Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, we haven’t had a game of “Spot The Volcano” in a while, so I thought I’d take a look at what is likely the earliest volcanic eruption for which we have actual temperature records. This was the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Laki in June of 1783. It is claimed to have caused a very cold winter in 1783-1784. A study of the effects (see end notes) says:
… the 1783-1784 winter was extremely cold and snowy around the circum-North Atlantic. European temperatures were ~2°C below average for the late 1700s, and it was among the coldest winters in Central England …
Well dang … that sounds pretty scary. However, being a naturally suspicious fellow, I thought I’d take a look and see just what the temperatures actually said. I found eight records in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature dataset that went back that far, there may be others, but these cover a wide area of Europe. Here’s your puzzle:
Figure 1. Eight long-term temperature records from Europe. All of them are aligned to start and end on the same date, but the dates have been removed
So … is the year of the “extremely cold and snowy winter” location number 1, 2, 3, or 4?
While you consider that question, let me point out that despite frequent claims of “unusual” or “extremely” or “unprecedented” and the like, I’ve shown in the past even very large volcanic eruptions cause little in the way of temperature changes (see end notes). The Laki volcano is in Iceland, so you’d think that the signal from it would be strong in Europe. And indeed, as the quote above shows, this is the common wisdom.
But as the temperature graphs show, the actual eruption makes little difference to the temperatures. The winter following the eruption of Laki is actually at location number 3, so there is some effect from it visible in all of the records. Looks like it is the one winter that was unusually cold in every one of the eight records.
But even then, it’s not that large and … and … oops … hang on a minute, sorry ’bout that. I got the numbers wrong. Here’s the actual situation regarding the winter of 1783-1784:
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but including the dates.
As you can see, the winter following the Laki eruption is not the one marked with the red “3”. Actually it’s the one marked by the red “2” … and it is pretty unremarkable. In general it is NOT “~2°C below average for the late 1700s” as the quoted study says, that’s simply untrue. And in several of the datasets, it’s no colder than normal.
We do have one other dataset going back that far, the Central England temperature dataset. Here’s that data:
Figure 3. Central England Temperature (CET), late 1700’s.
Remembering that the study claimed that this was “among the coldest winters in Central England”, which winter looks like the big winner here?
In fact, far from being among the coldest all-time winters, the winter of 1783-1784 was not even in the top three for the quarter century 1775-1800 …
Figure 4. CET including the dates.
My point is simple. We have been told a story all of our lives about how volcanic eruptions have large, widespread, and long-lasting effects on the global weather. It turns out that this was a scientific urban legend. In fact, the effects are small, localized, and short-lived.
UPDATE: For those who like averages, here are the averages of the eight station records.
Regards to everyone,
w.
AS ALWAYS: If you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH, so we can all understand the substance and nature of your objections.
FURTHER READING: I’ve analyzed the effects of a number of large volcanic eruptions. In all cases, their effects have been small. See:
Prediction is hard, especially of the future.
Dronning Maud Meets the Little Ice Age
New Data, Old Claims About Volcanoes
BEST, Volcanoes and Climate Sensitivity
Volcanoes: Active, Inactive, and Retroactive
Stacked Volcanoes Falsify Models
The Eruption Over the IPCC AR5
Eruptions and Ocean Heat Content
DATA: Monthly mean HadCET data
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature data
Laki Winter study quoted above
Guys, most of you appear to be missing my point. Well, except (as usual) Dr. Robert Brown.
The details of whether the winter after Laki was the fourteenth or the sixteenth coldest in the CET record is not the point. In fact there are no less than 16 winters in the CET that were as cold or colder. But again that’s not the point.
The point is that the effects of volcanoes on the surface temperature are so small that (as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated) you cannot distinguish them from the other variations in the temperature. If I were to give you the CET, there’s no way that you could tell when the volcanic eruptions happened, even when they happened right next door in Iceland.
And this is a very important point. Again, Dr. Robert Brown sees it clearly:
Now, as you know, I think that the reason that the climate is insensitive to changes in forcing is that there are a variety of emergent phenomena, ranging from dust devils to the PDO, that maintain the planetary temperature regardless of changes in the forcing.
Which is one reason that I keep trying to point out how little effect volcanoes have on the temperature. They are clear and direct evidence that the main climate paradigm is incorrect, that is to say, they are evidence that surface temperature is NOT a lineal function of the forcing.
