4.6 Article

On the Polar Bias in Ice Core 10Be Data

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022JD038203

关键词

polar bias; ice core; cosmogenic radionuclide; atmospheric mixing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cosmogenic radionuclide records from polar ice cores are used to reconstruct past changes in solar activity, space weather, geomagnetic field, and carbon cycle. The proportionality of the ice core radionuclide records to the global mean production rate changes has been debated. Through atmospheric mixing model experiments and comparison to independent data, it is found that mixing scenarios without complete tropospheric mixing result in a polar bias. A correction function is proposed to restore proportionality to the global mean signal.
Cosmogenic radionuclide records from polar ice cores provide unique insights into past cosmic ray flux variations. They allow reconstructions of past solar activity, space weather, and geomagnetic field changes, and provide insights into past carbon cycle changes. However, all these applications rely on the proportionality of the ice core radionuclide records to the global mean production rate changes. This premise has been long debated from a model and data-perspective. Here, we address this issue through atmospheric mixing model experiments and comparison to independent data. We find that all mixing scenarios, which do not assume complete tropospheric mixing, result in a polar bias. This bias is more prominent for geomagnetic field changes than solar modulation changes. The most likely scenario, supported by independent geomagnetic field records and marine Be-10 during the Laschamps geomagnetic field minimum, results in a dampening of geomagnetic field induced changes by 23%-37% and an enhancement of solar-induced changes by 7%-8%. During the Holocene, we do not find conclusive evidence for a polar bias. We propose a correction function that allows deconvolving the glacial ice core record in order to restore proportionality to the global mean signal.

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

4.6
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