The climate evolves not just on the basis of the initial state of the atmosphere and ocean, but also as a result of external "forcings": solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and human activity. In a "free" (unforced) simulation for 1000 "years," the Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature fluctuated chaotically within a range of about one degree. This is mostly attributable to the internal variability created by the nonlinear dynamics, and is "smoke without fire." (There was actually a "base" forcing; continuously repeated annual cycles of solar radiation.)
In contrast, in a simulation forced with assumed historical variations in "effective solar constant," carbon dioxide and methane, the model behaved quite differently, with sharp temperature drops synchronized with downward spikes (attributable to sulfur dioxide from eruptions) in the effective solar constant, and there was an upward trend broadly mirroring the increases in greenhouse gases (Von Storch).
The level of chaos in the climate system is not sufficient to obscure the seasonal cycle of temperature, which is obviously forced by the seasonal variation in solar insolation (radiation hitting us). In almost every year of record, outside the tropics, the mean temperature for January is less than the mean temperature for July. And the occasions where the two have been close-the "years without a summer"-have been synchronized with volcanic eruptions, which are another kind of external forcing.
While it is more common for chaos to disrupt the daily cycle-while temperatures usually peak in mid-afternoon in response to daytime radiation, and reach their 24-hour nadir just before sunrise as a result of nighttime cooling, it's easy enough for a sunset warm front to upset the pattern-I suspect that there have been few months in which theaverage night-time temperature has been higher than the average daytime one.
A shorter averaging period will be needed to filter out chaotic fluctuations in temperature, which is a parameter directly driven by (non-chaotic) solar radiation, than that needed to address precipitation, sea level pressure and wind speed, which are heavily dependent on "turbulent atmospheric dynamics" (Zorita).
Climate is predictable because some of the major forcings (solar radiation) and components (the ocean, soil) are mostly of a slowly varying nature, and thus impart "memory."
"Seasonal anomalies and longer-term climate anomalies tend to be controlled by other processes whose predictability is not necessarily limited to 2 weeks." (Buontempo 41).
****
Now, let's talk about the size of the perturbation created by the RoF. The air mass may differ in temperature and pressure, and certainly in composition, from the air that it replaced.
Eric has acknowledged that the Ring of Fire took place, up-time, on April 2, 2000. We also know it occurred around noon; a few minutes after the event, Frank pointed out to Mike that the sun was in the wrong place, that it should be to the south (Flint, 1632, chapter 3).
Determining what those differences are isn't that easy. You would think that we could at least fix the characteristics of the year 2000 hemisphere. And you would be wrong. While the Mannington 8 WNW weather station was in business in 2000, the April 2000 records are not available from NCDC. March yes, May yes, April no.
According to the Farmers' Almanac, the closest available weather station, HARRISON MARION RGN, WV, reported on that day a high of 62.6oF, a low of 48.2, an average of 55.7, a dewpoint of 45, a wind speed of 3.9 knots, and 0.01 inches precipitation (essentially, a drizzle). The mean temperature and dewpoint correspond to a relative humidity of 67%. Another nearby station, MORGANTOWN HART FIELD, WV, reported high 61, low 48.9, average 56.9, dewpoint 39.9, wind speed 4.7 knots, and precipitation 0.09 inches.
I took a look at the 24-hour graphs for the station KWVFAIRM17 in Fairmont for April 2 in 2007-2010. In 2010, noon temperature was almost 5oC below the peak, reached at 6 pm. In 2009, the peak was at 3 pm and the noon temperature was only about 2.5°C less. In 2008, the noon-to-peak spread was similar but the peak was at 5 pm. And 2007 was similar.
So I am going to estimate that on the day of the RoF, the high was 62°F (16.7°C) and that at the time of the RoF, the temperature had only reached about 57.6°F (14.2°C). The saturation vapor density of water is 12.15 grams/cubic meter at 14.2°C. I am estimating a relative humidity of 60%, there's 7.3 grams/cubic meter of water in the air.
