| 08 Sep 2025
Storminess in North West Europe and volcanic activity during the Holocene
Abstract. Evidence from observational records and model simulations suggest that volcanic eruptions can strengthen mid-latitude atmospheric circulation and enhance westerly wind strength, with recent proxy data-model assimilations supporting this. However, assessments of Holocene variability in storminess rarely consider whether major volcanic eruptions could be a possible driver of reconstructed periods of enhanced storminess. This research presents a new reconstruction of past storminess from a coastal peatbog situated in western Ireland spanning the last ~7 ka. The record is based on the measurement of the sand content along the core, with XRF core scanning analysis also applied to test whether variations in quartz sand, shell sand and sea spray can be detected by variations in silica, calcium and bromine respectively. While Ca measurements were similar to the long-term changes in sand content along the core, peaks in sand content were not detected by Si or Ca, and Br concentrations appear to have been influenced by humification. We compared sand-based storminess records from northwest Europe. Six multi-decadal to centennial periods with enhanced storminess are common to records from Ireland and Wales during the last 2.5 ka BP, centred at c. 2.25, 2, 1.4, 1.1, 0.5 and 0.2 ka BP, with less agreement between records before this time. The storm periods at 2.8, 2.2–2, 1.1 and 0.5 ka BP are more widespread events and agree with records from Sweden and Scotland. Each of the episodes of increased storminess coincide roughly with major volcanic eruptions during the late Holocene, as well as with periods of enhanced North Atlantic ice-rafting. We hypothesise therefore that both the enhanced storminess and ice-rafting may have resulted from the climate and environmental impacts of these eruptions, aligning with the findings of recent observational and modelling studies on the climate response to eruptions. Challenges remain however in testing this hypothesis, given chronological uncertainties in peatland records and uncertain interpretations of the factors influencing sand deposition. Therefore, to provide an independent assessment of the influence of explosive eruptions on storminess for Ireland’s northeast Atlantic position, we draw upon the rich tradition of annalistic record keeping on the island, including many reports of major storms and windy seasons, to develop a windiness index running from the sixth to seventeenth centuries CE. A set of superposed epoch analyses shows that the ice-core-based dates of explosive volcanic eruptions are statistically significantly associated with the dates of documented storms and windy seasons in Ireland, suggesting avenues for future research.
This study presents an innovative contribution to the understanding of storminess dynamics and their potential links to volcanic forcing, based on peat-core records from coastal Ireland. The integration of multiple sedimentary proxies, radiocarbon dating, and statistical analyses against historical chronicles provides an interesting perspective. The manuscript is clearly written, well-structured, and addresses a relevant question in palaeoclimatology. I commend the authors for the quality of their work and for assembling a dataset that is both original and regionally significant. The identification of sand-rich storm layers through XRF proxies provides compelling stratigraphic evidence for storm activity, while the application of SEA represents an innovative and appropriate study for testing hypothesized volcanic activity and storminess hypotheses links. This research enriches the paleo-storminess record for Ireland and the wider northeast Atlantic.
I nevertheless identify several methodological limitations—particularly concerning the chronological framework, the calibration of geochemical proxies, and the treatment of uncertainties—which deserve more attention in the discussion. Addressing these points, either in revision or in future research, would strengthen the robustness and impact of the conclusions.
Detailed comments and suggestions:
1. Introduction
I’ve nothing to say about the introduction that is complete and well written. The study interest regarding scientific literature is well contextualized.
2. Study Area
This part is quite short, a more detailed presentation of the geomorphology of the site, with a more precise map of the studied environment (with fieldwork photographs) may help readers to understand the site. As the subject of this work is related to storminess, some significant storm event recorded recently that hit the area may be discuted here to highlight the interest of this site regarding the stormy thematic.
In addition, the Figure 2 could be enhanced by complementing the elevation data related to the isolines shown (maybe from a Digital Elevation Model ?)..
3. Methods
The rationale for using Si, Ca and Br as storm proxies should be supported by a short statistical justification rather than relying solely on qualitative interpretation. As an example in one of our previous work, we tested the correlation matrix + CPA + dendrogram methodology in section 3.2.1 of the https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025322717304759 (this is just an example, no need to reuse of quote it, other statistical methods may also be employed).
