Talk:Volcanic winter of 536

Simon Winchester

The idea that Krakatau was responsible for these climate changes is also purported in Simon Winchesters book "Krakatoa".

CE

Why, oh why, do some editors insist on imposing their own biased point of view? There were no CEs in this article. There is no need for them. All they do is to distract any display a bias on an unrelated issue. What is the point of "1816 CE"?--ClemMcGann 08:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is used by the whole world and many non-Christians prefer to use "C. E." ("Christian Era") rather than ("A. D."- "Anno Domini": "In the Year of the Lord"). CFLeon 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

BCE may be necessary, but writing 1816 CE seems redundant. Isnt the entire world (save a miniscule minority) on the same calendar now? Writing "In 1816" should mean the same to everyone. -Runningonbrains 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, you are speaking for yourself, for "many non-Christians" - read "many partakers in US culture wars". Most people don't care and just get fed up with the controversy, which is essentially a distraction from real (and very different) issues. --81.101.253.108 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I care either way myself, but according to WP:BCE, "In general, omit CE or AD, unless to avoid ambiguity or awkwardness."

That said, and bearing in mind that this article is in English, I'd be interested to know which English-speaking countries interpret the date 1816 as something other than 1816 CE." Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that AD and CE are not needed here. Incidentally CE stands for Common Era, not Christian Era.--TedColes (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Through google print I found some more useful information about this alleged event. I added the references but haven't added anything to the article itself yet (there's certainly material to do so). However, I don't know how to get a "good" link to a particular page in google print. Whatever I do gives a link that highlights the search terms. Jdorje 01:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

New text moved here

This text was originally entered at Dark Ages, but belongs here. Im not sure how to integrate it Im not familiar with this topic. Please add this or parts as needed. Stbalbach 05:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Some recent theories suggest that the term "Dark Ages" was originally more literal than previously thought. Evidence suggests a gigantic volcanic eruption near Indonesia in about 535 AD. Presumably, the pyroclastic material expunged from the volcano, mixed with a large amount of seawater, rose into the atmosphere and formed a thick cloud-like layer; nearly 150 meters thick. This layer could have lasted nearly 15 years, and is predicted to have only 50% sunlight transmission. Thus the world would have, quite literally, been dark. The effects of reduced sunlight is great on crops, weather, and even mental well-being. Concievably, there would be a long period of suffering and recovery due to this phenomenon.

Samples of ice cores in both Greenland and Antarctica suggest 6th century volcanic activity, and tree ring samples from around the world show about 15 years of improper growth around this time period. This not only suggests volcanic activity around this time, but also shows how widespread its effects were. A volcano between the islands of Sumatra and Java with a diameter of nearly 50 kilometers could have erupted and created modern day Krakatoa. The land connecting the two islands would have been part of the volcano caldera, totalling nearly 200 cubic kilometers. From typical volcano eruptions, it can be assumed that approximately 40% of this material was shot upwards in a giant plume of ash and dirt, taking with it a large amount of water. Upon reaching the higher levels of the atmosphere, this material would form tiny ice crystals and form a cloud layer well above typical clouds, thus being resistant to most weather changes. Ken Wohletz is to be credited with most of this theory.

---

Causes...

Can anyone say why Keys and Wohletz' idea is not widely accepted? Are there any other suggestions as to why it happened? Are any of them widely accepted? The absense of any other proposals strikes me as a bit non-neutral, or at the very least incomplete... —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not widely accepted because they have no evidence whatsoever. However if you read through the Mike Baile book (in google print, though the link seems broken), there is a very interesting discussion of the possibilities. — jdorje (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Gibbon and others the Mongolian migration occurred almost 150 years earlier than the so-called event. Atilla died around 460 and the Hun tribes lost their power. This error makes me doubt some of Keys' other findings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaleida (talk • contribs) .

Well, Gibbon is an 18th century author and there has been a lot of research done about the Huns since - we don't even know who they are, there is so little evidence, I'm not sure how anyone can put a date to it. -- Stbalbach 14:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested they were the same tribes who destroyed the BMAC civilisation and fought Alexander the Great in Afghanistan.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic eruption and cometary dust veil are not mutually exclusive. Both could have occurred at the same time.

E.P. Grondine - Man and Impact in the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.145 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Weirdness!

