Cosmic Ray Flux and Neutron monitors suggest we may not have hit solar minimum yet

There’s some interesting information of the six month trend of neutrons being detected globally that I want to bring to discussion, but first I thought that a primer on cosmic rays, neutrons, and their interaction with the atmosphere might be helpful to the many layman readers here. – Anthony

This illustration shows the shower of particles produced when Earth's atmosphere is struck by ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (the most energetic particles known in the universe).
The shower of particles produced when Earth's atmosphere is struck by ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (the most energetic particles known in the universe). Source: Simon Swordy/University of Chicago, NASA

Cosmic rays are energetic particles that originate in space and our sun and collide with particles as they zip through our atmosphere.  While they come from all directions in space, and the origination of many of these cosmic rays is unknown, they has recently been shown that a larger percentage emanate from specific deep space sources.  Cosmic rays were originally discovered because of the ionization they produce in our atmosphere. They  cause ionization trails in the atmosphere much like you see in a simple science project called a cloud chamber, shown below:

Using the Wilson cloud chamber, in 1927, Dimitr Skobelzyn photographed the first ghostly tracks left by cosmic rays.

In the past, we have often referred to cosmic rays as “galactic cosmic rays” or GCR’s, because we did not know where they originated. Now scientists have determined that the sun discharges a significant amount of these high-energy particles. “Solar Cosmic Rays” (SCR’s – cosmic rays from the sun) originate in the sun’s chromosphere. Most solar cosmic ray events correlate relatively well with solar flares. However, they tend to be at much lower energies than their galactic cousins.

Because Earth’s atmosphere also reacts much like the ionization trail effect seen in the Wilson cloud chamber, scientists such as Svensmark have postulated that galactic cosmic rays can affect the earth by causing changes in weather and possibly long term climate. Moving at close to the speed of light, these nuclear fragments smash into air molecules hard enough to knock electrons loose. This well-documented process creates negatively and positively chargedions.

Like the cloud trails seen in the Wilson cloud chamber, cosmic ray ionization trails in our atmosphere can act as cloud seeds. Some studies suggest that ions play a central role in creating aerosols. Aerosols are minute but important atmospheric particles that can serve as the cores of growing cloud droplets. Aerosols can cause clouds to form in the upper atmosphere, after the particles collide with other atmospheric particles in the troposphere and conglomerate into larger particles.

Aerosols: Many atmospheric aerosols are liquid droplets containing dissolved sea salt from sea spray, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), organic molecules from trees and plants, and other compounds. Over agricultural and urban areas, dust and soot are common aerosols  Soot particles emanate from incomplete combustion of fuels such coal, wood, oil, jet fuel, and kerosene. Soot consists chiefly of amorphous carbon and tar like substances that cause it to adhere to surfaces. Both liquid and solid aerosols help clouds develop by encouraging the condensation of water vapor, which does not occur readily without an original seed particle of some sort in the air.

A cosmic ray, especially a high energy one from deep space, can cause an entire family tree of smaller particles and ionization trails. See this animation below created by the Cosmus group at the University of Chicago.

The process of a cosmic ray particle colliding with particles in our atmosphere and disintegrating into smaller pions, muons, and the like, is called a cosmic ray shower. These particles can be measured on the Earth’s surface by neutron monitors.

cosmic ray shower icon

Click on figure to view a diagram of a cosmic ray shower

Neutron Monitors. Ground-based neutron monitors detect variations in the approximately 500 Mev to 20 GeV portion of the primary cosmic ray spectrum.

(Note: 1 Mega electron Volt = 1.60217646 × 10-13 joules)

This class of cosmic ray detector is more sensitive in the approximate 500 Mev to 4 GeV portion of the cosmic ray spectrum than are cosmic ray muon detectors. The portion of the cosmic ray spectrum that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere is controlled by the geomagnetic cutoff which varies from a minimum (theoretically zero) at the magnetic poles to a vertical cosmic ray cutoff of about 15 GV (ranging from 13 to 17) in the equatorial regions. (Note: GV is a unit of magnetic rigidity. Magnetic rigidity is a particle’s momentum per unit charge. It is the relevant quantity for characterizing a cosmic ray’s ability to penetrate Earth’s magnetic field.).

