Beryllium 10 and climate

Quick primer:

Beryllium-10 is an isotope that is a proxy for the sun’s activity. Be10 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions with atoms of oxygen and nitrogen. Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.

One way to capture earth’s record of that proxy data is to drill deep ice cores. Greenland, due to having a large and relatively stable deep ice sheet is often the target for drilling ice cores.

Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers.

While it sounds simple to analyze, there are issues of ice compression, flow, and other factors that must be taken into consideration when doing reconstructions from such data. I attended a talk at ICCC 09 that showed one of the ice core operations had procedures that left significant contamination issues for CO2. But since Beryllium is rather rare, it doesn’t seem to have the same contamination issues attached. – Anthony

Be-10 and Climate

Guest post by David Archibald

A couple of years ago on Climate Audit, I undertook to do battle with Dr Svalgaard’s invariate Sun using Dye 3 Be10 data. And so it has come to pass. Plotted up and annotated, the Dye 3 data shows the strong relationship between solar activity and climate. Instead of wading through hundreds of papers for evidence of the Sun’s influence on terrestrial climate, all you have to do is look at this graph.

be10-climate

All the major climate minima are evident in the Be10 record, and the cold period at the end of the 19th century. This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.

The end of the Little Ice Age corresponded with a dramatic decrease in the rate of production of Be10, due to fewer galactic cosmic rays getting into the inner planets of the solar system. Fewer galactic cosmic rays got into the inner planets because the solar wind got stronger. The solar wind got stronger because the Sun’s magnetic field got stronger, as measured by the aa Index from 1868.

http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/naonew3.gif

From john-daly.com

Thus the recent fall of aa Index and Ap Index to lows never seen before in living memory is of considerable interest. This reminds me of a line out of Aliens: “Stay frosty people!” Well, we won’t have any choice – it will get frosty.

ap_index_2008-520

The Ap magentic index to the end of 2008

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Joe Schmo

but what about the sunspots? (or lack thereof)….. lots of great info here, but it sure seems that the solar minimum grows deeper every day.

Evan Jones

Intriguing.
How recent is this concatenation, and what are the arguments against?

Adam from Kansas

Did your models correctly predict the increase in global temp. the last two months like UAH did? I’m curious if you saw that coming.
Plus don’t forget to put SST’s into the equation, unless its the sun’s activity driving see temperatures which later drag temps. up and down.

Mike Bryant

Another great post… another dagger in AGW…

Robert Bateman

Sunspots are just one aspect of Solar Activity:
From the Space Weather Prediction Center
Updated 2009 Mar 17 2201 UTC
Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 076 Issued at 2200Z on 17 Mar 2009
Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 16/2100Z to 17/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. The disk remains spotless. No flares were observed.
Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low.
Geophysical Activity Summary 16/2100Z to 17/2100Z: Geomagnetic field activity was at quiet levels. The greater than 2MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit reached high levels again today.
Geophysical Activity Forecast: Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be quiet for the forecast period (18-20 March).
Just go to solarcycle24.com and have a look at the Magnetogram over the space of a couple of days. Funny things happening to plages, with the most recent on being the dipoles being blown about like fishing nets in arcs.

Robert Bateman

David, if you are about:
Why would Be10 show the solar inactivity and C14 not?
And what happens when the two are combined (not overlayed, but values added and then halved)?
Do we end up with a mess or a better SC proxy?

Steve Keohane

This wraps things up neatly. Leif is correct when he says the varience of solar output is not enough to drive the temperature change. But if the increased cloud cover occurs from more high energy neutrons ionizing the atmosphere, then increased solar output makes us warmer indirectly by reducing cloud cover and albedo. It’s still the sun, but not directly.
We actually have and are increasing a whole system of directly measuring sunlight at the earth’s surface, ie. PV solar panels. Their efficiency is directly proportional to cloud cover, humidity, smog, etc. Many have the capability of continuous record keeping built-in. It seems like for very little money, $2-3M, several hundred existing systems could be monitored.

