# Cosmic Ray Flux and the IPCC 137

Here is a roundup on the current IPCC thinking on cosmic rays and recent warming.

IPCC and Solar Correlations from ClimateAudit reviews the dismissal of a solar influence on climate in IPCC 1992, 1994 and 2001.

IPCC relied to some extent on MBH98 in dismissing these supposed relationships, but, given the defects in this specific area of MBH98 (as well as more general problems), alternative grounds for dismissal have to be sought if one repudiates MBH98. I’m not saying that such alternative grounds are not possible – merely that it is not prudent to rely on MBH98 in respect to taking a position on solar correlations. The other large issue is whether there are physical reasons why the efficacy of solar forcing (high-energy low-entropy at surface) might differ from the efficacy of additional CO2 forcing (low-energy high-entropy at altitude).

Evidence of cosmic rays causing decreased cloudiness and increased temperatures has continued to accumulate since 2001. For example, cores of levels of the cosmogenic isotope 10Be, a product of particle collisions with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen, show high correlations, as shown on Anthony Watt’s in guest post by David Archibald Beryllium 10 and climate.

Instead of wading through hundreds of papers for evidence of the Sunâ€™s influence on terrestrial climate, all you have to do is look at this graph.

Further, Anthony posts that Cosmic Ray Flux and Neutron monitors suggest we may not have hit solar minimum yet and shows neutron flux has been increasing over at least the last year, and should continue suggesting colder weather to come.

What does the latest IPCC report say about cosmic rays? Working Group 1. the Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing contains the discussion. The often repeated position is:

Whether solar wind fluctuations (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous.

The entire IPCC review is here, concluding the level of scientific understanding of cosmic ray influences is considered to be very low.

Many empirical associations have been reported between
globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray
fl uxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b). Hypothesised
to result from changing ionization of the atmosphere from
solar-modulated cosmic ray fl uxes, an empirical association
of cloud cover variations during 1984 to 1990 and the solar
cycle remains controversial because of uncertainties about the
reality of the decadal signal itself, the phasing or anti-phasing
with solar activity, and its separate dependence for low, middle
and high clouds. In particular, the cosmic ray time series
does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or
to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (KristjÃ¡nsson and
Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven
de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation
is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared
(not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997)
time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a
relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a
small but statistically signifi cant positive correlation between
cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray fl ux during 1951 to
2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover
anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal
at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray
fl ux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001). Because the mechanisms are
uncertain, the apparent relationship between solar variability
and cloud cover has been interpreted to result not only from
changing cosmic ray fl uxes modulated by solar activity in the
heliosphere (Usoskin et al., 2004) and solar-induced changes in
ozone (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001), but also from sea surface
temperatures altered directly by changing total solar irradiance
(KristjÃ¡nsson et al., 2002) and by internal variability due to
the El NiÃ±o-Southern Oscillation (Kernthaler et al., 1999). In
reality, different direct and indirect physical processes (such as
those described in Section 9.2) may operate simultaneously.
The direct RF due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced
from the TAR. The best estimate is +0.12 W mâ€“2 (90%
confi dence interval: +0.06 to +0.30 W mâ€“2). While there have
remain large uncertainties. The level of scientifi c understanding
is elevated to low relative to TAR for solar forcing due to direct
irradiance change, while declared as very low for cosmic ray
infl uences (Section 2.9, Table 2.11).

However, there is a much more abundant literature not discussed, as shown in the quote by David Archibald on Anthony’s blog. As of 2007, cosmic rays do not rate a mention in the Summary for Policymakers. The report mentions lack of knowledge of the strength of possible mechanisms repeatedly. It restricts its references to a few of the most prominent. Even in the latest report, despite the burgeoning of results and data, they have not seriously considered cosmic rays as a possible cause of recent warming.

A high rigor process ensures that all important processes have been seriously considered, before making strong claims. To prematurely settle on one factor, and reject another that is highly promising, simply because its not well understood or abundantly researched, is referred to as ‘looking for lost keys under the streetlight’ (because that’s where the light is).

Given the largest uncertainty in climate change is the effect of clouds, cosmic rays have always had the potential to overturn the IPCC claims that carbon emissions are a big problem. When the shock of the revelation that CO2 has little or nothing to do with warming turns to disgust, people will justifiably ask who got us into this mess. The answer, in part, is the UN sponsored IPCC.

How do you describe the dismissal of a solar connection on the basis of a single, now discredited hockey-stick study; dismissal of an emerging picture as ambiguous, and dismissal of a large, accessible, peer-reviewed literature as very low understanding? ‘Asinine‘ sounds like a good word.

• Andrew

The “unproven detrending” ignores the obvious discontinuity arising in the satellite cloud data, which was actually addressed my Svensmark. Around 1994, at a time when a satellite change over occurred, high cloud levels “dropped” suddenly-and unnaturally, or at least inexplicably. When taking this discontinuity into account, one finds that by adjusting the cloud data for calibration issues, the Cosmic Ray LACC correlation returns.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/Marsh2003(GCR-ENSO-LC).pdf

• Andrew

The “unproven detrending” ignores the obvious discontinuity arising in the satellite cloud data, which was actually addressed my Svensmark. Around 1994, at a time when a satellite change over occurred, high cloud levels “dropped” suddenly-and unnaturally, or at least inexplicably. When taking this discontinuity into account, one finds that by adjusting the cloud data for calibration issues, the Cosmic Ray LACC correlation returns.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/Marsh2003(GCR-ENSO-LC).pdf

• Anonymous

Andrew: The IPCC is a kind of riff for insiders, with a lot of oblique references. For example “unproven detrending”, “on infrared
(not visible) detection.” Then the unreferenced assertion: ” Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux.” Would take some time to sort it all out. Thanks for that.

• http://landshape.org davids

Andrew: The IPCC is a kind of riff for insiders, with a lot of oblique references. For example “unproven detrending”, “on infrared
(not visible) detection.” Then the unreferenced assertion: ” Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux.” Would take some time to sort it all out. Thanks for that.

• Nick Stokes

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].

• Nick Stokes

So, Iâ€™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 shouldnâ€™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 Iâ€™m not an agitator for an agenda [which I understand justifies inaccuracies for the sake of the good].

• Anonymous

Nick, I have been following Leif’s comments at WUWT and before. Note this post is about the basis for the IPCC dismissal, not the quality of the 10Be record, per se. All data records are going to have confounding factors, and being super critical about the support for them does a valuable service. However, I not too sure how much evidence there is to back up statements like the following:

“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. ”

And the next sentence tends to reinforce 10Be a a temperature does it not, albeit with some amplification:

“Volcanic eruptions also produce cooling, of course, so that will help the correlation.”

I don’t think David’s post is qualified enough either. But I get the distinct impression the IPCC picks up on any potential differences of opinion in the literature on non GHG factors as grounds for dismissing them, while at the same time enforcing solidarity on the GHG line.

Definitely the correlations used in some sources are exaggerated due to autocorrelation, but the GHG papers have done this for decades with impunity until skeptics started dinging them on it. As I said, I like the way Leif does research a lot. But I’m not clear whether it repudiates the CRF theory.

Nick, I have been following Leif’s comments at WUWT and before. Note this post is about the basis for the IPCC dismissal, not the quality of the 10Be record, per se. All data records are going to have confounding factors, and being super critical about the support for them does a valuable service. However, I not too sure how much evidence there is to back up statements like the following:

“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. ”

And the next sentence tends to reinforce 10Be a a temperature does it not, albeit with some amplification:

“Volcanic eruptions also produce cooling, of course, so that will help the correlation.”

I don’t think David’s post is qualified enough either. But I get the distinct impression the IPCC picks up on any potential differences of opinion in the literature on non GHG factors as grounds for dismissing them, while at the same time enforcing solidarity on the GHG line.

Definitely the correlations used in some sources are exaggerated due to autocorrelation, but the GHG papers have done this for decades with impunity until skeptics started dinging them on it. As I said, I like the way Leif does research a lot. But I’m not clear whether it repudiates the CRF theory.

• Nick Stokes

David, my objection basically is to the further circulation of that first plot you showed. It’s provenance is dubious, and Lief says that it is bunk. There’s plenty of reputable data around, properly described.
Or, as Lief says more pungently re this fig:
“Bottom line: If it serves someone’s agenda to show faulty graphs, they will be shown [again and again].”

• Nick Stokes

David, my objection basically is to the further circulation of that first plot you showed. It’s provenance is dubious, and Lief says that it is bunk. There’s plenty of reputable data around, properly described.
Or, as Lief says more pungently re this fig:
“Bottom line: If it serves someoneâ€™s agenda to show faulty graphs, they will be shown [again and again].”

• jae

“I don’t think David’s post is qualified enough either. But I get the distinct impression the IPCC picks up on any potential differences of opinion in the literature on non GHG factors as grounds for dismissing them, while at the same time enforcing solidarity on the GHG line.”

Yeah, I get that impression too. Look at the treatment of the MWP and LIA.

Look at the silence in most of the “community” about the last 10-12 years of no warming and the last 5 years of sudden cooling. Where’s the heat from all that CO2, anyway?

• jae

“I donâ€™t think Davidâ€™s post is qualified enough either. But I get the distinct impression the IPCC picks up on any potential differences of opinion in the literature on non GHG factors as grounds for dismissing them, while at the same time enforcing solidarity on the GHG line.”

Yeah, I get that impression too. Look at the treatment of the MWP and LIA.

Look at the silence in most of the “community” about the last 10-12 years of no warming and the last 5 years of sudden cooling. Where’s the heat from all that CO2, anyway?

• JamesG

Now jae there is a quote on our friend Stoats blog summarizing Rahmsdorf that the global temperature is exactly where the models expected to be. Of course he doesn’t mean the actual raw data, he means the end-pinned, low-noise-filtered linear extrapolation of a highly nonlinear system.

While it’s all very well for Nick and Leif to play skeptic’s skeptic, it’s not much use if they are preferentially blind to the rather more hokey practices by the pro-AGW crowd -like Nick, or if they like to substitute even grosser guesswork and present it as a fact – as Leif does. It does somewhat undermine one’s credibility.

In fact, if the climate community had listened temperately to the lone skeptical voices in the same way that the solar community has listened to Leif, then the science would be in a lot better state. However, it appears to me that those confused radicals we remember in the sociology departments moved en-masse at some point to the environmental sciences wing and took their know-it-all attitude, power-mania and dodgy stats with them.

• JamesG

Now jae there is a quote on our friend Stoats blog summarizing Rahmsdorf that the global temperature is exactly where the models expected to be. Of course he doesn’t mean the actual raw data, he means the end-pinned, low-noise-filtered linear extrapolation of a highly nonlinear system.

While it’s all very well for Nick and Leif to play skeptic’s skeptic, it’s not much use if they are preferentially blind to the rather more hokey practices by the pro-AGW crowd -like Nick, or if they like to substitute even grosser guesswork and present it as a fact – as Leif does. It does somewhat undermine one’s credibility.

In fact, if the climate community had listened temperately to the lone skeptical voices in the same way that the solar community has listened to Leif, then the science would be in a lot better state. However, it appears to me that those confused radicals we remember in the sociology departments moved en-masse at some point to the environmental sciences wing and took their know-it-all attitude, power-mania and dodgy stats with them.

• Anonymous

Nick: I have only seen his comment that the peaks are exaggerated by scrubbing of 10Be from the atmosphere by volcanic aerosols, a ‘possibility’ that does not necessarily undermine its potential as a temperature proxy, as Leif points out himself. If that is a ‘fault’ then ok, but all data has faults. All I know about the provenance is what is printed on the bottom of the fig, which is more than most. Can you point us to where it is sourced?

• http://landshape.org/enm davids

Nick: I have only seen his comment that the peaks are exaggerated by scrubbing of 10Be from the atmosphere by volcanic aerosols, a ‘possibility’ that does not necessarily undermine its potential as a temperature proxy, as Leif points out himself. If that is a ‘fault’ then ok, but all data has faults. All I know about the provenance is what is printed on the bottom of the fig, which is more than most. Can you point us to where it is sourced?

• Nick Stokes

Can you point us to where it is sourced?

David, no, and that’s Leif’s point. People who reprint this stuff should find out. All we know is that DA drew a squiggly line, and put someone’s name on it. And Leif says the graph is junk. So where do we stand?

• Nick Stokes

Can you point us to where it is sourced?

David, no, and that’s Leif’s point. People who reprint this stuff should find out. All we know is that DA drew a squiggly line, and put someone’s name on it. And Leif says the graph is junk. So where do we stand?

• Anonymous

The attribution on the graph says:
10Be data from the Dye 3 Ice Core of Greenland. 10Be data Dr Juerg Beer

“People who reprint this stuff should find out. All we know is that DA drew a squiggly line, and put someone’s name on it. ”

So your position is that David Archibald fabricated the data, then falsely attributed to Dr Beer, a bonafide cosmogenic isotope researcher, AFAIK?
http://www.eawag.ch/kuerze/personen/homepages/beer/index_EN

Also, you have not responded to the distinctions between data with faults, that is faulty, and junk. I acknowledge I am coming up to speed with this data, so the strengths and limitations would be good, not just Leif’s say so.

• http://landshape.org/enm davids

The attribution on the graph says:
10Be data from the Dye 3 Ice Core of Greenland. 10Be data Dr Juerg Beer

“People who reprint this stuff should find out. All we know is that DA drew a squiggly line, and put someoneâ€™s name on it. ”

So your position is that David Archibald fabricated the data, then falsely attributed to Dr Beer, a bonafide cosmogenic isotope researcher, AFAIK?
http://www.eawag.ch/kuerze/personen/homepages/beer/index_EN

Also, you have not responded to the distinctions between data with faults, that is faulty, and junk. I acknowledge I am coming up to speed with this data, so the strengths and limitations would be good, not just Leif’s say so.