So you guys can argue all you want about exactly what the term “among the coldest winters in Central England” actually means, and whether that includes the Laki winter that is tied for sixteenth. It doesn’t matter to me. What matters is the central point, which is that the eruptions are not acting in the way the climate models and the prevailing climate paradigm think they should act.
The prevailing paradigm says that the effect of the eruptions on surface temperatures should be large, widespread, and long-lasting. That conclusion is the inevitable result of the foolish belief that temperatures are a linear function of the forcing.
You guys seem to think I’m saying that volcanoes have no effect. This is not true in the slightest. Instead, I’m saying that the effects of the eruptions are so small, localized, and short-lived that we cannot identify them in our surface temperature records.
Now, since the volcanoes provide excellent evidence that the climate models and the CO2 paradigm are wrong, I’d think you’d spend your time thinking about and building on that, rather than nit-picking about whether it’s the 14th or 16th coldest winter … but nooo, you’d rather rag on me and claim that I’m an idiot and that I’m ignoring the Egyptian famine of 1783 and the like.
Which I suppose shouldn’t surprise me, because if I say the sky is blue there’s heaps of folks who’ll jump up to tell me I’m wrong … but I would hope that you’d show some curiosity about the implications of the fact that the eruptions cannot be located in time by examining the surface temperature datasets. Look, here’s the winter CET data:
Can you locate on that graph the other major volcanoes, without knowing their dates in advance? And if not … what are the implications of that fact for the idea that temperature is a linear function of the forcing?
w.
What you still don’t get is that the coldest winters were during the Maunder Minimum. Take out the solar minima and look just at the long stretch of the 18th century that is most comparable with 1783-84. That would be the correct statistical procedure.
For the whole period from the end of the Maunder to beginning of the Dalton (ie ~78 years, incl, 1716-93), only one year beats the two Laki-affected winters, the fabled chill of 1739/40. If that result means nothing to you, then you are truly a hopeless case, statistically speaking. Results could scarcely get more “unusual”, contrary to your assertion.
When BTW are you going to admit that you were wrong about the rank of 1783/84 in the period you cited? IMO you should rely less on graphs and more on the actual numbers upon which they are based. You miss things otherwise.
Perhaps I should say fabled and freakish for 1740. It was one of those rare weather events that happened to occur twice in the 18th century, but the first (1709) was during the Maunder, so not totally unexpected, while the famous mid-century chill came out of the blue, so to speak.
Some observations:
Willis will admit to error, but in my experience must be dragged to it after evasions. But that is still to his credit, when so many in the “climate change” universe are so averse to doing so.
You are right however that he does strangely rely upon graphs rather than the data behind the graphs.
I base this conclusion upon our discussion regarding the duration of the Holocene v. the Eemian, the previous interglacial. I showed the dates in thousand years before present for the Eemian, but Willis wouldn’t accept them until he found a graph based upon them, which he could post here. But, again, that was also an instance to his credit, in which he did own up to a mistake.
I don’t know why he does as he does in this case, pretending not to know about what you’re talking, when so many commenters have pointed out that his guess as to the number of winters colder than 1783 in his selected period is just plain wrong.
Catherine Ronconi November 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm
Catherine, is there something in the phrase “QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH” that is somehow unintelligible to you? I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Look, I’m sure it seems obvious to you, but to me it’s a claim without meaning.
In addition, I fear that the fact that the Laki winter is the 14th or 16th coldest winter, depending on how you count it, has nothing to do with the Maunder Minimum. The Laki winter is still not in any way anomalous or unusual, no matter what you think about the Maunder.
In fact, this post has nothing to do with the Maunder in the slightest, that’s just your attempt to divert the conversation. Sorry … not buying.
w.
Do you read people’s replies to you, or not? Apparently not?
At least once, your wildly, hilariously incorrect assertion has been shown you.
You claim as third coldest the summer that was second coldest during the period you cited. How many times does this need to be pointed out to you before you stop making an ALL CAPS fool of yourself?
I’m not diverting in the least, but just trying to school you in proper statistical technique, in which art all your posts and comments on this blog have shown over and over again that your sorely lack.
What do you mean by “unusual”? This has been repeatedly asked of you.
More proof that you don’t bother to read the comments by your betters, ie people who have actually studied the relevant disciplines.
Did you really not read the many prior comments about your false on its face claim that “the winter of 1783 was cold … but according to the CET, it didn’t even make the top three in the quarter century 1775-1800. Hardly impressive”?
