Subdaily meteorological measurements of temperature, direction of the movement of the clouds, and cloud cover in the Late Maunder Minimum by Louis Morin in Paris

Pliemon, Thomas; Foelsche, Ulrich; Rohr, Christian; Pfister, Christian

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179

Preprints

07 Jan 2022

Status: a revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal CP.

Subdaily meteorological measurements of temperature, direction of the movement of the clouds, and cloud cover in the Late Maunder Minimum by Louis Morin in Paris

Thomas Pliemon¹, Ulrich Foelsche^1,2, Christian Rohr^3,4, and Christian Pfister^3,4 Thomas Pliemon et al.

Show author details

¹Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics and Meteorology/Institute of Physics (IGAM/IP), University of Graz
²Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change (WEGC), University of Graz
³Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern
⁴Institute of History, Section of Economic, Social and Environmental History (WSU), University of Bern

Received: 09 Dec 2021 – Discussion started: 07 Jan 2022

Abstract. We have digitized three meteorological variables (temperature, direction of the movement of the clouds, and cloud cover) from copies of Louis Morin’s original measurements (Source: Institute of History / Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern) and subjected them to quality analysis to make these data available to the scientific community. Our available data cover the period 1665–1709 (temperature beginning in 1676). We compare the early instrumental temperature dataset with statistical methods and proxy data to validate the measurements in terms of inhomogeneities and claim that they are, apart from small inhomogeneities, reliable. The Late Maunder Minimum (LMM) is characterized by cold winters and autumns, and moderate springs and summers, with respect to the reference period of 1961–1990. Winter months show a significant lower frequency of westerly direction of movement of the clouds. This reduction of advection from the ocean leads to a cooling in Paris in winter. The influence of the advection becomes apparent when comparing the last decade of the 17^th century (cold) and the first decade of the 18^th century (warm). A lower frequency of westerly direction of movement of the clouds can also be seen in summer, but the influence is stronger in winter than in summer. Consequently, the unusually cold winters in the LMM can be attributed to a lower frequency of westerly direction of movement of the clouds. An impact analysis reveals that the winter of 1708/09 was a devastating one with respect of consecutive ice days, although other winters are more pronounced (e.g., the winters of 1676/77, 1678/79, 1683/84, 1692/93, 1694/95 and 1696/97) in terms of mean temperature, ice 15 days, cold days or consecutive cold days. An investigation of the cloud cover data revealed a high discrepancy in the seasons, where the winter season (DJF) (−13.2 %) and the spring season (MAM) (−12.6 %) show a negative anomaly of the total cloud cover (TCC), whereas summer (JJA) (−0.5 %) shows a moderate anomaly of TCC with respect to the 30 year mean of the Meteobluedata (1985–2014).

Thomas Pliemon et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

CC1:
'Comment on cp-2021-179 - The 'late Maunder minimum' is not a period of climate', Gareth S. Jones, 10 Jan 2022

The 'late Maunder minimum' is not a period of climate
I strongly suggest that the authors reconsider their use of the term "late

Maunder Minimum" as a name describing a period of climate.
The 'Maunder minimum' is a term first coined by J.A. Eddy, [1] to

describe the period in which the Sun had a prolonged sunspot minimum, first

noticed by E.W. Maunder in the 1890's. The Maunder Minimum is now generally used

to describe the period of very low observed sunspot numbers between 1640 and

1720.
The 'Maunder minimum' it is not a climatic term, and it is extremely misleading

to use it as such. To do so suggests an a-prior belief that any climate changes

observed are due to lower solar activity.
The authors say that the the "late Maunder Minimum" could be due to a

number of different factors, (lines 352-357 and 429-432), including sunspots,

volcanic activity and ocean heat transport. I am sure the authors did not mean

to imply that volcanoes and the ocean influence the Sun, but this demonstrates the

confusion that can be caused by using an astronomical term for solar activity as

a description for a period of climate.
The authors state that "Lockwood et al. (2017) find that several factors

are responsible for explaining the cold in the LMM." (line 352). This is

not correct. Lockwood (2017) [2] does not use the term 'LMM'/'Late

Maunder minimum'. Neither does the study use 'Maunder minimum' as

a term to describe a period of cool climate.
The term 'Late Maunder minimum' has been used incorrectly in a few published

climate studies (referenced by the authors), but that should not be used as a

precedent for its continued incorrect use.
If the authors need a name for the climate period 1675 to 1715, they should

consider creating a neutral name that does not imply a cause or exaggerate

the climatic conditions at the time.