Pamela Gray

I don’t think I want to hang my hat on one correlation (your one downward trend coupled with this century’s one warm period) with saying that there is causation. Especially if the connecting mechanism is still up in the air. Oceanic affects correlate with warm and cold periods over and over again, and are coupled with plausible mechanisms. So tell me your thoughts on whether or not you will be able to find more correlations like this one, and tell me what your hypothesized mechanisms are?

John Egan

You should be ashamed of yourself !!!
With the Greenland ice sheet melting away, you just go up there and keep drilling.
Obviously, you don’t care about the polar bears.

Robert Bateman

Pamela: This would be one correlation, another piece of the puzzle. Seems to me there are quite a few. Leif is saying that solar activity was normal duing the Maunder Minimum. Maybe C14 shows something we cannot observe, and Be10 shows what we actually see (or is felt on Earth). Mechanisms also could be plentiful.
When Eddy remarked in his interview that he chose not to pursue climate connection because it was messy, he was telling us something.

savethesharks

Why cannot the theoretical hat of climate be hung (tentatively) on both the twin towers of solar and oceanic forcing (not equal however)?
I emphasize not equal.
Most of the earth’s heat budget is stored in the oceans. Yet some studies are linking some large-scale heating events such as the Super El Nino 1998 to beyond Earth…..
Leads one to believe that there might be two main drivers….or perhaps even THREE:
The Oceans, the Sun, and GCRs.

savethesharks

But not necessarily in that order.

Jim G

If I understand Leif’s argument correctly, TSI varies little over time.
And this does appear to be true.
TSI however, assumes that all energies of the EM spectrum interact with matter identically. It does not take into effect ionization of atmospheric gases and aerosols, ozone, etc.
Heating of the ionosphere and upper atmosphere from a stronger solar wind, cme events, and solar flares are also not considered.
Wouldn’t the expansion of the upper atmosphere reduce the rate at which heat is lost from the planet?
If CO2 supposedly adds an extra two watts per meter, perhaps it is the atmosphere that is not allowing that extra two watts to escape into space simply because it is thicker.

John F. Hultquist

First, the Oct. 2005 drop in Ap is again highlighted with no explanation. Come on folks, tell me why?
I have a problem with the second line graph (from john-daly). It seems to have some artistic issues. Can’t think of a better term. The horizontal (x) axis starts at 1070 –tick- 1090, and then goes to 1910. So are those first two supposed to be 1870 and 1890? Then the chart seems to have three parts with correlation coefficients shown, all about -0.8. Equal signs seem to be missing. Then in the first and third parts the lines seem to track extremely well – intuitively, isn’t this a positive correlation? The middle part (1090 to 1940) or, as I think, 1890 to 1940, is out of phase so isn’t than a negative, shown as -0.83? So if we clean up this graph, what is it showing?
Other than the above, interesting stuff! I haven’t seen Aliens, but the “Stay frosty” greeting I will send on to the three Catlin Artic folks trekking toward the North Pole. Cheers!

crosspatch

One thing that has always puzzled me about the notion that solar variation isn’t enough to change the global climate is based on how I think of the entire system as a whole. The best analogy I can think of is air going into a balloon that has a hole in it. The air coming in is solar energy. The air leaking out is radiation into space. At any given moment the earth is receiving energy on one side and shedding it on the other. Now on any given day, things like clouds will alter the amount received or allowed to escape but given a steady input, the overall balance shouldn’t change much.
Now imagine the amount of air being added reduces slightly. This is a slight reduction of energy 24x7x365 being added to the system. If this continues over a long enough period of time, the system would have to experience a net loss of energy. The question is if it would be enough to make a difference. Now people who say that the amount of change in a solar minimum us much less than a diurnal change or a seasonal change are, I believe, incorrect because solar radiation doesn’t change on a diurnal cycle. The earth receives the same amount of energy (more or less) at all times and at all seasons. The only difference is where it is being added and where it is escaping.
Now seasonal changes will be significant because albedo is great at around the equinoxes but again, this also balances out as the season progresses. But if I reduce the amount of energy being put into the system for a year or two years or ten years, the overall system should leak energy to space because there is nothing on the other side of the planet that would necessarily restrict radiation to the same extend that irradiation has reduced. Clouds are (again) the unknown factor here.
But I am having a hard time reconciling the notion that you can reduce the energy input to the system over a long time period and not reduce the net energy in the system after that time has elapsed.
Can someone help me understand this better if I am on the wrong track?