• Nick Stokes

David, no I’m not saying that DA fabricated anything. All I’m saying is that all we know is that there is a squiggly line and a name. DA hasn’t said where the data can be found or what exactly he used or what he did with it, despite Leif’s trenchant criticism. Even the units aren’t marked. It isn’t clear what quantity is graphed. Leif said that the data has faults, and described many of them. It’s my extension to say that if a plot has data from a source that can’t be located, and no further support is forthcoming, and serious faults are pointed out, then it should be treated as junk.

• Nick Stokes

David, no I’m not saying that DA fabricated anything. All I’m saying is that all we know is that there is a squiggly line and a name. DA hasn’t said where the data can be found or what exactly he used or what he did with it, despite Leif’s trenchant criticism. Even the units aren’t marked. It isn’t clear what quantity is graphed. Leif said that the data has faults, and described many of them. It’s my extension to say that if a plot has data from a source that can’t be located, and no further support is forthcoming, and serious faults are pointed out, then it should be treated as junk.

• Anonymous
• http://landshape.org davids

Leif has presented an almost identical graph of 10Be in a comment here. I have reread the thread and can see no concern with the provenance of the data. If Leif was concerned with where it
came from, why would Leif have posed the graph and wouldn’t he have
said something? I can’t see anywhere where David Archibald has been
asked about where the data came from, let alone that it is from an
unlocatable source, or that he has refused to provide the information.

Has anybody asked anybody for it? If not, why do you say the it
can’t be located and support is not forthcoming Nick. Maybe that’s on
another thread I am not following.

As far as the rest goes, I note the comments by JamesG who said: “Leif then lists 5 points, 4 of which are also irrelevant and the other point (volcanic activity) seems to be a complete guess.”

• jae

Nick, I would like to ask you this: Are you employed by an NGO, such as the Sierra Club, Friends of Earth, etc.? If you are not employed by such organization, are you an active member in such an organization? I ask these things because no matter what AGW-related topic is presented on all the blogs I look at, you ALWAYS take the “side” of the extremists. That smells like, er, VERY unscientific to me. Be honest, OK?

• jae

Nick, I would like to ask you this: Are you employed by an NGO, such as the Sierra Club, Friends of Earth, etc.? If you are not employed by such organization, are you an active member in such an organization? I ask these things because no matter what AGW-related topic is presented on all the blogs I look at, you ALWAYS take the “side” of the extremists. That smells like, er, VERY unscientific to me. Be honest, OK?

• kuhnkat

Nick Stokes:

“All I’m saying is that all we know is that there is a squiggly line and a name.”

And Michael Mann, which is sworn to by the IPCC, did what again??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I understand your contention that it does not make it right for sceptics to do the same, BUT, until the Climate Community starts policing themselves in a reasonable manner NOTHING is going to be done!!

So, why not do the right thing and hop over to Mr. Archibald’s site and ask him for the provenance of the chart before bad mouthing it.

http://www.davidarchibald.info/

• kuhnkat

Nick Stokes:

“All Iâ€™m saying is that all we know is that there is a squiggly line and a name.”

And Michael Mann, which is sworn to by the IPCC, did what again??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I understand your contention that it does not make it right for sceptics to do the same, BUT, until the Climate Community starts policing themselves in a reasonable manner NOTHING is going to be done!!

So, why not do the right thing and hop over to Mr. Archibald’s site and ask him for the provenance of the chart before bad mouthing it.

http://www.davidarchibald.info/

• Nick Stokes

David, I agree Leif’s graph looks like a similar shape. The numbers on the axis are different, but Leif explains this too. The trouble is that none of this is shown in either DA’s post or yours. Indeed we still don’t really know what it is – according to Leif it is some 10Be proxy, but needs knowledge of deposition factors to make sense. This is the issue of provenance – DA says “all you have to do is look at this graph” but doesn’t refer to a discussion of what the data means. The only point of guidance is the annotation “decreasing GCR”, and that seems to be what Leif thinks is wrong.

• Nick Stokes

David, I agree Leif’s graph looks like a similar shape. The numbers on the axis are different, but Leif explains this too. The trouble is that none of this is shown in either DA’s post or yours. Indeed we still don’t really know what it is – according to Leif it is some 10Be proxy, but needs knowledge of deposition factors to make sense. This is the issue of provenance – DA says “all you have to do is look at this graph” but doesn’t refer to a discussion of what the data means. The only point of guidance is the annotation “decreasing GCR”, and that seems to be what Leif thinks is wrong.

• Nick Stokes

jae, I am not employed by any such NGO’s (or indeed anyone). I am an emeritus research scientist, and I write under my own name (or a transparent blog name – pliny).

Now are you funded by Exxon? No, I didn’t think so.

• Nick Stokes

jae, I am not employed by any such NGO’s (or indeed anyone). I am an emeritus research scientist, and I write under my own name (or a transparent blog name – pliny).

Now are you funded by Exxon? No, I didn’t think so.

• http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

A quick search reveals the following dataset: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/cosmoiso/grip_10be.txt

Intriguing abstract follows. I tried to plot the data but this is the raw stuff. Anyone know where the plot comes from?

ABSTRACT (Yiou 1997):
Concentrations of the cosmogenic isotope 10Be have been measured
in more than 1350 samples from the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP)
ice core drilled at Summit, Greenland. Although a dust-associated
component of 10Be retained by 0.45 micron filters in some of the
samples complicates the interpretations, the results confirm that
the first-order origin of 10Be concentration variations is changes in
precipitation rate associated with different climate regimes.
This effect is seen not only between glacial and interglacial periods,
but also during the shorter “Dansgaard-Oeschger” interstadials.
By contrast, the 10Be data do not support the interpretation of
rapidly varying accumulation (i.e. climate) during the last interglacial.
They can, however, be used to help place limits on the origin of the
ice in these events. After taking into account variable snow
accumulation effects, variations in the 10Be flux are observed,
probably caused by solar and geomagnetic modulation, but possibly also
by primary cosmic ray variations. The most dramatic is a 10Be peak
~40,000 years ago, similar to that found in the Vostok Ice Core,
thus permitting a very precise correlation between climate records
from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores. The 36Cl/10Be ratio (considering
either “total” or only ice-associated 10Be) shows significant variability
over the whole core depth, thus confirming the difficulty in using this
parameter for “dating” ice cores.

• Anonymous

A quick search reveals the following dataset: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/cosmoiso/grip_10be.txt

Intriguing abstract follows. I tried to plot the data but this is the raw stuff. Anyone know where the plot comes from?

ABSTRACT (Yiou 1997):
Concentrations of the cosmogenic isotope 10Be have been measured
in more than 1350 samples from the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP)
ice core drilled at Summit, Greenland. Although a dust-associated
component of 10Be retained by 0.45 micron filters in some of the
samples complicates the interpretations, the results confirm that
the first-order origin of 10Be concentration variations is changes in
precipitation rate associated with different climate regimes.
This effect is seen not only between glacial and interglacial periods,
but also during the shorter “Dansgaard-Oeschger” interstadials.
By contrast, the 10Be data do not support the interpretation of
rapidly varying accumulation (i.e. climate) during the last interglacial.
They can, however, be used to help place limits on the origin of the
ice in these events. After taking into account variable snow
accumulation effects, variations in the 10Be flux are observed,
probably caused by solar and geomagnetic modulation, but possibly also
by primary cosmic ray variations. The most dramatic is a 10Be peak
~40,000 years ago, similar to that found in the Vostok Ice Core,
thus permitting a very precise correlation between climate records
from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores. The 36Cl/10Be ratio (considering
either “total” or only ice-associated 10Be) shows significant variability
over the whole core depth, thus confirming the difficulty in using this
parameter for “dating” ice cores.

• jae

Nick: Thanks, I was really wondering. Maybe you are just a biased old fart like me…

• jae

Nick: Thanks, I was really wondering. Maybe you are just a biased old fart like me…

• Anonymous

Not hard to find his bio and photo. Make up your own mind.

Not hard to find his bio and photo. Make up your own mind.

• kuhnkat

Nick,

it doesn’t take much to find information on the web. Try this:

http://www.issibern.ch/PDF-Files/Spatium_8.pdf

Dr. Juerg Beer’s report on the drilling and analysis of the Dye3 ice core which is the basis of the “squiggly line on a graph.”

• kuhnkat

Nick,

it doesn’t take much to find information on the web. Try this:

http://www.issibern.ch/PDF-Files/Spatium_8.pdf

Dr. Juerg Beer’s report on the drilling and analysis of the Dye3 ice core which is the basis of the “squiggly line on a graph.”

• Nick Stokes

Kuhnkat,
yes, it’s easy to find information on the web. Is it the right info – what does it mean – these are harder.

People who want to make a scientific point properly explain what they are doing and what they are presenting. DA does not do that. It is ironic that David referred to a comment by Leif to try to sort it out. Leif is a real scientist, and does explain where he gets data from and what it means. Thus we can find that DA has graphed some kind of 10Be flux measure. But what does it mean? How can he write that “This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.” He doesn’t say. Leif says it doesn’t mean that at all.

Your link does not help. It shows only one plot, Fig 12, of 10Be concentration (again properly described) that does not look anything like DA’s plot. There’s no way we can use it to fill the gap in DA’s presentation.

An exercise – does anyone actually know what DA is actually plotting in the graph shown in this post? and what the units should be?

• Nick Stokes

Kuhnkat,
yes, it’s easy to find information on the web. Is it the right info – what does it mean – these are harder.

People who want to make a scientific point properly explain what they are doing and what they are presenting. DA does not do that. It is ironic that David referred to a comment by Leif to try to sort it out. Leif is a real scientist, and does explain where he gets data from and what it means. Thus we can find that DA has graphed some kind of 10Be flux measure. But what does it mean? How can he write that “This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.” He doesn’t say. Leif says it doesn’t mean that at all.

Your link does not help. It shows only one plot, Fig 12, of 10Be concentration (again properly described) that does not look anything like DA’s plot. There’s no way we can use it to fill the gap in DA’s presentation.

An exercise – does anyone actually know what DA is actually plotting in the graph shown in this post? and what the units should be?

• kuhnkat

Nick,

I see you want everyone else to do your work for you. Sorry, I won’t. You now know who did the research, where he works, and the organisations involved. You also have good evidence that the gentleman is far into the AGW cult!!

• kuhnkat

Nick,

I see you want everyone else to do your work for you. Sorry, I won’t. You now know who did the research, where he works, and the organisations involved. You also have good evidence that the gentleman is far into the AGW cult!!

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Interpreting 10Be changes during the Maunder Minimum
Field, Christy V.; Schmidt, Gavin A.; Shindell, Drew T. (2009)
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D2, CiteID D02113

Beryllium-10 archives are important resources for understanding how solar activity may have varied in the past. Climate simulations using the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE general circulation model are used to calibrate the impacts of production changes, solar forcings, and volcanic aerosol forcing on 10Be concentration during periods such as the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 A.D.). We find that for the preindustrial period, production-related 10Be changes are the dominant signal in snow concentration, and that the effects of both solar and volcanic forcings on climate are relatively minor. Ambiguities in determining the observed changes in 10Be snow concentration during the Maunder Minimum complicate the process of estimating changes in the solar modulation strength during that time. Given those limitations, we estimate that the average value of the solar modulation parameter $\phi$ was between 280 and 395 MeV over the course of the Maunder Minimum, and was approximately 142 MeV during the years of peak 10Be concentration as recorded in the Dye 3 and South Pole ice core records.

Nick Stokes #3

“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.”

As an experienced isotope geochemist i.e. another ‘real scientist’ I can say that this is almost invariably untrue. The signal due to 10Be fallout produced by major volcanic activity is usually recognisable as a relatively short duration spike and can usually be removed by 0.45 um filtration to remove signals carried by the larger volcanic aerosols.

Memo to Nick. Even if you think something is baloney, you are not going to disprove it by unquestioningly quoting someone else’s baloney.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Interpreting 10Be changes during the Maunder Minimum
Field, Christy V.; Schmidt, Gavin A.; Shindell, Drew T. (2009)
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D2, CiteID D02113

Beryllium-10 archives are important resources for understanding how solar activity may have varied in the past. Climate simulations using the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE general circulation model are used to calibrate the impacts of production changes, solar forcings, and volcanic aerosol forcing on 10Be concentration during periods such as the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 A.D.). We find that for the preindustrial period, production-related 10Be changes are the dominant signal in snow concentration, and that the effects of both solar and volcanic forcings on climate are relatively minor. Ambiguities in determining the observed changes in 10Be snow concentration during the Maunder Minimum complicate the process of estimating changes in the solar modulation strength during that time. Given those limitations, we estimate that the average value of the solar modulation parameter $phi$ was between 280 and 395 MeV over the course of the Maunder Minimum, and was approximately 142 MeV during the years of peak 10Be concentration as recorded in the Dye 3 and South Pole ice core records.

Nick Stokes #3

“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.”

As an experienced isotope geochemist i.e. another ‘real scientist’ I can say that this is almost invariably untrue. The signal due to 10Be fallout produced by major volcanic activity is usually recognisable as a relatively short duration spike and can usually be removed by 0.45 um filtration to remove signals carried by the larger volcanic aerosols.

