Cosmic Rays, Be10 and Ice Cores

Posted: March 22, 2011 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Galactic_cosmic_rays

Levels of GCRs have been indirectly recorded by their influence on the production of carbon-14 and beryllium-10. The Hallstatt solar cycle length of approximately 2300 years is reflected by climatic Dansgaard-Oeschger events. The 80–90 year solar Gleissberg cycles appear to vary in length depending upon the lengths of the concurrent 11 year solar cycles, and there also appear to be similar climate patterns occurring on this time scale.

Discuss. 🙂

Comments
  1. Tenuc says:

    As I understand it there is doubt, even amongst the mainstream, on how useful Be10 and C14 proxies are, regarding cosmic rays, solar activity or Earth climate.

    Here’s a quote from a WUWT post on the topic from Leif Svalgaard…

    “The use of 10Be and 14C proxies is fraught with pitfalls. The production rate may be set by solar activity [the current paradigm says the Heliomagnetic Field. HMF], but the deposition rate in the ice and wood depends on terrestrial factors, climate, geomagnetic field, and volcanic eruptions [as 10Be attaches to aerosols]. Beer and McCracken have in two recent papers [see references in links below] attempted to reconstruct the ‘equivalent’ Climax Neutron Monitor count from the 10Be data and from that the driving HMF.

    We have looked carefully at their reconstruction and are in the process of submitting a paper addressing serious issues we see with their result. a preliminary report was presented at last year’s SORCE meeting in Santa Fe: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf with some background information in http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf

    The issues are complex and will often be too involved for people to take the time to study and understand them. This fact is vigorously exploited by people with agendas, by serving up simplified [sometimes even wrong or deceptive; allowed according to Gore to get the important point across and save the planet – the end justifying the means] and misleading graphs [hockey sticks and ice cores].

    So, I’ll be equally simplistic [as the details have been discussed in full already on this blog] and just point out a few items of interest:
    1) It has been trumpeted with great fanfare that the solar wind is the weakest ever observed. The fact is that the solar wind [and the HMF] now is what ir was 108 years ago, so shouldn’t the curve on Figure 1 go back up to where it was 108 years ago? This has conveniently been left out.
    2) The major peaks in the 10Be record are mainly due to strong volcanic eruptions. The aerosols produced scour the stratosphere clean of 10Be and increases the deposition rate. Volcanic eruptions also produce cooling, of course, so that will help the correlation.
    3) The Ap-index being the lowest ever is due to erroneous data from the SWPC. This has been pointed out here already… Correct geomagnetic activity is known back to the 1840s [ http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-SPRG-2008.pdf ]…”

    I wonder how much ‘confirmation bias’ is present in the various very long term, heavily smoothed records?

  2. Tim Channon says:

    Perhaps this is elliptic.

    The day the solar wind vanished turns out to hit a strange point in the Chandler wobble as though a phase change just happens to occur at that time.

    A few days ago I noticed that wind cessation hits a flat in the polar current sheet on zero crossing. Solar images seem to show a blank region and that facing the earth was probably to do with it.

    Isn’t the real problem one of unravelling why there are clear cyclic effects in the behaviour of objects which behave cyclically as orbits must.

    None of it seems to match. The whole thing is out of flunter.

    If we carry on the train from there it goes into de vries spectra to do with long period paleo data. Nothing is clear.

    At the back of my mind are a number of snippets which might warrant looking at in this context.

    For example the generally dismissed idea of the golden ratio yet there is a solid foundation to thinking it might be involved. Physical systems which are clearly stable minimise/maximise energy (depends on which way you look at it) where the compromise often chosen by nature is variants on the golden ratio.
    (omitting to mention the names of the people past who talked about this, if I do I will make a mistake of omission)

    There is also the matter of the soliton wave and related hyperbolics etc. These are common and important in nature, the subject of intense research with not so many answers.

    A posit is scullling around that the sun is in orbit around another body, is actually travelling through space in a curve, not the assumed straight line. This is mostly taken as a crazy notion but that doesn’t matter, is there room for it to be true?

  3. lgl says:

    Tenuc.