Fernando

Robert Bateman: half-life
C14: 5730 years
B10: 1,5×10^6 years
The aim of this work was to use an Iterative Regression Analysis Method for the determination of periodicities in geophysical time series. This method gives, for every identified sine function, its three parameters and their standard deviation due to measurement errors and to the presence of adjustment residues. This feature allows to select the most important periodicities with higher amplitude/deviation ratio. The method described was applied to the analysis of the main periodicities in time series of atmospheric cosmonuclides (atmospheric carbon 14 and beryllium 10 of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica), mean surface temperatures and indicators of atmospheric volcanic dust. During the time interval of these series, the periodicities found were compared from the point of view of possible causal associations between such phenomena as solar activity, cosmonuclide concentrations in the terrestrial atmosphere, atmospheric circulation, temperatures of the air and volcanic dust in the atmosphere.

deadwood

I saw a similar talk on ice cores last year. The contamination problem was an important part of the presentation and cast considerable doubt on CO2 data from Vostok and Law Dome.
I asked the presenter after the talk whether he thought the presence of hydrocarbons in the drill fluid could affect CO2 and other trace material in the core and his answer was an unequivocal yes.
I then asked whether this affected his position on AGW and his answer was also unequivocal – NO.
I suspected then (and still do) that his funding, which includes trips to the Antarctic and Greenland, is somewhat dependent on his keeping on message.

Robert Bateman

There seems to be 2 main camps on climate.
One is the AGW only CO2 can influence warming and
Two is the sun is the main driver through solar activity and spectral changes.
TSI may not vary that much, but the NUV certainly does, and cosmic rays do have a known effect making low-lying clouds. Couple that with the shrinking of the ionosphere and Oceans flipping to cold and increased albedo due to growing cold (ice, snow) and it really doesn’t matter that TSI remains aloof.
Dunno why the oceans would flip cold, but they did.

Robert Bateman

Dunno why a farmer would up and tell me his crops are all funny and then tell me there has to be something wrong with the sun. But he did. Blew me away.
The guy ought to know, he pays attention to everything and has been at it for 50 years.
Folks who are close to nature are far more apt to notice the changes around them than folks cooped up in offices. No matter what is going on.

Ian Holton

I will put this up a very recent web article on my statistical model using AA solar-magnetic index, AMO & PDO and a small amount of CO2 which also shows with a lag period of meaned AA readings from 0 to 15 years, how solar-magnetic influences also show very good correlations with global temps, much like the David has posted. there is something there more thann the TSI shows imo and that of many others it seems. there are too many “coincidences” in solar-magnetic and ocean cycles to not see that they are the main drivers of global temperature. All the ups and downs and peaks and troughs (apart from the volcanic) can be seen in them. You mau not agree with all I have done here in the model, but it all rings true in the right direction to me.
FORECAST MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2009 TO 2050
http://www.holtonweather.com/global.htm
Cheers

savethesharks

Robert Bateman wrote: “Folks who are close to nature are far more apt to notice the changes around them than folks cooped up in offices. No matter what is going on.”
Agreed. We don’t give enough credit to plants because they can not talk. But phooey on us for not paying attention to what they are saying. The proof is not in the pudding….it is in the yield.
Something is up with the sun…..plages that in any other time would be blossoming into good ‘ole 101 dalmation spots. Yet nothing.
Fascinating times.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