Memo to Nick. Even if you think something is baloney, you are not going to disprove it by unquestioningly quoting someone else’s baloney.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

I forgot to mention that volcanic events are easily identified in ice cores by peaks in electrical conductivity and sulfate sulfur. Indeed the identification between different ice cores of such ‘marker events’ is commonly used to correlate different ice cores from different locations and even hemispheres. A quick call around old friends who do 1oBe work (my ‘pet’ isotopes were different) indicates the existence of these events even in the 10Be record has never been considered prejudicial to the use of 10Be for logging cosmogenic production. Svalgaard is a bag of wind.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

I forgot to mention that volcanic events are easily identified in ice cores by peaks in electrical conductivity and sulfate sulfur. Indeed the identification between different ice cores of such ‘marker events’ is commonly used to correlate different ice cores from different locations and even hemispheres. A quick call around old friends who do 1oBe work (my ‘pet’ isotopes were different) indicates the existence of these events even in the 10Be record has never been considered prejudicial to the use of 10Be for logging cosmogenic production. Svalgaard is a bag of wind.

• Anonymous

I have done quite a bit of isotopic analysis myself (uranium, radium, caesium) and my impression is that the confounding factors are very predictable and well known, so there is great reliability down to the detectable limits. Far cry from all the uncontrolled confounding factors in tree rings for example.

• http://landshape.org davids

I have done quite a bit of isotopic analysis myself (uranium, radium, caesium) and my impression is that the confounding factors are very predictable and well known, so there is great reliability down to the detectable limits. Far cry from all the uncontrolled confounding factors in tree rings for example.

• nick stokes

Steve,
It may well be that with appropriate adjustments you can relate raw 10Be readings to cosmogenic production. I think Leif is just saying that DA does not say what processing has been done. There’s still a big hole here – no-one has yet said what DA is actually plotting in the graph shown here. Maybe you can work it out.

• nick stokes

Steve,
It may well be that with appropriate adjustments you can relate raw 10Be readings to cosmogenic production. I think Leif is just saying that DA does not say what processing has been done. There’s still a big hole here – no-one has yet said what DA is actually plotting in the graph shown here. Maybe you can work it out.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

It’s not a mystery Nick. The left hand vertical scale is 10Be concentration in units of 10^5 atoms/gram. FYI, this is the customary scale for 10Be in ice core which anyone familiar with the 10Be field (not Svalgaard evidently) should instantly recognise.

If my recollection serves me correctly the figure is from a well known paper by Dr Jurg Beer of EAWAG (Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology) in Bern, Switzerland (I did my post-doc at Uni. Bern) and his colleagues. Jurg has long been one of the most prominent researchers of 10Be work and uses the tandem mass accelerator at Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) – where I’ve also worked, to measure 10Be.

I don’t have the paper but am sure if you did a bit of Googling you’d have no trouble tracking it down.

FYI, it has long been known that the solar minima around 1815 and 1890 which coincided with cold periods were associated with 10Be maxima. Interestingly global 10Be production went through a 500 year minimum around 1955 and has been increasing since then I understand.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

It’s not a mystery Nick. The left hand vertical scale is 10Be concentration in units of 10^5 atoms/gram. FYI, this is the customary scale for 10Be in ice core which anyone familiar with the 10Be field (not Svalgaard evidently) should instantly recognise.

If my recollection serves me correctly the figure is from a well known paper by Dr Jurg Beer of EAWAG (Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology) in Bern, Switzerland (I did my post-doc at Uni. Bern) and his colleagues. Jurg has long been one of the most prominent researchers of 10Be work and uses the tandem mass accelerator at Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) – where I’ve also worked, to measure 10Be.

I don’t have the paper but am sure if you did a bit of Googling you’d have no trouble tracking it down.

FYI, it has long been known that the solar minima around 1815 and 1890 which coincided with cold periods were associated with 10Be maxima. Interestingly global 10Be production went through a 500 year minimum around 1955 and has been increasing since then I understand.

• jae

The more I read on blogs, the more that I think Nick is just a total AGW promoterbot.

• jae

The more I read on blogs, the more that I think Nick is just a total AGW promoterbot.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Oops typo! 10Be units are 10^4 atoms/gram

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Oops typo! 10Be units are 10^4 atoms/gram

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

This is useful.

Solar activity during the last 1000 yr inferred from radionuclide records

Raimund Muschelera, Fortunat Joosb, Jürg Beerc, , Simon A. Müller, Maura Vonmoosc.

Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 26, Issues 1-2, January 2007, Pages 82-97

Identification of the causes of past climate change requires detailed knowledge of one of the most important natural factors—solar forcing. Prior to the period of direct solar observations, radionuclide abundances in natural archives provide the best-known proxies for changes in solar activity. Here we present two independent reconstructions of changes in solar activity during the last 1000 yr, which are inferred from 10Be and 14C records. We analyse the tree-ring 14C data (SHCal, IntCal04 from 1000 to 1510 AD and annual data from 1511 to 1950 AD) and four 10Be records from Greenland ice cores (Camp Century, GRIP, Milcent and Dye3) together with two 10Be records from Antarctic ice cores (Dome Concordia and South Pole). In general, the 10Be and 14C records exhibit good agreement that allows us to obtain reliable estimates of past solar magnetic modulation of the radionuclide production rates. Differences between 10Be records from Antarctica and Greenland indicate that climatic changes have influenced the deposition of 10Be during some periods of the last 1000 yr. The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

This is useful.

Solar activity during the last 1000 yr inferred from radionuclide records

Raimund Muschelera, Fortunat Joosb, JÃ¼rg Beerc, , Simon A. MÃ¼ller, Maura Vonmoosc.

Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 26, Issues 1-2, January 2007, Pages 82-97

Identification of the causes of past climate change requires detailed knowledge of one of the most important natural factorsâ€”solar forcing. Prior to the period of direct solar observations, radionuclide abundances in natural archives provide the best-known proxies for changes in solar activity. Here we present two independent reconstructions of changes in solar activity during the last 1000 yr, which are inferred from 10Be and 14C records. We analyse the tree-ring 14C data (SHCal, IntCal04 from 1000 to 1510 AD and annual data from 1511 to 1950 AD) and four 10Be records from Greenland ice cores (Camp Century, GRIP, Milcent and Dye3) together with two 10Be records from Antarctic ice cores (Dome Concordia and South Pole). In general, the 10Be and 14C records exhibit good agreement that allows us to obtain reliable estimates of past solar magnetic modulation of the radionuclide production rates. Differences between 10Be records from Antarctica and Greenland indicate that climatic changes have influenced the deposition of 10Be during some periods of the last 1000 yr. The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr.

• Anonymous
• http://landshape.org davids
• Nick Stokes

Steve,
“The left hand vertical scale is 10Be concentration in units of 10^5 atoms/gram. ” Well, at last someone has said what it is. And looking at the paper David linked, I can believe it, although if you compare with Fig 7(d), its been greatly smoothed, and how that affects the end slope is unclear.

But isn’t this reinforcing Leif’s point? There’s a lot of analysis between raw 10Be conc and global flux, which is what you might associate with GCRs. You need to account for climate vagaries, and Beer et al claim to do this by averaging over a number of sites. But DA just gives the Dye 3 plot, so that fails. Then there has to be something like the solar modulation calc that they do in Sec 5.2, leading to Fig 9. DA does not mention any of this, and seems unaware of the need, and his plot looks nothing like Fig 9, which is closer to the GCR story. DA says nothing about .45um filtering for volcano data, and there’s no indication that it has been done.

I agree with Leif. DA has just taken a plot of 10Be concentrations, spotted a downslope, and written on the graph that this represents decreasing GCR. And that’s misleading.

• Nick Stokes

Steve,
“The left hand vertical scale is 10Be concentration in units of 10^5 atoms/gram. ” Well, at last someone has said what it is. And looking at the paper David linked, I can believe it, although if you compare with Fig 7(d), its been greatly smoothed, and how that affects the end slope is unclear.

But isn’t this reinforcing Leif’s point? There’s a lot of analysis between raw 10Be conc and global flux, which is what you might associate with GCRs. You need to account for climate vagaries, and Beer et al claim to do this by averaging over a number of sites. But DA just gives the Dye 3 plot, so that fails. Then there has to be something like the solar modulation calc that they do in Sec 5.2, leading to Fig 9. DA does not mention any of this, and seems unaware of the need, and his plot looks nothing like Fig 9, which is closer to the GCR story. DA says nothing about .45um filtering for volcano data, and there’s no indication that it has been done.

I agree with Leif. DA has just taken a plot of 10Be concentrations, spotted a downslope, and written on the graph that this represents decreasing GCR. And that’s misleading.

• Nick Stokes

Steve,
If the linked paper of Beer et al is the source, here are some quotes to show why Leif thinks DA is misrepresenting the story. On the issue of the significance of the late downturn, where Dye 3 shows much more than other sites:
Our combined 10Be record shows the highest values during the second half of the 20th century (around 1960 AD). These high values are caused by the strong decrease of the Dye3 10Be data which led Usoskin et al. (2003) to their conclusions about the record high solar activity. This feature is dampened by the procedure used to remove “outliers”, which results in the reconstruction that shows that the last 50 yr of solar modulation are high but not exceptionally high with respect to the last 1000 yr.

On what happens when you do try to adjust for climate effects:
The general warming with increased hydrologic activity is consistent with more snow, less aerosols and consequently reduced 10Be concentrations. Therefore, it seems likely that 10Be measurements in Greenland contain climate artefacts. This is partly confirmed by our method to remove “outliers” in the averaged curve. Part of the 10Be data from Dye3 is removed by this procedure during the second part of the 20th century and we obtain a better agreement with the combined neutron and 14C record (see Fig. 10).
I don’t believe Leif is the windbag here. David A has given a poor description of a selective subset of improperly processed results. Leif is an eminent scientist with a lifetime of study and publishing in the area. David A is …?

• Nick Stokes

Steve,
If the linked paper of Beer et al is the source, here are some quotes to show why Leif thinks DA is misrepresenting the story. On the issue of the significance of the late downturn, where Dye 3 shows much more than other sites:
Our combined 10Be record shows the highest values during the second half of the 20th century (around 1960 AD). These high values are caused by the strong decrease of the Dye3 10Be data which led Usoskin et al. (2003) to their conclusions about the record high solar activity. This feature is dampened by the procedure used to remove “outliers”, which results in the reconstruction that shows that the last 50 yr of solar modulation are high but not exceptionally high with respect to the last 1000 yr.

On what happens when you do try to adjust for climate effects:
The general warming with increased hydrologic activity is consistent with more snow, less aerosols and consequently reduced 10Be concentrations. Therefore, it seems likely that 10Be measurements in Greenland contain climate artefacts. This is partly confirmed by our method to remove “outliers” in the averaged curve. Part of the 10Be data from Dye3 is removed by this procedure during the second part of the 20th century and we obtain a better agreement with the combined neutron and 14C record (see Fig. 10).
I don’t believe Leif is the windbag here. David A has given a poor description of a selective subset of improperly processed results. Leif is an eminent scientist with a lifetime of study and publishing in the area. David A is …?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Nick

Personally I think that neither you nor Lief are actually familiar with the corpus of isotope geochemistry and you therefore make crude assumptions about what needs to be done in the way of data treatment of methodology and how the results are interpreted.

This is a common problem with reputable retired scientists. Retired or not we all need to exercise a good deal of caution before rushing to judgement on the science done in fields which are NOT OUR OWN. Unlike (say) mathematical modeling of hydrodynamic phenomena, isotope geochemistry is not something largely done from from the comfort of an office chair or sitting at a terminal. It involves enormous physical effort in care, handling, laborious physicochemical separations, target preparation and so on. It is not easy to measure 10,000 atoms of 10Be in a gram of ice! Furthermore, at the end of the day a very fine grasp of what factors condition the iostope signal is required. This requires familiarity with the body of relevant literature.

To show you how laughable this is all getting, the fact is it is not even necessary to physically filter out volcanic contamination of Greenland ice cores over the last 500 or so years because there were no significant volcanic signals in that time and certainly no long duration ones. In reality such signals are mostly useful (and used) as time markers (between cores from different locations) over much longer time scales so methods such as 0.45 um filtration (which I mentioned in passing to counter some earlier BS) are only useful in very rare cases in cleaning up comparisons of high resolution periods. This case was not one of them!

I am prepared to agree with you that DA’s method of presentation was very sloppy, and unprofessional (in terms of scientific standards).

However, beyond that I don’t agree with you. I think you are attempting to make Leif out as an authority on 10Be work and he clearly is not. I think you are attempting to show by crude almost bullying tactics that there is no useful 10Be information in the Dye 3 core in respect GCR but there is.

DA has just taken a plot of 10Be concentrations, spotted a downslope, and written on the graph that this represents decreasing GCR. That’s crude, not proper scientific behaviour and the fact that it is a smoothed graph (probably about 20 year smoothing) should have been stated but it is not misleading. How often have you seen smoothed graphs put up by the AGW orthodoxy without explanation?

The fact is that graph does represent decreasing 10Be production in the 20th century. The following text in the abstract I gave above (the main reason I provided it) states:

“The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr.”

should surely alert you to the fact that 10Be production, which is a function of GCR flux does not necessarily correlate exactly with solar activity. While solar activity modulates GCR flux as Muschelera, Joos, Beer, Müller, and Vonmoos point out the coupling is not total. When you talk about solar modulation calcs, the principal modulation which is filtered out is simply the 11 year Schwabe cycle anyway!

The absolute killer fact here is that Beer himself presents an even more damning version of the graph DA used (with filtering to only show changes on time scales longer than 20 years) as Figure 12 here (as Kuhnkat pointed out to you):

http://www.issibern.ch/PDF-Files/Spatium_8.pdf

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Nick

Personally I think that neither you nor Lief are actually familiar with the corpus of isotope geochemistry and you therefore make crude assumptions about what needs to be done in the way of data treatment of methodology and how the results are interpreted.