    Steinhilbers TSI recon. is based mostly on 10Be and it equals the smoothed SSN so the only problem here is Leifs ‘constant sun bias’

  4. @Tenuc, Tim et al.:
    Once again, the members of the Magister Ludi´s (Rog´s) Academy seem to have found the truth, and we should find the real cycles, because, up to now, those proxies seem lost in the waves of randomness, as it would be to study proxies within a hundred thousand years in the ice formed above the Fukushima plant.

  5. Gray says:

    Maybe volcanic activity accompanies solar lows?

  6. @Tim Channon: For example the generally dismissed idea of the golden ratio yet there is a solid foundation to thinking it might be involved
    See this marvelous fresco:

    See the trangles above, above the river of time, how they keep the same four steps, the same square angle, the same phase angle (that of magnetism/electricity, of course), while the serpent, as the resultant force of those triangles, change, taking several positions of a developing spiral.
    The waves, below, reaffirm, what many here teach us every time: Cycles; and, at the center, the painter perhaps wanted to show us all the solar system.
    (The Moche culture, that developed at the north part of Peru, SA, used as sun observatory/gnomon, a four stepped mud brick ladder)

  7. Tim Channon says:

    Gray, I don’t expect a connection. Volcano are pretty much irrelevant relative to the scale of effect the sun could and orbital variations do bring.

    In far history there have been volcanic times and a few massive events. We do not live in the former and the latter is of no interest, if it happens that is the least of our worries.

  8. Roger Andrews says:

    Gray:

    In the Casey thread of March 12th there’s a graph of eruptions vs solar going back to 1600. It shows no obvious correlations.

  9. Zeke the Sneak says:

    I think it is interesting that all of the ice cores are actually studies of “recrystalized” ice. So the ice crystals are aligned with one another; however, when snow and ice crystals fall, they fall randomly.

    ref: http://epic.awi.de/Publications/BerPolarforsch1996205.pdf

  10. Gray says:

    It’s an open question whether volcanic activity accompanies solar lows. From the Goddard Institute (NASA) research by Richard Stothers has found that historic large volcanic eruptions also occurred at low sunspot frequencies.

  11. Tim Channon says:

    With the implication volcanoes affect the earth not solar activity.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=st01910m
    I comment, the abstract is junkspeak, pr not science.

    Of more interest is this, with pdf.
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=st05610w
    Seems to say theoretically and that the data does not disagree.

    Plenty more
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/rstothers.html

  12. vukcevic says:

    On one or two previous occasions I have expressed reservations when 10Be proxies are concerned. Some time ago I wrote my observations: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm
    Only this morning L.S. made his views known on WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/23/new-paleo-paper-shows-solar-impact-on-past-temperatures/#comment-627616

  13. Tim Channon says:

    Not sure I want to go there at the moment V.
    We probably agree.

  14. Tenuc says:

    Am I wrong, or does LS seem to be suffering from some sort of academic schizophrenia regarding Be10 data? On the one hand he seems to use it in is own efforts to show the paleo solar constant is ~constant; whilest on the other he denies it is useful in showing a solar link to climate. Time for me to visit confused.com perhaps?

  15. Tim Channon says:

    Can we all please stop denigrating outsiders, stop the politics.

    Leif is the only mainstream solar scientist who bothers communicating and also answers emails promptly. That is not a rat. Can any of us claim to be beyond criticism or perfect?
    That means you the reader.

    I include myself.

    LETS GET THIS THREAD BACK ON TRACK

  16. Tim Channon says:

    QUESTION

    Tallbloke says “he 80–90 year solar Gleissberg cycles appear to vary in length depending upon the lengths of the concurrent 11 year solar cycles,…”

    So far as I know the only precise knowledge of the length of the G. cycle comes from ephemeris.

    Is ephemeris accurate enough over a long time period?

  17. I think what you will find is that the inner planets are gravitationally centered on the sun so the 17.95 year 6558 day cyclic modulation of the inner planets, is one tenth as long as the outer planet 179.5 year period, I believe Rog mentioned that this is only 120 degrees of a procession of the Uranus/Neptune synod and three cycles of 179.5 years=~538.5 years to get back to the same position on the star field? That is only by using a calculator, an actual ephemeris will cut the dates differently and closer to the actual cyclic time of occurrence.

