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.
E.M.Smith (03:20:30) :
Benjamin P. (01:08:58) : Nice summary E.M. Smith, but just a couple of corrections/clarifications.
Thanks. I was trying to gloss over the exact “why” a magma was more ‘runny’ by conflating the chemistry / temperature / water process into a single “is runny” metric. When I’m in a “Layman explainer” mode, I’ve found that it’s often needed to hide the actual chemistry (as much as I love it) or math (if beyond algebra) while keeping the sense of it correct. My other mode is more of a “Mr. Science” mode with painful detail and prolix style. It usually is reserved for when the topic demands it (based on the questioners style / level) or if someone shows the slightest interest in Economics 😉
I am a great fan of Terry Pratchett’s diskworld novels. He also has three books discussing the physics/science of diskworld. Somewhere there, he discusses ” lies we tell to children”.
That depending on the cognitive level we are addressing “truths” are lies from the higher level. Example: the atom as a miniature solar system, is a useful lie for one level of understanding.
Robert Bateman (00:48:48) :
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 21, NO. 18, PAGES 2067-2070, SEPTEMBER 1, 1994
Does anyone know the whereabouts and name of this database of sunspot groups?
http://www.leif.org/research/rawgssn.txt
“I grow rather weary of David’s claims. Post the data, post your code or go get behind Dr Mann in line for your junk science award.”
I am weary of vague, specious insinuations, devoid of reasoning or specifics, cast about by dilettantes(often degreed) with no clear application to the issue at hand.
The half-life of 7Be is 55 days, yet 70% is found on the ground. 10Be is created from nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen, not friggen aerosols.
This link calls into question dating of solar activity: velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0022/article1.asp
Note to readers: This is absolute dating, of specific cycles, not the relative dating employed in the article above.
Cosmogenic 14C has a residence time of 60 years and yet many here unthinkingly accept absolute dates using its methods.
Self-described discriminating thinkers here wax on about “correlation does not imply causation”. How about “having an opinion does not necessitate having a point”?
E.M. Smith wrote: “I’d suggest an upbeat message about the nifty fields of engineering, mining, polymer Uranium ion adsorption surface chemistry, advance agronomy, etc. laying in front of them to choose from, to “save the planet” from minor discomfort…”
Would certainly second that as there is a lot of opportunity out there for our species to reinvent itself.
The negative tone to all of this on here is just a symptom of the fact that there are a tremendous collection of bright minds [and some extremely bright….I am learning alot on here and not having to pay any tuition and I can audit some of Dr. Svalgaard’s classes so as to avoid a D minus average]…but bright individuals here who understand the times and know what to do.
Yet they are crowded out by the herds of cattle at the troughs, to borrow from the imagery from Anna.
That is what causes the angst.
But agreed…how do some of these “solutions” proffered on here….turn into actions and policy??
Join forces. No new orthodoxy though like solar this or oceanic that. Too many poles already. Everyone continue in their field of research as we work to effect some changes and for starters get a REAL science advisor to the president, and not the one there now.
What America needs is a new political party: the SCIENCE party….people whose creed is the Scientific Method, their modus operandi is the relentless pursuit of the truth, freedom of speech and academic research, and shaping policy based upon good science (and not allowing sham science to drive politics as it is now).
The Science Party would be beholden to no one…just THE INDUCTIVE DEDICATION TO GOOD SCIENCE, THE TRUTH, AND SOUND SOLUTIONS FOR OUR SPECIES AND OUR PLANET….
Can’t speak for other countries represented on here…but since the IPCC leans heavily on NASA….and since NASA is controlled by the likes of James Hansen (fire him!), it would make sense, if we got rid of the “pollution” coming from these organizations….we might be able to reverse some of the damage that “pollution” has caused.
Join forces.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
If anybody at NASA is listening, we could get plenty of information on the whole history of the Sun by extracting relatively short samples of lunar regolith, and having them sent back to Earth for in-depth analysis. I am not sure such a mission would be incredibly expensive, and could be complete in 18 months or less.
E.M.Smith (23:27:10) :
FWIW, I’ve moved as much money as possible to places where it can not be grabbed nor squandered in the lunacy that is to come (happening now?).
By places do you mean “locations” or “commodities”? I seem to be unable, personally, to find a desirable “location”. Links please :~P
E.M.Smith (02:47:24) :
David Archibald (14:47:43) : My calculations are that a full blown Dalton Minimum rerun will reduce US agricultural production by 20%, taking the US out of the export food market. In turn, for some people on the planet, this will mean that eating animal protein will be a fond memory.
E.M. replied in part:
That, too, is excessive.
Oh what the heck, one more: There are several companies that have developed engineered building materials made from straw composites. They have names like “strawboard” and “goldenboard”. We burn, plough under, or just leave in the field to rot thousands and thousands of tons of this stuff every year. If we made it all into building materials, the whole country would be built over in just a few years (think single digit to low double digit.
Love your posts, but that too, is unrealistic.