This is a common problem with reputable retired scientists. Retired or not we all need to exercise a good deal of caution before rushing to judgement on the science done in fields which are NOT OUR OWN. Unlike (say) mathematical modeling of hydrodynamic phenomena, isotope geochemistry is not something largely done from from the comfort of an office chair or sitting at a terminal. It involves enormous physical effort in care, handling, laborious physicochemical separations, target preparation and so on. It is not easy to measure 10,000 atoms of 10Be in a gram of ice! Furthermore, at the end of the day a very fine grasp of what factors condition the iostope signal is required. This requires familiarity with the body of relevant literature.

To show you how laughable this is all getting, the fact is it is not even necessary to physically filter out volcanic contamination of Greenland ice cores over the last 500 or so years because there were no significant volcanic signals in that time and certainly no long duration ones. In reality such signals are mostly useful (and used) as time markers (between cores from different locations) over much longer time scales so methods such as 0.45 um filtration (which I mentioned in passing to counter some earlier BS) are only useful in very rare cases in cleaning up comparisons of high resolution periods. This case was not one of them!

I am prepared to agree with you that DA’s method of presentation was very sloppy, and unprofessional (in terms of scientific standards).

However, beyond that I don’t agree with you. I think you are attempting to make Leif out as an authority on 10Be work and he clearly is not. I think you are attempting to show by crude almost bullying tactics that there is no useful 10Be information in the Dye 3 core in respect GCR but there is.

DA has just taken a plot of 10Be concentrations, spotted a downslope, and written on the graph that this represents decreasing GCR. That’s crude, not proper scientific behaviour and the fact that it is a smoothed graph (probably about 20 year smoothing) should have been stated but it is not misleading. How often have you seen smoothed graphs put up by the AGW orthodoxy without explanation?

The fact is that graph does represent decreasing 10Be production in the 20th century. The following text in the abstract I gave above (the main reason I provided it) states:

“The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr.”

should surely alert you to the fact that 10Be production, which is a function of GCR flux does not necessarily correlate exactly with solar activity. While solar activity modulates GCR flux as Muschelera, Joos, Beer, MÃ¼ller, and Vonmoos point out the coupling is not total. When you talk about solar modulation calcs, the principal modulation which is filtered out is simply the 11 year Schwabe cycle anyway!

The absolute killer fact here is that Beer himself presents an even more damning version of the graph DA used (with filtering to only show changes on time scales longer than 20 years) as Figure 12 here (as Kuhnkat pointed out to you):

http://www.issibern.ch/PDF-Files/Spatium_8.pdf

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2797-2809, 2008

Modeling cosmogenic radionuclides 10Be and 7Be during the Maunder Minimum using the ECHAM5-HAM General Circulation Model

U. Heikkilä1, J. Beer1, and J. Feichter2
1EAWAG, Dübendorf, Switzerland
2Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

Abstract. All existing 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica show increasing concentrations during the Maunder Minimum period (MM), 1645–1715, when solar activity was very low and the climate was colder (little ice age). In detail, however, the 10Be records deviate from each other. We investigate to what extent climatic changes influence the 10Be measured in ice by modeling this period using the ECHAM5-HAM general circulation model. Production calculations show that during the MM the mean global 10Be production was higher by 32% than at present due to lower solar activity. Our modeling shows that the zonally averaged modeled 10Be deposition flux deviates by only ~8% from the average increase of 32%, indicating that climatic effects are much smaller than the production change. Due to increased stratospheric production, the 10Be content in the downward fluxes is larger during MM, leading to larger 10Be deposition fluxes in the subtropics, where stratosphere-troposphere exchange (STE) is strongest. In polar regions the effect is small. In Greenland the deposition change depends on latitude and altitude. In Antarctica the change is larger in the east than in the west. We use the 10Be/7Be ratio to study changes in STE. We find larger change between 20° N–40° N during spring, pointing to a stronger STE in the Northern Hemisphere during MM. In the Southern Hemisphere the change is small. These findings indicate that climate changes do influence the 10Be deposition fluxes, but not enough to significantly disturb the production signal. Climate-induced changes remain small, especially in polar regions.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2797-2809, 2008

Modeling cosmogenic radionuclides 10Be and 7Be during the Maunder Minimum using the ECHAM5-HAM General Circulation Model

U. HeikkilÃ¤1, J. Beer1, and J. Feichter2
1EAWAG, DÃ¼bendorf, Switzerland
2Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

Abstract. All existing 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica show increasing concentrations during the Maunder Minimum period (MM), 1645â€“1715, when solar activity was very low and the climate was colder (little ice age). In detail, however, the 10Be records deviate from each other. We investigate to what extent climatic changes influence the 10Be measured in ice by modeling this period using the ECHAM5-HAM general circulation model. Production calculations show that during the MM the mean global 10Be production was higher by 32% than at present due to lower solar activity. Our modeling shows that the zonally averaged modeled 10Be deposition flux deviates by only ~8% from the average increase of 32%, indicating that climatic effects are much smaller than the production change. Due to increased stratospheric production, the 10Be content in the downward fluxes is larger during MM, leading to larger 10Be deposition fluxes in the subtropics, where stratosphere-troposphere exchange (STE) is strongest. In polar regions the effect is small. In Greenland the deposition change depends on latitude and altitude. In Antarctica the change is larger in the east than in the west. We use the 10Be/7Be ratio to study changes in STE. We find larger change between 20Â° Nâ€“40Â° N during spring, pointing to a stronger STE in the Northern Hemisphere during MM. In the Southern Hemisphere the change is small. These findings indicate that climate changes do influence the 10Be deposition fluxes, but not enough to significantly disturb the production signal. Climate-induced changes remain small, especially in polar regions.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
Volume 259, Issue 1, June 2007, Pages 584-587

Concentration of 10Be in an ice core from the Dome Fuji station, Eastern Antarctica: Preliminary results from 1500 to 1810 yr AD

Kazuho Horiuchia, Aoi Ohtaa, Tomoko Uchidaa, Hiroyuki Matsuzakib, Yasuyuki Shibatac and Hideaki Motoyama

We present preliminary data of our 10Be analysis of an ice core retrieved from Dome Fuji station, Eastern Antarctica for 1500–1810 yr AD. The concentration of 10Be from 1500-1810 yr AD ranged between 7.0 × 104 and 13.0 × 104 atoms g−1 and a prominent peak was observed in the period 1645–1715 yr AD (i.e., the Maunder Minimum period). An increase in the concentration was also observed in the periods before 1540 yr AD and near to 1800 yr AD. A comparison of our 10Be record with the South Pole 10Be record shows a clear similarity in their temporal fluctuations. On the other hand, our record shows 2.5 times higher concentration of 10Be than in the South Pole record attributable to the difference in local snow accumulation rates. These observations suggest a direct (uncomplicated) fallout of atmospheric 10Be onto inland Antarctica, which in turn, leads to a detailed 10Be stratigraphy throughout this region. We believe that the 10Be profiles of the ice cores from the Dome Fuji station are therefore likely to be a good proxy indicator of changes in solar activity.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
Volume 259, Issue 1, June 2007, Pages 584-587

Concentration of 10Be in an ice core from the Dome Fuji station, Eastern Antarctica: Preliminary results from 1500 to 1810 yr AD

Kazuho Horiuchia, Aoi Ohtaa, Tomoko Uchidaa, Hiroyuki Matsuzakib, Yasuyuki Shibatac and Hideaki Motoyama

We present preliminary data of our 10Be analysis of an ice core retrieved from Dome Fuji station, Eastern Antarctica for 1500â€“1810 yr AD. The concentration of 10Be from 1500-1810 yr AD ranged between 7.0 Ã— 104 and 13.0 Ã— 104 atoms gâˆ’1 and a prominent peak was observed in the period 1645â€“1715 yr AD (i.e., the Maunder Minimum period). An increase in the concentration was also observed in the periods before 1540 yr AD and near to 1800 yr AD. A comparison of our 10Be record with the South Pole 10Be record shows a clear similarity in their temporal fluctuations. On the other hand, our record shows 2.5 times higher concentration of 10Be than in the South Pole record attributable to the difference in local snow accumulation rates. These observations suggest a direct (uncomplicated) fallout of atmospheric 10Be onto inland Antarctica, which in turn, leads to a detailed 10Be stratigraphy throughout this region. We believe that the 10Be profiles of the ice cores from the Dome Fuji station are therefore likely to be a good proxy indicator of changes in solar activity.

• Nick Stokes

Steve
The absolute killer fact here is that Beer himself presents an even more damning version of the graph DA used (with filtering to only show changes on time scales longer than 20 years) as Figure 12 here (as Kuhnkat pointed out to you):
Sorry, what or who is being damned (or killed) here? I’m not seeking to denigrate what Beer has done. And I don’t care that much if DA has been sloppy. What I was commenting on is the corollary – because DA hasn’t said what he’s showing, no-one actually knows what he’s showing (I asked), and yet the graph circulates.

You can see how this goes in David’s intro:
Evidence of cosmic rays causing decreased cloudiness and increased temperatures has continued to accumulate since 2001. For example, cores of levels of the cosmogenic isotope 10Be, a product of particle collisions with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen, show high correlations, as shown on Anthony Watt’s in guest post by David Archibald Beryllium 10 and climate.
In fact the plot shows no correlation (with what?); there is just the assertion of correlation with GCR in DA’s annotation. And in fact the data does seem to relate to Beer’s Spatium article, which actually appeared in 2001, so isn’t recently accumulated evidence (seems to be Beer 1990). In fact the emphasis in the 2007 paper you cited is more restrained, as my quotes show. The evidence seems to have gone the other way.

• Nick Stokes

Steve
The absolute killer fact here is that Beer himself presents an even more damning version of the graph DA used (with filtering to only show changes on time scales longer than 20 years) as Figure 12 here (as Kuhnkat pointed out to you):
Sorry, what or who is being damned (or killed) here? I’m not seeking to denigrate what Beer has done. And I don’t care that much if DA has been sloppy. What I was commenting on is the corollary – because DA hasn’t said what he’s showing, no-one actually knows what he’s showing (I asked), and yet the graph circulates.

You can see how this goes in David’s intro:
Evidence of cosmic rays causing decreased cloudiness and increased temperatures has continued to accumulate since 2001. For example, cores of levels of the cosmogenic isotope 10Be, a product of particle collisions with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen, show high correlations, as shown on Anthony Wattâ€™s in guest post by David Archibald Beryllium 10 and climate.
In fact the plot shows no correlation (with what?); there is just the assertion of correlation with GCR in DA’s annotation. And in fact the data does seem to relate to Beer’s Spatium article, which actually appeared in 2001, so isn’t recently accumulated evidence (seems to be Beer 1990). In fact the emphasis in the 2007 paper you cited is more restrained, as my quotes show. The evidence seems to have gone the other way.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Nick #37

“And in fact the data does seem to relate to Beer’s Spatium article, which actually appeared in 2001, so isn’t recently accumulated evidence (seems to be Beer 1990). In fact the emphasis in the 2007 paper you cited is more restrained, as my quotes show. The evidence seems to have gone the other way.”

“does seem to relate” Grudging. “isn’t recently accumulated” ad hominem or what? “more restrained” but not in the key issues- Maunder Minimum clearly identified. Nor does anyone dispute the early 20th century decline. “the evidence seems to have gone the other way.” Not true. Production signal invariably still seen as the dominant over climatic signals.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Nick #37

“And in fact the data does seem to relate to Beerâ€™s Spatium article, which actually appeared in 2001, so isnâ€™t recently accumulated evidence (seems to be Beer 1990). In fact the emphasis in the 2007 paper you cited is more restrained, as my quotes show. The evidence seems to have gone the other way.”

“does seem to relate” Grudging. “isn’t recently accumulated” ad hominem or what? “more restrained” but not in the key issues- Maunder Minimum clearly identified. Nor does anyone dispute the early 20th century decline. “the evidence seems to have gone the other way.” Not true. Production signal invariably still seen as the dominant over climatic signals.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Steven Tobias1, Nigel Weiss2, Jürg Beer31Dept of Applied Mathematics, Univ. of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, smtmaths.leeds.ac.uk2Dept of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics, Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, now@damtp.cam.ac.uk3Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland, beer@eawag.ch.

Long-term prediction of solar activity – a discussion…

Solar activity is associated with the emergence of strong magnetic fields at the surface of the Sun, giving rise to sunspots, flares and coronal mass ejections. The incidence of all these features varies cyclically with an average period of about 11 years. The sunspot cycle is also modulated on longer timescales, most notably by the Maunder Minimum in the mid-17th century, when sunspots almost completely disappeared (Weiss 2002). Although direct telescopic observations of sunspots are limited to the past 400 years, the solar magnetic record can be extended back for thousands of years by using the proxy data sets provided by the abundances of cosmogenic isotopes. Cosmic rays impinging on the Earth’s atmosphere result in the production of the isotopes such as 10Be and 14C. Moreover, these cosmic rays are partially diverted by the magnetic field in the solar wind and the geomagnetic field; hence the production of these isotopes varies in antiphase with the solar cycle (Beer 2000). The abundances of 10Be (preserved in polar ice cores) and 14C (preserved in tree rings) reveal not only the short term 11-year cycle but also recurrent minima in the envelope of cyclic activity, extending back up to 50000 years into the past (Stuiver and Braziunas 1993, Stuiver et al. 1998, Wagner et al. 2001), as shown in figure 1.

