Supervolcano "wrecking" late 17th C. Europe w/o an extinction level event?

[Osakadave]

Perhaps one way in certain regions, and the other in other regions. Perhaps concretion effect more common in the central 'red' region and a beneficial soil enrichment as a long term effect in the orange and yellow regions. That could very well lead to some kind of mid 19th century recolonisation effort from the Americas, before the Russians and/or Ottomans get there first.

Indeed.

Some quick other thoughts: What will the relations between France and Haiti be in this situation? France might will spend much more resources sending ships and men to the New World for the evacuation, but they'd be in a relative position of weakness. The issue of slavery might be somewhat less relevant in this situation, what with boatloads of French peasants arriving in the Caribbean.

This is smack in the middle of both the French and Hatian Revolutions, so the French are especially screwed. On the other hand, French immigrants continued arriving in Louisiana after Spain gained it, and actually in larger numbers. This may be a good scenario for Charles X to take advantage of the restive population of Louisiana. Oh, and French Guyana as well.

Also, technologies immediately delayed: lithographic printing and the smallpox vaccine.

Nice - nice and nasty.

The fate of the ailing Dutch East India Company will be interesting. Will the Dutch be evacuated to South Africa?

They still have the East Indies as well as Guyana.

Oooh, a sudden thought: a vigorous Persia under the Qajars might take advantage of the chaos and expand at the expense of both the Ottomans and the Russians, both of whom would be much more greatly affected by the eruption than the Persians.

Oh, thanks.

 

[tormsen]

Indeed.

They still have the East Indies as well as Guyana.

The East Indies are controlled by the corrupt and ailing VOC, and not yet nationalised in the 1790's. VOC control was tenuous outside of coastal strongholds, and any attempts to use the East Indies as a place to resettle Europeans would probably result in active opposition from the locals. As the sudden collapse of European demand is going to have catastrophic effects on the trade anyway, it might just be that the Dutch will be displaced by local powers or go entirely native in order to survive. The position of the natives versus the interlopers who tilt drastically in favor of the former.

Guyana and South Africa would be better places to evacuate the population of the Netherlands, but by the time they are in a position to go poking around in Asia again the local conditions would have completely changed.

 

[Cash]

Oooh, a sudden thought: a vigorous Persia under the Qajars might take advantage of the chaos and expand at the expense of both the Ottomans and the Russians, both of whom would be much more greatly affected by the eruption than the Persians.

Possibly, but wouldn't Persia also be facing threats from the west and north as refugee flows out of Eastern Europe push even more refugees ahead of them into the Middle East? Syria/Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India could see a whole series of invasions as desperate and displaced populations move away from the disaster zone.

 

[Osakadave]

Guyana and South Africa would be better places to evacuate the population of the Netherlands, but by the time they are in a position to go poking around in Asia again the local conditions would have completely changed.

And thinking a bit more, Australia's wide open, not just to the Brits but France and the Netherlands too. Turns out the Swedes had just dropped plans for a colony in Australia as well.

Possibly, but wouldn't Persia also be facing threats from the west and north as refugee flows out of Eastern Europe push even more refugees ahead of them into the Middle East? Syria/Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India could see a whole series of invasions as desperate and displaced populations move away from the disaster zone.

Messy. Good.

 

[ChucK Y]

Keep in mind that shipping will be endangered from the ash fall. Ash is heavy; it may look like snow falling, but it weighs like cement. The ships will need to be shoveled off continuously to keep from being crushed and sunk. Piers and docks will also be overloaded and collapsed.

The refugees will have a high degree of morbidity. Lung damage from inhaling the ash will make COPD and asthma widespread. Many will be in no condition to live as pioneers in a new land.

 

[tormsen]

Keep in mind that shipping will be endangered from the ash fall. Ash is heavy; it may look like snow falling, but it weighs like cement. The ships will need to be shoveled off continuously to keep from being crushed and sunk. Piers and docks will also be overloaded and collapsed.

The refugees will have a high degree of morbidity. Lung damage from inhaling the ash will make COPD and asthma widespread. Many will be in no condition to live as pioneers in a new land.

That suggests that those in the orange zone may have a lot more trouble than in the yellow zone in shipping out. So it may be that while those on the North Atlantic coast are able to evacuate significant portions of their populations, those around the Mediterranean and parts of north Europe such as the Netherlands may be out of luck. I agree with the high morbidity rates of transfer too.