There are about 32 million acres of CRP (aka-land bank) not being harvested (about 3 ton dry matter/acre at best), but on cropland capable of direct human consumable food production (non-grazing land), removing the organic matter would immensely reduce productivity (water retention and infiltration, CEC, nutrient availability, etc.) the effect would be cumulative, and also cause severe productivity reducing erosion. And you must consider that the world’s most productive soils and region is highly susceptible to any cooling (U.S. upper midwest). I have to concur with D.A on that one, but not the implied Dalton minimum part. As for animal protein, think soylent green.
We also ought to be taking all those billions that are subsidizing AGW research (or pet projects under that rubric) and devote them to developing the technology to divert dangerous objects from colliding with the Earth.
“The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program.” —Larry Niven
/Mr Lynn
@E.M. Smith
“Thanks. I was trying to gloss over the exact “why” a magma was more ‘runny’ by conflating the chemistry / temperature / water process into a single “is runny” metric. When I’m in a “Layman explainer” mode, I’ve found that it’s often needed to hide the actual chemistry (as much as I love it) or math (if beyond algebra) while keeping the sense of it correct. My other mode is more of a “Mr. Science” mode with painful detail and prolix style. It usually is reserved for when the topic demands it (based on the questioners style / level) or if someone shows the slightest interest in Economics ;-)”
That’s fine, and layman explainer mode is a nifty thing and typically more appropriate, but you were wrong in your original post on the subject. I was just clarifying!
And the whole discussion is woefully off topic anyway 😛
Laid-back my arse! Smug and self-righteous more like. Roger Pielke Jnr, Andy Revkin and Alexander Cockburn can attest to exactly how laid-back these single issue fanatics can be. But yes they do have the upper hand now because the message has longer legs than the facts. This doesn’t seem to make them happy though since they continue to lambast all bastions of skepticism despite having got their men in power and got their massive and undeserved funding. I strongly get the impression most of them are just looking for a fight.
As Eli was saying before being truncated ~snip~ Kindly take you ad hominems elsewhere. dbstealey, mod.
JamesG (09:22:03) :
Laid-back my arse! Smug and self-righteous more like.
Every viewpoint in this debate has very, VERY vocal advocates. I was referring to the public at large. At least among the ‘ordinary’ people I know [and I did say ‘anecdotal’] the warmers are rather quiet about it [“this is settled so what is the big deal?”], but the skeptics are up in arms.
db, it is not an ad hom to state that [snip–yes it is] ~ charles the moderator
Eli Rabett (09:28:02) :
As Eli was saying before being truncated ~snip~ Kindly take you ad hominems elsewhere. dbstealey, mod.
Perhaps Eli would be so kind to post them on his own site [for the amusement value]?
The Sun was larger during the Maunder minimum, according to Science Frontiers. Could anybody explain why, apart from the explanation given at that web site? Is the Sun getting larger again now? Could it affect volcanic activity?
A Wod (12:04:48) :
The Sun was larger during the Maunder minimum, according to Science Frontiers.
This been claimed from time to time.
The SOHO spacecraft has now measured more than a solar cycle’s worth of solar seismic data, that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. The solution to this ‘paradox’ is that the Sun is bigger at solar max. The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time scale of centuries, than it is now at activity minimum.
This has nothing to do with volcanoes.
Leif Svalgaard (14:00:46)
the Sun is bigger at solar max
So the article by Ribes et al is totally wrong. They concluded that the Sun was definitely larger during the Maunder minimum.
Does a corrugation mean a ridge?
A Wod (14:45:56) :
“the Sun is bigger at solar max”
So the article by Ribes et al is totally wrong. They concluded that the Sun was definitely larger during the Maunder minimum.
These measurements are very difficult to make. The solar disk gets darker as you near the limb and the exact position of the limb is hard to pin down. Observations from space give a different result. The matter is so important that a special satellite will be launced to investigate this, see: http://www.df.uba.ar/users/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/cosmo/sloar_diam_caonst.pdf
more here: http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/PICARD-CANADA/
The matter is still a bit open, but the modern measurements indicate changes much smaller than what was claimed for the 17th century data. The general consensus is that the early data is unreliable.
Does a corrugation mean a ridge?
Yes, or a longish hill. It seems that the bright features on the sun are raised over the background, while dark features [like sunspots] are depressions. To get a good answer we have to await the result of PICARD.
And it is possible that the ‘seismic’ radius may not be the ‘real’ visible radius. It is amazing that such a simple thing as the size of the Sun is still uncertain. What id certain is that modern measurements show much smaller changes than the 17th century claims. Enthusiasts may counter by claiming that conditions were so different during the Maunder Minimum that modern data are not comparable. There is not much one can do to counter such an attitude, but perhaps if solar activity sinks low enough one can put these matters to rest.
We will never know if the Sun was larger due to different conditions during the Maunder Minimum. You cannot counter an attitude which is a suspicion when the measurement were not able to be done in the precise manner as the upcoming Satellite will provide.
The Maunder Minimum is gone forever.
We have what observers reported, and if we cannot believe that, we have even less that we thought we did.
