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.
“Why would physicist do that when the methods of production and deposition are different.”
The methods of deposition are chemical and identical. The methods of production are similar if not identical, CR genesis. A ‘physicist’ determines fact by as many means as are available. That two independent tests disagree requires explanation, in due course.
‘Rings’ in ice cores is not a term I recognized. If common in the parlance, I’m informed. That the technique has issues is openly admitted by its practitioners.
That we may disagree about the ‘facts’ is hardly news.
Leif,
That was just an example. I could have used N2 colliding with H2O, that doesn’t change anything. There is no chain. The atmosphere is heated in various ways, the absorption of upwelling LW is just one, and this absorption is just one small part of the story. That alone would not change the surface temperature much. All downwelling radiation is re-radiated. About 0.6 of the upwelling is sent back to surface so we have a positive feedback loop with around 2.5 total gain [Tot=A/(1-AB) A=1=gain without feedback, B=0.6] This is what makes the GH-effect powerful.
Why do all the charts on the sun go only to 2000?
It looks like data is being cherrypicked to show a correlation.
lgl (11:39:37)
“About 0.6 of the upwelling is sent back to surface so we have a positive feedback loop with around 2.5 total gain [Tot=A/(1-AB) A=1=gain without feedback, B=0.6] …”
Effective messaging – but are you adjusting for the proportion which is not intercepted? (For others following along: Think of a cold clear fall night vs. a warmer one with a thick cloud-blanket – I’m just pointing out that B is concentration-dependent and that it depends on something as dynamic as the hydrologic cycle.)
This is a very clever, digestible calculation to drag out lgl – thank you for sharing it. (clarification: the question was rhetorical.)
Leif: Vacuum is a super-conductor?
This is not true.
Although a vacuum does not interfere with the motion of electrons, it is not a conductor. It is an insulator, with a dielectric constant of 1, similar to free air.
A conductor must have charge carriers (holes or free electrons) that allow current to flow when a charge (voltage) is applied. Conductors have a very low resistance to current flow, super conductors have virtually no resistance.
Vacuum tubes work by heating a metallic cathode to the point that it emits electrons. By applying a voltage (positive with respect to the cathode) electron current will flow to the plate. A “grid” is placed between the cathode and plate. By making the grid negative with respect to the plate, it impedes the flow of electron current. By varying the grid voltage with a signal, you have an amplifier.
Pamela commented on “sun posters/watchers as examining the digestive tract of gnats.” Since TSI varies so little.
It would seem that this comment should apply to the CO2 camp since they are attributing climate change to a trace gas that comprises .038 of 1% of the atmosphere, while ignoring water vapor is measured in whole percentages.
Even though TSI varies little, that doesn’t mean that the short wavelength energies and solar particles are neglible. Otherwise, our atmosphere would not have contracted 100+ km during the current solar min. Don’t underestimate the effects of ionizing radiation. Though we may not understand all of the processes, it doesn’t mean that they are without effect.
Jim G (13:51:50)
“Though we may not understand all of the processes, it doesn’t mean that they are without effect.”
Well-said Jim. I get tired of this attitude that we should not be studying the morphology of nature if we do not yet understand it.
I’ve found a lot of errors in Landscheidt’s work, but here are some examples of the more balanced side of his judgement that I cobbled together one day:
“There are many problems that can only be solved by a joint interdisciplinary effort of open-minded scientists.” (2001) “Admittedly, the mechanisms that create such strong solar forcing remain poorly understood in detail. Yet this situation is not new in the history of science.” (2001) “… it is to be expected that sceptics will point at the lack of detailed cause and effect arguments and properly quantified physical mechanisms.” (1999) “The lack of elaborate theory does not impair the heuristic importance of the results.” (1999) “Epistemologically, the stage of gathering data, establishing morphological relations, and setting up working hypotheses necessarily precedes the stage of elaborated theories.” (1999&2001) “In this early stage of development of a completely new interdisciplinary approach it cannot be expected that there is a detailed physical explanation of the results, especially as the fields of solar activity and climate change have not yet reached the stage of full-fledged theories…” (2001)
The optics of double-standards can be politically problematic.
Paul Vaughan (11:05:53) :
It is not that effective narrative like David’s trumps (debatable) “observational facts”, but rather that such narrative gets through to the masses with ease.