Philip_B

crosspatch, you are right.
What you are talking about is the solar forcing equivalent of Mann’s ‘warming in the pipeline’ from the CO2 forcing. That is the warming (or cooling) from a longer term change inTSI that only occurs after a time lag (which may be years).
I puzzled over this for a while and then puzzled over why other people, particularly climate scientists weren’t puzzling over it.
I concluded that there isn’t any science to support one position over another. And the instantaneous effect of forcings is just an assumption. Further, the reason no one wants to talk about it, is because scientists don’t like their assumptions questioned, because it throws doubt on everything they think they know.
Which takes into the realm of epistemology, Kuhn and paradigms. Rather arcane subjects for a blog like this.

savethesharks

Five days of straight rain here in Virginia. Last time we saw the sun? One week prior to today.
This is a stunning reversal from the mature-warm stage of the AMO, which brought the SE US record heat and drought. The persistent subtropical anticyclone has finally been beaten down.
Low clouds for one week….and then a clearing sky tonight….only to be enveloped by zero visibility fog a few hours later.
The cycles of mother nature. I am not complaining….because to us, “AMO” does not mean “love.”
Fascinating times. Question for David….what is the next set of stats/data related to the Be10 you are going to produce??
Thanks for your hard work….will be interested to see….
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA

Barry L.

Re: solar variation isn’t enough to change the global climate
OR IS IT???
OK Floks, here’s my take on what I think is a recent find that could be the missing feedback required to justify the solar impact on climate:
Per the link below, we know the atmosphere expands and contracts in 11 year, 27day and 9 day cycles….
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39356/title/Solar_wind_pushes_atmospheric_breathing
Based on this relation, one has to imagine what this change effects:
1)The total volume of the atmosphere is in relation to the 3rd power of the change in atmospheric height.
2)Changing volume will have enormous effecs on atmospheric circulation
3)Changing atmospheric circulation effects the ability to radiate heat into space.
4)And what about V1 / T1 = V2 / T2 gas laws
Can anybody provide a graphic that correlates atmospheric height and surface temperature?

It is a common human frailty that when one believes strongly in a cause [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] a certain blindness or perhaps expressed better – selective vision, sets in and drives people to less than candid use of Figures and Data. So it is with this post.
The use of 10Be and 14C proxies is fraught with pitfalls. The production rate may be set by solar activity [the current paradigm says the Heliomagnetic Field. HMF], but the deposition rate in the ice and wood depends on terrestrial factors, climate, geomagnetic field, and volcanic eruptions [as 10Be attaches to aerosols]. Beer and McCracken have in two recent papers [see references in links below] attempted to reconstruct the ‘equivalent’ Climax Neutron Monitor count from the 10Be data and from that the driving HMF.
We have looked carefully at their reconstruction and are in the process of submitting a paper addressing serious issues we see with their result. a preliminary report was presented at last year’s SORCE meeting in Santa Fe: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf with some background information in http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf
The issues are complex and will often be too involved for people to take the time to study and understand them. This fact is vigorously exploited by people with agendas, by serving up simplified [sometimes even wrong or deceptive; allowed according to Gore to get the important point across and save the planet – the end justifying the means] and misleading graphs [hockey sticks and ice cores].
So, I’ll be equally simplistic [as the details have been discussed in full already on this blog] and just point out a few items of interest:
1) It has been trumpeted with great fanfare that the solar wind is the weakest ever observed. The fact is that the solar wind [and the HMF] now is what ir was 108 years ago, so shouldn’t the curve on Figure 1 go back up to where it was 108 years ago? This has conveniently been left out.
2) The major peaks in the 10Be record are mainly due to strong volcanic eruptions. The aerosols produced scour the stratosphere clean of 10Be and increases the deposition rate. Volcanic eruptions also produce cooling, of course, so that will help the correlation.
3) The Ap-index being the lowest ever is due to erroneous data from the SWPC. This has been pointed out here already, so Figure 2 seems a deliberate distortion. Correct geomagnetic activity is known back to the 1840s [ http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-SPRG-2008.pdf ].
4) Correlation coefficients calculated on heavily smoothed data [Figure 3] are severely inflated and do not represent correct statistics.
In all, I would personally have been embarrassed if this had been my post, but then I’m not an agitator for an agenda [which I understand justifies inaccuracies for the sake of the good].