This article is the endpath for a redirective article... with the exact, character-for-charcter, same name. I pasted both titles into a text document, and they are the same. What happened? HOW did it happen? Those interested should tell me on my user page; I don't think I'll be back this way again. -Litefantastic 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A little late, but I asked Psychonaut (who created the redirect) and it was a change from a hyphen to an en-dash. He answers here. badmonkey 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

El Nino

I'm not disputing the volcanic eruption theory, but I know that the demise of the Moche in South America has been attributed to some particularly bad "El Nino" events. Does anyone know if El Nino could explain the weather patterns at this time--Quarkstorm 11:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Steven Baxter

The Steven Baxter connection seems tenuous and the whole reference feels out of place - I am sure one could find far more novelists who appear to allude to a similar event. Even so, what does this snippet add to the article besides fan-fare for Baxter?

Hopewell

I have also read (can't find the source right now, sorry) that the Native Americans of the Hopewell culture (100 B.C. - 500 or so A.D.) were possibly wiped out by this 535-536 A.D. climate event. I recall reading that the cold weather would have affected the fruit and nut trees on which the Hopewell depended and could have ended their culture. Would make an interesting addition to the page if anybody can confirm. Doppelbock 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That most likely was my own book "Man and Impact in the Americas". As it was self published, it can not be cited following to wiki rules E.P. Grondine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.145 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Article name

There is a difference between climate and weather. Unusual weather in 2 consecutive years may be a symptom of a longer-term climate change, but to imply that all the change occurred in those two years is just plain wrong. The article itself suggests a variety of one-off causes. I suggest renaming to Freak weather events of 535-536 jnestorius^(talk) 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

moved absent objections. jnestorius^(talk) 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the title should be "The Global Climate Collapse of 535-536" E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.145 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

dates--CE

I changed a bit in the first sentence to "535-536 CE". The reader needs some indication of whether we're talking about BCE or CE dates. I used CE rather than AD because the earliest version of the article to note the era used CE rather than AD (see here). For the applicable guideline see WP:DATE. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for CE in the title. Wikipedia Manual of Style, Dates, which you reference, says that when the AD/CE are omitted, then the default is clearly AD/CE. Hu 00:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Evidence

On 9/11/07 History Channel's Mega Disasters series featured the Krakatoa eruptions, including evidence from ice core samples that there was an eruption in 535. Searching terms 535 ice core samples krakatoa I got these three top links. I'm sure interested parties could find more info and put it in article.

KRAKATOA VOLCANO ERUPTION: Super Volcano! History's Greatest Secret!

http://krakatoa-volcano-eruption.blogspot.com/2006/12/super-volcano-historys-greatest-secret.html -

Ancient climate change? Text - Physics Forums Library

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-90232.html

ScienceZ: Science Articles » Volcanoes

http://www.sciencez.com/science-related-articles/volcanoes/

Carol Moore 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

History channel believes aliens built the pyramids. They are not a quotable source. IRMacGuyver (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Name: Freak to Unusual

I suggest moving the article name to "Unusual weather events of 535-536". I'm sorry I did not see the original proposal, but "Freak" is much more colloquial a term, more common in North America than in world English. Though "freak" would probably be understood generally, it is less encyclopediac and less formal than "unusual". Hu 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Unusual" weather seems inadequate to me. I think "extreme weather" sounds more, well, extreme. And there's even an article! jnestorius^(talk) 14:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Extreme weather events of 535-536" is an excellent suggestion. Hu 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. with further edits. jnestorius^(talk) 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of what Procopius wrote, in context

[4-10] and Solomon in Carthage. And it came about during this year that a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during this whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed. And from the time when this thing happened men were free neither from war nor pestilence nor any other thing leading to death. And it was the time when Justinian was in the tenth year of his reign (536-537 A.D.)

At the opening of spring (536 A.D.), when the Christians were celebrating the feast which they call Easter, there arose a mutiny among the soldiers in Libya. I shall now tell how it arose and to what end it came.