This appears to be an SOP tactic of yours. Pitiful. It seems that there is no tactic too low for you to which to stoop to try to rescue something from the ashes of your wasted existence late in its run.
As you have been showed repeatedly, only one year out of 78 from the appropriate period was colder than 1783/84. That makes two out of 78. On Planet Willis, 2.5% may be “usual”, but I’m afraid not on Planet Earth as pertains to statistical analysis.
Your adherence to ludicrous statistical technique in a vane attempt to maintain your indefensible position is nothing short of pathetic.
Again, sorry. Meant “vain”, obviously.
But however spelled, Willis’ SOP is pathetic. It’s beyond me how the psych (appropriate!) BA’s tricks have managed to enthrall as many fan boys and girls on this site as it seems have been so bewitched.
My guess is few to none among people with actual scientific degrees.
…….”My guess is few to none among people with actual scientific degrees.”
============================
Count me amongst the trash, now what ?
You gonna educate me, or just argue with Willis.
Your move.
Catherine Ronconi November 19, 2014 at 7:12 pm
And yet, I have a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” about climate science published in Nature magazine … how about you? Are you published in Nature magazine on climate? And I have a peer-reviewed study on extinctions published in “Diversity and Distribution” … funny how they had no problem with my scientific abilities. And guess what?
I’ll take their opinion over yours any time. I will say, however … your ad hominem attacks are hilarious, I think I missed your calling.
w.
Willis said
“I’ve come across a very interesting and very detailed account of the actual effects of the volcano. The main effect seems to have been an acidic fog.”
Quote:
“There are not many historical records from North America that mention the arrival of the Laki haze, but tree ring records from northern Alaska suggest that July and August 1783 were very cold.”
Yes very likely with a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation, while the UK was very hot, hot enough to cook meat on the pavement according to the Rev. Gilbert White.
And apart from a couple of brief late eruptive episodes, most of the haze was gone by Autumn, so there’s no direct link to the cold winter anyway. All the haze did was to make the 1783 summer hotter, like in Moscow in 2010 with the forest fire haze, and in our hottest ever UK Easter in 2011 when record levels of pollution drifted across from Europe.
And high altitude aerosols remaining apparently till February (re pdf up thread), should have had a slight warming effect at such latitudes in winter months.
Catherine Ronconi November 19, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Catherine, I do my best to read all the comments. However, this is not the only thing in my life, as I have a day job and my research.
In any case, I just searched through the entire thread, and didn’t find where I’d said anything about how cold the summers might be. I did speak about the swing from summer to winter here, but other than that I don’t find a single comment about the warmth of the summer. So I fear your reluctance to point out whatever it might be that you’re mumbling about is keeping you from getting an answer to your question.
Now, I just wasted time searching the whole thread, and I couldn’t find whatever it is you think is so important. So I say again—if you have a question, QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS and I’ll see what I can do. I’m not going to go on yet another snipe hunt just because you are too uninterested to specify whatever you don’t like. Now, you’re free not to quote my words … but I’ll take that as acknowledgement that you just made it all up.
Finally, if you are trying to “school me in proper statistical technique”, I fear you are failing very badly, and should likely give it up. From my perspective, your unpleasant personality is far too off-putting for you to set yourself up as a teacher in my case, no matter whether you are right or wrong.
Regards,
w.
It would be interesting to know when this “coldest winter” mantra appeared in the literature and in what context.
Also, people tend to consider a winter exceedingly cold when it is not so much the temperature that’s lower than usual, but when there’s much more snow than usual. A wet winter is perceived to be colder than a dry one. Are there any snow records for these temperature data sets?
Catherine Ronconi November 19, 2014 at 7:01 pm Edit
Yeah, sturgishooper asked me a couple times, and I roundly ignored him, for two reasons. First, nothing I can say will ever satisfy him. Second, it’s a meaningless side issue of no importance.
So, now you’ve asked me. I’m ignoring your question as well, for two reasons. First, nothing I can say will ever satisfy you, your mind is made up, you don’t want to be bothered with facts. Second, it’s a meaningless side issue of no importance. The real issue is clear—the effects of eruptions on surface temperature are small, local, and short-lived. They are so small, in fact, that they can’t be distinguished from the normal fluctuations of the temperature … you want a definition of “unusual”? There’s one for you. If the temperature variations from the eruptions were unusual, you could pick them out of the record … but you can’t And this has large implications regarding the current climate paradigm that temperature is a linear function of forcing.
