Talk:Year Without a Summer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology. |
Contents |
[edit] Confusion
What do you mean, 1800 and froze to death? It sounds akward. I think at least an explanation is in order? Superm401 23:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, were Franklin's experiments really blamed for the weather change that year? Franklin had died 26 years earlier...
[edit] Year with very little (Northern Hemisphere) winter
As most students of the Gregorian Calendar know, 1752 didn't have any January, February, or much of March in Britain and its colonies, because it started on 25 March as usual and ended in December. It even lost several days in September. Robin Patterson 01:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ejecta Mass Discrepancy
In this article the mass of the volcanic ejecta is identified as "One and a half million metric tons" with a link to 1_E9_kg, but on the orders of magnatide page, the ejecta is described as 10E14kg, which seems a much more believable number for a volcano having such a global effect.
Anybody know?
- This page says: ...over a million and a half metric tons of dust into the upper atmosphere. 2-3*1014kg is the sum of all ejected material, i.e. larger ash particles, lapilli, lava bombs, rocks etc. Alureiter 11:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Various sources place total volume of ejecta at between 100 and 150 cubic km. Assuming 100 as a nice round figure and a low specific density of the ejecta of 1.5, this indicates a mass of 150,000 million tonnes. Density could vary from this figure as it depends on how much material is volatile rich (eg pumiceous - which if floats on water would be effectively less than 1) or more solid - could go up to 2.5 to 3. If 1.5 million tonnes ends up in the upper atmosphere then this is only 1 in 10,000 approx of total. GeoFromOz
I have removed the figure for amounts of ejecta. The Tambora page is the place for that. -Trieste 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Effects and Draisine
Previously this section read "led to the invention of the velocipede and the draisine, a predecessor of the modern bicycle." The page on the Draisine refers to a trolley system. I changed the link to point to Dandy horse which also refers to the draisine as another name for this. Seemed a bit confusing to point to a trolley of the same name instead. --Censorwolf 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Snowstorms
"and in June two large snowstorms resulted in many human deaths as well."
Where? The Northeastern U.S.? Europe? Canada? bob rulz 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The Northeastern Usa were affected by these snowstorms.Check this insightful link http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm
[edit] Only one year
Only one summer/ one year was effected? I wonder how such an short period can have such an devastating effect on the whole society (moving to other places etc.). --Abdull 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- At the time it was not understood that volcanic eruptions halfway around the world could have such dramatic effects on the climate of the North Atlantic. Most of those people hadn't even heard of the volcanoes that had errupted, let alone know that they caused the weather shift. As such, they feared the same thing may happen again in subsequent years. Also, it's important to remember that, for all intents and purposes, they lived through three winters back-to-back. There was a normal winter from 1815-1816, which gave way to another "winter" in the summer of 1816, which led right into the winter of 1816-1817.
Imagine seeing snow storms for about 18 consecutive months.
[edit] Weasel Words
This "Some believe..." stuff should not be added to this article. Source it or leave it out. Mexcellent 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Globalize...
I've added a {{globalize}} template to the article because ALL the examples of the effects of the volcano come from Europe and North America. What were the effects in South America? And Africa? And China? And Japan? And everywhere else outside E/NA. This article won't be adequate until these facts are included. Mikker (...) 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe there weren't any. The article says quite clearly "severe summer climate abnormalities destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the American Northeast and eastern Canada". If there was no impact on South America, Africa, and East Asia, there's no reason to mention them. —Angr 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe indeed, but a possibility is hardly evidence, is it? The Tambora volcano almost certainly had a impact on the global weather - it is therefore rather reasonable to assume there wera also impacts on AT LEAST other Northern hemisphere countries (Japan, China, North Africa, Middle East, etc.). Until you can provide a cite saying the impacts were in fact restricted to Northern Europe, the American Northeast and eastern Canada the template should stay. Mikker (...) 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you should provide evidence that the "year without a summer" phenomenon was found in other parts of the world before complaining that it isn't discussed. It being impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Note that this article isn't Impact of the explosion of Tambora on the global climate but rather the more restricted Year Without a Summer. —Angr 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... your onus argument doesn't work in this case IMO. Tambora is one of only 4 volcanoes in the Holocene that are classified as a "super-colossal" 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index and, given its scale, its effects on weather would most certainly have been global. It would be extremely surprising if the weather in France were affected, but not the weather in Turkey and Russia. Similarly so for China, Japan and the rest of the northern hemisphere. Timing effects might have ruled out effects on the southern hemisphere, but even that I doubt. America- and Eurocentricism is well established, so it's hardly surprising it's difficult to find sources about what the effects in, say, China were - but that doesn't mean there were no such effects. It *is* BTW possible to "prove a negative" here - a historian can simply look at first hand accounts, food prices and moratlity rates (among other things) in China (and wherever else) in 1816 and if no reports of effects are mentioned, food prices remained stable and lots of people did not die, the proposition that China too had a year w/o a summer would be falisfied. Mikker (...) 