36Cl Concentrations from Polar Ice Cores Set New Constraints on the Carrington Event

The Carrington event of 1859 CE is considered as one of the largest geomagnetic storms of the observational era, and often used as a benchmark for a worst-case scenario. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

The significance lies in physics only takes a result seriously when the measurement chain remains robust under scrutiny. Experimental particle physics and precision metrology both operate in regimes where the signal sits far below the background noise, and where systematic uncertainties can mimic new physics if not controlled rigorously. The history of the field contains numerous anomalies that generated theoretical excitement before better data showed them to be artifacts, and it also contains genuine discoveries that were initially dismissed as noise. The difference is almost always resolved by independent replication with different instruments and different systematics. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community. Yet, there exists no robust evidence of an associated solar energetic particle event of a significant magnitude, based on measurements of cosmogenic radionuclides 10Be and 14C.

In this study, we present two 36Cl records from Greenland with 2-year and 4-year resolution from the EGRIP and NGRIP ice-core sites, together with semi-annual 10Be data from. We observe no significant 36Cl concentration increase around 1859 CE in the three records.

This allows us to rule out an extreme solar energetic particle event hitting Earth associated with the Carrington event in terms of fluence above 30 MeV. Based on these ice core 36Cl measurements, we can suggest two scenarios: i) a soft SEP event with a maximum fluence above 30 MeV up to three times larger than any Space Age event.

The broader interest lies as much in the method as in the headline number, because a durable measurement procedure can travel farther than a single result. When experimental physicists develop a technique that achieves new sensitivity or controls a previously uncharacterized systematic, that methodological contribution persists even if the specific measurement is later revised. This is one reason why precision physics experiments often generate long-term value that is not immediately visible in the original publication.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is more measurement, tighter systematic control and scrutiny from groups whose experimental setups are genuinely independent. In experimental particle physics and precision metrology, the threshold for a discovery claim is a five-sigma excess surviving multiple analyses; an intriguing signal at lower significance is a reason to run more experiments, not a reason to revise the textbooks. Next-generation experiments currently under construction or commissioning will revisit several of the open questions that give the current result its context. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source