As for Australia, I'm a bit skeptical mainly because of the sailing time involved (much longer than to the Americas), and the fact there will be almost nothing for the colonists to work with when they get there. Australia is a hard place to settle at the best of times, when you have half-starved boatfulls of lung-scarred colonists arriving, who have run out of supplies and hadn't the time to bring much to help them in the transition, and they arrive in a sun-parched desert continent filled with poisonous animals and unfamiliar plants...well. Survival rates of evacuations to already established colonies will be much, much higher than evacuations to the bleeding edge of nowhere.

What was settlement like in Argentina at this time? The British (or French) might try and sieze this region for settlement.

 

[Osakadave]

Working of Version II of the map. It'll end up as a series, so the timeing of evacuations can be determined.

Keep in mind that shipping will be endangered from the ash fall. Ash is heavy; it may look like snow falling, but it weighs like cement. The ships will need to be shoveled off continuously to keep from being crushed and sunk. Piers and docks will also be overloaded and collapsed.

The refugees will have a high degree of morbidity. Lung damage from inhaling the ash will make COPD and asthma widespread. Many will be in no condition to live as pioneers in a new land.

Indeed.

That suggests that those in the orange zone may have a lot more trouble than in the yellow zone in shipping out. So it may be that while those on the North Atlantic coast are able to evacuate significant portions of their populations, those around the Mediterranean and parts of north Europe such as the Netherlands may be out of luck. I agree with the high morbidity rates of transfer too.

As for Australia, I'm a bit skeptical mainly because of the sailing time involved (much longer than to the Americas), and the fact there will be almost nothing for the colonists to work with when they get there. Australia is a hard place to settle at the best of times, when you have half-starved boatfulls of lung-scarred colonists arriving, who have run out of supplies and hadn't the time to bring much to help them in the transition, and they arrive in a sun-parched desert continent filled with poisonous animals and unfamiliar plants...well. Survival rates of evacuations to already established colonies will be much, much higher than evacuations to the bleeding edge of nowhere.

What was settlement like in Argentina at this time? The British (or French) might try and sieze this region for settlement.

I was thinking about that yesterday. Patagonia is being enroached upon by the Spanish, but with resistance from the natives.

But maybe more of French/Dutch/Danish than German influx.

And Australia (and New Zealand) will still be up for grabs when there are colonists.

As for trade, what's going to happen in China and India with Europe in collapse?

 

[Saturn]

I'd think the British would go to India rather than North America.
It's an older colony and they control larger portions of fertile land with a nice warm climate. Might be a bit too warm for them at first but if they are a lot of them they'll need someplace with a longer growing season than Canada and larger than the Carribean islands they still control.
I know the Peshawar Lancers already did it but that was because it makes sense. Australia would be another good option but not quite as good IMHO.
I think the Dutch would indeed head for South Africa, if they end up with control of the diamond and gold mines of the area that will boost their empire considerably.
As for the French (and if I'm going to babble I may as well do it thoroughly) I see them moving the monarchy and the most influencial people to Northwest Africa. I also see the climate (warmer in Africa despite the overall drop due to vulcanism) and the local culture impacting on French culture and fashion. Whether they HAVE a monarchy might be iffy but I'd prefer to think they do. Perhaps a more restrained sort with less absolute power resting in the king but have a single leader in an emergency helps and the locals are used to that single leader being a king.

 

[coefficient]

it's hard to imagine anything but outright disaster in south america. much of the continent would be devoted to the production of cash crop monocultures - sugar, cocoa, as well as silver and gold mining - and manufacture is intentionally suppressed so as to create the highest profit for people trading manufactured goods for gold and cash crops. food stocks will plummet very quickly with any influx of refugees.

north america's another story, the trade there wasn't particularly profitable (we all know about the whole 'north america can't be more than 20 days' march wide' thing) so manufacture and food production developed along more or less european lines, except in the south. the infrastructure to relieve famines in the south exists though, they're all english colonies (or part of the USA if it's 1790)

 

[tormsen]

I'd think the British would go to India rather than North America.
It's an older colony and they control larger portions of fertile land with a nice warm climate. Might be a bit too warm for them at first but if they are a lot of them they'll need someplace with a longer growing season than Canada and larger than the Carribean islands they still control.

And of the Indians? I would suggest that the supervolcano would probably erupt somewhere between the third and fourth Anglo-Mysore wars, so Tipu Sultan might make a move. Meanwhile the Marathas are still a factor. With the Home Islands gone, will the British East India Company be able to stay afloat? Maybe. An evacuation to already-heavily settled India, with powerful local powers still in existance, might be pretty messy.

.
I think the Dutch would indeed head for South Africa, if they end up with control of the diamond and gold mines of the area that will boost their empire considerably.

What good will gold and diamonds do for them when the banks of Amsterdam are filled with corpses and the dykes are collapsing under cemented ash? The Dutch would be better off worrying about how to grow enough crops to stay alive and rebuild their culture and industry before worrying about precious metals and jewels.