One of the main points of vigilance is the radiocarbon chronology, which is currently built with only six bulk radiocarbon ages for the two cores age depth model. This may be sufficient for a single core and hopefully the error margin is low, however the sample is particularly depth (4 meters), and the addition of a few other radiocarbon samples will restrengthening the chronology. This is an important point because the entire discussion, with also the climatological implications, depends on this age-depth model. In addition, is it possible that the absence of macrofossil dates or may introduce wide age uncertainties and possible reservoir effects? It may be possible to clarify why only bulk material was used.
The 3.4 and 4.4 geochemistry sections are quite short, XRF scanning limitations in detecting elements should be acknowledged more explicitly, and the results must be more detailed, as they are one of the most significant storminess proxies of this study. The results suggest that Br is strongly influenced by humification processes rather than marine inputs. This should be highlighted as a significant limitation, and a statistical correction (see previous comments) could be proposed. Is it possible to conserve this proxy even if peat decomposition may affect its concentration along the core?
The dataset of historical storm archives is really interesting and it’s a real challenge to try to cross geophysical and historical sources. However, potential reporting bias remains a concern. Without correcting variable annal density across centuries, frequency peaks may also reflect source availability, and this concern must be highlighted. This limitation doesn’t impact on the result of this study be it may be important to underline it. Furthermore, more information about the historical depletion may be added (writing and language interpretation or translation, choice of sources, cross-data validation, the understanding of if the author witnesses the events or it’s a secondary source, etc.)
4. Results
A more comprehensive presentation of the core stratigraphy’s would be valuable, including a photograph, core log, and calibrated proxies together.
Figure 3 (age-depth model) lacks precision: it may be enhanced to better read the link between depth, estimated ages, and error margins which is not entirely clear.
The differences between IR-detected storm layers and XRF signals should be more systematically quantified, as this is central to the proxy evaluation. For selected intervals, it would be instructive to show a direct comparison of IR, XRF signals, and humification. The Figure 4 might be a few more precise, and geochemical data normalized or averaged to be more readable.
5. Discussion
Interpretation of the volcanic forcing signal may appear a few deterministic given the current chronological uncertainties. Is it possible to obtain a probability ranges of eruption–storm alignment or is it not necessary?
It is also possible that storm layers may reflect not only atmospheric circulation changes but also indirect eruption effects such as dune destabilization or other paleoenvironmental changes, which could amplify sand influx (I’m not an expert of the site studied but is this limitation may be also discussed?). This is also why the geomorphological local context have to be developed in the section 2.
I think that the potential influence of NAO or AMO modes alongside volcanic forcing may also be specified.
The SEA statistical approach is interesting, but is it possible to integrate uncertainties models in this statistical approach? Or may it not be needed regarding the precise date obtained in archives?
The replication of this work is limited, which makes it difficult to generalize the results (two cores in BM bog). This limitation should be acknowledged, with maybe a suggestion to integrate additional sites from the Irish coast in future work?
6. Conclusions
In the conclusions, the evidence that storminess peaks align with some volcanic episodes is compelling regarding the entire paper, but I think that precaution is to rappel in the conclusion regarding each uncertainties combined, and the main limitation and uncertainties of this study may be detailed here.
Possible recommendations for the second version of this manuscript, or for further work:
Overall, this is an original study that provides an important contribution to the understanding of past storminess and its potential links to volcanic forcing in coastal Ireland. The authors developed an interdisciplinary framework that combines sedimentological, geochemical, chronological, and historical sources. To further strengthen the manuscript, I would encourage the team to consider reinforcing the chronological framework, propagating age uncertainties into the SEA, and calibrating the XRF-derived proxies with independent chemical and grain-size data, or to confirm it with other statistical measurements. It may also be valuable to explore statistical corrections for the humification effect on Br, to expand replication across additional cores or archives, and to normalize the documentary record for reporting bias. Finally, more advanced statistical approaches and future comparisons with climate model simulations could provide an even stronger basis for causal attribution. These suggestions do not diminish the quality of the present work but rather highlight promising avenues for further development and expansion of this already interesting contribution.