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.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
lgl (11:08:10) :
Still wrong, like you have been told several times. The absorbed energy, which is not minuscule, is transfered by collision to other molecules.
And if they heat up, then they will radiate, half up and half down, and the argument stays the same. Is that how it is ‘supposed to work’?
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:17)
Since the molecules dance around wildly, the direction in which the radiation is re-emitted will be random …
Is anyone aware of any studies which investigate this assumption in relation to other factors? I am always skeptical of claims of randomness.
Paul Vaughan (12:38:01) :
Since the molecules dance around wildly, the direction in which the radiation is re-emitted will be random …
Is anyone aware of any studies which investigate this assumption in relation to other factors? I am always skeptical of claims of randomness.
Observations show that: you shine light in one direction, the re-emitted light is in every direction. Put a small object in front of a roaring fire, once hot it will radiate in all directions.
Leif Svalgaard (12:57:48)
Observations show that: you shine light in one direction, the re-emitted light is in every direction. Put a small object in front of a roaring fire, once hot it will radiate in all directions.
My doubts are about field uniformity under all physical conditions, but this is a little OT.
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:17)
Your explanation of the greenhouse effect is the same one I have heard many times. It does not make sense. I was hoping you could give me a reference that is more detailed that does make sense.
The atmosphere is bounded by space and earth. Photons coming from space that are absorbed by CO2 are emitted in all possible directions. There is a 50% chance that the photon will be radiated towards space where it will be lost forever. Those that are not lost into space may again be aborbed by CO2 and again there is a 50% chance the photon will be radiated towards space. Increasing the concentration of CO2 just lessens the chance the photons that CO2 absorbs ever reach earth. This boundary effect prevents those photons that are absorbable by CO2 from reaching earth when the concentration of CO2 is increased.
In like manner those photons radiated from earth that are absorbed by CO2 have a 50% chance of being emitted towards earth where they will be absorbed and cause more radiation. The additional radiation will most likely be photons that are not absorbable by CO2. Increasing the concentration of CO2 just increases the probability that photons radiated from earth that are absorbable by CO2 will be converted into photons that are not absorbable by CO2. There is no greenhouse effect. What am I missing? How is the greenhouse effect supposed to work.
Leif Svalgood (01:56:05)
The reference you gave does not go into detail has to how the solar magnetic field changes when the suns magnetic poles flip. So I can’t come to the conclusion that method 3 has no legs.
David J Ameling (13:46:37) :
Your explanation of the greenhouse effect is the same one I have heard many times. It does not make sense.
You did not ask for how it works, but for how it is supposed to work. That may or may not make sense depending on what side of the fence you are. If you are AGWr it makes perfect sense, if not, it is pure nonsense. In my experience no arguments WHATSOEVER can move people from one side of the fence to the other. It is like debating if the Earth is 6000 years old or 4,556,000,000 years old.
Now your argument:
The atmosphere is bounded by space and earth. Photons coming from space that are absorbed by CO2 are emitted in all possible directions. There is a 50% chance that the photon will be radiated towards space where it will be lost forever. Those that are not lost into space may again be aborbed by CO2 and again there is a 50% chance the photon will be radiated towards space. Increasing the concentration of CO2 just lessens the chance the photons that CO2 absorbs ever reach earth.
fails because the photons that come from space [the Sun with a temperature of 6000K] are mostly NOT of the wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 and even it they were there is only a very small amount of CO2. Most photons zip right through and heat the surface. The surface now emits photons of the much longer wavelength [corresponding to 300K] that is absorbed by CO2., hence by your argument that radiation can never [well at least have a harder time] get back out into space [if the wavelength that can be absorbed by CO2 can’t get in then it can’t get out either, hence the greenhouse effect].
Paul Vaughan (13:45:01) :
My doubts are about field uniformity under all physical conditions, but this is a little OT.
Under all conditions is not relevant, it suffices that it is uniform under the conditions actually found in the atmosphere and at the wavelengths in question. Apart from the fact that this is an observational fact, you might also do a little thought experiment: there are mainly three cases,
1) the radiation is re-emitted back where it came from; this would double the greenhouse effect
2) the radiation is re-emitted in all directions; this is the ‘standard’ greenhouse effect
3) the radiation is re-emitted in the same direction from whence it came; this is no greenhouse effect.
In case 3, you would have the situation that a small object in front of a roaring fire would be cold on the side facing the fire and radiate from the side away from the fire.