If they are plainly wrong, we don’t want them to get through to the masses with ease.
gary gulrud (11:35:34) :
‘Rings’ in ice cores is not a term I recognized.
An ice core is a cylinder. The show that falls each year is melted a bit at the surface during the summer, with the result that you can visually distinguish annual layers analogous to tree rings albeit in the other dimension, hence my use of that word as you seem to be somewhat versed in dendro-technique, or at least know that it is a dating tool. These layers are easily counted, being several centimeters thick. As you state, that you don’t have your facts together is hardly news.
lgl (11:39:37) :
atmosphere is heated in various ways, the absorption of upwelling LW is just one, and this absorption is just one small part of the story. That alone would not change the surface temperature much. All downwelling radiation is re-radiated. About 0.6 of the upwelling is sent back to surface
The atmosphere is not heated much by radiation as I have stressed so many times. Absorption by trace gases or heating of such gases by what ever means does not heat the surface nor increase the temperature in the Stevenson Screen where it is measured. The radiation reaching the surface either directly from the Sun or by re-radiation downwards does, and that heats the atmosphere by conduction and convection. It doesn’t matter what the tri-atomic gas is, H2O, O3, or even CO2, as long as you have downward radiation you have a greenhouse effect. How many times are you going to deny that?
Leif sayeth:
If I have understood Phil.’s claims with respect to CO2 lasers, he would have us believe that the mean-free-path in the atmosphere is shorter than the mean time to transmit for CO2 or H2O molecules that have absorbed outgoing LWR, and that these can consequently pump N2 to a higher state (kind of the reverse of what N2 does in a CO2 laser). However, since Phil. has been coy about the mechanism he thinks is in play, I am guessing that this is what he means.
So, do I have these mechanisms wrong, and is it only conduction and convection as I thought earlier?
Richard Sharpe (18:32:23) :
However, since Phil. has been coy about the mechanism he thinks is in play, I am guessing that this is what he means.
I don’t know what he means or why it is relevant.
Leif Svalgaard (18:54:12) said::
As I say, I am speculating, but I think he and other AGWers see it as a mechanism where outgoing LWR can pump atmospheric temperature up through increases in CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard (17:53:53)
“If they are plainly wrong, we don’t want them to get through to the masses with ease.”
I think most are aware of the important role you play – beyond providing free solar-physics tutoring.
“the residence time of 10Be in the atmosphere is thought to be short [~2 years], but it is not clear how firm that is”
It seems the facts have hardened during the period of this thread.
“10Be lags the HMF [or the solar cycle] by 2-5 years”
A range in the variable greater than its ascertained value, a signal indication of a dodgy result.
Snow blows and snow sublimes, the maximum effect varying with the season. Is this chalked up to climate?
Dare we ask for the residence time of nitrate aloft?
gary gulrud (04:20:02) :
Dare we ask for the residence time of nitrate aloft?
Why don’t you do some constructive research for a change and find out?
gary gulrud (04:20:02) :
A range in the variable greater than its ascertained value, a signal indication of a dodgy result.
It is beneath a gentleman to use terms as ‘dodgy’ in a serious discussion of other people’s work, but clearly not beneath you. Anyway, the providers of the data [and others] claim a residence time of the order of two years. At some point we trust what people you know do, but a little due diligence never hurts, so we use a standard technique to determine the lag between time series: you compute the cross-correlation coefficient between the two series, then move one series over one time step and calculate again, etc. A plot of the resulting coefficients as a function of lag will show you at what lag the coefficient is largest. The insert in the upper left-hand corner of the Figure on page 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf shows you the result, confirming a lag of two years as they claimed. It is also clear simply by inspection of their data that the lag is somewhat variable, for example, their peak in 1899 follows the sunspot maximum in 1893, so some additional variability exceeding the nominal two years is present.
“Why don’t you do some constructive research”
Touche.
BTW, do you maintain a CV at your site?
Leif Svalgaard (08:33:44) :
gary gulrud (07:44:34) :
BTW, do you maintain a CV at your site?
Results in too much spam, but my publication list is there:
http://www.leif.org/research/Leif%20Svalgaard%20Publications%20and%20Talks.pdf
perhaps the moderator would correct my [involuntarily funny] wrong copy-paste.
[REPLY – Your “rise” has “fallen”. ~ Evan]
Leif,
as long as you have downward radiation you have a greenhouse effect. How many times are you going to deny that?
