Talk:Late Antique Little Ice Age

Still to do

Needs categories, see also, and several other cool Wikipedia things added. Ref list and maybe an image file. None of which I can remember how to do.Fxmastermind (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Late Antiquity"?

Since when is 600 AD considered "Late Antiquity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloDiCapistrano (talk • contribs) 06:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the 1970s. Late Antiquity covers the 3rd to 8th centuries, or anything between the reigns of Diocletian and Charlemagne. Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dont know more, but in 535, in china, Northern Wei was divided in two(Western and Eastern Wei): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Xiaowu_of_Northern_Wei There is research on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:F410:1CB3:D49D:D4B3:BA0E:DBDE (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversial

Everything about this period is still under research and changing. Even how to define the period. For example says it was "mid-6th century" to "roughly 560". Other sources extend it to the 7th century. Other sources say it was related a decline in solar output, other sources don't say anything about solar output. Precise and definitive definitions of dates and causes misrepresents the state of the research and thinking. There are relatively few papers available and most of them are relatively recent. -- GreenC 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Solar activity

The claim that "The cause of the Late Antique Little Ice Age was a decline in solar activity " is misleading. Most papers say Late Antique Little Ice Age was initiated by volcanic disruptions. Certainly decline in solar contributed to a lowering of temps by perhaps a degree, but without volcanoes it may have never been called a "little ice age". I've read Harper's book when it was published, it is good and no longer have a copy. It appeared to be a summary of research, not new research. This is a major claim that repositions the LALIA as primarily defined as a solar activity event, contrary to the peer reviewed papers. I'd like to see what exactly Harper said.

2016 source:

While the volcanic eruptions likely kicked off the freeze, researchers think that increased ocean ice cover coupled with an “exceptional” minimum of solar activity in the 600s reinforced and extended the cooling.

2016 source:

We find an unprecedented, long-lasting and spatially synchronized cooling following a cluster of large volcanic eruptions in 536, 540 and 547 AD (ref. 14), which was probably sustained by ocean and sea-ice feedbacks, as well as a solar minimum.

2016 source:

The researchers suggest that the spate of eruptions combined with a solar minimum, and ocean and sea-ice responses to the effects of the volcanoes

2018 source (PDF) on page 11:

Thus, we hypothesize that anomalous variations of solar activity contributed to the complex climatic variability during this time interval.

So we have "contributed to", "reinforced", "sustained by", "combined with" .. but no one is saying the Ice Age was "caused by" the solar minimum. If anything the sources says this was primarily a volcanic event ("kicked off the freeze") with the solar forcing contributing to, reinforcing and sustaining it. -- GreenC 18:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the lede got carried away so I restored the old version William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you I agree. The article probably should include the contributing factors of solar and sea-ice in some way. The sea-ice appears to be a feedback loop associated with the volcanoes. -- GreenC 20:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Antique?

The period is called Late Antiquity. Old furniture is antique. Antique vs Antiquity - What's the difference?. There are reliable sources that use both. IMO the technically correct usage is Antiquity. The original coinage is uncertain. As is most common usage. -- GreenC 23:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears "Antique" was coined on February 8, 2016, in the Nature journal article, titled "Cooling and societal change during the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536 to around 660 AD". (Less than 24hrs later, this Wikipedia article was created.) It also appears "Late Antique" is the adjectival form of "antiquity," making it more suitable for modifying "Little Ice Age". -- GreenC 23:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Graph in intro

This graph shows data from a later little ice age (this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age). A chart from this article might be more appropriate? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293640841_Cooling_and_societal_change_during_the_Late_Antique_Little_Ice_Age_from_536_to_around_660_AD Or this one? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0959683620941079. Etherealkiwis (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current graph is inappropriate for this article — in fact it's misleading — and should be replaced. Martnym (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The reason it's not replaced there is nothing to replace it with. So, we have a graph which includes the time period in question, along with caption text that points the reader to that time period on the graph. I don't see why it's misleading, unless one is not reading the caption, or not understanding the graph. - GreenC 18:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the graph is misleading, or at best useless. The caption speaks of a Late Antique Little Ice Age preceded by Roman Warm Period. The graph then shows a Little Ice Age preceded by a Warm Period, but it's the wrong ones. You can't even identify the Late Antique Little Ice Age or the Roman Warm Period on the graph. 180.150.36.121 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The caption text points the reader to the time period on the graph "the 6th and 7th century". The grey area dips sharply twice, it's quite visible and out of the ordinary. It doesn't get that cold again until the 1400s. Look at the lower grey portion not the black (though the black also dips). -- GreenC 15:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