[1] Eddy, J.A., The Maunder Minimum, Science, 1976

[2] Lockwood, Owens, Hawkins, Jones and Usoskin, Frost fairs, sunspots and the

Little Ice Age, Astronomy and geophysics, 2017

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Thomas Pliemon, 06 Apr 2022
  
  Thanks for the comment, which raises an important point. We think that it is difficult to use terms that are defined by climatology. The period we are studying lies in the Little Ice Age (1300–1850), which, however, stretches over centuries and is also subject to some degree of criticism. Subperiods in the Little Ice Age, which are defined by climatic parameters, do not exist. The reason is obvious because a definition with climate-relevant parameters is difficult. Cold periods and warm periods are heterogeneous in terms of locality and temporal occurrence as well as influenced by many factors. I.e. a temporal limitation is difficult. Thus, there is another possibility to borrow or include a term from another discipline. Strictly speaking, even using the term Middle Ages would be a borrowed term, since it is not defined by climatic parameters in beginning and end. What we want is simply to use a term that is known in our discipline and allows a quick attribution for the reader. We want to use this term neutrally with respect to climate-relevant parameters and will also correct the paper where it could lead to misunderstandings, as well as state this explicitly. So, we want to keep the term and show by the following list of publications that this term is already established.
  Alcoforado, M.-J., M. de Fátima Nunes, J. C. Garcia, and J. P. Taborda, 2000: Temperature and precipitation reconstruction in southern Portugal during the Late Maunder Minimum (AD 1675–1715). Holocene, 10, 333–340, https://doi.org/10.1191/095968300674442959.
  Barriendos M. Climatic variations in the Iberian Peninsula during the late Maunder Minimum (AD 1675-1715): an analysis of data from rogation ceremonies. The Holocene. 1997;7(1):105-111. doi:10.1177/095968369700700110
  Barriopedro, D., Gallego, D., Alvarez-Castro, M.C. et al. Witnessing North Atlantic westerlies variability from ships’ logbooks (1685–2008). Clim Dyn 43, 939–955 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1957-8
  Luterbacher, J., Rickli, R., Tinguely, C., Xoplaki, E., Schüpbach, E., Dietrich, D., Hüsler, J., Ambühl, M., Pfister, C., Beeli, P., Dietrich, U., Dannecker, A., Davies, T., Jones, P., Slonosky, V., Ogilvie, A., Maheras, P., Kolyva-Machera, F., Martin-Vide, J., Barriendos, M., Alcoforado, M., Nunes, M., Jónsson, T., Glaser, R., Jacobeit, J., Beck, C., Philipp, A., Beyer, U., Kaas, E., Schmith, T., Bärring, L., Jönsson, P., Rácz, L. and Wanner, H. (2000), Monthly mean pressure reconstruction for the Late Maunder Minimum Period (AD 1675–1715). Int. J. Climatol., 20: 1049-1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0088(200008)20:10<1049::AID-JOC521>3.0.CO;2-6
  Luterbacher, J., Rickli, R., Xoplaki, E. et al. The Late Maunder Minimum (1675–1715) – A Key Period forStudying Decadal Scale Climatic Change in Europe. Climatic Change 49, 441–462 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010667524422
  Mellado-Cano, J., Barriopedro, D., García-Herrera, R., Trigo, R. M., & Álvarez-Castro, M. C. (2018). Euro-Atlantic Atmospheric Circulation during the Late Maunder Minimum, Journal of Climate, 31(10), 3849-3863. Retrieved Mar 16, 2022, from https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/10/jcli-d-17-0261.1.xml
  Niedzwiedz, T., 2010: Summer temperatures in the Tatra Mountains during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715). The Polish Climate in the European Context: An Historical Overview, R. Przybylak et al., Eds., Springer, 397–406, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3167-9.
  Rácz, L., 1994: The climate of Hungary during the Late Maunder Minimum (1675–1715). Climatic Trends and Anomalies in Europe 1675–1715, B. Frenzel, C. Pfister, and B. Gläser, Eds., G. Fischer, 43–50.
  Wanner H, Pfister C, Bra´zdil R, Frich P, Frydendahl K, Jo´nsson T, Kington J, Lamb HH, Rosenørn S, Wishman E (1995) Wintertime European circulation patterns during the Late Maunder Minimum cooling period (1675–1704). Theoret Appl Climatol 51:167–175. doi:10.1007/BF00867443
  Xoplaki, E., P. Maheras, and J. Luterbacher, 2001: Variability of climate in meridional Balkans during the periods 1675–1715 and 1780–1830 and its impact on human life. Climatic Change, 48, 581–615, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005616424463.
  Zinke, J. , Dullo, C. , von Storch, H. , Müller, B. , Zorita, E. , Rein, B. , Mieding, B. , Miller, H. , Lücke, A. , Schleser, G. , Schwab, M. , Negendank, J. , Kienel, U. , Ruoco, G. and Eisenhauer, A. (2004): Evidence for the climate during the Late Maunder Minimum from proxy data available within KIHZ , The climate in historical times : towards a synthesis of holocene proxy data and climate models / [GKSS-Forschungszentrum]. Hubertus Fischer ... (eds.) Berlin [u.a.] : Springer, S. 397-414 (GKSS School of Environmental Research), ISBN: 3-540-20601-9 .
  Zorita, E., Von Storch, H., Gonzalez-Rouco, F. J., Cubasch, U., Luterbacher, J., Legutke, S., et al. (2004). Climate evolution in the last five centuries simulated by an atmosphere-ocean model: global temperatures, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Late Maunder Minimum. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 13(4), 271-289.
  
