The role of solar forcing upon climate change

Evidence for millennial-scale climate changes during the last 60,000 years has been found in Greenland ice cores and North Atlantic ocean cores. Until now, the cause of these climate changes remained a matter of debate. We argue that variations in solar activity may have played a significant role in forcing these climate changes. We review the coincidence of variations in cosmogenic isotopes (14C and 10Be) with climate changes during the Holocene and the upper part of the last Glacial, and present two possible mechanisms (involving the role of solar UV variations and solar wind/cosmic rays) that may explain how small variations in solar activity are amplified to cause significant climate changes. Accepting the idea of solar forcing of Holocene and Glacial 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.

A tree-ring and C-14 chronology of the key Sayan-Altai monuments

We present a radiocarbon chronology of key Sayan-Altai monuments from the Scythian period, based on a statistical analysis of dates produced in the 1980s and now supplemented with new dates. These new C-14 dates were produced for samples from the Tuekta-1 barrows (burial mounds) and were measured both in St. Petersburg and Groningen. These tree-ring samples were fitted to the calibration curve. Chronologies were established for the Arzhan, Tuekta-1 and Pazyryk-5 barrows. The time of the construction of the Arzhan and Pazyryk-5 barrows is the 9th and late 5th-4th centuries BC, respectively, and agrees with archaeology. According to new data obtained, the time of the Tuekta-1 barrow construction is some years older than has been accepted thus far by archaeologists.</p

Reply to S Riehl and K Pustovoytov (Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 143-144)

We appreciate the interest of Simone Riehl and Konstantin Pustovoytov (hereafter R&P) in our publication and here we answer their critical remarks and questions. R&P criticise two aspects: (1) our interpretation of the pollen record from Kutuzhekovo Lake and (2) the information we derived from the St. Petersburg radiocarbon database. We discuss the questions and we show that these do not really affect our earlier conclusions.