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- This (rather important) discussion seems to have stalled, so I'll revive it... I agree with Mikker in the sense that there should be some information about the impact in other countries. However, Angr makes a good point; the article is about the term 'Year Without a Summer', which relates exclusively to the Western hemisphere. IMHO a short section on the more global impact would suffice, if one could locate references for this. (I might try... ) riana_dzasta 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you say "the term 'Year Without a Summer'... relates exclusively to the Western hemisphere"? Surely the phenomenon (qua phenomenon) had a global impact and should therefore have global coverage. Sure, the name "Year without a summer" is used only in the Western hemisphere, but that doesn't mean we should not cover the rest of the world equally. The term "global warming" is a Western hemisphere invention - does that mean our article on the Effects of global warming should concern only Europe and North America? That said, even a small section on the global effects would be welcome... Mikker (...) 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- This (rather important) discussion seems to have stalled, so I'll revive it... I agree with Mikker in the sense that there should be some information about the impact in other countries. However, Angr makes a good point; the article is about the term 'Year Without a Summer', which relates exclusively to the Western hemisphere. IMHO a short section on the more global impact would suffice, if one could locate references for this. (I might try... ) riana_dzasta 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... your onus argument doesn't work in this case IMO. Tambora is one of only 4 volcanoes in the Holocene that are classified as a "super-colossal" 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index and, given its scale, its effects on weather would most certainly have been global. It would be extremely surprising if the weather in France were affected, but not the weather in Turkey and Russia. Similarly so for China, Japan and the rest of the northern hemisphere. Timing effects might have ruled out effects on the southern hemisphere, but even that I doubt. America- and Eurocentricism is well established, so it's hardly surprising it's difficult to find sources about what the effects in, say, China were - but that doesn't mean there were no such effects. It *is* BTW possible to "prove a negative" here - a historian can simply look at first hand accounts, food prices and moratlity rates (among other things) in China (and wherever else) in 1816 and if no reports of effects are mentioned, food prices remained stable and lots of people did not die, the proposition that China too had a year w/o a summer would be falisfied. Mikker (...) 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you should provide evidence that the "year without a summer" phenomenon was found in other parts of the world before complaining that it isn't discussed. It being impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Note that this article isn't Impact of the explosion of Tambora on the global climate but rather the more restricted Year Without a Summer. —Angr 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe indeed, but a possibility is hardly evidence, is it? The Tambora volcano almost certainly had a impact on the global weather - it is therefore rather reasonable to assume there wera also impacts on AT LEAST other Northern hemisphere countries (Japan, China, North Africa, Middle East, etc.). Until you can provide a cite saying the impacts were in fact restricted to Northern Europe, the American Northeast and eastern Canada the template should stay. Mikker (...) 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
← Mikker, I'm basically saying what you're saying :) The name is a Western convention, but there should definitely be something about global impact. I'll try to search for something, anything, to say about that. riana_dzasta 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I removed the globalize tag because the "year without a summer" refers to the abnormaly cold weather experienced in the northen atlantic region of the world. The reason there is no information on other regions is because this wasn't a global event. This article is about a phenomenon that was caused by the volcanic eruptions of Mount Tambora. It is NOT an article about the effects on those eruptions on a global scale. Danimoth 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (1) This article is about the North Atlantic because the "year without a summer" refers to the localized weather abnomaly experienced in that region, which was caused by Mount Tambora. The term is not used to refer to ALL of the climatic changed due to the eruptions. Trying to find sources that document this event outside of this region would be equivalent to trying to find the impact that the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake had in Canada, or Hurricane Katrina in East Asia. (2) [1][2][3] Danimoth 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That's odd. The Indian Ocean Earthquake was in the Indian Ocean. Katrina was in the Gulf of Mexico. The Tambora eruption was in Indonesia. Which hardly makes it a "localized weather abnomaly" for the North Atlantic, does it? If the volcano could affect the weather in the NA why couldn't it also affect it in Asia? And Africa? ALL of which are much, much closer. Besides, this source you provided says "The eruption injected 60 mt of sulfur into the stratosphere, six times more than was released by the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. This formed a global sulfate aerosol veil in the stratosphere, which resulted in pronounced climate perturbations." Moreover this source says: "Over the following year, heavy ash-fall filled the air across the globe, preventing sunrays from reaching the earth". And while the sources you provided only mention temperature effects in North America and Europe, this is most likely simply a reflection of Euro- an America-centrism. Can you provide evidence that the eruption didn't affect the rest of the world? (And please don't bring up "proving a negative" without reading the whole thread above). Mikker (...) 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- From the National Climatic Data Center: "Note that 1816 (the so-called "year without a summer"--Figure 16) in addition to appearing to have indeed been an especially cold summer (see Briffa et al, 1998) and a cold year for the NH temperature as a whole (though not anomalous relative to other years during that very cold decade), was an anomalously cold year only in Europe and parts of North America. In fact, conditions in the Middle and Near east were warmer than normal by 20th century standards." [4] Danimoth 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