Stephen Garland

There is an interesting posting at Jennifer Marohasy’s site concerning energy loss from the earth. 3rd March ‘Radical new hypothesis on the effect of greenhous gases’ by Michael Hammer’. I would be keen to see some discussion here!

I may have the Figure numbers off, but the meaning should be clear anyway.

Roger Knights

It would strengthen the case for this hypothesis if ice cores from Antarctica confirmed the ones in Greenland.

Claude Harvey

There is a relatively old and simple theory that the primary temperature control mechanism of planet earth is low-level cloud cover and it goes as follows:
1) More cloud cover; cooler temperatures.
2) More cosmic rays; more cloud cover.
3) More sunspot activity; fewer cosmic rays and less cloud cover.
4) More volcanic eruptions; more cloud cover
It is clear that both the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minimums coincided with plunging global temperatures. The correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature has at other times been less clear.
Somewhere out there is a study I read a couple years ago purporting to have reconstituted a record of volcanic activity and to have overlain that volcanic record with the record of sunspot activity. The paper claimed that when volcanic activity was “tuned out” the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature was very tight.

lgl

Beryllium-10 is not a proxy for the sun’s activity. It’s a GCR proxy.

tallbloke

It’s interesting to compare the NAO series in the second graph with this 5 year smoothed graph of the AMO.
http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/amor5year200811.jpg?w=590&h=358
Apart from the solar cycles standing out very clearly in most of the graph, it looks to me like the AMO ‘lags’ behind the NAO, and also picks up influence from elsewhere.
Could it be that when solar activity is high, excess heat is transported away southwards at the same time the mid and south atlantic is gaining heat from increased input from warm surface water released by el nino’s driven by increased trade winds in the equatorial tropics?
When I asked Leif about the long term increase in the aa index a couple of years ago at climate audit, he said there were instrumental issues and the data needed adjusting. I put some of that down to his need to validate his invariate sun model, but nonetheless, we need to be sure we have reliable data before drawing conclusions.

VG

Steve Keohane “It’s still the sun, but not directly” = 100% correct. Also turn off sun
earths temps falls to -273K? or maybe kept a bit warm for 100 years ect then down LOL

Frank Lansner

David, you have this nice way of getting to the point, many scientist could definetly learn from this no matter their dergrees and status. It was your nice wirtings a few years ago that really made me doubt AGW. What a relief.
My hero 🙂
You know, peobple that really understands a subject, the essentials often has an ability to communicate their findings.
Im working on a new piece “Holocene, historic and recent temperature proxies” and my god, its a jungle of data. But i think there will be a few nice conclusions that will come out of this anyway, hope to share it with you all in a few weeks from now.

deadwood (21:03:45) , 17/03/2009:
I saw a similar talk on ice cores last year. The contamination problem was an important part of the presentation and cast considerable doubt on CO2 data from Vostok and Law Dome.
I asked the presenter after the talk whether he thought the presence of hydrocarbons in the drill fluid could affect CO2 and other trace material in the core and his answer was an unequivocal yes.