As for the French (and if I'm going to babble I may as well do it thoroughly) I see them moving the monarchy and the most influencial people to Northwest Africa. I also see the climate (warmer in Africa despite the overall drop due to vulcanism) and the local culture impacting on French culture and fashion. Whether they HAVE a monarchy might be iffy but I'd prefer to think they do. Perhaps a more restrained sort with less absolute power resting in the king but have a single leader in an emergency helps and the locals are used to that single leader being a king.

The Moroccans and Algerians were not under French domination in the 1790's, and I think they would be likely to balk at attempts by the French to take their territories. The Spanish and Portugeuse are better positioned, but they have other options. Desperation might lead to such actions, but I don't think it'd be very good. Invading sovereign nations in the midst of a huge national evacuation is not going to be very helpful. Though, that said, the French don't have many other options. Suriname and the Caribbean can't hold that many people.

Whatever happens, it will be messy. But I think people are way over-estimating the Europeans and under-estimating everyone else in their calculations. I am skeptical about big evacuations to Asia, or distant parts of the world like Australia. Well, maybe not that they won't happen, I just think it's highly unlikely that they'll be successful.

 

[TimeJockey]

it's hard to imagine anything but outright disaster in south america. much of the continent would be devoted to the production of cash crop monocultures - sugar, cocoa, as well as silver and gold mining - and manufacture is intentionally suppressed so as to create the highest profit for people trading manufactured goods for gold and cash crops. food stocks will plummet very quickly with any influx of refugees.

Long-term, the rainforests would likely be destroyed completely within a century. I wonder what the net result would be of a combination of less carbon-producing industrial development globally offset with the loss of the oxygen-producing and carbon-cleansing South American rainforests and the altered vegetation situation in the ash-affected areas (and let's not forget possible alterations in albedo as well) with regard to changes in ocean levels and the effects this would additionally have on human settlements and culture over time?

Also, say goodbye to a lot of plant species that have been instrumental in medical development in OTL.

 

[sansahansan]

Long-term, the rainforests would likely be destroyed completely within a century. I wonder what the net result would be of a combination of less carbon-producing industrial development globally offset with the loss of the oxygen-producing and carbon-cleansing South American rainforests and the altered vegetation situation in the ash-affected areas (and let's not forget possible alterations in albedo as well) with regard to changes in ocean levels and the effects this would additionally have on human settlements and culture over time?

Also, say goodbye to a lot of plant species that have been instrumental in medical development in OTL.

<confused>

180 cubic km of material ejected over Europe will spell true disaster for Europe (only a couple notches below a Yellowstone Eruption for America), and it might (probably) would trigger a no summer year (like 1816), but the colder weather in the N. Hemisphere against warmer climes in the south would increase precipitation and knock the weather back into alignment within 1-2 years. By alignment, I mean it'll begin to recede back into pre-eruption patterns and climes although it may well take a decade to completely settle down.

How/why would it affect the southern hemisphere? Unless the southern thermal cycle of the oceans are disturbed, in which case you're going to have climactic shifts on an unimaginable scale and potentially far longer term impacts.

Not even the Younger Dryas (far greater cooling in the n. hemisphere) affected s. hemisphere climates, even though it turned the sahara desert into a heavy lake & light forest savannah.

On the other hand - I suspect the damage from the eruption is being considerably underrated. That much ash & debris should even impact the weather patterns (monsoons) over India - for better/worse I do not know. Mainland Europe should be virtually un-inhabitable for the better part of that decade I mentioned, although recovery would be swift once it got fully started in normal weather patterns. The Britain isles, on the other hand, might emerge virtually unscathed by the eruption itself, but find itself extremely hard hit by the winter. They survived 1816, I'd guess they'd survive this too... That would lead to a *harder* grip on the colonies - need them for food as well as resources - IMHO.

I'm thinking they'd be nearly unscathed as the winds would primarily blow the ash east - witness the recent icelandic volcano - and thereby spare them the majority of the damage.

Another thought though... An eruption of that size - what about the earth shocks throughout the Mediterranean? The tsunamis in the Med? Maybe even in the Atlantic? That would hurt *globally*, even back then.

As for India & China - say hi to severely overcast ash cloud days and grime literally everywhere.

As an alternative - 180 cu km is a lot less than Toba's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
1000-2000 cu km of solid rock, of which 800 cu km was ash.

That volcanic winter lasted 8-10 years and may have resulted in the corresponding 'chill' dip in the global average temps.

Would that be closer to the devastation you're wanting with a volcanic explosion?

