Massive volcanic eruptions caused Little Ice Age, froze the Thames

The research, which looked at chemical clues preserved in Arctic vegetation as well as other data, also pinpointed the start of the Little Ice Age to the end of the 13th century.

By Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer / January 31, 2012

Quote:

A mysterious, centuries-long cool spell, dubbed the Little Ice Age, appears to have been caused by a series of volcanic eruptions and sustained by sea ice, a new study indicates.

The research, which looked at chemical clues preserved in Arctic vegetation as well as other data, also pinpointed the start of the Little Ice Age to the end of the 13th century.

During the cool spell, which lasted into the late 19th century, advancing glaciers destroyed northern European towns and froze the Thames River in London and canals in the Netherlands, places that are now ice-free. There is also evidence it affected other continents.

"This is the first time anyone has clearly identified the specific onset of the cold times marking the start of the Little Ice Age," said Gifford Miller, a geological sciences professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the lead study researcher. "We also have provided an understandable climate feedback system that explains how this cold period could be sustained for a long period of time."

The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.

The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe. Expanding sea ice would have melted into the North Atlantic Ocean, interfering with the normal mixing between surface and deeper waters. This meant the water flowing back to the Arctic was colder, helping to sustain large areas of sea ice, which, in turn, reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere. The result was a self-sustaining feedback loop.

Miller and colleagues came to these conclusions by looking at radiocarbon dates — based on how much of the radioactive form of carbon they contain — from dead plants revealed by melting ice on Baffin Island, in the Canadian Arctic. Their analysis found that many plants at both high and low altitudes died between A.D. 1275 and A.D. 1300 — evidence that Baffin Island froze over suddenly. Many plants also appeared to have died at around A.D. 1450, an indication of a second major cooling.

These periods coincide with two of the most volcanically active half centuries in the past millennium, according to the researchers....

more: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/01....

Quote:

It's unlikely decreased solar radiation, a separate theory to explain the Little Ice Age, played a role, according to the researchers.

And yet there's a little omission from the story isn't there. Can anybody spot it?

Total ****ing crap -- is every professor under the age of 60 a worthless, cheese-ass, grant-groping wanker now?

Hey, Miller, you stumblebum -- why not address the complete lack of sunspots during the entire bloody episode?

No episode of vulcanism within the recorded history of man has had climactic effects lasting more than two or three years; and no known volcanic eruption within this era produced more ejecta than Tambora.

Bezzle, since you are obviously an expert in the field, please explain the little ice age. Any other replies other than a full explanation of your point will simply be treated as a snarky dodge.

Actually its rather simple: That orange ball in the sky was the cause then, and is the cause now.

"The most recent study found that a
series of four eruptions of unidentified tropical volcanoes in ca.
1250–1300 caused the initial cooling, and that the 1452–53
eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.
[11][ 10] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ ocean
feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed."

Wikipedia Little Ice Age.

Landshark, demonstrating a classic double-standards fallacy in re: 'I'll not myself deign to adhere to the standards I demand of ol' Bezzle while brazenly <blanking-out> everything he just wrote about no volcano having a more than few years effect on climate', wrote..

Bezzle, since you are obviously an expert in the field, please explain the little ice age. Any other replies other than a full explanation of your point will simply be treated as a snarky dodge.

By your command, My Liege.... I live only to serve.



None of the volcanoes on Der Perfesser's list were remotely as volumetric in ejecta as Tambora, which obviously did not prompt four centuries of global cooling, but less than one-hundreth of that duration.

So, what might be really the cause? Why, one well-researched already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Min....





Oh, and look there on the right side of our next chart: the real "hockeystick" the grant-swilling ****heels promoting anthropogenic global warming garbage for their leash-holding, carbon-credits hawking political overseers will never show you:



-- But wait, Your Majesty! Ignore everything I just said, for a panting page has sprinted in bearing the latest discovery which upsets all previous research!

Wikipedia wrote..

Curiously, the duration of the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) coincides very closely with the reign of King Louis XIV of France (1643–1715), known as the Sun King.

Er, Sire....forgive the ramblings of your court astronomer, but -- it couldn't have been that you were responsible, could it?

Louis XIV wrote..

Guards! Guards! Drag this offender of Our personage to the headsman immediately! And the boy too!

King Louis XIV of France, AKA, "The Sun King",
during whose reign the sun was strangely subdued....


"I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it!"

nooooooooo Bez you cant tell em it was the sun! They've spent all this time and research money trying to alter the data to show its NOT the sun!!!

Its very easy to see what is going on by looking at the pattern of papers that are released on 'climate'; they systematically try to show that the climate is stable without some kind of disturbance because that is the only way to suggest that increased levels of CO2 are even remotely harmful.

They need to destroy evidence of natural variability that is not caused by some kind of atmospheric stimulus (ie volcanic eruptions, or that pathetic hockey stick).

Quote:

"The most recent study found that a
series of four eruptions of unidentified tropical volcanoes in ca.
1250–1300 caused the initial cooling, and that the 1452–53
eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.
[11][ 10] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ ocean
feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed."

This is a Wikipedia editor merely citing Miller.

But note that Kuwae's recorded atmospheric effect is no worse than Tambora's:



Chart of sunspot activity versus global temperatures since the last ice-age:



-- Note that the comparison is virtually perfect over the last 5,000 years. (The earth was over 1C warmer 4,000 years ago than at present.)

Now let's overlay the Miller's volcanic eruptions (and several others) against the previous chart of sunspot activity:



It should be pretty obvious, at this point, that vulcanism is not responsible for long-term climactic effects. (Note that Tambora, Krakatoa, Katmai AKA "The Valley of Ten-Thousand Smokes" and Pinatubo were all massive eruptions, but occurred during a period of escalating solar activity.)

Miller is either a manifest incompetent, or and outright fraud -- because I do not believe for one second that he is unaware of solar research.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Indo....

^"A Year without a Summer". The Tambora eruption occurred in 1815 w/ the effects continuing for at least one year.

If I were going to defend the new thesis I guess I would focus on these: the distributions of the four volcanoes (think nukes: 4 smaller warheads the correct distance from the target center do wider damage than one large warhead dead on center) and a different, more 'effective' mix of gasses. And maybe the plumes reached unusually high altitudes, due to the shape of the volcanic cone or some such.

"Eruptions of unidentified volcanoes" - wouldn't they have left evidence that could be spotted via satellite? After all these would have to be pretty large. If they're under a forest canopy I would go for a review the Shuttle's ground-penetrating radar experiments from several years ago (http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/.... would reveal something.

And finally I wonder if that much ash and chemicals would leave a "blanket" of strata over a large portion of the earth at some depth below the top of the soil, kinda like the cosmic background noise left "all over the sky" from the Big Bang. So we should be seeing the chemicals found in the Artic all over the place.

Otherwise...

All the nukes ever made detonated simultaneously wouldn't equal one Tambora.

Bezzle -

On your "Sunspot Activity and Temperature" chart, there is, as you note, excellent positive correlation over the past 5k years or so. However, such correlation is absent before that time (as a matter of fact, the correlation appears to be negative).

What is the explanation for that change in correlation at ~ -5k years?

Peter, the world was still melting out -- ice sheets didn't retreat from eastern Canada until only 6,500 years ago. (The climate "rules" are much different and highly variable when large masses of ice are present, especially when they're capable of damning massive bodies of fresh water, such as is the case with the narrow outlet of Hudson Bay, and otherwise disturbing oceanic salinity.)