    In the overall I think you will find some repeating cycle in that time range, that will have potential to forecast climate shifts, when they are considered along with the shorter cycles they are composed of. The perihelion times of the outer planets will need to be considered as to their interactive harmonics as well, if Rog’s latest ideas are on target. Which seems to be as at this time the solar wind speed and density are still going lower.

  18. vukcevic says:

    Richard
    One of three equations I formulated some 8 years ego, shows various anomalies that interrupt smooth progress of the solar cycles. Its envelope period is ~ 540. Timings of the anomalies are identified by zero crossings, i.e. when two components are of equal intensity but with opposite sign.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

  19. @Vuk: Those waves you describe, though caused by the interaction between the fields of planets and the sun, could it be considered, along a long span of time, as an oscillatory AC current?

  20. Tim Channon says:

    Some of the ephemeris are supposed to be valid for +-3ky which might be enough to get a rough result.

    I’ve been very busy developing out a new part of the software. This is basically done and right now I am chasing down a mistake in the existing code for a relatively exotic facility.

    The new output format needs user friendliness input from others, be a compromise. Looking at the long term patterns in the orbital data is a good candidate. I’ve fleshed out export in xlst (widely portable excel 2003) spreadsheet format. I’ve accepted import relocation is impractical (can move once imported) but that means it can now be in Normal form as well as stressing spreadsheet software far less. Normal form also means it is interactive live.

  21. Tim Channon says:

    A spot of fun.

    Crunched out _annual_ solar barycentre distance from ephemeris de406 which is supposed to be valid -3000 bce to 3000 ce

    Did a simple 16 component analysis and where the terms looked planet, turned those into orbital, not that it made any difference. I then added one very long period term by hand to see what happened. It weakly accepted it but could not be persuaded to take shorter.

    Opened the xlst using gnumeric (simply to be cussed, package is here) and exported as xls, because wordpress free account will allow that filetype.

    http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/bary-3k-3k.xls

    This will do as a first demo.
    It will take a little while to get your head around what it is.

    You can edit the items in row marked -edit- and the effect will appear in the result. I need to mark the unused generator rows as not used or somesuch.

    The most useful in this case will be origin, fs and enables.

    No 179.5 year period. Disappointed?
    Wanna see it?

    For easy display, change origin to zero so that you can count from zero.

    Copy/fill the last formula row down to row 961 or so.

    XY plot the first two columns. Voila!
    No?

    Okay, turn the enable for generator zero to zero.

    Or is it? Your guess is as good as mine.

    Now wipe out all the enables except for generator 1 and 2.
    Looks like beating of 12 and 13 year.

    Okay, lets do something else.

    Change origin to 1900 and fs to 6.
    That is year 1900 and an output point every 2 months. (note I might have the date origin slightly wrong, unimportant)

    You could turn off 1 and 2 and enable the 60 year, an infamous supposed period. This software is phase accurate.

    A very interesting experiment I did earlier and I expect is first time ever was apply a 6dB octave slope to the terms. The result is very curious…
    I guess this could be done via DFT, change factors and inverse DFT.
    In this case amplitude = old amplitude/frequency, can be done by some copy paste.

    Be careful about the validity of what you do, this is bleeding edge stuff and hole in foot is very close. An awful lot needs explaining.

    There ia lot of investigating of various data to be done.

  22. Tenuc says:

    Thanks for your efforts Tim, I’ll have a look at your spreadsheet when I get time.

    Interesting article here on the effects of deterministic chaos on planetary orbits which show Mercury as having the most variance. If it turns out that both EM and gravity changes can effect the suns behaviour, perhaps Mercury could be having an effect disproportionate to its size???

    “…Although the numerical simulations all indicate chaos in planetary orbits, in a qualitative sense the planetary orbits are stable—because the planets remain near their present orbits—over the lifetime of the sun. However, the presence of chaos implies that there is a finite limit to how accurately the positions of the planets can be predicted over long times.

