The Aurora of 1192

wolram

http://eserver.org/history/aurora-of-1192.txt

Since the publication of Ladourie's Histoire de climat depuis
l'an mil in 1967, historians have generally accepted that the
European climate deteriorated after about the year 1000. They
have seen this deterioration as a cause of the Great Famine of
1315-1317, a factor the Black Death of 1347, and contributing to
the depression of the fifteenth century. There has been little
demand for a more precise chronology, and even less for a cause.
Since it was noted that there were few sun spots during the
period, and since someone coined the term, "The Era of the Quiet
Sun," historians have been more or less content to accept a lack
of solar storms somehow caused the deterioration of the medieval
European climate.

Is this an accurate work ?

Andre

Not really but the "best-before.." date of articles like this is only to the refuting discovery. However, in the abstact we see already a problem:

The reason why nobody noticed sunspots was because they were not really discovered/registered, apart from some haphazard observations:

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/IAGA2...05-A-00507.pdf

The known period, practivally without sunspots, is know as the maunder minimum (1645 and 1715) with clear climatal clues:

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html

The latest paper with a reconstruction of sunspot counts and climatal response is here:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf

wolram

Thanks Andre, you realy are a mine of information, Ken Dodd would be proud

Andre

Kenn Dodd? Am I that ..em..tattifilarious?

wolram

I am sure he would have welcomed you to his jam buttie mines in knotty Ash
any time.
The study of history and climate change seem to go hand in hand, the more one
reads the more it seems a natural variation, i wonder how many think that our
sun is not thermostaticaly controled ?