I say this for the pioneers of direct observation:
They did not know what to expect, and therefore they are the ones who had no bias, no proxies to change other’s observations, and all the diligence a scientist could ever desire.
If this keeps up, we will be left with only satellite data.
How long has that been?
You are correct, Tim Clark, removing all of the remaining vegetation after harvest plus failure to rotate crops and rest a percentage of the land will lead to exhaustion of the soil.
Hello 1930’s.
Well if the global warming folks are right, or say we get hit with another ice age what’s the worst that will happen, mother nature will have a correction much like our economy is having. What will be, will be. Good luck kiddies.
Robert Bateman (19:58:00) :
We have what observers reported, and if we cannot believe that, we have even less that we thought we did.
With that attitude you’ll have to accept Abbot’s measurements of the ‘solar constant’ circa 1910-1950, which indicate that the solar cycle variation was at least ten times larger than what we have seen in the satellite era. And Secchi’s measurement of the Sun’s temperature of 10,000,000 degrees, Ericsson’s of 2,200,000 degrees, Zoelner, Spoerer, and Lane’s ranging from 28,000 to 56,000 degrees, and Pouillet, Vicaire, and Deville’s ranging from 1700 to 5500 degrees, or Rosetti’s of 10,000 degrees, or LeChatelier’s of 7,600 degrees, or Wilson and Gray’s of 8,000 degrees [all of these pioneers in the 19th century].
Regarding the alleged volcano that brought down Rome, here are a few links:
“SUPER VOLCANO! History’s Greatest Secret–Global Cataclysm in 535 AD! by Michael Relfe”
http://www.metatech.org/A06/world_catastrophe_super_volcano.html
“Catastrophe (1999): An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization”
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345408764/ref=nosim/healtwealthappi
Here’s a review from Publisher’s Weekly:
“In Keys’s startling thesis, a global climatic catastrophe in A.D. 535-536–a massive volcanic eruption sundering Java from Sumatra–was the decisive factor that transformed the ancient world into the medieval, or as Keys prefers to call it, the “proto-modern” era. Ancient chroniclers record a disaster in that year that blotted out the sun for months, causing famine, droughts, floods, storms and bubonic plague. Keys, archeology correspondent for the London Independent, uses tree-ring samples, analysis of lake deposits and ice cores, as well as contemporaneous documents to bolster his highly speculative thesis. In his scenario, the ensuing disasters precipitated the disintegration of the Roman Empire, beset by Slav, Mongol and Persian invaders propelled from their disrupted homelands. The sixth-century collapse of Arabian civilization under pressure from floods and crop failure created an apocalyptic atmosphere that set the stage for Islam’s emergence. In Mexico, Keys claims, the cataclysm triggered the collapse of a Mesoamerican empire; in Anatolia, it helped the Turks establish what eventually became the Ottoman Empire; while in China, the ensuing half-century of political and social chaos led to a reunified nation. Huge claims call for big proof, yet Keys reassembles history to fit his thesis, relentlessly overworking its explanatory power in a manner reminiscent of Velikovsky’s theory that a comet collided with the earth in 1500 B.C. Readers anxious about future cataclysms will take note of Keys’s roundup of trouble spots that could conceivably wreak planetary havoc.”
Here is a quote from one of the “most helpful” reviews (by Jaundiced Eye”) that clarifies what the actual impact was on the Roman Empire:
” the eruption triggered waves of nomadic migrations which helped to bring about the decline of the recently revived Byzantine empire (which was well on its way to reconquering much of the old Roman Empire), destroyed flourishing urban cultures in the Americas, ruined the powerful Southern Arabian kingdoms which had existed for centuries (thus creating the power vacuum later filled by Mohammad’s follwers), and also wrought devastation remembered in Arthurian romances.
“One of the crucial contributions which Keys has made is an explanation of the otherwise unexplainable irruption of the bubonic plague out of Africa and into the Byzantine and Indian worlds. The plague — which spread as far as Britain and permanently ended any chance that an independent Celtic Church would be established, separate from Rome — killed millions of then and former Romaions (inhabitants of the original Roman Empire) and blasted any hopes of re-establishing the Empire, relegating it instead into an ever-dwindling Greek-centered Eastern Empire, subject to nomadic incursions from Arabia and central Asia.”
Thanks Roger Knights for the refs to that volcanic eruption. I had memories of seeing some such story that was clearly so important it wiped out the ability of diarists to keep records – too absorbed in survival – like we fear for the idiotic Arctic three.
Now here’s another “lost” reference relevant to this thread. A study that says there is evidence that the solar magnetic flux shows a 100,000 year cycle: this corresponds, guess what, to the last Ice Ages. Does not even touch Milankovitch. Science Daily June 2002
This surely is worth revisiting – David Archibald, anyone?
Leif Svalgaard (20:50:02) :
I was speaking of sunspot group observations that were done from Galileo’s time to the present.
Those observers. Something done every day.
And comparing apples to apples to apples.
But thank you for the list. I will spend some time in the near future, and make graphs in honor of all of the observers.