Now, rather than ask me what my definition of “small” and “local” and “short-lived” is, I encourage you instead to 1) get off your high horse, 2) think about the important issues, 3) give up the ad hominem attacks, and 4) stop sweating the small stuff.
Don’t like it?
Tough.
w.
IOW, you’re too cowardly to admit error, even after making a big deal about it.
IMO, all your critics have open minds. You just have failed utterly to make your case that the winters of 1783/84 and 1784/85 were usual. Clearly they were not.
Why is it that you don’t understand why the proper technique is to compare those years with those most like them, ie the majority of the 18th century outside the Maunder and Dalton solar minima? Apparently you do need help conducting a proper statistical analysis.
The fact remains that during the whole non-minimum period of ~1715 to 1790 only the exceptional winter of 1739/40 was colder than the winters of 1783-85. Only a statistical special pleader could possibly find those winters not unusual.
Your case fails prima facie. That is, it falls on its face.
Catherine Ronconi November 20, 2014 at 10:44 am Edit
Catherine, if you would quote my alleged “error” that you are babbling about, we could discuss it. Since you haven’t quoted it, I have no clue what supposed “error” you think I made.
I note that you still haven’t provided a quote to the last “error” you’d said I made, in your words:
I have no clue what you think I said, but I can’t find anything like that. As I said above … I’m taking your lack of response as an admission that you can’t find where I made such a claim about the “third coldest summer”
w.
milodonharlani November 19, 2014 at 7:22 pm
Perhaps you don’t know why I answered Catherine’s question because you are so dense that you didn’t notice that Catherine’s question is not about coldest winters, it’s about coldest summers, or as she said …
See the part about “summers” in her question? See the part about “winters” in your unpleasant attack?
Once again, milodon, your knee-jerk blind opposition to me has ended up with you looking like a blind knee-jerk … and no, I haven’t a clue what she’s talking about with her cold summers claim, and from all appearances, neither do you. My sense is that she’s refusing to quote my alleged words about cold summers because she can’t find them … but I’m happy for her to prove me wrong.
w.
HI willis
Just noticed that some calling himself ‘Toneb’ has started commenting.
It is NOT me.
tonyb
Thanks, tony.
w.
Willis: my problem with the raw temperatures is that they show an annual summer-winter “sawtooth” pattern, which swamps the changes we’re looking for. I happen to have CET data on hand, so I used that. I took a 2-step aproach to making the jumps/drops more visible…
1) Plot a graph of ((monthly temperature current) – (monthly temperature 12 months ago). This is the change from year to year, e.g. ((Temp(Jan, 1760) – Temp(Jan, 1759)). That is still rather noisey, but some spikes begins to appear. That’s the 1st plot
2) I took a 12-month-running-mean of the results of step 1) above. This should work because volcanic ash from major eruptions doesn’t show up in the atmosphere one month, and disappera the next. That’s the 2nd plot. The largest negative delta is 1740. That was the Great Irish Frost of 1740. See http://www.irishcentral.com/news/hundreds-of-thousands-died-in-the-irish-cold-snap-of-1740-112708034-237734211.html for details. 1783 shows up along with 1684, 1795, and 1799. The downspike for 1816 is not quite as large.
The 2 graphs follow, for the period 1660 to 1820. Apologies for the plainess of the graphs. I cobbled this together quickly.
http://imgur.com/WVR5RBL
http://imgur.com/d7l0WWl
Thanks, Walter. My point remains. Without knowing when the eruptions occurred, you can no more find them in your graph than in the regular graph of the data. From your graph, for example, you’d never have known that there was a very large eruption in 1816 which supposedly led to the “year without a summer … it’s just not visible. Nor is there anything unusual in the top graph around 1784.
Also, the big drop around the time of Laki in your second graph actually occurs BEFORE the eruption, in the winter of 1782-1783 …
Finally, is your average a trailing average or a centered average?
w.
The average for the 12 months ending December 1660 is plotted at 1661.0. I believe that’s called a trailing average. Note that the calendar doesn’t have month zero (or day zero or year zero) but the spreadsheet does. To accomadate this I have to plot like so…
Jan 1661 = 1661.083
Feb 1661 = 1661.167
…
Nov 1661 = 1661.917
Dec 1661 = 1662.000
This looks a bit wierd until you note that
* Day 1 of 1662 = Jan 1, 1662
* Day 0 of 1662 = Dec 31, 1661
Thus data to the end of December 31, 1661 gets plotted at 1662.000.