The contamination problem is far less in Antarctic ice cores than in Greenland, where acidic volcanic ashes can set CO2 free from sea salts (carbonates). The coastal ice cores of Antarctica (Law Dome) and the inland ice cores (Vostok) show similar CO2 levels for the same gas age, despite higher salt/dust deposits near the coast.
Drill fluid can contaminate the ice core through cracks in the ice and where drilling fluid is found, higher CO2 levels are measured. These measurements are rightfully discarded as unreliable, and only ice parts without cracks or drilling fluid are used for measurements.
BTW, Law Dome has three ice cores investigated: one used drilling fluid, the other two used “dry” methods of drilling. The three cores show similar CO2 levels within 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) for the same gas age, and an overlap of about 20 years (1960-1980) with the south pole atmospheric measurements…

David Archibald:
In the above graph of 10Be over time, has there been a correction applied for differences in snow deposit? In cooler periods, the air is dryer and less snow is falling, artifically increasing the 10Be content of the ice core in such a period. Although the snow deposit and climate are related, the 10Be content isn’t necessary the result of solar changes in this case…

crosspatch

Another analogy I came up with … imagine a globe in a cold vacuum with a heat lamp on it. Put two temperature sensors 180 degrees apart at the equator. Shine a heat lamp on it. Rotate the globe. Sample the temperature sensors when they are just about to transition between illumination and shadow, add them and divide by two to obtain an “average” (or use 4 if you wish, at 90 degree intervals). Rotate until the temperatures stabilize. Make the globe solid, maybe full of water to give it some thermal “inertia”.
Now turn down the heat lamp very slightly. What does your “average” temperature do?

tallbloke

Ferdinand Engelbeen (00:46:34) :
In the above graph of 10Be over time, has there been a correction applied for differences in snow deposit? In cooler periods, the air is dryer and less snow is falling, artifically increasing the 10Be content of the ice core in such a period. Although the snow deposit and climate are related, the 10Be content isn’t necessary the result of solar changes in this case…

As fair a question as asking Michael Mann how much his tree rings are affected by water availability as opposed to temperature it seems to me. Proxy data is fraught with uncertainties. If we look at the later part of the aa graph, the twin peaks in the second half of the C20th are roughly equal in amplitude, whereas the 10Be descent shows the later peak as lower than the 1950’s peak. Could the aa record be useful in ‘calibrating’ the 10be record?

Philip_B (21:46:19) wrote in part: “I puzzled over this for a while and then puzzled over why other people, particularly climate scientists weren’t puzzling over it.”
I am a compulsive appreciator of nice lines and nice paragraphs, Philip. This is one such and is hereby acknowledged!

Ian Holton

“It is a common human frailty that when one believes strongly in a cause [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] a certain blindness or perhaps expressed better – selective vision, sets in and drives people to less than candid use of Figures and Data.” Leif
Well, from where I sit everyone has beliefs and especially notices things that appeal to those beliefs, for sure…maybe even those who believe that the sun has little to do with the any changes in global temperature….But, that is how the human brain works, it is very hard to dis-associate one’s self from what the mind and heart believe is true.
Most people post what their heart and mind believe after looking at the facts. There are likely to be truth and untruth in all posts, it is a matter of sifting the diamonds from the dust. And David and Leif and many others all have some diamonds in their posts normally….But no one person has all the diamonds. Read and take out of each post and thread the diamonds and leave the rest of the dust in the storage basket, maybe there is some coal even there that will change to diamonds with time.

Robert Bateman

lgl (23:43:37) :
Beryllium-10 is not a proxy for the sun’s activity. It’s a GCR proxy.

Well we certainly can’t see them, but they sure do leave thier siganture. And if galactic cosmic rays are way up during Grand Minima, there is good reason to believe the recorders of the Grand Minimum as regards Sunspot Group counting. So exactly why would C14 not show the same as Be10 during Grand Minima? Pardon me for asking, but which part of solar activity does C14 actually represent?

Robert Bateman

tallbloke (01:14:46) :
I like the way you think. Looking for answers to vexing questions and delving into the possibilites is good stuff.