 

[TimeJockey]

I was talking about the effects of European migration into South America on a much larger scale than in OTL and what they would likely do to the environment there. You are aware, I'm sure, that in OTL the South American rainforests have been cut back to only a fraction of what they once were? And that they are recognized as being something akin to "the lungs of the planet"? Now imagine that they are decimated or even completely eradicated over a century ago, by human action, in a quest for monoculture farmland. You don't think that would have any effect on climate, or on biological diversity?

Many of the plants used in the development of modern pharmaceuticals come from the Amazon rainforest.

The rainforest also plays an important role in regulating the levels of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, as well as producing quite a lot of oxygen.

Atmospheric gas ratios affect global climate.

Farmland has a different albedo (light reflection level) than rainforest. Volcanic ash blankets have a different albedo from either one. Albedo also affects global climate.

Weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere are not magically separate from those in the Southern Hemisphere. What affects one can easily affect the other.

 

[Cash]

I'd think the British would go to India rather than North America.
It's an older colony and they control larger portions of fertile land with a nice warm climate. Might be a bit too warm for them at first but if they are a lot of them they'll need someplace with a longer growing season than Canada and larger than the Carribean islands they still control.

The British didn't control India in the late 18th Century -- the Raj wasn't established until 1854 or thereabouts. And when you're trying to evacuate as many people as possible as quickly as possible, North America is much closer than India, with far fewer indigenous natives to cause problems and more room to expand.

It's possible that North America would simply be a holding point for some refugees who would move on to Australia/New Zealand or South America, but any evacuation would focus initially on quickly moving large numbers of people out of the danger zone, with ships making multiple trips back and forth across the Atlantic.

Hmm, Iceland or northern Scotland might make sense as possible international refugee centers, places to store people until the ship space was available to take them elsewhere.

 

[sansahansan]

I was talking about the effects of European migration into South America on a much larger scale than in OTL and what they would likely do to the environment there.

Ah - missed that part - now I understand you whole post much better thank you.

The rainforest also plays an important role in regulating the levels of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, as well as producing quite a lot of oxygen.

Atmospheric gas ratios affect global climate.

True, and the reduction of the forests will (eventually, even in our OTL) contribute to a global cooling.

Weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere are not magically separate from those in the Southern Hemisphere. What affects one can easily affect the other.

While true, there are some very interesting disconnects in history, starting with the Wisconsian Glaciation and including practically every 'chill' since. In particular, the Younger Dryas, the cooling perioud around 8000 years ago, then a couple of others I can't recall the dates on (and may even be wrong on the 8kya now that I think on it), but also including 1816, the year without a summer, and, on the opposite side of the coin, the medieval warming period.

*none* have seen corresponding long term effects of similar nature in the s. hemisphere.

Termperatures fluctuated with a seeming lag, but even that pattern had exceptions.

Impact, yes. Same effect? no.


But the increased human activity in S. America would certainly have the impact you've suggested... especially hack and slash -- would it be roughly equivalent to the industrializations carbon output??


I agree with an earlier poster though... India/Indonesia/Australia/New Zealand would likely have been seen as far more attractive. That's assuming there's enough Europeans left to desire strong activity towards evacuation.

Does anyone think Britain would be hit hard, other than a cold year or two? Or that there would be enough survivors in central Europe to migrate in significant numbers to anywhere?


My eyes are crossing - If I'm not making any sense at all, just ignore me my brain is dead from a looong day.

 

[Saturn]

"In 1757, on account of the British victory at Plassey, where a military force led by Robert Clive defeated the forces of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-daulah, the East India Company found itself transformed from an association of traders to rulers exercising political sovereignty over a largely unknown land and people. Less than ten years later, in 1765, the Company acquired the Diwani of Bengal, or the right to collect revenues on behalf of the Mughal Emperor, in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The consolidation of British rule after the initial military victories fell to Warren Hastings, who did much to dispense with the fiction that the Mughal Emperor was still the sovereign to whom the Company was responsible."

They did own a chunk and with a concerted effort could have expanded it. As for feeding the refugees I have a book titled, Bengal Agriculture: A Quantitative Study which seems to suggest IIRC that the British of that general period were producing food in excess of the population so this is why I was thinking of them going there rather than the U.S.A. with whom they'd recently had a war and lost or to Canada which I confess I found very chilly on my few trips there and which seems to me less capable of supporting a large influx of refugees. Of course it could be that they went to several places. Some to Canada, some to the new American nation, some to the Caribbean, etc.

As for the Marathas I believe that in 1790 the Maratha Confederacy was fighting the Rajputs of Jaipur and their Mughal allies so they would have been rather distracted.