    Of all of the planets, Mercury’s orbit appears to exhibit changes of the largest magnitude in orbital eccentricity and inclination. Fortunately, this is not fatal to the global stability of the whole planetary system owing to the small mass of Mercury. Changes in the orbit of the Earth, which can have potentially large effects on its surface climate system through solar insolation variation, are found also to be small…”

    Full article here…

    http://www.pnas.org/content/98/22/12342.full

  23. Michele says:

    OT

    Interplanetary Magnetic Field Data vs AO (Arctic Oscillation)

    http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=13899

    Bye

  24. David says:

    Tim Channon says:
    March 22, 2011 at 6:32 pm
    Perhaps this is elliptic.

    …”A posit is scullling around that the sun is in orbit around another body, is actually travelling through space in a curve, not the assumed straight line. This is mostly taken as a crazy notion but that doesn’t matter, is there room for it to be true?”

    Tim, I know little about celestial mechanics, but you can check this theory out for yourself here. It is probably worth the read. http://binaryresearchinstitute.org/

  25. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Our galaxy is a composite of several galaxies. There is conservation of motion in that the movements of the materials of the original galaxies orbits is preserved. There are wheels within wheels. Orbits within orbits of the stars that flow around the great wheel of the Milky Way Galaxy. 😎 pg

  26. Tenuc says:

    P.G. Sharrow says:
    April 9, 2011 at 5:03 am
    “…orbits of the stars that flow around the great wheel of the Milky Way Galaxy. 😎 pg

    Yes PG, and modern man has the hubris to believe that he invented space travel!!!

  27. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Richard Holle says:
    March 26, 2011 at 6:03 am

    “I think what you will find is that the inner planets are gravitationally centered on the sun so the 17.95 year 6558 day cyclic modulation of the inner planets, is one tenth as long as the outer planet 179.5 year period, I believe Rog mentioned that this is only 120 degrees of a procession of the Uranus/Neptune synod and three cycles of 179.5 years=~538.5 years to get back to the same position on the star field?”

    I cant see that 17.95yr inferior planet periodicity, got any explanation for that?
    The 179.05yr period I mention gets a bit messy any more than one step, but if you do 3 steps it shifts J, S and N about 90 degrees.

  28. ferd berple says:

    “Leifs ‘constant sun bias’”

    I’m a licensed radio amateur. We rely on atmospheric ionization for HF radio propagation. From observation most HAM operators can tell you there are huge variations in atmospheric ionization levels during the solar cycle, and from cycle to cycle.

    Anyone that tells you the sun is constant is not looking at the wider picture. We know that ionization plays a huge role in ozone and cloud formation, which are important climate drivers. The fact that we see dramatic changes in radio propagation during the solar cycles is clear evidence that the sun’s output varies significantly at ionizing wavelengths.

    We know from Einstein the energy of a photon depends on its wavelength, not its intensity. Thus, the sun’s brightness can remain unchanged, while its energy levels vary greatly due to wavelength shifts.

    It makes no sense to measure the climate effects of the sun at 10.7 cm unless the climate is sensitive to 10.7 cm. Which it is unlikely given that 107 cm is microwaves. A much more meaningful measure of the climate effects of the sun would be to measure solar output UV wavelengths – less than 200 nm – in the range of ionizing radiation.

  29. ferd berple says:

    “Although the numerical simulations all indicate chaos in planetary orbits, in a qualitative sense the planetary orbits are stable—because the planets remain near their present orbits—over the lifetime of the sun”

    The orbits are stabilized through resonance. Otherwise they would be unstable, within the lifetime of the sun. Mercury is an interesting example, showing a 3/2 rotational resonance.

    a key point is that natural systems will always seek this sort of behavior to minimize/maximize energy levels.

    anyone that ever has gone boating has likely seen this. without power, a boat will try and turn broadside to the waves, as it is easier to roll than pitch. if the natural cycle of the roll of the boat happens to co-incide with the period of the waves, this substantially increases the risk of capsize.

  30. Tim Channon says:

    derf,

    I think you are conflating different things.

    The f10.7 and similar are measurements of solar radio noise emission.

    The frequencies are in atmospheric/ionospheric windows.

    It was discovered the noise is a good proxy for sunspot related solar activity. I’ve worded that carefully because it is not a proxy for anything else to do with the sun, of which there is plenty.

    Of course this has nothing to do with earth climate.

    Some believe that sunspot cycles do have an effect and whilst to a small effect that is true it is my opinion the really interesting solar data is elsewhere. Not going to expand on this.