[fireman15]

So you list a large volcano in 1150, then in 1259, then one in 1452. No one is disputing that there were no volcanoes between 1150 and 1452. There have been “massive” volcanic eruptions that I can think of off the top of my head that have most likely coincided with a drop in temperatures for a period of time afterward.

I witnessed the Mt. St Helen's eruption; it looked pretty massive to me. Which four “massive” tropical volcanoes which took place in a 50 year period that supposedly triggered the little ice age are they referring to in the study? Are they referring to actual events or events that they believe happened because of their simulation results? The article does not make it clear and it certainly makes no reference to the three events you mention that were spread over a 300 year period not a "50 year" period.

[PIF]

I witnessed the Mt. St Helen's eruption

—

You and me both. I was in Port Townsend WA. and we heard it blow from there. Fortunately the prevailing winds did not bring any ash our way.

Be it as it may, St Helens was a small eruption with a modest VEI of 5.

The verifiable eruptions listed are posted at Global Volcanism Program, Volcanoes of the World, Large Holocene Eruptions - http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

“Massive” in volcano speak is anything above a VEI of 6. St Helens at VEI 5 was a hicup or just large. Keep in mind that a super volcano eruption is anything with a VEI of 9 or above.

I have no idea what the “study” volcanoes are. I only posted the known eruptions around that time which would be considered “massive” - draw your own conclusions.

That the “study” centers around a 50 yr period for an event (LIA), which took place over hundreds of years, leaves one wondering just what the point was. I smell a need for more grant money ...

[PapaBear3625]

I’ve long wondered if there was any sort of coupling mechanism between the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, where variations in the solar field could trigger volcanoes or earthquakes.