  Furthermore, we will change the above-mentioned citation, which was actually not quoted correctly by us.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on cp-2021-179', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Feb 2022

The paper describes a meteorological record covering the late 17th and early 18th century for Paris. Given the length of the record for a period in which instrumental records are very rare, the data and results presented are relevant to the scientific community. However, in my view the manuscript presents major flaws in terms of how the data are analysed and the results interpreted.

General comments:

- The comparison with modern data is misleading, as the historical data are affected by unknown biases related to the measurement location, thermometer scale, and other factors. These biases can easily surpass climate variability in magnitude. I understand the appeal of comparing historical extreme climate events with modern climate, but this is not possible in a scientifically sound way without applying the necessary bias adjustments - which is very hard if not impossible in this case given the lack of metadata. This is particularly true for temperature and cloud cover.

- In addition to the previous point, the Meteoblue dataset used by the authors is a commercial product that, as far as I know, has never been evaluated in peer-review literature. If that is true, it should not be used for a scientific article. My suggestion is to drop the use of a modern reference period for temperature and cloud cover - except perhaps to assess data quality such as for the NDR calculation - and concentrate on the decadal variability of the studied period.

- The temperature record is clearly affected by inhomogeneities. The authors actually do a very good job in pointing them out, by mentioning relocations, changes in the temperature scale, and changes in the ventilation of the instrument (Tab. 1; also Fig. 1a and 1b point to at least two important inhomogeneities). However, this fact is completely ignored when analysing the data. There are some confusing sentences about this at the end of Sect. 3.3 that actually raise even more doubts about the quality of the data. I believe that some kind of statistical homogenization is necessary, even though reference series for this period are scarce. Beside the Central England Temperature series, there exist many temperature reconstruction that could be used.

- How does this record relate to the widely available long monthly temperature series for Paris ? Is that series also based on Morin's observations? Are there any differences from your data?

- Many equations and definitions appear in the results. They should be moved to the methods section.

- I am not a native English speaker but the quality of the language seems rather poor to me, to the point that I had difficulties understanding some sentences.

Specific comments:

- The procedure to convert the temperature readings to Celsius need to be explained more in details, since the given references are in French. Besides, the conversion formulas (Eqs. 1-3) are not completely clear to me: I would expect that the TM in the three equations refer to different observation times, but this is not indicated. Moreover, it is often mentioned in the manuscript that the the thermometer was filled with spirit: is this an assumption or a known fact? How do you explain that a linear conversion does not introduce a bias at high temperatures?

- Equation on page 10 (number missing): I believe the indices i,j,k here are in the wrong positions.