I have no idea what the air pressure was that day. There is no reference to rain on RoF day in the novel, so the pressure was probably average (29.92 inches mercury, 1013.25 mbar) or a little above.
We know even less about the conditions on May 25, 1631 near Rudolstadt, Germany. Presently, the average max and min temperatures are 13 and 4oC for April and 18 and 8 for May (www.holidaycheck.com), i.e., a 9-10 degree spread. For 1766-1850, climate reconstructions yield an average of 12.10°C (standard deviation 1.51) for May, and 15.35oC for June (s.d. 1.24). May 25 is one-third of the way from May 15 to June 15, so the mean temperature for May 25 was probably something like 13.18oC (55.7°F).
The sun in the new timeline sky is in the east, so it's morning. Indeed, in the mid-latitudes, temperatures tending to be coolest just before sunrise and warmest at 4-6 pm. I think it reasonable to expect the mean to be hit around 9 am.
The principal atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen. The trace gases that are significant from a climatic standpoint are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and the nitrogen and sulfur oxides. Besides gases, the atmosphere also contains aerosols (airborne particles) , including desert dust, droplets of sulfuric acid produced by the reaction of volcanic sulfur dioxide with water, carbon from smoke, and sulfates from the combustion of fossil fuel.
My summary as to the likeliest size of the perturbation caused by the Ring of Fire, as measured by meteorological variables, is in Table 3-1.
*1631 and 1997 values (Robertson),2000, estimated from graph for Mauna Loa: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
**.2000 sulfur dioxide concentration for Marshall county (which is near Marion).(WVDEP).
Because the RoF occurred suddenly, it's probably most comparable to a volcanic eruption. There is no doubt that an eruption can have a profound effect on climate, as well as weather, for up to several years, at least if it injects material into the stratosphere.
So the question is, how does the RoF rate, compared to various eruptions, as a source of heat, carbon dioxide, and aerosols?
Since the diameter of the RoF hemisphere is six miles, its maximum height above the earth's surface is three miles. The stratosphere begins at about 6-31 miles above the ground in temperate latitudes, so the immediate meteorological effect of the RoF is limited to the troposphere.
There's something called the Volcanic Explosivity Index. It's based on plume height and volume. The three mile height of the RoF hemisphere corresponds to a plume height of just under five kilometers; VEI 2 ("explosive") is 1-5 km. However, the volume (236 km3) ranks as VEI 7 ("super-colossal"), 100-1000 km3.
However, that's quite misleading because the temperature difference between a volcanic plume and the "background air" is likely to be much higher than that between the Grantville and Thuringian hemispheres. And the volcanic plume is going to differ in composition from "background air" more than the two hemispheres do, too.
At the temperature of the Grantville hemisphere, the heat capacity of air is 1.005 kJ/kg-oC, and the density is about 1.225 kg/m3. Since the temperature difference between the Grantville and Thuringian hemispheres is most likely one degree Celsius, that means that the heat energy introduced by the RoF is about 2.9*1011 kJ. That's a bit less than the amount of energy released when the water in a typical thunderstorm condenses.
For a volcanic plume measured on March 19, 2002 at Miyake Island, the temperature initially was 34oC, but the temperature dropped to 20 when the plume rose to 3 km and to 19 at 6 km. Such a plume would have been carrying at least an order of magnitude more heat energy than that attributable to the air temperature difference caused by RoF.
The RoF also resulted in an injection of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but it
was small.
Even if there were no sulfate aerosol already in the Thuringian air that it replaced, the effective injection was only about ten tons sulfate, as a one-shot deal. In comparison, during the Miyake 2002 eruption, that volcano was emitting 10,000 tons SO2per day, for months. Yet it had a VEI of only 2.
Thus, it seems fair to conclude that the effect of the RoF on climate is mostly likely to be smaller than even that of an eruption of VEI 2.