Paul Maynard

I tend to sympathise with the view that in opposing the AGW hysteria, we have to be careful with cherry picking data that suits our case. In this respect, Roy Spencer’s view that all paleo studies are to be treated cautiously deserves respect. That leaves us with the satellite record showing no significant warming since 1979, measured temp histories that can be relied upon such as Armagh where there is no “accelerating” warming, the ARGO buoys and the missing hot spot predicted by models and the illogic of the IPCC temp sensitivity.
Good work by DA though.
Paul

realitycheck

Re: lgl (23:43:37) :
“Beryllium-10 is not a proxy for the sun’s activity. It’s a GCR proxy.”
The theory goes that when the Sun is active – less cosmic rays can reach the Earths Atmosphere due to a strengthened solar magnetic field. Less clouds will form, allowing the Climate to Warm. When the Sun is inactive, the solar magnetic field weakens, allowing more cosmic rays to reach Earth, causing more clouds to form, cooling the Climate.
So, strictly, Be10 IS a direct proxy for Galactic Cosmic Rays, but will be negatively correlated with the strength of the solar magnetic field.
—-
Interesting article, though as always correlation does not prove causality.
However, to start with something which IS correlated (Be10 and the cosmic ray flux) rather than something which IS NOT correlated (CO2) is a good start…

MattN

Very interesting. I expect the warmies to ignore this like a dead skunk…

I am with Lief on this topic. The Tsonis post was a step in the right direction, but there are too many issues with paleo reconstructions to draw firm conclusions.

Ron de Haan

Stephen Garland (22:16:25) :
“There is an interesting posting at Jennifer Marohasy’s site concerning energy loss from the earth. 3rd March ‘Radical new hypothesis on the effect of greenhous gases’ by Michael Hammer’. I would be keen to see some discussion here!”
Stephen,
I found the article on the Gore Lied site and made at least two WUWT postings
in order to “throw it for the wolves” without any response.
It is a very interesting study because it completely destroys the AGW/CO2 doctrine:
See: http://algorelied.com/?p=899
New Peer Reviewed Study:
In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
That sucking sound you hear is all of the air and energy being sucked out of Al Gore’s global warming climate change climate crisis machine.
Source: Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics published in The International Journal of Modern Physics. Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Jennifer Marohasy notes that Michael Hammer previously reached a similar conclusion.
In short: I too would like to see a firm discussion about this study on WUWT.

titopoli

“This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.”
Correlation is not causation. Neither at RealClimate, nor here. Damn!

MarkW

lgl (23:43:37) :
Beryllium-10 is not a proxy for the sun’s activity. It’s a GCR proxy.
—————
However GCR’s are a proxy for the sun’s activity.

Ninderthana

You are right titopli “correlation is not causation”.
However, good scientists know that some very good correlations can used to guide investigators towards a better understanding of the underlying causations.
Spectulation and reasoned conjecture are important tools in the search for a “better truth” and a better understanding.

Ron de Haan (03:22:07) wrote regarding the Jennifer Marohasy site article: “It is a very interesting study because it completely destroys the AGW/CO2 doctrine…”
I fear the alarmists have long gone beyond rational doctrine, Ron, and destroying this particular one would be as pointless as all the destruction by true scientists of hockey sticks and hokey sticks and the like has been. Perhaps it never ever was about “science” right from the beginning? It sounds trite to call AGW alarm “religion”, but perhaps it is also correct to call it that… a debased religion, anyway; and the fire is in their eyes.
Seems to me the global financial collapse is riding with the angels insofar as throwing rocks under the wheels of the AGW juggernaut; but simply “proving them wrong” is not going to quench either their fire or their thirst. They have both a tiger by the tail and a mission, and logic is not going to even impinge on either those with the madness or those with the money.
However; I do believe it will burn itself out, and on the positive side also believe it has given us a lot of real science we may otherwise have taken years to harvest.