In a recent article, Clilverd et al. (2003) attempt to predict the level of solar activity a century from now. They assert that long-term modulation of magnetic activity is dominated by the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle (Damon and Sonett 1991). Relying on a superposed epoch analysis of the 14C record, they claim that the level of solar activity in 2100 will have significantly decreased.

The level of cyclic magnetic activity in the Sun may well go up or down but we believe that it is not feasible to make any meaningful long-term prediction. The evidence suggests that stellar magnetic cycles are chaotic, and the difficulties of predicting chaotic behaviour are by now well known. Furthermore Clilverd et al. (2003) only consider a very limited data set. In the 14C record, which extends back for 11500 years, the principal periodicity determined by frequency analysis is that of the 205-year de Vries cycle, though the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle is also present (Beer 2000). The de Vries cycle is also prominent in the 10Be record, which Clilverd et al. do not exploit. Over the last decade, 10Be abundances have been measured in ice cores from Greenland, yielding a proxy record that so far extends back for 50000 years (see figure 1b). Statistical analysis of this rich data set (Wagner et al. 2001) reveals a significant peak in the power spectrum at a 205-year period that is definitely solar in origin (see figure 2).

Predicting solar activity has always posed a challenge – and forecasting the level of the next cycle is difficult enough (see for example the website science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/). Long-term prediction is much more tricky. Even if we accept that the record is simply a superposition of periodic oscillations, the procedure adopted by Clilverd et al. is tantamount to attempting to predict 11 years ahead solely on the basis of the 205-year periodicity, while ignoring the 11-year cycle completely. The record of solar activity in figure 1 does, however, appear to be aperiodic rather than multiply periodic: the aperiodicity might have a stochastic origin but we believe that it is more likely to be an example of deterministic chaos (Weiss and Tobias 2000, Weiss 2002). Experience shows that it is possible to recognize periodicities in the power spectra of chaotic data sets. (They correspond to the periods of unstable periodic or multiply periodic orbits – ghost attractors – in the phase space of the system.) What affects the issue here is that the future behaviour of such a chaotic system is intrinsically unpredictable. Given the Maunder Minimum and the de Vries cycle, a naive extrapolation would have predicted the occurrence of another Grand Minimum by now. Of course, it will be gratifying for us if such a minimum does arrive soon – but we wouldn’t dare to predict it.

Astronomy & Geophysics 45 (2) 2.6 (2004)

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Steven Tobias1, Nigel Weiss2, JÃ¼rg Beer31Dept of Applied Mathematics, Univ. of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, smtmaths.leeds.ac.uk2Dept of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics, Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, now@damtp.cam.ac.uk3Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland, beer@eawag.ch.

Long-term prediction of solar activity â€“ a discussion…

Solar activity is associated with the emergence of strong magnetic fields at the surface of the Sun, giving rise to sunspots, flares and coronal mass ejections. The incidence of all these features varies cyclically with an average period of about 11 years. The sunspot cycle is also modulated on longer timescales, most notably by the Maunder Minimum in the mid-17th century, when sunspots almost completely disappeared (Weiss 2002). Although direct telescopic observations of sunspots are limited to the past 400 years, the solar magnetic record can be extended back for thousands of years by using the proxy data sets provided by the abundances of cosmogenic isotopes. Cosmic rays impinging on the Earth’s atmosphere result in the production of the isotopes such as 10Be and 14C. Moreover, these cosmic rays are partially diverted by the magnetic field in the solar wind and the geomagnetic field; hence the production of these isotopes varies in antiphase with the solar cycle (Beer 2000). The abundances of 10Be (preserved in polar ice cores) and 14C (preserved in tree rings) reveal not only the short term 11-year cycle but also recurrent minima in the envelope of cyclic activity, extending back up to 50000 years into the past (Stuiver and Braziunas 1993, Stuiver et al. 1998, Wagner et al. 2001), as shown in figure 1.

In a recent article, Clilverd et al. (2003) attempt to predict the level of solar activity a century from now. They assert that long-term modulation of magnetic activity is dominated by the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle (Damon and Sonett 1991). Relying on a superposed epoch analysis of the 14C record, they claim that the level of solar activity in 2100 will have significantly decreased.

The level of cyclic magnetic activity in the Sun may well go up or down but we believe that it is not feasible to make any meaningful long-term prediction. The evidence suggests that stellar magnetic cycles are chaotic, and the difficulties of predicting chaotic behaviour are by now well known. Furthermore Clilverd et al. (2003) only consider a very limited data set. In the 14C record, which extends back for 11500 years, the principal periodicity determined by frequency analysis is that of the 205-year de Vries cycle, though the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle is also present (Beer 2000). The de Vries cycle is also prominent in the 10Be record, which Clilverd et al. do not exploit. Over the last decade, 10Be abundances have been measured in ice cores from Greenland, yielding a proxy record that so far extends back for 50000 years (see figure 1b). Statistical analysis of this rich data set (Wagner et al. 2001) reveals a significant peak in the power spectrum at a 205-year period that is definitely solar in origin (see figure 2).

Predicting solar activity has always posed a challenge â€“ and forecasting the level of the next cycle is difficult enough (see for example the website science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/). Long-term prediction is much more tricky. Even if we accept that the record is simply a superposition of periodic oscillations, the procedure adopted by Clilverd et al. is tantamount to attempting to predict 11 years ahead solely on the basis of the 205-year periodicity, while ignoring the 11-year cycle completely. The record of solar activity in figure 1 does, however, appear to be aperiodic rather than multiply periodic: the aperiodicity might have a stochastic origin but we believe that it is more likely to be an example of deterministic chaos (Weiss and Tobias 2000, Weiss 2002). Experience shows that it is possible to recognize periodicities in the power spectra of chaotic data sets. (They correspond to the periods of unstable periodic or multiply periodic orbits â€“ ghost attractors â€“ in the phase space of the system.) What affects the issue here is that the future behaviour of such a chaotic system is intrinsically unpredictable. Given the Maunder Minimum and the de Vries cycle, a naive extrapolation would have predicted the occurrence of another Grand Minimum by now. Of course, it will be gratifying for us if such a minimum does arrive soon â€“ but we wouldn’t dare to predict it.

Astronomy & Geophysics 45 (2) 2.6 (2004)

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

A small possibility of Grand Guignol meets Grand Minimum? How delicious. I can’t wait (better keep gobbling that fish oil otherwise I could miss it).

PS: Hugh Everett really would be vindicated. Jeremy Clarkson could get No. 10 Downing Street yet.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

A small possibility of Grand Guignol meets Grand Minimum? How delicious. I can’t wait (better keep gobbling that fish oil otherwise I could miss it).

PS: Hugh Everett really would be vindicated. Jeremy Clarkson could get No. 10 Downing Street yet.

• Nick Stokes

Well, you still haven’t explained what Beer’s damning “killer fact” actually damns – what it means? But I’ll leave it with the closing para of Beer’s Spatium article that you’re quoting (which may be DA’s source):
It is only about a century ago that mankind began to significantly interact with nature and perform a global experiment by increasing the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels never experienced in the past half million years (Figure 14). In view of our still very limited understanding of how nature works and our responsibility for future generations we should think twice before performing such blind and uncontrolled experiments. Many species have been extinguished before. Up to today, Homo Sapiens is the first with the potential to cause his own extinction.

• Nick Stokes

Well, you still haven’t explained what Beer’s damning “killer fact” actually damns – what it means? But I’ll leave it with the closing para of Beer’s Spatium article that you’re quoting (which may be DA’s source):
It is only about a century ago that mankind began to significantly interact with nature and perform a global experiment by increasing the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels never experienced in the past half million years (Figure 14). In view of our still very limited understanding of how nature works and our responsibility for future generations we should think twice before performing such blind and uncontrolled experiments. Many species have been extinguished before. Up to today, Homo Sapiens is the first with the potential to cause his own extinction.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“Well, you still haven’t explained what Beer’s damning “killer fact” actually damns – what it means? ” It damns your and Lief’s nit picking.

(1) All references (incl. Beer, 2001 and Figure 12 therein) cited by me support the core DA point (crudely expressed/presented though it be) and all post-date 2000 (NB).
(2) You have cited no modern references and engaged in cherry picking of normal technical comments to cast vague doubt on DA’s core points (working off a base of someone else’s even crasser cherry picking).
(3) It is generally recognised that in ice core (both Greenland and Antarctica) various 10Be maxima occurred in the Sporrer, Maunder and Dalton Minima. True or false? TRUE.
(4) Ice core 10Be declined sharply from 1890 over the 1st half of the 20th century. True or False? TRUE
(5) A possible deep 10Be minimum occurred around 1955. True or false? TRUE.
(6) It is generally recognised 10Be in ice cores broad structure represents a reasonably good proxy of long term CR modulation with a finer structure relating to solar and other climatic effects. True or False? TRUE.

BTW FYI

The 10Be response function is shown to have peaked near 1.8 GeV/nucleon since 1950, while during the Maunder minimum it approximated 0.8 GeV/nucleon. This shows that the 10Be data are approximately a factor of two more sensitive to cosmic ray modulation than are high latitude sea level neutron monitors. The Z > 2 cosmic radiation contributes 30% to 49% of the observed 10Be, introducing a substantial rigidity dependence into the temporal variations.
McCracken, K. G. (2004)
JGR Vol. 109, No. A4, pp A04101.1-A04101.17

I suggest you go away, find a good post-2000 reference that has a figure in it which significantly debunks the core features of the figure that DA used and let us all have a look. You could also spend some time in:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“Well, you still havenâ€™t explained what Beerâ€™s damning â€œkiller factâ€ actually damns – what it means? ” It damns your and Lief’s nit picking.

(1) All references (incl. Beer, 2001 and Figure 12 therein) cited by me support the core DA point (crudely expressed/presented though it be) and all post-date 2000 (NB).
(2) You have cited no modern references and engaged in cherry picking of normal technical comments to cast vague doubt on DA’s core points (working off a base of someone else’s even crasser cherry picking).
(3) It is generally recognised that in ice core (both Greenland and Antarctica) various 10Be maxima occurred in the Sporrer, Maunder and Dalton Minima. True or false? TRUE.
(4) Ice core 10Be declined sharply from 1890 over the 1st half of the 20th century. True or False? TRUE
(5) A possible deep 10Be minimum occurred around 1955. True or false? TRUE.
(6) It is generally recognised 10Be in ice cores broad structure represents a reasonably good proxy of long term CR modulation with a finer structure relating to solar and other climatic effects. True or False? TRUE.

BTW FYI

The 10Be response function is shown to have peaked near 1.8 GeV/nucleon since 1950, while during the Maunder minimum it approximated 0.8 GeV/nucleon. This shows that the 10Be data are approximately a factor of two more sensitive to cosmic ray modulation than are high latitude sea level neutron monitors. The Z > 2 cosmic radiation contributes 30% to 49% of the observed 10Be, introducing a substantial rigidity dependence into the temporal variations.
McCracken, K. G. (2004)
JGR Vol. 109, No. A4, pp A04101.1-A04101.17

I suggest you go away, find a good post-2000 reference that has a figure in it which significantly debunks the core features of the figure that DA used and let us all have a look. You could also spend some time in:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Some good reading on pages 179 – 199. Wish I had this book earlier.

How TSI probably can’t explain the Maunder Minimum etc (but by inference GCR flux variation might).

(push that big fat baby down)

(down baby down)

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Some good reading on pages 179 – 199. Wish I had this book earlier.

How TSI probably can’t explain the Maunder Minimum etc (but by inference GCR flux variation might).

(push that big fat baby down)

(down baby down)

• Nick Stokes

Steve,
As a digression, I’ll defend myself against the charge of ignorance or narrowness that you and others sometimes bring. I don’t usually bother, but it is interesting here. You’re right to observe that the last half of my career in CSIRO was a 16-year stretch in applied fluid dynamics. That’s actually pretty varied in itself. But before that, I was a roving applied mathematician, assigned to various divisions, including some concerned with geochemistry and isotopes. In fact Ken McCracken. whose paper you just cited, was my host chief not just once (at Mineral Physics) but twice, as acting Chief at Applied Geomechanics. I’ve never handled personally isotopes, but I’ve worked with a lot of people who do. I also spent a year at Atmospheric Physics, where I worked with oft-cited (here) people like Garth Paltridge and Graham Stephens.

So back to Beer et al. I dispute that I’ve been “cherry picking of normal technical comments”. The last quote I gave certainly didn’t fit that description, and shows that the data Beer quoted did not bring him into accord with DA’s (or your) general view on AGW.

But the first quote I gave (#33), from Muscheler and Beer and all (2007) “results in the reconstruction that shows that the last 50 yr of solar modulation are high but not exceptionally high with respect to the last 1000 yr” is not a minor technical point. It describes well also recent 10Be data (eg their Fig 8) from a 2007 standpoint, and while not totally contradicting DA, certainly doesn’t convey his air of excitement.

And the second quote is also not a minor point. He’s saying (an elementary point) that to get 10Be flux you basically have to multiply the concentration by the annual snowfall, which in Greenland is likely to have increased. This hasn’t been done. If you can’t do that, then you at least have to combine the results of a number of sites, hoping snowfall variations will average out.

• Nick Stokes

Steve,
As a digression, I’ll defend myself against the charge of ignorance or narrowness that you and others sometimes bring. I don’t usually bother, but it is interesting here. You’re right to observe that the last half of my career in CSIRO was a 16-year stretch in applied fluid dynamics. That’s actually pretty varied in itself. But before that, I was a roving applied mathematician, assigned to various divisions, including some concerned with geochemistry and isotopes. In fact Ken McCracken. whose paper you just cited, was my host chief not just once (at Mineral Physics) but twice, as acting Chief at Applied Geomechanics. I’ve never handled personally isotopes, but I’ve worked with a lot of people who do. I also spent a year at Atmospheric Physics, where I worked with oft-cited (here) people like Garth Paltridge and Graham Stephens.