Don’t know who you mean, can’t be me.
All I have said is basically that the downwelling LW is there because the atmosphere is warm, not because GHG first absorbed LW, even though some of the heat comes from that absorption of course.
And that any heating of the surface is ampified around 2.5 by the GHGs.
lgl (08:49:01) :
All I have said is basically that the downwelling LW is there because the atmosphere is warm, not because GHG first absorbed LW, even though some of the heat comes from that absorption of course. And that any heating of the surface is ampified around 2.5 by the GHGs.
Then I don’t know why you have been dragging this on for so long. The original poster asked what the explanation of the GH effect was supposed to be [this being the usual rhetorical question because he just wanted to proclaim that there is no GH effect]. My answer was that the surface is warmed by direct sunlight [short wave, SW] and radiates in LW which the GHGs return a part of to further warm the surface. Nobody was talking about the GHGs being warmed by photons. All we need the GHGs to do is to return half of the LW photons to the surface. What’s your problem with that?
[REPLY – Your “rise” has “fallen”. ~ Evan]
thanks Evan. No need to post the ‘thank you’. – Leif
Leif Svalgaard (09:42:01) :
All we need the GHGs to do is to return half of the LW photons to the surface. What’s your problem with that?
I finally see what your problem is and in my zeal to supply the ‘supposed to work’ party line [and I started with noting that that may not be how it actually works] I overlooked that any process [even collisions] that warms the GHGs will result in downwelling LW. So, perhaps no difference here. In any case, the original poster probably couldn’t care less, because he just wanted an excuse for ‘proving’ that there is no GH effect. He is probably equally disgusted with both our answers.
Leif,
My ‘problem’ was Absorption of those photons do not heat those tri-atomic molecules as they very shortly thereafter re-emits the radiation they have just absorbed, which is not my understanding of ‘how it is supposed to work’, but we don’t have to start all over again.
Leif Svalgaard (?????)
We were discussing how the Greenhouse Effect is supposed to work.
We agreed that increasing the concentration of CO2 would reduce the penetration into the atmosphere towards earth of the those photons absorbable by CO2 coming from space (sun).
I believe we agreed that increasing the concentration of CO2 would reduce the penetration into the atmosphere of photons absorbable by CO2 radiated from earth. This process was not as efficient as the reduction of absorbable photons coming from space. This is due to the fact once a CO2 absorbed photon is reradiated into space it is lost forever. While the CO2 absorbed photons that are reradiated to earth have there energy absorbed by earth. When this energy is again radiated from earth there is only a 50% reduction in the photons that are absorbable by a GHG.
The greenhouse effect is supposed to warm the atmosphere. Nothing we have discussed shows this happening.
Is this supposed to be happening while the CO2 photons are being converted to photons that are not absorbable by GHGs by repeated absorbtion and reradiation by earth? Is this supposed to be happening due to a slight increase in the earth’s temperature caused by the retention of heat energy during the additional time required to convert GHG absorbable photons to non-absorbable photons? Is this increase in temperature causing more heat energy to be transfered to the atmosphere by conduction and convection? Is this how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work?
A more efficient method would be for the energy gained by a CO2 molecule due to an absorbed photon be transvered to other atmospheric molecules due to collisions. This would cause a greater warming of the atmosphere. But I believe you don’t think this happens.
David J Ameling (16:03:24) :
The greenhouse effect is supposed to warm the atmosphere. Nothing we have discussed shows this happening.
The greenhouse effect warms the surface by returning some of the surface heat back to the surface warming it even more. A warmer surface in turns warms the atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard (16:30:48)
I tend to agree with you. As I originally said the Wikipedia explanation doesn’t do it for me. It says things like the following; “If the atmosphere is more opaque, the typical photon escaping into space will be emitted from higher in the atmosphere, because one then has to go to higher altitudes to see out to space in the infrared. Since the emission of infrared radiation is a function of temperature, it is the temperature of the atmosphere at this emission level that is effectively determined by the requirement that the emitted flux balance the absorbed solar flux.” This makes little sense to me.
I wish Watt would post a posting that deals with quantifying the affect of the “greenhouse effect” Then there would be a proper venue for discussing how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work.
I think if the affect of the greenhouse effect could be quantified it would be far less than the effect due to solar activity.