actual sources for your facts, and then post …
w.
Observation from NZ. The Pinatubo eruption caused little temperature change here, but that change was sufficient on Mt Ruapehu to give magnificent snow dumps from 1992 to 1994. Ruapehu receives most weather from the northwest, which is normally above freezing and falls as rain. During the Pinatubo years the temperature dropped sufficiently for it to fall as snow, giving metres of extra snow. Legendary years for skiers!
> Small temperature change but enormous observed difference in effect.
Beth
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
April 16, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Fascinating stuff, KD. My only comment is that switching from British grain to imported grain would raise the price, as it has to be trans-shipped from somewhere else, and that never happens for free.
A clear description of the happenings, though, makes me want to read more … and learn more … and live forever … and …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 16, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Myrrh says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm
There were at least 90 major eruptions in the Little Ice Age –
“Whenever SOLAR RADIATION has DECREASED and VOCANIC ACTIVITY has INCREASED, global temperatures SUDDENLY PLUMMET, often within weeks or months.”
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Myrrh, this citation reminds me why I very rarely answer your posts, because they are usually full of CAPITAL LETTERS and FALSE INFORMATION.
That was a quote, as written, their emphasis, I respected that and copied it. Perhaps you missed the quotation marks, or perhaps didn’t bother looking at the page properly? But then, we’ve had this before, you misquoting me in a discussion where you were yelling at others for misquoting you.. Still, as they say, hope springs eternal – perhaps this time I’ll get an apology.
First, global temperatures don’t “SUDDENLY PLUMMET” when a volcano goes off, that’s alarmist nonsense. See my posts here, here, here, and here for a host of citations and evidence that shows that the effects of volcanos have been greatly over-rated.
Well, I’ve looked at the first two links, you’re talking about Pinatubo in 1991. What I quoted clearly says, their emphasis remember, they’re not shouting, nor am I..:
“Whenever SOLAR RADIATION has DECREASED and VOCANIC ACTIVITY has INCREASED, global temperatures SUDDENLY PLUMMET, often within weeks or months.”
So, your links irrelevant – unless you have something specifically relating to, what I thought, an interesting body of work generally, but in particular this emphasised point; in which case, go fetch.
From which: “From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet’s warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earth’s ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership.
Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s.”
So, it certainly looks like a huge amount of work went into producing this summary, and its conclusion, and, I also thought it very interesting that it was embargoed for 30 years. Your mileage may vary.
Second, no way there were “90 major eruptions” in the Little Ice Age. Your reference shows the LIA lasting from 1350 to 1850, which is odd in itself, but never mind. A major eruption is often taken as one with a “VEI”, or volcanic explosive index, of 5 or more. Wikipedia has a list of “large volcanic eruptions”, VEI of 5 or more. There are exactly nine eruptions on that list during the Little Ice Age.
Huh? Now you’re giving me wiki as reliable after saying above, and I quote you accurately:
“So as usual, Wikipedia is a source of urban legends, and you should have stuck with hating to direct anyone there …”
Do you ever listen to yourself?
I’ve just posted information on an amazing body of work, which I have no reason to suppose is not accurate to the best of its knowledge in its counting of major volcanic eruptions globally.
The other page I linked to had this to say: ““The information on this website shows weather and historical trends from approximately 600 B.C. to the present day. Much of this data was put together by the Weather Science Foundation in Illinois back in the early to mid 1970s. At one time, over 60 people were employed to gather worldwide data.”
As to their dates for the LIA, what’s your problem with it?
Let me give you the advice I gave you before, which is, read and learn, and think very hard before posting. Claiming things like “90 major eruptions in the Little Ice Age” just makes people point and laugh. Your posts are so bad I usually just skip over them, or simply read them, laugh a bit and move on … and I doubt that’s the effect you are looking for.
I think those reading here know what they think and if that’s what they’re doing then they like you haven’t bothered to read what I’ve posted. My point to you earlier, which I assume you didn’t take in either, was that your analysis using temperature is superficial because it doesn’t take in observation from the vast body, if somewhat scattered, historic records that we have nor does it take into account the vagaries of farming etc., as others have pointed out. You certainly don’t show any appreciation of what it means to be affected by such events as mass starvation, widespread sickness and migration, which is why we do get our historic information from contemporary accounts – because these are noteworthy.
Do your homework first, look for opposing opinions,
Don’t tell me how to enter discussions, certainly not when you’re unwilling to consider doing the same and instead reply with sarcastic irrelevancies and ad homs because, shrug, whatever..
find actual sources for your facts, and then post …
I gave you my source. I linked to it. I gave a summary description of it. Why not try reading it?
pg 80:
“If, on the other hand, as there can be no doubt was the fact, only a small proportion of this foreign grain was not disposed of before the ports shut in February 1819, its effect in reducing prices must have been chiefly confined to those of the years 1817 and 1818, that is to say, to the prices of the two very inferior crops 1816 and 1817, which then came into consumption. We are told that these large importations displaced an equal quantity of British wheat, as if the produce of 1816 and 1817 had been a full average produce; whereas the fact is, they were required to supply its deficiency. They could not displace or supersede what had no existence.”
Curious. Other accounts say there was no importation of corn at all during these years due to the Corn Laws enacted in 1815.
Here is one by Frederick Engel himself.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/09/30.htm
Beth Burdett says:
April 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm (Edit)
Thanks, Beth. And if there had been a volcanic eruption in 2007, I suppose you’d be giving it credit for the following from 2008 …
I’m sure you see the problem, which is that correlation definitely is not causation. Perhaps Pinatubo brought snow, but then what brought snow in 2008, biggest snow base ever? And how do you know that the same phenomenon wasn’t responsible for the 1992-1994 snow?
Finally, the sulfate from the volcanoes doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long. Pinatubo might, and I emphasize might, be a factor in increased snow in 1992 … but by the end of 1993 the aerosols were back to their pre-Pinatubo levels.
All the best,
w.