I checked the tail-end of my graph. I have CET data through October 2014, and the 2nd graph (12 month running mean of 12 month delta) ends at 2014.833
Willis concludes from his data which is NOT the case for his point he keeps trying to make below. I have presented graphs and studies from very prominent people in the field such as Dr. Spencer /Joe D ‘Aleo that do not agree.
The point is that the effects of volcanoes on the surface temperature are so small that (as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated) you cannot distinguish them from the other variations in the temperature. If I were to give you the CET, there’s no way that you could
Salvatore Del Prete November 20, 2014 at 8:43 am
Salvatore, this is why I ignore you. That makes no sense at all. You don’t have the courtesy to quote whatever it is you are referring to, and I’m totally unwilling to guess.
w.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_real_climate_drivers_ocean_and_solar_cycles_amplified_by_levels_of_volc/
Here is one such study again which I am in complete agreement with.
The problem as I see it is pitting one climate element in ISOLATION with out taken into account what else is going on at that given time. This is being done with solar and now volcanic activity.
Making it even worse is the focus in one particular area of the globe and not in the context of the whole globe.
Inn my opinion one can not take one item in isolation, in one particular section of the globe and try to prove what effect or non effect it may have on the climate. It will not work because the climate system is effected by several factors at any given time in addition to being non linear..
In my utterly meaningless opinion, I think figure 4 proves the exact opposite point the author intends. In the various temperature dips, I see the 1775 eruption of the Tseax Cone volcano, the 1779 eruption of Vesuvius, the 1783 eruption of Laki, the 1794 eruption of Vesuvius, and the 1798 eruption of Pico Viejo.
Me, too, in mine.
RH November 20, 2014 at 9:30 am Edit
Thanks, RH, but Figure 4 has the dates so of course you can identify them after the fact.
Here’s an example. This is the CET. Somewhere in there are three major eruptions—Krakatoa, Santa Maria, and Novarupta. Perhaps you can find them without having the dates attached … but I doubt it greatly.
Yes, RH, as both Dr. Brown and I pointed out, if you know the dates you can find the eruptions … but as the graph above amply demonstrates, if you don’t know the dates you are lost. Catherine asked me above for my definition of “unusual”. The results of the eruptions are nowhere near unusual enough to locate without a guide.
w.
Thanks for the challenge, I’ll take a stab at it tonight. As an aside, did you notice the 21 year cycle running through the record? Sunspots?
Just kidding about the 21 year cycle. As an old electronics tech, I’ve troubleshot so many rf interference problems that I see cycles everywhere.
I meant just kidding abou the 21 year cycle being caused by sunspots; wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. But there is definately a 21 or 22 year cycle there.
RH, sorry, but there’s no 21-year cycle in the data. In the overall data there is a 24 year cycle with a trivially small swing, a mere 1.7% of the swing of the data itself.
In addition, if you split the data in two, you’ll find that the 24-year cycle only exists in the first half of the data, and not in the second half. Because of its size, its inconsistency, and the fact that it is 24 years rather than 21 years, I say that it’s a random fluctuation.
w.
RH, here’s the data to back up the claims about the cycles.
As you can see, we’re way down in the weeds. The cycles are tiny and variable, indicating random fluctuations. Note the total absence of solar influences, including the lack of the ~80 year so-called “Gleissberg Cycle” of the sun.
w.
Maybe you could try that with a set of solar cycles that are exclusively during a warm AMO mode:
http://snag.gy/MTnui.jpg
Source: http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
You’re conflating two different issues, ie whether before the fact volcanic eruptions can be detected with what constitutes “unusual”. Not all cold spells in the CET are caused by volcanoes, obviously, and not all volcanic eruptions cause cold winters. But the right kind of eruptions do. Laki is clearly one.
The result of Laki is easily spotted. It’s the coldest two winters between freakishly cold 1740 and the onset of the Dalton Minimum, which had one winter colder in the 18th century, and also colder than all the other winters from the end of the Maunder Minimum to 1740. It stands out like a sore thumb.
Again, look at the actual data instead of a graph, and use the relevant period.
Your whole premise fails.