****
I consulted with climatologist James Annan (Senior Scientist, Research Institute for Global Change, Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences) about the possible effect of the RoF (without providing the specifics of the size of the perturbation because I hadn't yet calculated it at the time of our email exchange). Here's his reply:
"Generally speaking, changing the initial conditions (atmosphere) will, as you say, scramble the weather. It will not affect the response to temporally-varying forcing such as solar output, or volcanoes, which probably drive a large part of the large-scale climate changes. However, it's not obvious to me (and perhaps anyone) to what extent the observed seasonal climate variation is simply due to internal variability, versus a forced response.
"On the assumption that the important external forcing factors are greenhouse gases and solar output you could probably consider swapping the climates around from roughly consecutive years-e.g. use the seasonal means from 1632, then 1631, then 1634 . . . and so on shuffling the years around a little. The daily weather would not match in any case. If there's a volcano (I haven't checked) then that would have to affect the particular year of course."
I have since checked the volcanic activity. While there was an active eruption somewhere in the world for every year of the 1630s, none of these was likely to be larger than VEI 5, and, more importantly, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica reveal low levels of stratospheric (volcanic) aerosols (sulfates) for the 1630s (Gao).
Conclusion
While we know quite a bit about the changes in temperature and rainfall in the OTL 1630s and 1640s, especially in Europe, there are uncertainties as to what will happen in the NTL. Some of those uncertainties are attributable to the limitations of reconstructing climate data from historical or proxy records, and others to the effects of the RoF. Consequently, our authors do have some flexibility as to how they portray post-RoF climate, and of course, climate isn't weather; on any given day, there can be significant variation from the climatic norm.
In the course of researching this article, I came across the interesting tidbit that "in 1371/2 there were processions for rain at Florence in December, followed by processions praying for the rain to stop in May." (Grove 328). Hence, it is fair to say that what is certain about both climate and weather after the RoF is that people will complain about it.
****
Note: The bibliography for this article will be published at http://www.1632.org/gazetteextras/ in the Little Ice Age Addendum.
Geek Summer
Written by Kristine Kathryn Rusch
The July 22ndEntertainment Weekly had a one-page article titled “2012: The Geekiest Year Yet?” The question caught my attention as I thumbed through the magazine, only I missed the “2012” part. I thought they meant 2011, and I nodded in agreement as I moved on.
Only later did I realize that I had misread the headline. Then I read the article and frowned. I’m not sure 2012 will be geekier than 2011.
Consider this:
The bestselling fiction book of the year is George R.R. Martin’s sixth book in the Song of Ice and Fire series, A Dance With Dragons. Not the bestselling fantasy book. The bestselling book. That hasn’t happened since the days of Harry Potter, and unlike our friend Harry, the New York Times can’t shuffle George’s books out of the adult fiction category.
The Times and other lists tried to deny how well the Harry Potter series sold by creating new lists for young adult and children’s books. Some analysts claimed this was because the books were aimed at children (as if that mattered: adults like me were gobbling them up like candy). Other analysts claimed the books got shuffled to the side because the books were fantasy. And considering how poorly conventional fiction lists have treated fantastic literature in the past, that analysis was at least as plausible as the children’s literature analysis.
So let’s talk about books and bestsellers for a minute. The hottest genre in romance? Paranormal. What does that mean? Mostly it means that there’s some supernatural element to the book, but not in the way of your mother’s Gothic novels. But more likely that the love interest is a vampire or a werewolf or a half-demon (apparently full demons are too scary). And if you don’t read romances, but you like a bit of sex in your fantasy novels, try urban fantasy, which is paranormal romance’s darker cousin. The difference between the genres-both of which are bestselling genres, btw-is pretty simple: One has a happily ever after (or happily for now) ending, and the other doesn’t. The HEA ending is, of course, the romance, but the journey to get to that HEA might be just as fraught as the journey in the urban fantasy, maybe even more so.
Of course traditional fantasy is still around, or George wouldn’t have hit the bestseller list, but fantasy’s subgenres are providing it with a lot of much-needed competition.