sorry, what the plot shows is the 'little ice age' is within the noise of our ability to determine historic 'global average temperature'. If anyone really likes that figure it should be lower in the article with more explanation of what we are supposed to be looking at. Gjxj (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"What we are supposed to be looking at". The graph showing the dip in the 6th and 7th centuries. The actual temps (gray area) reach a low point not to be exceeded for another 1,000 years. And it is the second coldest spell of the past 2,000 years (below the -0.5C line). I was able to conclude this simply by looking at the graph, and thus can also conclude it is far outside global cold temperature averages (for this time series). -- GreenC 22:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with GreenC, and the copyright licence allows to adapt the work. Will do it myself according to RS these days.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO it's probably useful to see it in context with the later cold periods to gauge it's relative severity and duration. Maybe a new graph would include two red arrows along the bottom of the graph pointing upwards at the two sharp dips. -- GreenC 15:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Miki Filigranski for updating the chart. Looks great. It's really very obvious now the shaded red bar is added. Some people had trouble seeing it before, one of those things where different people see (or don't see) different things. It's particularly noticeable by focusing on the grey section, it hits low points not seen again for another 1,000 years. -- GreenC 22:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the graph was forcefully removed Special:Diff/1253613876/1253677837 .. might be vandalism, but the "alleged" suggests some people are not believing any of it! Lol -- GreenC 16:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but am am very sorry, forgot about it until saw recently the chart again. I think probably could be found a better scientific chart (with commons licence to upload) or made a better one because reliable sources often say the drop was more than -0.5 °C (which this chart doesn't show), and considering the amount of non-Roman migration and decline of Roman society, the temperature change must have been much more than -0.5 °C.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Propose merging Volcanic winter of 536 here

The volcanic winter article is mostly about the causes of the sudden drop in temperature – causes that are also discussed here. I'm particularly bothered by a conflicting description of those causes. This article states that the drop in global temperature was probably caused by volcanic activity, but mentions the comet and asteroid theories. The volcanic winter article treats volcanic activity as an absolute, undoubted fact. Merging would not just eliminate redundance, but reconcile conflicting information. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

There's definitely some overlap, but there are also significant differences. The "volcanic winter" article discusses a discrete event, while this article seems confused as to whether it's discussing one or three discrete volcanic events, or many decades—the latter being an argument against merger. The "volcanic winter" article seems to indicate that other theories—impact events—have found no support in the geological record, while there's definite evidence of volcanism; this one seems unwilling to accept that (that it might not be 100% proven is not reason to equivocate about the evidence). And while the "volcanic winter" article discusses theories about which volcano, or volcanoes, might be responsible, this one doesn't really go into that much detail. Overall, the two articles cover different scopes, and the "volcanic winter" article seems to be clearer and better written/curated. Since one article is about a specific historical episode, while the other is purportedly about an extended period of climatic depression, they would seem to be better kept separate, even though the topics are clearly related. I think this one needs a lot more work, which would also make the merger process more difficult. So at this stage I think they should stay separate articles. P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with P Aculeius and am almost opposed to a merger. The volcanic winter article focuses on a discrete event and while ideally the lead of that article should perhaps not be written quite so definitively, a separate article is merited. ceranthor 01:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the volcanic winter is a discrete event. The question is whether you can say enough about the volcanic winter to justify having a separate article. Remove the redundant material and you only have a couple of paragraphs. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep both articles. Volcanic winter describes one notable event; Late antique ice age describes an era. Notable events within an era deserve a separate article on that event. Enough information about the 536 volcanic winter exists to justify it as a separate article. Smallchief (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Opinion seems against me. Might as well delete those tags. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Too much details in Volcanic winter of 536 to be merged into this article. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)