So back to Beer et al. I dispute that I’ve been “cherry picking of normal technical comments”. The last quote I gave certainly didn’t fit that description, and shows that the data Beer quoted did not bring him into accord with DA’s (or your) general view on AGW.

But the first quote I gave (#33), from Muscheler and Beer and all (2007) “results in the reconstruction that shows that the last 50 yr of solar modulation are high but not exceptionally high with respect to the last 1000 yr” is not a minor technical point. It describes well also recent 10Be data (eg their Fig 8) from a 2007 standpoint, and while not totally contradicting DA, certainly doesn’t convey his air of excitement.

And the second quote is also not a minor point. He’s saying (an elementary point) that to get 10Be flux you basically have to multiply the concentration by the annual snowfall, which in Greenland is likely to have increased. This hasn’t been done. If you can’t do that, then you at least have to combine the results of a number of sites, hoping snowfall variations will average out.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Snow accumulation rate has long been an issue with ice cores and affects a large number of proxies in various ways especially over the longer (glacial/interglacial) term. There are a number of ways of normalizing for variable snow accumulation rates.

Normalizing to a constant electrical conductivity is popular. Sulfate sulfur is another good one – especially in Antarctica where the source term derives from (cyanobacterial) primary of a very large chunk of ocean e.g. Udisti et al. 2004.

However, I would remind you we are talking about a very small slice of the Late Holocene interglacial here. It is hardly likely that decadely averaged snow accumulation rates have varied widely. This is a common assumption and there are various tests for it e.g. Golledge et al. 2007.

You’ve been soaking up too much Real Climate stuff.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Snow accumulation rate has long been an issue with ice cores and affects a large number of proxies in various ways especially over the longer (glacial/interglacial) term. There are a number of ways of normalizing for variable snow accumulation rates.

Normalizing to a constant electrical conductivity is popular. Sulfate sulfur is another good one – especially in Antarctica where the source term derives from (cyanobacterial) primary of a very large chunk of ocean e.g. Udisti et al. 2004.

However, I would remind you we are talking about a very small slice of the Late Holocene interglacial here. It is hardly likely that decadely averaged snow accumulation rates have varied widely. This is a common assumption and there are various tests for it e.g. Golledge et al. 2007.

You’ve been soaking up too much Real Climate stuff.

• Nick Stokes

Steve,
When do you think I get time to read Real Climate :(? I just try to keep up with the papers you post.

Snow with 10Be is different than with gas bubbles. It goes directly into the product that you have to calculate. 10Be mass flux = 10Be conc * snow volume rate.

• Nick Stokes

Steve,
When do you think I get time to read Real Climate :(? I just try to keep up with the papers you post.

Snow with 10Be is different than with gas bubbles. It goes directly into the product that you have to calculate. 10Be mass flux = 10Be conc * snow volume rate.

• Anonymous

Just a few thoughts after submitting a comment on Dessler. I appreciate the voice of rational disagreement here, and encourage that enterprise and discourage labeling. Nothing worse than a blog where everyone agrees, and I try to set a tone for nutting things out. Thanks Steve and Nick.

From graphs of 10Be in Muscheler and Beer and all (2007) the statement “results in the reconstruction that shows that the last 50 yr of solar modulation are high but not exceptionally high with respect to the last 1000″ appears to refer to very short forays into high high, whereas the last 50 years seems higher for longer. I don’t know exactly, but surely some time integral needs to be considered.

I am personally very excited about CRF, as I guess is obvious, though clearly the evidence has been around a while. The pieces seem to fall into place, unlike AGW which seems to be a continual process of forcing stats to fit.

Just a few thoughts after submitting a comment on Dessler. I appreciate the voice of rational disagreement here, and encourage that enterprise and discourage labeling. Nothing worse than a blog where everyone agrees, and I try to set a tone for nutting things out. Thanks Steve and Nick.

From graphs of 10Be in Muscheler and Beer and all (2007) the statement â€œresults in the reconstruction that shows that the last 50 yr of solar modulation are high but not exceptionally high with respect to the last 1000″ appears to refer to very short forays into high high, whereas the last 50 years seems higher for longer. I don’t know exactly, but surely some time integral needs to be considered.

I am personally very excited about CRF, as I guess is obvious, though clearly the evidence has been around a while. The pieces seem to fall into place, unlike AGW which seems to be a continual process of forcing stats to fit.

• Nick Stokes

ps David
The 2007 paper you linked to is on ice cores; coauthors include Beer and Snowball. It’s April 1, but no, it’s real.

• Nick Stokes

ps David
The 2007 paper you linked to is on ice cores; coauthors include Beer and Snowball. It’s April 1, but no, it’s real.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Thanks Nick.

That is a nice review paper as one would expect of Juerg Beer and his present and former Zurich and Bern colleagues.

Notwithstanding that most of the authors are known adherents of the AGW orthodoxy (just throwing a little touch of the ad hom back at you!), it doesn’t change the fundamentals of the graph which DA put up on WUWT.

The graph DA put up is a crude adaptation by him (I suppose) of Figure 8 in Muscheler at al. 2007 or at least something very similar he got from a earlier Beer paper or Spatium article etc. Juerg is very good at publicizing his science and I am not surprised at all DA found it somewhere.

However, DA’s graph does NOT deviate significantly from the contemporary view to be seen in Figure 8 . Not bad considering. This was my fundamental point and I thank you very much for proving it.

There is also one other very important thing we need to remember here. This is not really an argument around the finer points of solar modulation of the CRF flux (the main focus of the Muscheler et al. 2007 review) .

After Svensmark etc it is about the absolute magnitude of the CRF flux itself! This is essentially why David’s (and my) interest is justified.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Thanks Nick.

That is a nice review paper as one would expect of Juerg Beer and his present and former Zurich and Bern colleagues.

Notwithstanding that most of the authors are known adherents of the AGW orthodoxy (just throwing a little touch of the ad hom back at you!), it doesn’t change the fundamentals of the graph which DA put up on WUWT.

The graph DA put up is a crude adaptation by him (I suppose) of Figure 8 in Muscheler at al. 2007 or at least something very similar he got from a earlier Beer paper or Spatium article etc. Juerg is very good at publicizing his science and I am not surprised at all DA found it somewhere.

However, DA’s graph does NOT deviate significantly from the contemporary view to be seen in Figure 8 . Not bad considering. This was my fundamental point and I thank you very much for proving it.

There is also one other very important thing we need to remember here. This is not really an argument around the finer points of solar modulation of the CRF flux (the main focus of the Muscheler et al. 2007 review) .

After Svensmark etc it is about the absolute magnitude of the CRF flux itself! This is essentially why David’s (and my) interest is justified.

• jae

I haven’t had a chance to dig as deeply into the research as Nick and Steve have done, but I would say that SOMETHING is going on with the climate, and it appears to me that there good probability that cosmic rays are involved, given the quiet sun and cooling. It seems more and more unlikely that CO2 is having an effect, since the correlation is now exactly backwards.

• jae

I haven’t had a chance to dig as deeply into the research as Nick and Steve have done, but I would say that SOMETHING is going on with the climate, and it appears to me that there good probability that cosmic rays are involved, given the quiet sun and cooling. It seems more and more unlikely that CO2 is having an effect, since the correlation is now exactly backwards.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Yes, it’s not all about Shaviv and Svensmark etc. The evidence from the Holocene 14C and 10Be record is more than circumstantial e.g.

Clilverd et al. (2003) attempted to predict the level of solar activity a century from now. They assert that long-term modulation of magnetic activity is dominated by the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle (Damon and Sonett 1991). Relying on a superposed epoch analysis of the 14C record, they claimed that the level of solar activity in 2100 will have significantly decreased.

Tobias et al. (2004) note the 205 year de Vries cycle is also prominent in the 10Be record, a cycle which Clilverd et al. do not exploit. Over the last decade, 10Be abundances have been measured in ice cores from Greenland, yielding a proxy record that so far extends back for 50000 years (see figure 1b). Statistical analysis of this rich data set (Wagner et al. 2001) reveals a significant peak in the power spectrum at a 205-year period that is definitely solar in origin (see figure 2). They stated that; given the Maunder Minimum and the de Vries cycle, a naive extrapolation would have predicted the occurrence of another Grand Minimum by now. They staed that it would be gratifying for them if such a minimum did arrive soon – but they wouldn’t dare to predict it.

There are also other reputable groups which have been looked closely at short, well defined high resolution record periods of the Late Holocene e.g.

Solar forcing of climate change: evidence from the past
Bas van Geel1, Hans Renssen2 and Johannes van der Plicht3
1 ICG, University of Amsterdam
2 ICG, Free University of Amsterdam
3 CIO, Groningen University
The Netherlands

Solar/cosmic ray forcing of global climate change is controversial among physicists and climatologists. Attempting to explain a physical link on the basis of the relationship “solar wind – magnetosphere – ionosphere – atmosphere” is difficult because of a very large difference of the solar wind energy and the energy of the atmospheric processes. We inferred paleo-evidence for this relationship from the records of the cosmogenic isotopes 14C (peat, dendrochronologically dated wood) and 10Be (GISP2), as these data can be considered as proxies for variation in the solar radiant output. When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field more effectively shields the Earth from cosmic rays and reduces the production of 14C and 10Be. In contrast, a low solar activity yields more 14C and 10Be.

We found evidence for solar forcing as the factor causing abrupt global climate change at the Subboreal/Subatlantic transition. This abrupt climate change occurred simultaneously with a sharp rise in Delta 14C, from ca -3 per mil around 850 BC to ca 20 per mil around 760 BC. Millennial-scale climate changes during the last glacial period (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles) are evident from Greenland ice-cores and North Atlantic ocean cores. The cooling phases seem to be part of a climatic cycle, operating independently of the glacial-interglacial cycles forced by orbital variations. Until now, the cause of these climate changes remained a matter of debate. Bond et al. conclude that a solar forcing of this climatic cycle is unlikely and they suggest that the driving mechanism is to be found inside the atmosphere-ocean system. In contrast, we argue that variations in solar activity may have played a significant role in forcing these climate changes. Fluctuations in the 10Be influx values during the last Glacial evidently parallel the Dansgaard-Oeschger warm/cold cycles in the d18O record from the same ice core: relatively warm phases show low 10Be values and peaks in the 10Be record occur during the cold phases. Although other workers suggest that such variations in 10Be reflect changes in snow accumulation rates and in production and long distance transport, we suppose that these variations are the effect of solar variability in the first place, and thus show the cause of the Dansgaard-Oeschger climatic cycles reflected in the d18O record.

Relatively small changes in solar activity may induce relatively large changes in global climate. Two positive feedback mechanisms may explain this phenomenon:
1.Variation in solar ultraviolet radiation alters the stratospheric ozone production, which probably triggers climate changes. Haigh performed simulations with climate models to study the relation between the 11-year solar activity cycles, ozone production and climate change. A chemical atmospheric model showed that a 1% increase in UV radiation at the maximum of a solar activity cycle generated 1-2% more ozone in the stratosphere. This increase in the stratospheric ozone content was used as input in a climate model experiment. In the experiment of Haigh this increase resulted in warming of the lower stratosphere by the absorption of more sunlight. In addition, the stratospheric winds were also strengthened and the tropospheric westerly jet streams were displaced poleward. The position of these jets determines the latitudinal extent of the Hadley cells and, therefore, the poleward shift of the jets resulted in a similar displacement of the descending parts of the Hadley Cells. This change in circulation ultimately caused a poleward relocation of the mid latitude storm tracks. The opposite effect as described by Haigh may have played a role in the climate changes around 850 BC. A reduced solar activity, as indicated by the observed strong increases of atmospheric 14C, could have resulted in a decrease in the stratospheric ozone content. A decrease of the latitudinal extent of the Hadley Cell circulation and an equatorward relocation of the mid latitude storm tracks would follow, with climate change as a consequence.
2. Changes of the cosmic ray flux may directly lead to changes in global cloud cover. This direct link may work through ionisation by cosmic rays, as this positively affects aerosol formation and cloud nucleation. An indication for the importance of this process was found by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. They reported about a correlation between the variation in cosmic ray flux and the observed global cloud cover for the most recent solar cycle. An increase in the global cloud cover is believed to cause a cooling of the Earth, especially when low altitude clouds are involved, because more incoming radiation is reflected. Earlier, Friis-Christensen and Lassen analysed for the period 1861-1989 the similarity between the northern hemisphere temperature record and the length of the solar cycle (as an indicator of solar activity), and found a close match. A direct increase in cloudiness and accompanying cooling would be in agreement with the reconstructed wetter and cooler conditions at middle latitudes around 850 BC.

Accepting the idea of solar forcing of holocene and earlier climatic shifts has major implications for our view of present and future climate. It implies that the climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in solar activity than generally believed.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Yes, it’s not all about Shaviv and Svensmark etc. The evidence from the Holocene 14C and 10Be record is more than circumstantial e.g.

Clilverd et al. (2003) attempted to predict the level of solar activity a century from now. They assert that long-term modulation of magnetic activity is dominated by the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle (Damon and Sonett 1991). Relying on a superposed epoch analysis of the 14C record, they claimed that the level of solar activity in 2100 will have significantly decreased.