After the Vandals had been defeated in the battle, as I have told previously,[47] the Roman soldiers took their daughters and wives and made them their own by lawful marriage. And each one of these women kept urging her husband to lay claim to the possession of the lands which she had owned previously, saying that it was not right or fitting if, while living with the Vandals, they had enjoyed these lands, but after entering into marriage with the conquerors of the Vandals they were then to be deprived of their possessions. And having these things in mind, the soldiers did not think that they were bound to yield the lands of the Vandals to Solomon, who wished to register them as belonging to the commonwealth and to the emperor's house and said that while it was not unreasonable that the slaves and all other things of value should go as booty to the soldiers, the land itself belonged to the emperor and [10-17] the empire of the Romans, which had nourished them and caused them to be called soldiers and to be such, not in order to win for themselves such land as they should wrest from the barbarians who were trespassing on the Roman empire, but that this land might come to the commonwealth, from which both they and all others secured their maintenance. This was one cause of the mutiny. And there was a second, concurrent, cause also, which was no less, perhaps even more, effective in throwing all Libya into confusion. It was as follows: In the Roman army there were, as it happened, not less than one. thousand soldiers of the Arian faith; and the most of these were barbarians, some of these being of the Erulian[48] nation. Now these men were urged on to the mutiny by the priests of the Vandals with the greatest zeal. For it was not possible for them to worship God in their accustomed way, but they were excluded both from all sacraments and from all sacred rites. For the Emperor Justinian did not allow any Christian who did not espouse the orthodox faith to receive baptism or any other sacrament. But most of all they were agitated by the feast of Easter, during which they found themselves unable to baptize[49] their own children with the sacred water, or do anything else pertaining to this feast. And as if these things were not sufficient for Heaven, in its eagerness to ruin the fortunes of the Romans, it so fell out that still another thing provided an occasion for those who were planning the mutiny. For the Vandals whom Belisarius took to Byzantium were [17-23] placed by the emperor in five cavalry squadrons, in order that they might be settled permanently in the cities of the East; he also called them the "Vandals of Justinian," and ordered them to betake themselves in ships to the East. Now the majority of these Vandal soldiers reached the East, and, filling up the squadrons to which they had been assigned, they have been fighting against the Persians up to the present time; but the remainder, about four hundred in number, after reaching Lesbos, waiting until the sails were bellied with the wind, forced the sailors to submission and sailed on till they reached the Peloponnesus. And setting sail from there, they came to land in Libya at a desert place, where they abandoned the ships, and, after equipping themselves, went up to Mt. Aurasium and Mauretania. Elated by their accession, the soldiers who were planning the mutiny formed a still closer conspiracy among themselves. And there was much talk about this in the camp and oaths were already being taken. And when the rest were about to celebrate the Easter festival, the Arians, being vexed by their exclusion from the sacred rites, purposed to attack them vigorously. - Books 3 and 4, the wars with the Vandals, on Gutenberg project's server —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyrab (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Something on National Geographic you might want to check out

Hey everybody, I'm an unregistered user, sorry if I'm breaking some etiquette rules.

Here is something you might want to take a look at concerning this event:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080319-global-dimming_2.html

Further Reading

I am interested in the article by Arjava, Antti (2006). "The Mystery Cloud of 536 CE in the Mediterranean Sources" However, it is not located in the book mentioned, "Thresholds of the Sacred." edited by Sharon Gerstel. Could you please update the Further Reading Section with where the article can be found. Ksh314 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing Reference to the Plague of Justinian

I am removing the bullet: "'An extraordinary plague throughout the world, which swept away the noblest third of the human race; 543 AD' - The Annals of the Four Masters", because it refers to the plague of Justinian, which is not a weather event, though it may have been influenced by the weather events discussed in this article. Paramecium13 (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"two-sigma age range"

A "two-sigma age range" is unlikely to be comprehensible to the general well-prepared reader. I'd fix it if I could. --Wetman (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigmas

It means two standard deviations on the normal curve, but how to translate it into a concrete percentage could depend on certain assumptions (95.45% probability if two-sided or symmetric)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources

The About.com article "Dust Veil of AD 536" has some sources that might be useful.[1]. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Extreme wheater and Artuš

cz wiki: Kromě toho zmiňují i bitvu u Camlanny, v níž měl padnout jak Artuš, tak i Mordred, a která se měla odehrát mezi léty 537 a 539.

In addition, refers to the Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur had to fall, as well as Mordred, and which was to take place between the years 537 and 539.

Maybe it's not a coincidence that Arthur had a hefty just at a time when there was a climatological disaster, there was famine and pestilence throughout the land as sparking chaos and battles that led to the death of the legendary King Arthur. It seems that the fall of Camelot and Arthur's death has the right to conscientious objection in Indonnézii eruption, which caused not only England lost its prosperity and the sky pulled the thick black clouds below which then fought Mordred.

195.91.4.214 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Bynk

North American volcanoes may have been a contributory factor

See[2]. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extreme weather events of 535–536. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703082438/http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/AD536-CCNetDebate.htm to http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/AD536-CCNetDebate.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extreme weather events of 535–536. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20160411182743/http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/ngeo2652 to http://nature.com/articles/doi%3A10.1038/ngeo2652

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Krakatoa eruption 535 AD

Krakatoa erupted in 535, plunging the globe into darkness. A Viking rune stone speaks of the sun disappearing, ash falling from the sky. Gee, do you think maybe that eruption may have caused this mysterious extreme weather event? Did anybody look up Krakatoa?