- P11, L207: Dai (2006) shows that the effect of pressure on snowmelt is negligible in the lower troposphere. Besides, increasing humidity cause the melting point temperature to decrease (i.e. a lower temperature is required for snow), not increase. More importantly, precipitation phase at the surface depends on the temperature profile above the station, of which surface temperature is merely a proxy (e.g. it can be significantly warmer 1 km above the surface than at the surface, hence it can rain with negative temperature). Another important factor is precipitation intensity (higher intensity implies higher melting point temperature).

- P11, L215: "So, if..." - something wrong with this sentence, snowfall frequency is not measured in °C.

- Equation on page 12 (number missing): What is the factor 2 for? The notation for the sums is confusing.

- P12, L231: What is a typical value for NDR for data measured indoor? How relevant is the change from 0.8 to 0.95 in 1688?

- P13, L263: The Maunder and Spörer Minima are defined by solar activity, not by climate, and the influence of solar activity on climate is still uncertain. This is mentioned briefly later in the manuscript, but I believe it should be clarified already in the introduction. The choice of LMM to describe the period covered by the data is perhaps not the best as it gives the impression that the climate anomalies were mainly driven by solar activity.

- P22, L349: "This means that..." - Circulation is an essential requirement for cold winters rather than an additional driving factor. Even a possible solar influence would mainly act through changes in circulation (e.g. Barriopedro et al., 2008).

- P22, L367: How is exactly the DI calculated from modern data? Are clear days excluded? If not, there would be an obvious bias with respect to Morin's observations. How dependent are the results from the choice of the levels? This comparison should be done using an open, peer-reviewed dataset (e.g. ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis), or dropped.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Pliemon, 06 Apr 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2021-179/cp-2021-179-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on cp-2021-179', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Feb 2022

The authors have carefully examined a part of the measurements contained in Louis Morin's observation notes kept from 1665 to 1713. These notes are of great importance, given the scarcity of measurements at that time, for understanding the climate during "The Little Ice Age". Temperature and pressure measurements have been the subject of previous studies, well mentioned by the authors. We believe that the interest of the article relates to:

- the confirmation of the high quality and reliability of Morin's temperature measurements.

- the confirmation of the characterization, using these, of the climate of this period

- the study of observations of the direction of the wind deduced from the movement of clouds, which had not yet been the subject of previous studies.

This last point allows the authors to establish a link between the temperature differences (in particular the remarkably very cold winters-springs, but also the summers-autumns close to modern values) with the characteristics of the atmospheric circulations.

The abstract gives a precise idea of the content and of the conclusions of this study.

Morin's Manuscript, which can be consulted at the Institut de France and has already been used by several of the authors cited in reference, includes observations up to 1713. We are surprised that the authors of the article could not use a complete copy of Morin's manuscript or even failing that, did not use in their analysis the data from 1710 to 1713 published in volume 2 of the 1992 note by Legrand and Legoff, cited in the article.

To be more in conformity with the title of the article, it would be desirable to include these data de 1710 à 1713 in the study or otherwise to modify the title of the article in : “Subdaily meteorological measurements of temperature, direction of the movement of the clouds, and cloud by Louis Morin in Paris from 1665 to 1709”.

Some other points, indicated below, seem to us to be able to be improved:

Line 87: it would be preferable to indicate here only the Fontenelle reference. The same passage quoted by Legrand and Le Goff is taken from the original in French

Line 142 to 164. The authors seem to have completely adopted the method developed by Legrand and Le Goff, 1992 to convert Morin's measurements into °C, a method explained in 10 pages. In this article, the summary which is given in 21 lines does not make it possible to understand the principle, in particular that the 2 periods indicated in line 155 are the years of observation of Morin from 1676 to 1712 and those of the Observatory of Paris from 1816 to 1852 considered to have identical average maximum and minimum temperatures. Are the values ââin °C recalculated by the authors identical to those published in volume 2 of the book by Legrand and Le Goff?

Line 164 and 165: “Rousseau, 2009” and not “Rousseau, 2013”

Line 166: “grape harvest dates” and not "harvest date"

Line 172: “monthly” instead of “daily”.

Line 171 and Figure 4: .

