A solar super‐flare as cause for the <sup>14</sup>C variation in AD 774/5?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present further considerations regarding the strong 14C variation in AD 774/5. For its cause, either a solar super‐flare or a short gamma‐ray burst were suggested. We show that all kinds of stellar or neutron star flares would be too weak for the observed energy input at Earth in AD 774/5. Even though Maehara et al. (2012) present two super‐flares with ∼1035 erg of presumably solar‐type stars, we would like to caution: These two stars are poorly studied and may well be close binaries, and/or having a M‐type dwarf companion, and/or may be much younger and/or much more magnetic than the Sun – in any such case, they might not be true solar analog stars. From the frequency of large stellar flares averaged over all stellar activity phases (maybe obtained only during grand activity maxima), one can derive (a limit of) the probability for a large solar flare at a random time of normal activity: We find the probability for one flare within 3000 years to be possibly as low as 0.3 to 0.008 considering the full 1σ error range. Given the energy estimate in Miyake et al. (2012) for the AD 774/5 event, it would need to be ∼2000 stronger than the Carrington event as solar super‐flare. If the AD 774/5 event as solar flare would be beamed (to an angle of only ∼24°), 100 times lower energy would be needed. A new AD 774/5 energy estimate by Usoskin et al. (2013) with a different carbon cycle model, yielding 4 ot 6 time lower 14C production, predicts 4–6 times less energy. If both reductions are applied, the AD 774/5 event would need to be only ∼4 times stronger than the Carrington event in 1859 (if both had similar spectra). However, neither 14C nor 10Be peaks were found around AD 1859. Hence, the AD 774/5 event (as solar flare) either was not beamed that strongly, and/or it would have been much more than 4‐6 times stronger than Carrington, and/or the lower energy estimate (Usoskin et al. 2013) is not correct, and/or such solar flares cannot form (enough) 14C and 10Be. The 1956 solar energetic particle event was followed by a small decrease in directly observed cosmic rays. We conclude that large solar super‐flares remain very unlikely as the cause for the 14C increase in AD 774/5. (© 2014 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".