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p08676tt/the-ancient-viking-runestone-revealing-a-modern-fear

Hpfeil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"A fog in the Middle East, China and Europe"

A fog? A single fog covering most of two continents for a couple of years?

Whatever the source said, this in its current form is just nonsense. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This whole page is nonsense and needs to be tagged as pseudoscience. I just don't know how to do that and get it to stick. IRMacGuyver (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A completely different explanation.

Astronomers Bill Napier and Victor Clube have suggested that there is good evidence that this event was caused by a meteorite impact, a la Tunguska. It is indeed now well accepted that at the time there was an active meteor shower at that time, the meteors themselves invisible because they occurred during the daytime. If that sounds far fetched, consiuder that the detectors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts, and compeltley independently, by terrestrial radars, have confirmed the existence of daytime meteors beyond any doubt. I dont have a specific single reference, but the total of what they discuss is very very compelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:E119:DE11:B33:F9F9 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"during the reign of Justian II"

The article currently says, "during the reign of Justian II, the sun shone feebly for a year and a half". If Justian II means Justinian I, the article should link to him. But there is no mention of Justian II in the long quote in the footnote, so it might be better to replace the phrase with the year. Adpete (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Volcanic Winter

The consensus right now about the events in 535-536 is that they were occasioned by a volcano (Central America, Krakatoa, Iceland, is matter of discussion and research).

The comet theory is fringe.(No impact crater, no historical record of "new stars" or comets)

The 18 months of "darkness" and the dust veil, commented by Procopius refers to effects of an weather event called "Volcanic winter" (Think Tambora in 1815):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

So: the name of the article should be: "Volcanic winter of 535-536". "Extreme weather events" is too vague. A hurricane or a heat wave would be an extreme weather events. The name "volcanic winter" is being used in the recent literature.

I suggest to change the name of the article into: Volcanic winter of 535-536. SultanSelimGrim (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree -- although recent research may have determined that the event occurred in 536. So, the title might be changed to "Volcanic winter of 536." I hope to do some updating of the article, so a change of title may be part of that.Smallchief (talk)

Gregory of tours

Hi I found an historical entry of Gregory of tours work ,( history of Frank's) 540 ad at the end of book 3, where he speaks of an extreme cold in that area. The date or years are not given but it generally fits the time period . Would appear to be contempory triangulation of Procopius in Byzantium. Further west. Cheers Ed swanny Swanny (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael the Syrian

Hi all, I'm curious about the validity of Michael the Syrian documenting the volcanic winter in 536-538. According to this page and his Wikipedia page he was alive from ~1126 to 1199. Does anyone have any ideas about the writing from the 500's that is said to be his?

Michael the Syrian Giraffestar (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

He was a chronicler, so he wrote extensively about events happening before his lifetime. AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

We currently say

Michael the Syrian (1126-1199), a patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, recorded that during 536-537 the sun shone feebly for a year and a half.

Perhaps "recorded" suggests that he wrote it when or shortly after it happened, and as an eye witness report (which he obviously didn't)? -- 19:34, 2 February 2023 N%C3%B8

Then change "recorded" to "reported"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good solution! Done. Nø (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with the word change, but do note that Michael had access to lots of sources that we do not. See here. It would be good to note his source (if we know it) for this. Srnec (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

grammar

" a major sulfate deposits" - What is it, a deposit or some deposits? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D44:D7F8:84F1:F3FB (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

Unregistered User:IRMacGuyver has added the category 'Pseudoscience' to this article twice. I see no justification for this in the text of the article and shall revert this edit. Does anyone agree with that categorisation, and can cite reliable evidence? TedColes (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@IRMacGuyver Your edits don't come with any explanation to justify the tags and Category you have included. Until you can argue reasonably, you will not add such tags or I will report you to the administrators for being disruptive and possibly engaging in an edit war. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Report this user @IRMacGuyver, just did it again without any justification. 536 CE as one of the coldest years of common era is well established in paleoclimatology, to cite a few [3][4][5][6][7] Aleral Wei (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I gave you justification when I first did this and no one has ever given me a reason it isn't. None of the sources come from valid or reliable places. IRMacGuyver (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edit history show no evidence of your justification. You simply left blank summaries in your reverts. Again you fail to give supporting evidence for your claims. You're just stating things. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not looking far enough back to the original or the posts I've left with other people who removed the info I posted. IRMacGuyver (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)