Which of these three do you like the best? [This is not physics any more, just preference or belief]
Leif,
And if they heat up, then they will radiate, half up and half down, and the argument stays the same. Is that how it is ’supposed to work’?
Yes, my understanding is the main thing is there will be gh-effect even if there were no absorption because the emission is a result of collision with other molecules (mainly O2 and N2 of course). And the ‘problem’ is the extra heating of the surface by this back-radiation and not the direct heating of the atmosphere by absorption. Trace gases yes, but the important thing is how much LW radiation they are emitting. This also means that any heating of the surface, by any source, will be amplified through positive feedback by the gh-effect.
David,
Increasing the concentration of CO2 just increases the probability that photons radiated from earth that are absorbable by CO2 will be converted into photons that are not absorbable by CO2.
No they will not. O2 and N2 don’t radiate (almost), so the absorbed energy must (mainly) be re-radiated by GHGs.
In response to Leif Svalgaard (14:08:27)
I don’t see the “choices” as being so distinct as the ones you put forth. When I see statistical assumptions of uniformity, laminar flow, etc. being made with respect to a heterogeneous medium with turbulence, I am inclined to suspect simplification to ease mathematical modeling & communication.
Thank you for the effort you have invested in commenting.
To All: If anyone knows of any literature that addresses possible anisotropic effects (no matter how subtle), I would be interested in links/references – thank you.
Leif Svalgood (14:00:37)
You missed the whole point of my argument. I was only disscusing those photons that are absorbale by CO2. Not the whole spectrum. Granted a greater part of the spectrum radiated by earth is absorbable by CO2, But a significant part of the spectrum radiated by the sun is also absorbable by CO2. The point I am making is increasing the concentration of CO2 prevents the absorbable photons from the sun from reaching earth and increases the probability that the absorbable photons from earth will be converted to photons that are not absobable by CO2. Where is the greenhouse effect?
Jgl (14:32:04)
The photons that are absorbable by CO2 are converted to photons that are not absobable by CO2 due to the photons being emitted towards earth (after being absorbed by CO2) where they warm the earth and cause more photons to be radiated that are more likely not to be photons that are absorbable by CO2.
Paul Vaughan (14:46:10) :
To All: If anyone knows of any literature that addresses possible anisotropic effects (no matter how subtle), I would be interested in links/references – thank you.
At the bottom, Nature is random:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-08/903836982.Ph.r.html
lgl (14:13:35) :
Yes, my understanding is the main thing is there will be gh-effect even if there were no absorption because the emission is a result of collision with other molecules
So colliding molecules radiate? No, the photon will first have to be absorbed by the GHC. And N2 and O2 do not radiate in the infrared. Molecules radiate in the wavelengths they can absorb [Kirchhoff’s law].
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:17)
A vacuum is a conductor. I still remember vacuum tubes. They are not used to clean carpets. When you say space is filled with conductors what are you refering to? Ions? electrons? What causes the eddy currents 40,000 miles up? If it is magnetic lines of force, I thought they were continous. They would also cause eddy currents in the atmosphere. If there are solar magnetic lines of force present they should cause eddy currents.
David J Ameling (14:49:58) :
The point I am making is increasing the concentration of CO2 prevents the absorbable photons from the sun from reaching earth and increases the probability that the absorbable photons from earth will be converted to photons that are not absobable by CO2. Where is the greenhouse effect?
Look at one photon in the visible. It comes in, zips past the CO2, hits the surface, gets converted into an infrared photon that is now trying to make its way back out. But it can’t easily because it is absorbed by CO2, there is the greenhouse effect. This has nothing to do with the infrared photons coming in.
REPLY: That is the best simple one paragraph explanation I’ve read. – Anthony
David,
It doesn’t matter which wavelengths warmed the Earth, it will radiate the close to black body spectrum.
David J Ameling (15:21:15) :
A vacuum is a conductor
No
When you say space is filled with conductors what are you refering to? Ions? electrons?
Both, space is filled with protons and electrons, about 5 of each per cubic centimeter.
What causes the eddy currents 40,000 miles up? If it is magnetic lines of force, I thought they were continous.
The ‘eddy currents’ [they are not real eddy currents but close enough] are caused by and found in the conductor [the solar wind, space] moving into the Earth’s magnetic field at 250 miles per second. At a height of 40,000 miles, the Earth’s magnetic field is just strong enough that its magnetic pressure equals that of the streaming solar wind, thus stopping the solar wind from getting to the Earth [some exceptions to that near the poles].
They would also cause eddy currents in the atmosphere. If there are solar magnetic lines of force present they should cause eddy currents.