Tobias et al. (2004) note the 205 year de Vries cycle is also prominent in the 10Be record, a cycle which Clilverd et al. do not exploit. Over the last decade, 10Be abundances have been measured in ice cores from Greenland, yielding a proxy record that so far extends back for 50000 years (see figure 1b). Statistical analysis of this rich data set (Wagner et al. 2001) reveals a significant peak in the power spectrum at a 205-year period that is definitely solar in origin (see figure 2). They stated that; given the Maunder Minimum and the de Vries cycle, a naive extrapolation would have predicted the occurrence of another Grand Minimum by now. They staed that it would be gratifying for them if such a minimum did arrive soon â€“ but they wouldnâ€™t dare to predict it.

There are also other reputable groups which have been looked closely at short, well defined high resolution record periods of the Late Holocene e.g.

Solar forcing of climate change: evidence from the past
Bas van Geel1, Hans Renssen2 and Johannes van der Plicht3
1 ICG, University of Amsterdam
2 ICG, Free University of Amsterdam
3 CIO, Groningen University
The Netherlands

Solar/cosmic ray forcing of global climate change is controversial among physicists and climatologists. Attempting to explain a physical link on the basis of the relationship “solar wind – magnetosphere – ionosphere – atmosphere” is difficult because of a very large difference of the solar wind energy and the energy of the atmospheric processes. We inferred paleo-evidence for this relationship from the records of the cosmogenic isotopes 14C (peat, dendrochronologically dated wood) and 10Be (GISP2), as these data can be considered as proxies for variation in the solar radiant output. When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field more effectively shields the Earth from cosmic rays and reduces the production of 14C and 10Be. In contrast, a low solar activity yields more 14C and 10Be.

We found evidence for solar forcing as the factor causing abrupt global climate change at the Subboreal/Subatlantic transition. This abrupt climate change occurred simultaneously with a sharp rise in Delta 14C, from ca -3 per mil around 850 BC to ca 20 per mil around 760 BC. Millennial-scale climate changes during the last glacial period (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles) are evident from Greenland ice-cores and North Atlantic ocean cores. The cooling phases seem to be part of a climatic cycle, operating independently of the glacial-interglacial cycles forced by orbital variations. Until now, the cause of these climate changes remained a matter of debate. Bond et al. conclude that a solar forcing of this climatic cycle is unlikely and they suggest that the driving mechanism is to be found inside the atmosphere-ocean system. In contrast, we argue that variations in solar activity may have played a significant role in forcing these climate changes. Fluctuations in the 10Be influx values during the last Glacial evidently parallel the Dansgaard-Oeschger warm/cold cycles in the d18O record from the same ice core: relatively warm phases show low 10Be values and peaks in the 10Be record occur during the cold phases. Although other workers suggest that such variations in 10Be reflect changes in snow accumulation rates and in production and long distance transport, we suppose that these variations are the effect of solar variability in the first place, and thus show the cause of the Dansgaard-Oeschger climatic cycles reflected in the d18O record.

Relatively small changes in solar activity may induce relatively large changes in global climate. Two positive feedback mechanisms may explain this phenomenon:
1.Variation in solar ultraviolet radiation alters the stratospheric ozone production, which probably triggers climate changes. Haigh performed simulations with climate models to study the relation between the 11-year solar activity cycles, ozone production and climate change. A chemical atmospheric model showed that a 1% increase in UV radiation at the maximum of a solar activity cycle generated 1-2% more ozone in the stratosphere. This increase in the stratospheric ozone content was used as input in a climate model experiment. In the experiment of Haigh this increase resulted in warming of the lower stratosphere by the absorption of more sunlight. In addition, the stratospheric winds were also strengthened and the tropospheric westerly jet streams were displaced poleward. The position of these jets determines the latitudinal extent of the Hadley cells and, therefore, the poleward shift of the jets resulted in a similar displacement of the descending parts of the Hadley Cells. This change in circulation ultimately caused a poleward relocation of the mid latitude storm tracks. The opposite effect as described by Haigh may have played a role in the climate changes around 850 BC. A reduced solar activity, as indicated by the observed strong increases of atmospheric 14C, could have resulted in a decrease in the stratospheric ozone content. A decrease of the latitudinal extent of the Hadley Cell circulation and an equatorward relocation of the mid latitude storm tracks would follow, with climate change as a consequence.
2. Changes of the cosmic ray flux may directly lead to changes in global cloud cover. This direct link may work through ionisation by cosmic rays, as this positively affects aerosol formation and cloud nucleation. An indication for the importance of this process was found by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. They reported about a correlation between the variation in cosmic ray flux and the observed global cloud cover for the most recent solar cycle. An increase in the global cloud cover is believed to cause a cooling of the Earth, especially when low altitude clouds are involved, because more incoming radiation is reflected. Earlier, Friis-Christensen and Lassen analysed for the period 1861-1989 the similarity between the northern hemisphere temperature record and the length of the solar cycle (as an indicator of solar activity), and found a close match. A direct increase in cloudiness and accompanying cooling would be in agreement with the reconstructed wetter and cooler conditions at middle latitudes around 850 BC.

Accepting the idea of solar forcing of holocene and earlier climatic shifts has major implications for our view of present and future climate. It implies that the climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in solar activity than generally believed.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Bazilevskaya, G. A., I. G. Usoskin, E. O. FlÃ¼ckiger, R. G. Harrison, L. Desorgher, R. BÃ¼tikofer, M. B. Krainev, V. S. Makhmutov, Y. I. Stozhkov, and A. K. Svirzhevskaya (2008), Cosmic Ray Induced Ion Production in the Atmosphere, Space Sci Rev, 137(1-4), 149, doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9339-y.

Black, David E. (2004), A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic hydrographic variability, Paleoceanogr, 19, PA2022, doi:10.1029/2003PA000982.

Donarummo, J. (2002), Sun/dust correlations and volcanic interference, Geophys Res Lett, 29, 1361, doi:10.1029/2002GL014858.

Harrison, R. G. (2003), Ion-aerosol-cloud processes in the lower atmosphere, Rev Geophys, 41, 1012, doi:10.1029/2002RG000114.

Kirkby, Jasper (2007), Cosmic Rays and Climate, Surv Geophys, 28(5-6), 333, doi:10.1007/s10712-008-9030-6.

Kniveton, D. R., and M. C. Todd (2001), On the Relationship of Cosmic Ray Flux and Precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(8), 1527â€“1530.

Lucio, Paulo S. (2005), Learning with solar activity influence on Portugal’s rainfall: A stochastic overview, Geophys Res Lett, 32, L23819, doi:10.1029/2005GL023787.

Marsh, Nigel (2003), Galactic cosmic ray and El NiÃ±oâ€“Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties, J Geophys Res, 108, 4195, doi:10.1029/2001JD001264.

Tinsley, B A (2008), The global atmospheric electric circuit and its effects on cloud microphysics, Rep Prog Phys, 71(6), 066801, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/71/6/066801.

Vanhellemont, Filip (2002), Cosmic rays and stratospheric aerosols: Evidence for a connection?, Geophys Res Lett, 29, 1715, doi:10.1029/2002GL015567.

Versteegh, Gerard J. M. (2005), Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the Past, Space Sci Rev, 120(3-4), 243, doi:10.1007/s11214-005-7047-4.

Wallmann, K. (2004), Impact of atmospheric CO2 and galactic cosmic radiation on Phanerozoic climate change and the marine delta18O record, Geochem Geophys Geosyst, 5, Q06004, doi:10.1029/2003GC000683.

Yu, Fangqun (2002), Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate, J Geophys Res, 107, 1118, doi:10.1029/2001JA000248.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Bazilevskaya, G. A., I. G. Usoskin, E. O. Flückiger, R. G. Harrison, L. Desorgher, R. Bütikofer, M. B. Krainev, V. S. Makhmutov, Y. I. Stozhkov, and A. K. Svirzhevskaya (2008), Cosmic Ray Induced Ion Production in the Atmosphere, Space Sci Rev, 137(1-4), 149, doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9339-y.

Black, David E. (2004), A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic hydrographic variability, Paleoceanogr, 19, PA2022, doi:10.1029/2003PA000982.

Donarummo, J. (2002), Sun/dust correlations and volcanic interference, Geophys Res Lett, 29, 1361, doi:10.1029/2002GL014858.

Harrison, R. G. (2003), Ion-aerosol-cloud processes in the lower atmosphere, Rev Geophys, 41, 1012, doi:10.1029/2002RG000114.

Kirkby, Jasper (2007), Cosmic Rays and Climate, Surv Geophys, 28(5-6), 333, doi:10.1007/s10712-008-9030-6.

Kniveton, D. R., and M. C. Todd (2001), On the Relationship of Cosmic Ray Flux and Precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(8), 1527–1530.

Lucio, Paulo S. (2005), Learning with solar activity influence on Portugal’s rainfall: A stochastic overview, Geophys Res Lett, 32, L23819, doi:10.1029/2005GL023787.

Marsh, Nigel (2003), Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño–Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties, J Geophys Res, 108, 4195, doi:10.1029/2001JD001264.

Tinsley, B A (2008), The global atmospheric electric circuit and its effects on cloud microphysics, Rep Prog Phys, 71(6), 066801, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/71/6/066801.

Vanhellemont, Filip (2002), Cosmic rays and stratospheric aerosols: Evidence for a connection?, Geophys Res Lett, 29, 1715, doi:10.1029/2002GL015567.

Versteegh, Gerard J. M. (2005), Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the Past, Space Sci Rev, 120(3-4), 243, doi:10.1007/s11214-005-7047-4.

Wallmann, K. (2004), Impact of atmospheric CO2 and galactic cosmic radiation on Phanerozoic climate change and the marine delta18O record, Geochem Geophys Geosyst, 5, Q06004, doi:10.1029/2003GC000683.

Yu, Fangqun (2002), Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate, J Geophys Res, 107, 1118, doi:10.1029/2001JA000248.

• jae

Very impressive, Short. A summary would be appreciated by us laypersons.

• jae

Very impressive, Short. A summary would be appreciated by us laypersons.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Actually what would be far more useful would be for me to provide a quick ‘snapshot’ of the background behind the kerfuffle raised by Nick a Lief Svalgaard’s over poor old David Archibald’s stuff on WUWT and again here. Check out this:

So called ‘obsolete’ TSI reconstructions assumed that solar cycle minimums varied significantly, but the current ‘official’ (?) understanding is that solar cycle minimums are, in fact, relatively flat. That is, minimum TSI level during the Dalton Minimum was no lower than the minimum TSI levels during the late part of the 20th Century.

Current ‘official’ understanding of TSI variability is (can you guess it?) that identified as due to Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University.

But oh alas, this has led to a serious falling out amongst the AGW fraternity!

For example, in a Hansen et al (2007) paper “Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE” GISS acknowledges the problems with the use of ‘obsolete’ Lean et al TSI data.

They state, “Lean et al. (2002) call into question the long-term solar irradiance changes, such as those of Lean (2000), which have been used in many climate model studies including our present simulations. The basis for questioning the previously inferred long-term changes is the realization that secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends of solar irradiance.”

Nice! So far so good.

However, following that, Hansen et al (2007) go on to explain the reasons for their continued use of the erroneous TSI data set, “The fact that proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply long-term irradiance change does not mean that long-term solar irradiance change did not occur.” Never one to pussy foot around with the jackboot, our Jimmy boy.

Refer:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
(Warning: 24 Mb).

Well, of course not! If natural climate forcings used to recreate the temperature rise in the first part of the 20th Century are erroneous i.e. in IPCC GCMs, then the anthropogenic forcings used to recreate the global temperature variations in the latter part should not be assumed to be correct!

La de dah! Touchy lot these prima donna scientists, eh? Not to mention their faithful old buddies-in-science.

To reiterate. Consideration of 10Be and 14C proxies is not really an argument around the finer points of solar modulation of the CRF flux. After Svensmark, Haigh etc it is about the absolute magnitude of the CRF flux itself!

But that is not really something certain people could currently get their heads around it seems. To much other heavy stuff going around. Meanwhile, way out thah in the blogs……..we’re still standing, yeah, yeah, yeah.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Actually what would be far more useful would be for me to provide a quick ‘snapshot’ of the background behind the kerfuffle raised by Nick a Lief Svalgaard’s over poor old David Archibald’s stuff on WUWT and again here. Check out this:

So called ‘obsolete’ TSI reconstructions assumed that solar cycle minimums varied significantly, but the current ‘official’ (?) understanding is that solar cycle minimums are, in fact, relatively flat. That is, minimum TSI level during the Dalton Minimum was no lower than the minimum TSI levels during the late part of the 20th Century.

Current ‘official’ understanding of TSI variability is (can you guess it?) that identified as due to Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University.

But oh alas, this has led to a serious falling out amongst the AGW fraternity!

For example, in a Hansen et al (2007) paper â€œClimate simulations for 1880â€“2003 with GISS modelEâ€ GISS acknowledges the problems with the use of ‘obsolete’ Lean et al TSI data.

They state, â€œLean et al. (2002) call into question the long-term solar irradiance changes, such as those of Lean (2000), which have been used in many climate model studies including our present simulations. The basis for questioning the previously inferred long-term changes is the realization that secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends of solar irradiance.â€

Nice! So far so good.

However, following that, Hansen et al (2007) go on to explain the reasons for their continued use of the erroneous TSI data set, â€œThe fact that proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply long-term irradiance change does not mean that long-term solar irradiance change did not occur.â€ Never one to pussy foot around with the jackboot, our Jimmy boy.

Refer:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
(Warning: 24 Mb).

Well, of course not! If natural climate forcings used to recreate the temperature rise in the first part of the 20th Century are erroneous i.e. in IPCC GCMs, then the anthropogenic forcings used to recreate the global temperature variations in the latter part should not be assumed to be correct!

La de dah! Touchy lot these prima donna scientists, eh? Not to mention their faithful old buddies-in-science.

