4.8 Article

9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118965109

关键词

cosmogenic radionuclides; cosmic rays; solar modulation

资金

  1. National Centre of Competence in Research climate, Swiss climate research
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [CRSI122-130642]
  3. European Union
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22244061, 23654080] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the temporal variation of cosmic radiation and solar activity during the Holocene is essential for studies of the solar-terrestrial relationship. Cosmic-ray produced radionuclides, such as Be-10 and C-14 which are stored in polar ice cores and tree rings, offer the unique opportunity to reconstruct the history of cosmic radiation and solar activity over many millennia. Although records from different archives basically agree, they also show some deviations during certain periods. So far most reconstructions were based on only one single radionuclide record, which makes detection and correction of these deviations impossible. Here we combine different Be-10 ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica with the global C-14 tree ring record using principal component analysis. This approach is only possible due to a new high-resolution Be-10 record from Dronning Maud Land obtained within the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica in Antarctica. The new cosmic radiation record enables us to derive total solar irradiance, which is then used as a proxy of solar activity to identify the solar imprint in an Asian climate record. Though generally the agreement between solar forcing and Asian climate is good, there are also periods without any coherence, pointing to other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feed-backs. The newly derived records have the potential to improve our understanding of the solar dynamics and to quantify the solar influence on climate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据