There are no [well, almost none] solar magnetic lines of force in the atmosphere, and thus no eddy current and no heating of the air from such.
The ‘almost none’ qualification has to do with the fact that 40,000-50,000 miles out, some solar field lines connect with the Earth’s magnetic field lines and drag them past the Earth into a long ‘tail’ like a comet stretching out to ten times the distance to the Moon. Instabilities in this stretched out tail cause it [or a piece of it] to collapse now and then and ‘snap’ back towards the Earth. This accelerates particles into the upper atmosphere causing aurora and currents that flow about 60 miles or more up. These currents can in turn induce currents in transformers, power lines, and, in an earlier age, telegraph wires with all kinds of bad effects. The total power input of this can in extreme cases [once every ten years] be up to 1,000,000,000,000 W which is about 20,000 times less than that of the input from the Sun’s light and heat.
Leif Svalgaard (15:14:16)
At the bottom, Nature is random:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-08/903836982.Ph.r.html
This is not what I had in mind, but thanks for the effort.
Since discussion so far OT is being politely tolerated, I’ll take this opportunity to ask Lief (or anyone else who can answer) if there is a mass-imbalance between the poles of the sun – and if so, how it varies over time.
Leif,
No, the photon will first have to be absorbed by the GHC.
Not from what I have red. The GHG molecule just needs to receive the ‘right’ amount of energy to emit a photon. The absorbed energy is almost immediately lost through collision and the easiest way to get it back so that it can emit is from collision.
David J Ameling (15:21:15) :
I should have added that 60 miles up, the air is so thin [a million times thinner than at the surface] that there iswarming by the solar wind. This makes the upper atmosphere expand [there are also other effects due to the Sun that does that], and thus reach up to where many satellites are moving, causing them to slow down by friction, and eventually to fall out of the sky. The Skylab spacecraft did this, many years ago. but the main point is that all this takes place in the rarefied upper regions of the atmosphere with very little or almost no effect at the surface. Its like a very thin tail trying to wag a humongous dog.
Paul Vaughan (15:53:38) :
“At the bottom, Nature is random”
This is not what I had in mind, but thanks for the effort.
This may not be what you have in mind, but is, in fact, the real reason the emission is randomly oriented, because the lifetime of the excited state is random, in the sense that the time at which the electron falls back to its ground state is indeterminate, can happen at any time [within a short window around a mean duration] at which the molecule has rotated and the electron has moved a random distance, so this is VERY pertinent. [May still not be what you have in mind, but such is Mother Nature – she doesn’t really care what is on your mind 🙂 ]
if there is a mass-imbalance between the poles of the sun – and if so, how it varies over time.
I presume you mean in the outflow of the solar wind.
The outflow [the mass flux] varies very much [by a factor of a hundred] from place to place on the Sun’s surface, but the polar regions are much more stable and although some small variation [because the Sun is a messy place] is expected and observed, there is likely no systematic or long-lasting difference between the poles. [many reasons for this]
lgl (15:58:05) :
Not from what I have read. The GHG molecule just needs to receive the ‘right’ amount of energy to emit a photon. The absorbed energy is almost immediately lost through collision and the easiest way to get it back so that it can emit is from collision
But there must to be a photon in the beginning that started the process, being absorbed etc. How many times the photon is lost and recaptured by collision doesn’t seem to be relevant: there is a photon to start with and after some time it is eventually emitted. What happens in the mean time does not seem so important for the end result.
Leif Svalgaard (15:28:21)
Your are still missing my point. I only discuss incoming absorbable photons to illustrate that increasing CO2 levels reduces the penetration of the CO2 absorbable photons into the atmosphere. I hope we all agree on that.
Do we all agree that increasing the concentration of CO2 reduces the penatration of CO2 absobable photons radiated from earth into the atmosphere? Increasing the concentration of CO2 just quickens the emitting of photons absorbed by CO2 back to earth which warms. This warming causes more photons to be radiated by earth, most of these reradiated photons will not be absorbable by CO2. This in affect is a conversion of CO2 absorbable photons into non-absorbable photons. Increasing the concentration of CO2 only quickens the conversion of absorbable photons to non-absorbable photons. There is no greenhouse effect.
Note: only a small part of the infrared spectrum radiated by earth are absorbable by CO2.
Note; Even though CO2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere there is enough CO2 molecules to absorb nearly all the photons that CO2 absorbs. Use Avogadro’s number and you will see that every cubic inch of our atmosphere contains the equivalant of 3000 layers of CO2 molecules. That because they are so small