To reiterate. Consideration of 10Be and 14C proxies is not really an argument around the finer points of solar modulation of the CRF flux. After Svensmark, Haigh etc it is about the absolute magnitude of the CRF flux itself!

But that is not really something certain people could currently get their heads around it seems. To much other heavy stuff going around. Meanwhile, way out thah in the blogs……..we’re still standing, yeah, yeah, yeah.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

So, on top of all that crap, if Lief Svalgaard (and his old mate Nick?) hold to the (now ‘official) view that the TSI from today going right back to, AND including the Dalton Minimum was as flat as a tack (excluding the minor 11 year Schwabe Cycle variation of course), that simply begs the obvious question:

What, in Pete’s name, caused the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minima?

Oh, it’s a tangled web…..

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

So, on top of all that crap, if Lief Svalgaard (and his old mate Nick?) hold to the (now ‘official) view that the TSI from today going right back to, AND including the Dalton Minimum was as flat as a tack (excluding the minor 11 year Schwabe Cycle variation of course), that simply begs the obvious question:

What, in Pete’s name, caused the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minima?

Oh, it’s a tangled web…..

• http://timetochooseagain.wordpress.com Andrew

Steve Short-let me play devil’s advocate. Could it be…lazy astronomers?

• http://timetochooseagain.wordpress.com Andrew

Steve Short-let me play devil’s advocate. Could it be…lazy astronomers?

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Yeah, those bewigged and be-ribboned poncy upper class twits were most likely too busy down on the frozen solid Thames fiddling around with the harlots in the markets……..meanwhile my poor slack-jawed ancestor from the Cockney slums was going around with a little cart picking up dog shit for the tanneries….

It’s just not fair!

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Yeah, those bewigged and be-ribboned poncy upper class twits were most likely too busy down on the frozen solid Thames fiddling around with the harlots in the markets……..meanwhile my poor slack-jawed ancestor from the Cockney slums was going around with a little cart picking up dog shit for the tanneries….

It’s just not fair!

• Anonymous

Some simple questions about TSI to Steve, (who must either have a brain the size of a planet or be damn good at delegation).

• http://landshape.org davids

Some simple questions about TSI to Steve, (who must either have a brain the size of a planet or be damn good at delegation).

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

TSI = Total Solar Irradiance = wattage recived at TOA (is my understanding).

From NGDC:

Total solar irradiance describes the radiant energy emitted by the sun over all wavelengths that falls each second on 1 square meter outside the earth’s atmosphere–a quantity proportional to the “solar constant” observed earlier in this century. It measures the solar energy flux in Watts/square meter. The data contains six sets of satellite observations: values from NIMBUS-7, from the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) spacecraft, from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), from the NOAA-9 and 10 platforms, and from the Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite (UARS).

“Can someone please give me a basic (working) , non mathematical,
but it is difficult for me to tell when to use one term and when to
use the other. I need this for an artistic graphical application not
something scientific or mathematical.

Here is what I came up with:

Radiance – amount of light emitted from a surface
Irradiance – amount of light incident on a surface”

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

TSI = Total Solar Irradiance = wattage recived at TOA (is my understanding).

From NGDC:

Total solar irradiance describes the radiant energy emitted by the sun over all wavelengths that falls each second on 1 square meter outside the earth’s atmosphere–a quantity proportional to the “solar constant” observed earlier in this century. It measures the solar energy flux in Watts/square meter. The data contains six sets of satellite observations: values from NIMBUS-7, from the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) spacecraft, from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), from the NOAA-9 and 10 platforms, and from the Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite (UARS).

“Can someone please give me a basic (working) , non mathematical,
but it is difficult for me to tell when to use one term and when to
use the other. I need this for an artistic graphical application not
something scientific or mathematical.

Here is what I came up with:

Radiance – amount of light emitted from a surface
Irradiance – amount of light incident on a surface”

• Anonymous

So, constancy of total solar radiance (at top of atmosphere) has nothing to do with whether temperature changes are due to changes in cosmic ray flux, producing changes in total solar irradiance (sunlight hitting the surface), via changes in low cloud cover.

After all, modulation of CRF is largely from magnetic field variation, from both the sun and the earth. These magnetic fields can an do vary considerably in strength and direction, as they are formed by rolling bands of matter inside rotating bodies, with complex and complicated feedbacks.

Variation in TSI just adds a bit more variation, to a sun which is already more variable in other climate affecting ways.

So, constancy of total solar radiance (at top of atmosphere) has nothing to do with whether temperature changes are due to changes in cosmic ray flux, producing changes in total solar irradiance (sunlight hitting the surface), via changes in low cloud cover.

After all, modulation of CRF is largely from magnetic field variation, from both the sun and the earth. These magnetic fields can an do vary considerably in strength and direction, as they are formed by rolling bands of matter inside rotating bodies, with complex and complicated feedbacks.

Variation in TSI just adds a bit more variation, to a sun which is already more variable in other climate affecting ways.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Yep, but consider where we started this thread – back at David Archibald’s graph etc.

Since then we have had to repeatedly read Nick Stokes carrying on about “I agree with Leif. DA has just taken a plot of 10Be concentrations, spotted a downslope, and written on the graph that this represents decreasing GCR. And that’s misleading.” The whole thrust of Nick’s post was that David Archibald was indulging himself (on WUWT) in shonky science.

Yet now we find that a possible underlying reason for this is that he is in effect supporting his old mate Lief Svalgaaard who apparently, in recent years, has established yet another ‘mini-paradigm’ (‘consensus?) in climate science (was there ever such a malapropism) that TSI varies not one jot at solar minima – or at least not at the Dalton Minimum (and hence by implication not also the Maunder and Sporer Minima which also appeared on DA’s (Juerg Beer’s) graph in WUWT.

A mini-paradigm I might add which is even a source of disagreement between Hansen/GISS and Svalgaard as I showed.

Either Nick didn’t have a clue about this TSI issue (seems unlikely given his intellectual credentials) or he chose not to mention it in his posts.

He can hardly argue it is irrelevant. Is Svalgaard saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Is Nick Stokes saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Or if the Dalton Minimum was not a result of a minimum in TSI yet still existed, what caused it?

Further – if there is no modulation of TSI between solar minima and maxima, is it accepted there still solar modulation of CRF (between solar minima and maxima)?

I have a fairly active funny bone. But in this particular case, I am not particularly amused.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

Yep, but consider where we started this thread – back at David Archibald’s graph etc.

Since then we have had to repeatedly read Nick Stokes carrying on about “I agree with Leif. DA has just taken a plot of 10Be concentrations, spotted a downslope, and written on the graph that this represents decreasing GCR. And thatâ€™s misleading.” The whole thrust of Nick’s post was that David Archibald was indulging himself (on WUWT) in shonky science.

Yet now we find that a possible underlying reason for this is that he is in effect supporting his old mate Lief Svalgaaard who apparently, in recent years, has established yet another ‘mini-paradigm’ (‘consensus?) in climate science (was there ever such a malapropism) that TSI varies not one jot at solar minima – or at least not at the Dalton Minimum (and hence by implication not also the Maunder and Sporer Minima which also appeared on DA’s (Juerg Beer’s) graph in WUWT.

A mini-paradigm I might add which is even a source of disagreement between Hansen/GISS and Svalgaard as I showed.

Either Nick didn’t have a clue about this TSI issue (seems unlikely given his intellectual credentials) or he chose not to mention it in his posts.

He can hardly argue it is irrelevant. Is Svalgaard saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Is Nick Stokes saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Or if the Dalton Minimum was not a result of a minimum in TSI yet still existed, what caused it?

Further – if there is no modulation of TSI between solar minima and maxima, is it accepted there still solar modulation of CRF (between solar minima and maxima)?

I have a fairly active funny bone. But in this particular case, I am not particularly amused.

• Anonymous

Yes, I was just putting myself in the shoes of an average reader, who would find I think confusion between TSI at top of atmosphere, and TSI at bottom of atmosphere. Moreover, there are reasons why 10Be should be better correlated with temperature than with TSI at TOA (if CRF is a proximal cause of temperature change). Its a bit complicated, on entry, but not illogical.

Just trying to keep things clear, that the mini-paradigm that TSI is constant affects the CRF theory of climate change not one jolt. That we need a theory to explain the evidence of changes we have and the CRF fits both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Yes, I was just putting myself in the shoes of an average reader, who would find I think confusion between TSI at top of atmosphere, and TSI at bottom of atmosphere. Moreover, there are reasons why 10Be should be better correlated with temperature than with TSI at TOA (if CRF is a proximal cause of temperature change). Its a bit complicated, on entry, but not illogical.

Just trying to keep things clear, that the mini-paradigm that TSI is constant affects the CRF theory of climate change not one jolt. That we need a theory to explain the evidence of changes we have and the CRF fits both quantitatively and qualitatively.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

What Lief Svalgaard seems to be saying, from my reading (and that includes the most recent stuff he put up on WUWT) is that:

(1) There is no evidence of significant variation in 11 year running mean of TSI going back at least as far as 1700 and hence this includes the Dalton Minimum and arguably part of the Maunder Minimum (Svalgaard and Cliver, 2008).

(2) There is no significant evidence of significant change in the 11 year running mean of Heliospheric Magnetic Field strength (HMF) going back at least as far as 1875 (Svalgaard and Cliver IDV07; Rouillard et al. 2007; LeSager and Svalgaard, 2004).

(3) Consequently all the proxy work by people like McCracken (2007), McCracken and Beer (2007); Lockwood et al. 1999; Krivova et al., 2007, Solanki et al. 2000 etc is erroneous.

(4) Svalgaard points to volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa, Mayon/Tambora and Hekla as likely causes of major ‘errors’ in 10Be proxy derivations of HMF. In a way he seem to be implying that Mayon/Tambora caused the Dalton Minimum and Krakatoa caued the cool speel around 1890. It is a bit hard to discern if he is implying Hekla caused the Maunder Minimum – but I’d say probably yes as Hekla had a major eruption in 1693.

It’s a fairly radical reinterpretation of the Sun’s behaviour and would in effect mean there is no evidence from the ‘likely true’ record of BOTH TSI and HMF (the latter via 10Be and 14 C proxies) for a solar irradiance or even a solar modulation of CRF being the cause of of the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minima.

A possible problem with Svalgaard’s position is that he may not be across all the careful work that has been done on ice core proxies. He is possibly unaware that most cores show somewhere between about 5 and 10 volcanic 10Be spikes per millenium and there is a host of other sensitive proxy parameters for confirming those which have been employed for a decade or more.

In any case it is worth looking at:

just to get some idea of how intense this stuff is. Odds are Nick has been off chatting to Ken McCracken about all this. I sure hope he reports back.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

What Lief Svalgaard seems to be saying, from my reading (and that includes the most recent stuff he put up on WUWT) is that:

(1) There is no evidence of significant variation in 11 year running mean of TSI going back at least as far as 1700 and hence this includes the Dalton Minimum and arguably part of the Maunder Minimum (Svalgaard and Cliver, 2008).

(2) There is no significant evidence of significant change in the 11 year running mean of Heliospheric Magnetic Field strength (HMF) going back at least as far as 1875 (Svalgaard and Cliver IDV07; Rouillard et al. 2007; LeSager and Svalgaard, 2004).

(3) Consequently all the proxy work by people like McCracken (2007), McCracken and Beer (2007); Lockwood et al. 1999; Krivova et al., 2007, Solanki et al. 2000 etc is erroneous.

(4) Svalgaard points to volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa, Mayon/Tambora and Hekla as likely causes of major ‘errors’ in 10Be proxy derivations of HMF. In a way he seem to be implying that Mayon/Tambora caused the Dalton Minimum and Krakatoa caued the cool speel around 1890. It is a bit hard to discern if he is implying Hekla caused the Maunder Minimum – but I’d say probably yes as Hekla had a major eruption in 1693.

It’s a fairly radical reinterpretation of the Sun’s behaviour and would in effect mean there is no evidence from the ‘likely true’ record of BOTH TSI and HMF (the latter via 10Be and 14 C proxies) for a solar irradiance or even a solar modulation of CRF being the cause of of the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minima.

A possible problem with Svalgaard’s position is that he may not be across all the careful work that has been done on ice core proxies. He is possibly unaware that most cores show somewhere between about 5 and 10 volcanic 10Be spikes per millenium and there is a host of other sensitive proxy parameters for confirming those which have been employed for a decade or more.

In any case it is worth looking at:

just to get some idea of how intense this stuff is. Odds are Nick has been off chatting to Ken McCracken about all this. I sure hope he reports back.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

In this context too!

Down

Going down

Ground floor

Basement

Sub basement

Mantle

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

In this context too!

Down

Going down

Ground floor

Basement

Sub basement

Mantle

• jae

Steve Short said:

“He can hardly argue it is irrelevant. Is Svalgaard saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Is Nick Stokes saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Or if the Dalton Minimum was not a result of a minimum in TSI yet still existed, what caused it? ”

Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.

• jae

Steve Short said:

“He can hardly argue it is irrelevant. Is Svalgaard saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Is Nick Stokes saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Or if the Dalton Minimum was not a result of a minimum in TSI yet still existed, what caused it? ”

Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

jae #65

“Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.”

Exactly.

• http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

jae #65

“Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.”

Exactly.

• http://skbkggbltipk.com/ kqvzjxf

• Nightsky1

After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown
factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural
forcing factors,we ran﻿ hundreds of simulations
until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then
averaged.We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize
and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust
prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing ALL of you

• Pingback: strona firmy()

• Pingback: witryna www()

• Pingback: pokazy kulinarne()