The high altitude haze that remained through the winter months, would lead to a minor surface warming at such latitudes. Which if anything would suggest that 1783/84 could have colder without the eruption. The winter itself is a short term drop out in the solar signal, when the Earth-Venus bisector is oriented in a particular direction at this type of Jovian configuration. The same pattern occurs in 1963, 1602, 1423, all severe European winters, and 1010 and 829 when the Nile froze too.
http://snag.gy/cj30B.jpg
Okay, here is my attempt to “find the eruptions”. Was I close?
http://i62.tinypic.com/2uha9v9.jpg
Sorry, RH … not close at all.
This illustrates my point very well. We’ve been told all our lives that volcanoes lead to cold winters, so the coldest winters are what we would expect after the volcanic eruptions. But that’s not the case.
Thanks, by the way, for taking the challenge seriously. People seem to think I do this for a joke, but it’s an important exercise.
All the best,
w.
Fascinating. It was easy finding significant eruptions that matched the pattern of temperature dips, even though there was no true correlation. Sometimes not finding patterns is harder than finding them. Thanks for taking the time.
Willis is trying to tie the volcanic /solar no correlations /no co2 correlations into his theory which is the climate is in a steady state,(the thermostat hypothesis ) yet we know from the historical climatic record that this just is not so.
Nevertheless I will bite and see if Willis can explain his logic to the questions I pose to him. .
Willis, I need to ask you questions pertaining to your thermostat hypothesis theory which I see no evidence for. In-fact evidence points the opposite way. The most recent being there is now evidence that Ice Ages can begin in months much less years.
My question to you Willis, is if this hypothesis is correct why has the earth’s climate gone from interglacial- glacial so many times coming off stable climate periods for some 10000 years or more in the past similar to today? Why doesn’t your thermostat hypothesis stop this from happening? Why does your thermostat hypothesis keep the climate stable indefinitely? Maybe you dismiss the fact earth had glacial-inter- glacial periods in the past?
If not how do you then reconcile your hypothesis in the face of all the evidence which shows it does not hold up over time? Did something happen the last 10000 years that never was present in prior times? If so what? Why did it come about just the last 10000 years ?
Willis ‘s theory
I have explained in “The Thermostat Hypothesis” what I think is the mechanism responsible for this unexplained stability. My explanation may be wrong, but there must be some mechanism which kept the global temperature within plus or minus 1% for ten thousand
.
Salvatore, I replied to you above.
w.
Catherine you are SO correct and said it so elegantly..
Jeff Alberts November 20, 2014 at 6:56 pm
Jeff, I was curious about your logic as to why the average of the stations is not “physically meaningful”. Let’s consider a single station. If the average temperature in January is lower than the average temperature in July, is that “nothing physically meaningful”?
I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m just trying to understand your thinking.
All the best,
w.
Not sure if this came clearly through in the article, but the Laki eruption lasted from June 1783 to Feb 1784 while there also was an eruption at the Grimsvötn volcano going on from 1783 to 1785 so they combined could have influence for at least 2 winters and possibly 3 summer seasons on the Northern hemisphere.
It seems that local hazing / fogging contributed significantly to the anecdotical harsh weather that followed with up to catastrophic failure of crops to ripe the summers influenced.
Thanks, Gavin. I agree about the “local hazing / fogging” being a major effect of Laki, with the key word being “local”. Eruptions have lots of local effects, as anyone sitting next to the eruption of Mount Saint Helens could attest to … if they were still alive.
What eruptions don’t appear to have is much effect on the global temperature.
w.
That is fine Willis. Your points of view Willis although I disagree with still are interesting and makes me think more about this subject. I welcome the differences that is how one learns or at least becomes aware of other theories.
Thanks, Salvatore. Please be clear that I don’t think you’re a bad person or a fool. I’ve just grown tired of you not citing or quoting what you are referring to, despite my repeated requests. So these days, mostly I just read them and move on. The last straw was when you said:
I can’t respond to that kind of vague statement, there’s nothing there to comment on.
w.
I understand. I think you are sincere and trying to make your points. I like what you are doing because it makes me think. I will try not to be so vague in the future.,
I wish you the best and maybe you will be proven correct who knows.
Also being discussed at More On Miriam O’Brien’s Hot Whopper
http://moreonmiriamobrien.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/miriam-obrian-says-wondering-willis-eschenbach-has-gone-nuts-about-volcanoes-at-wuwt/