The assessment of a bias in Morin's measurements from 1776 to 1780, which may possibly be taken into account for the calculation of monthly temperatures, is different according to Figure 4 of this article or Figure 1 of the article Rousseau, 2009. It seems that value for 1677 of harvest dates in Beaune used in the article (series of Labbé et al) is not in agreement with the chronology of the temperatures of Morin, which is in phase with the chronology of the Dijon series (series taken from Angot) used in Rousseau, 2009.

Line 177 to 179: Writing too technical, difficult to understand. In addition it seems that this smoothing of the data does not allow better readability, the curves somewhat masking the raw data. Wouldn't a data visualization for Figure 5, 8 and 9 similar to that used in Figure 4 be better?

Line 204 and figure A1: For comparison it would be interesting to provide for the Meteoblue data from 1986 to 2015 the 2 Figures similar to those of appendix A1 concerning the Morin data.

Line 221 and figure 3: Is the same difference observed between morning, noon and evening on the Meteoblue data? Morning, noon and evening Meteoblue curves could be shown in Figure 3.

Line 235 and figure A2B: the differences noted in the thermal amplitude illustrated in the A2b would deserve comments and undoubtedly a more in-depth study (on a finer scale than the year), which could possibly make it possible to detect more precisely ruptures of the homogeneity of the series, the extreme values ââbeing more sensitive to the local environment of the observation. Figure A2b seems to indicate breaks around 1680, 1690, 1700, 1705 which do not coincide with Morin's changes of domicile. Are deviations of such great amplitude observed in Meteoblue data? Are these differences related to inter-annual variability or to changes in location or others modifications of measure conditions?

igure 4 – Legend: “Beaune” and not “Dijon”

Line 276 and table 2: "the extraordinary positive anomaly" observed between 1676 and 1680, which is not found in the CET temperatures, confirms the hypothesis of a break in the homogeneity of the Morin series in 1680 which could be dicussed here

Line 285: The same analysis of cold days for the period 1665 to 1675 seems feasible despite the lesser precision of Morin's small thermometer (distribution of measurements noted f4?) even if it means homogenizing with respect to the following period, due to a different threshold.

Line 293: Same comment concerning the hot days (distribution of measurements c4?) of the period 1665-1675

Line 318: The growth of TCC does not take place over the entire period 1676 to 1709 and therefore the use of a growth rate of TCC from a linear regression established over the entire period is not actually justified. We note very clearly in figure 8 that the 5 curves would be rather decreasing or stationary after 1693

Line 393: Is the only strong deviation of westerly winds observed in the decade 1700-1710 not due to the fact that it is the only decade including a complete phase of positive temperature deviations? The other decades present both rather warm or rather cold temperature phases of multi-decadal fluctuations. It would be interesting to examine whether a division into 4 periods, corresponding to alternately cold and warm phases of multi-decadal fluctuations 1672-1675, 1676-1686, 1687-1701, 1702-1708 (cf Le Roy Ladurie et al., Fluctuations du climat, 2011) would not give clearer differences.

Line 454-455: The complete consideration of temperature data from 1665 to 1675 (winter 1672, summer 1675 remarkable in particular) and from 1710 to 1713 as well as the question of the break in the homogeneity of the measurements suggested by the figure A2b, seems to us to deepen later if the article does not deal with it.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Pliemon, 06 Apr 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2021-179/cp-2021-179-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-179-AC3

Thomas Pliemon et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 615 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
501	94	20	615	7	6

HTML: 501
PDF: 94
XML: 20
Total: 615
BibTeX: 7
EndNote: 6

Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Jan 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2022	229	37	5	271
Feb 2022	147	22	7	176
Mar 2022	46	7	2	55
Apr 2022	59	17	5	81
May 2022	20	11	1	32

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Jan 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2022	229	37	5	271
Feb 2022	147	22	7	176
Mar 2022	46	7	2	55
Apr 2022	59	17	5	81
May 2022	20	11	1	32

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 585 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 585 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 24 May 2022

Short summary

We have digitized and analyzed meteorological variables (temperature, direction of the movement of the clouds, and cloud cover), which were noted by Louis Morin in the period 1665–1709 in Paris. This time period is characterized by cold winters and autumns, and moderate springs and summers. A low frequency of westerlies in the winter months leads to a cooling. This time period, except for summer, appears to have less cloud cover compared to now.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0