Speaking of George, Game of Thrones, the HBO series based on the first book in The Song of Ice and Fire series garnered 13 Emmy nominations-including one for Best Drama, also a rarity for programming with fantasy in it.
But, fantastic television shows-and by that I don’t just mean good television shows, but good television shows about the fantastic-have proliferated in the past five years. Some of that is the fact that the number of channels needing content have proliferated, but I’m sure we could do with another 50 detective/crime dramas (oh, God, please, no).
My magazine friend, Entertainment Weekly (which I started to read when it invited one of the best genre writers in the biz, Stephen King, to do a bi-monthly column), lamented in the July 29th issue that two television shows got passed up for Emmy nods at all-and both shows were sf/f. The first was HBO’s True Blood, based on Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse mystery novels, and the other was Fox’s Fringe, based on all those weird B-movies from decades past. (Okay, I don’t really know if that’s what Fringe was initially based on, but it seems like it to me).
I pay attention to the Emmys in this context only because the Emmys are given by the Establishment who, in the past, ignored any television show with a smidge of other-worldliness. Now, sf/f television shows get discussed by the snooty as if the genre shows are as important as the other shows-quite a mind-boggler for me.
Since we’re discussing Entertainment Weekly, let’s discuss one of their reasons for claiming 2012 will be geekier (more geeky?) than 2011: the upcoming Avengers movie, which will combine all the superheroes from the previous Marvel superhero movies into one big thrillfest.
Apparently EW ignores the fact that we had two Marvel superhero movies in 2011 to introduce us to some of those heroes-Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. More importantly, both of those films were good. Then there was the X-Men: First Class film which is my favorite superhero movie of the summer by a smidge (and only because the characterization was so good that it made me cry), and Green Lantern, which I didn’t see but which all of my comic book fan friends say was a lot better than the word of mouth indicated.
Another movie based on comics which I plan to see Real Soon Now, Cowboys and Aliens, has been the film I’ve looked forward to since the ads began because of the Bond meets Indie tagline. Yes, I mean Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford in one film. Yes, that means girls need eye candy too. But more than that, (and honestly, Ford is getting a little too grizzled for eye candy; too bad he doesn’t have the benefit of a mellifluous voice like Sean Connery) the juxtaposition of the words “cowboy” and “alien” had me at hello.
I blew off Green Lantern so I could see Super-8, because I was beginning to feel a movie-crunch. Too many films, too little time. And Sup
er-8 is a marvelous homage to the B-movies of the 1950s. Even better is the short film within a film, which you see during the credits, a gift to geeks everywhere.
And of course, the movie that broke box office opening day records, a movie I also haven’t seen yet, the last Harry Potter flick. If that’s not a major flick feast for geeks nothing is. Proof isn’t just in the record-breaking box office, it’s also in the fact that at every single theater showing the film, someone showed up in costume. That’s the mark of geekness everywhere.
More geeky stuff from the summer of 2011? Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, which uses many of the concepts from the Tim Powers novel to fuel the Johnny Depp extravaganza. And the Torchwood: Miracle Day mini-series which is, bar none, the best science fiction I’ve seen this year. I get creeped out by each episode, and I find myself thinking about it for days afterwards. The extrapolation of an sf future from one little change is frightening, and the risks the writers (and actors [yes, you, Bill Pullman]) are taking are spectacular.
Let’s not even discuss the fact that Comic-Con has become so important that it gets covered in The New York Times and on all of the major network news casts. Entertainment Weekly, no dummies there, do a special Comic-Con issue, as does every single comic book company, and many publishing companies. Cowboys and Aliens held its premiere at Comic-Con, which tells you just how important geek cred is. When George Lucas premiered his little film at Comic-Con in 1976, no one knew what Comic-Con was and everyone who knew what Lucas was doing wondered why the man bothered airing the unfinished film to a convention of a few hundred people. Now, he looks like a prescient genius. Then, he was a guy trying to get the right audience to see some little insignificant genre film called Star Wars.
Grantville Gazette 37 gg-37 Page 26
