the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Volcanically Forced Cooling over the last 600 years in Northern Patagonia
Abstract. We present the first tree-ring (TR) based summer surface temperature reconstruction (1382–2017) for the Southern Hemisphere that expresses strong volcanically forced cooling. The Northern Patagonia (NPAT) reconstruction is based on ring-width (RW) and Blue Intensity (BI) parameters measured from Araucaria araucana trees sampled from 6 locations across the middle to southern end of the species' range in Argentina. This multi-TR-parameter reconstruction explains 53 % of the summer surface temperature variance (1903–2017), which is on par with the fidelity of density or mixed TR parameter-based reconstructions from the Northern Hemisphere. The reconstruction coheres strongly with surface mean air temperatures for a large region in South America, including sea surface temperatures well into the southeastern Pacific. The warmest 10-year period is 2008–2017, corresponding to the last ten years of the reconstruction, while the coldest period is 1455–1464. The coldest reconstructed austral summer is 1971, followed by 1460. For both the NPAT reconstruction and a range of model simulations, superposed epoch analysis, using significant tropical eruptions since the 1400s, indicates a significant post-eruption T+1 mean surface cooling of ca. 0.4–1.0 °C, depending on which volcanic events are used. The degree of relative cooling is on par, or even stronger, with the cooling represented by individual TR records used in the Northern Hemisphere N-TREND reconstruction suggesting that the volcanic response in northern Patagonia over the last 6 centuries is equivalent, or even more extreme, to what is observed in many Northern Hemisphere locations. Our results indicate that the use of ring-density parameters is of paramount importance for assessing past volcanically forced cooling in the Southern Hemisphere, but the dating and seasonality of the eruptions as well as the continentality and mid-latitude location of the woodland sites may also be important factors for capturing the signal of volcanic cooling.
- Preprint
(3925 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(234 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4785', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Oct 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 307 | 168 | 52 | 527 | 68 | 54 | 52 |
- HTML: 307
- PDF: 168
- XML: 52
- Total: 527
- Supplement: 68
- BibTeX: 54
- EndNote: 52
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper presents a new tree-ring based reconstruction for an area in Northern Patagonia. The paper detects significant cooling following volcanic eruptions which given the previously noted lack of response in the Southern Hemisphere is a very interesting finding. The paper is very well written and the analysis seems rigorous and clearly described. I especially like the modelling based results in the second half of the paper which really add to the context for the significance of the conclusions reached here. I have a few minor comments but think that this paper is almost ready for publication without any major changes.
My one more substantial comment is around low frequency variability. The detrending of the data is described at length in section 2.1. Given that there will be interest in multi-decadal and longer timeseries (some of which is included in this paper) it would be good if you could discuss a little more whether you think these have been preserved in this reconstruction. You seem to suggest that they are by a comparison over the instrumental era (line 393). However, I note that you have said that your approach “greatly reduces the removal of any potential warming signal that could be expressed in these data” so I was not sure whether this period could be used to validate the full record (if it has been given special treatment). I also note that your new record has notably less decadal variability than others in figure 7 and think this should be commented on.
The other question I have regarding the reconstruction itself is whether we could expect some autocorrelation given the results in figure 4 which show some dependence on the previous year in some but not all variables – or does the method account for this somehow?
Minor points:
Line 27 – coheres seems like a strange use of word to me, would correlates be better.
Line 54-55 – I would consider adding a citation to Ballinger et al 2026 (DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ae1bbc) here – which shows substantial cooling in an instrumental dataset
Line 140 – “initially” – this implies you also used other protocols – did you?
Section 2.3 – I think it would be good to highlight the difference in how the eruption is prescribed in UKESM experiments compared to the PMIP experiments. I would also recommend adding a brief description of the EVA-ensemble here for completeness.
Caption figure 6 -? HadCRUT5
Figure 9 – I note a slight (but non-significant) cooling in year 0 – do you think this is worth discussing? Could it be due to a dating error for one of the eruptions?
You have concentrated your model analysis for good reason on tropical eruptions. Given the recent work indicating the importance of NH eruptions on NH climate (Toohey et al 2019: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0286-2) do you expect a similar effect here with SH eruptions?
In the discussion/conclusion you discuss possible areas of interest to detect the rsespose to volcanic eruption in the SH. It looks from figure 13 that South Africa has a strong response – would a proxy reconstruction be possible here? Also would you expect to see a response in other types of proxy archives other than tree-rings?