As for what good gold and diamonds would do the Dutch. Well I admit that you can't eat them but I do think they might come in handy for other things after as many Dutch as can move to S.A.

The French are probably screwed, blued, and tattooed but if they can find a good leader there are enough of them to take over a chunk of somewhere. Not necessarily Morocco or Algeria but somewhere.

I'm not saying any of these will be walkovers or anything but messy but if it is leave Europe or die they will carve a niche for themselves elsewhere and succeed at least in surviving.

 

[TimeJockey]

True, and the reduction of the forests will (eventually, even in our OTL) contribute to a global cooling.

Where do you get the idea that it will lead to cooling? A reduction in the ability to remove excess carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere contributes to warming, not cooling. And replacing forest with farmland is recognized as part of what led to the Medieval Warm Period. The mechanics can't have changed that much from then to now.

 

[sansahansan]

Where do you get the idea that it will lead to cooling? A reduction in the ability to remove excess carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere contributes to warming, not cooling. And replacing forest with farmland is recognized as part of what led to the Medieval Warm Period. The mechanics can't have changed that much from then to now.

I was thinking fast burning of the forests resulting in a smoke and ash cloud not too dissimilar from a volcanic ash resulting in a volcanic winter (see Mount Toba or other 'volcanic events' under catastrophism)

Replacing forest w/ farmland across Europe happened in a much larger time frame than what I'd been granting the burning of these forests.

But again I ask - why burn forests/fight natives when you could go to India and Australia?

 

[Osakadave]

180 cubic km of material ejected over Europe will spell true disaster for Europe (only a couple notches below a Yellowstone Eruption for America), and it might (probably) would trigger a no summer year (like 1816), but the colder weather in the N. Hemisphere against warmer climes in the south would increase precipitation and knock the weather back into alignment within 1-2 years. By alignment, I mean it'll begin to recede back into pre-eruption patterns and climes although it may well take a decade to completely settle down.

How/why would it affect the southern hemisphere? Unless the southern thermal cycle of the oceans are disturbed, in which case you're going to have climactic shifts on an unimaginable scale and potentially far longer term impacts.

Not even the Younger Dryas (far greater cooling in the n. hemisphere) affected s. hemisphere climates, even though it turned the sahara desert into a heavy lake & light forest savannah.

On the other hand - I suspect the damage from the eruption is being considerably underrated. That much ash & debris should even impact the weather patterns (monsoons) over India - for better/worse I do not know. Mainland Europe should be virtually un-inhabitable for the better part of that decade I mentioned, although recovery would be swift once it got fully started in normal weather patterns. The Britain isles, on the other hand, might emerge virtually unscathed by the eruption itself, but find itself extremely hard hit by the winter. They survived 1816, I'd guess they'd survive this too... That would lead to a *harder* grip on the colonies - need them for food as well as resources - IMHO.

I'm thinking they'd be nearly unscathed as the winds would primarily blow the ash east - witness the recent icelandic volcano - and thereby spare them the majority of the damage.

Another thought though... An eruption of that size - what about the earth shocks throughout the Mediterranean? The tsunamis in the Med? Maybe even in the Atlantic? That would hurt *globally*, even back then.

As for India & China - say hi to severely overcast ash cloud days and grime literally everywhere.

As an alternative - 180 cu km is a lot less than Toba's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
1000-2000 cu km of solid rock, of which 800 cu km was ash.

That volcanic winter lasted 8-10 years and may have resulted in the corresponding 'chill' dip in the global average temps.

Would that be closer to the devastation you're wanting with a volcanic explosion?

Yellowstone type event was what I had in mind. There's got to be a fine balance point that causes maximum screwing up of Europe without totally screwing up the world at large.

I'm not quite exactly sure where that is. Any suggestions on how much ejecta, how long of a volcanic winter, and how much cooling the rest of the world could handle?

 

[TimeJockey]

I was thinking fast burning of the forests resulting in a smoke and ash cloud not too dissimilar from a volcanic ash resulting in a volcanic winter (see Mount Toba or other 'volcanic events' under catastrophism)

Wait, you said that the disappearance of the forests will result in global cooling, in OTL. We're not burning them off fast in OTL, and we're not getting volcanic-winter type smoke/ash clouds in OTL from burning them. So where's this OTL global cooling supposed to come from, again?

Replacing forest w/ farmland across Europe happened in a much larger time frame than what I'd been granting the burning of these forests.

The speed at which this occurred doesn't change the fact that it eventually altered the climate. Also, burning is not the only way to clear forests.

But again I ask - why burn forests/fight natives when you could go to India and Australia?

Right, because India and Australia were conveniently vacant land with no natives of their own.