The primary cosmic ray particles interact with the atmosphere and generate secondaries, some of which will reach the surface of the Earth.

When the secondary cosmic rays interact in the monitor, (actually in lead surrounding the counters) they cause nuclear disintegrations, or “stars”. These stars are composed of charged fragments and neutrons typically in the energy range of tens to hundreds of MeV (million electron-volts), even up to GeV energies. As a result of these high energy nuclear interactions, there will be more secondary fragments generated than incident particles and hence there is a multiplier effect for the counters. The neutrons are moderated and then counted using Boron tri-fluoride (BF3) proportional counters which are efficient thermal neutron detectors; hence the name neutron monitor.

The original design by Simpson is often designated as an IGY neutron monitor. From that link:

John A. Simpson, at the University of Chicago, invented and developed the neutron monitor over the years 1948-50 and found that the Earth’s magnetic field could be used as a spectrometer to allow measurements of the cosmic ray spectrum down to low primary energies. The magnetic latitude of a particular neutron monitor determines the lowest magnetic rigidity of a primary that can reach the monitor, the so-called “cut-off rigidity”. The station’s altitude determines the amount of absorbing atmosphere above the station and hence the amount of absorption of the secondary cosmic rays (the higher the station, the higher the counting rate). By using a combination of lead (to produce local interactions), paraffin or polyethylene (to moderate or slow down the neutron component) and multiple slow-neutron counters, Simpson greatly increased the counting rate in his monitor design.

The worldwide network neutron monitors that have since been established gather data that have shown there is a correlation between periodic solar activity and the earthly neutron count. For example:

Climax corrected neutron monitor values

This plot shows data from the Climax, Colorado neutron monitor operated by the University of Chicago. The cosmic rays show an inverse relationship to the sunspot cycle because Sun’s magnetic field is stronger during sunspot maximum and shields the Earth from cosmic rays.

Right now we are near the solar minimum, but neutron counts are still increasing. The current science says that if we had passed solar minimum, neutron counts should be decreasing.

Michael Roynane writes today:

The Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware manages five real-time neutron monitors, at widely dispersed locations, all of which indicate that over the last six months cosmic rays are increasing. This would not support the hypothesis that we are past solar minimum and suggests that solar minimum has not yet been reached.

Links to the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware:

http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/

http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/main.html#stations

Newark, DE Neutron Monitor

[image]

McMurdo Neutron Monitor

[image]

Thule Neutron Monitor

[image]

Fort Smith Neutron Monitor

[image]

Inuvik Neutron Monitor

[image]

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

194 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 15, 2009 8:48 am

Is this statement correct?
“Right now we are near the solar minimum, but neutron counts are still increasing. The current science says that if we had passed solar minimum, neutron counts should be increasing.”
As I read it, it implies that we are past minimum. Should the last word in the quoted text be “decreasing” instead of “increasing?”
REPLY: Fixed thanks. – Anthony

Bob Montle
March 15, 2009 8:48 am

“Right now we are near the solar minimum, but neutron counts are still increasing. The current science says that if we had passed solar minimum, neutron counts should be increasing.”
Some might be confused here although most will know that you meant ‘decreasing’.
REPLY: Fixed thanks. – Anthony

Jeremy
March 15, 2009 8:56 am

[quote] Right now we are near the solar minimum, but neutron counts are still increasing. The current science says that if we had passed solar minimum, neutron counts should be increasing. [/quote]
Don’t you intend to say “neutron counts should be decreasing”?
FIXED: Note previous comments – REFRESH THE PAGE PLEASE

March 15, 2009 8:57 am

The cosmic modulation has a time shift of 6-12 months with respect to solar activity. This is because it takes the solar wind that long to fill the heliosphere [ 100 AU * 4 days per AU ], so if solar ‘minimum’ were 6 months ago, we should only begin to see a decrease in CRs about now or in the next few months.
CR intensity at a given station depends on many things: atmospheric pressure, stratospheric temperature, geomagnetic field ans its variation, even snow on the roof, so different stations see slightly different CR counts as is illustrated by the differences between the various plots referred to. Here is one of my plots that show three stations [Thule, Oulu, and Moscow] that have long -term records; the last year is shown [counts normalized to Thule]: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Oulu-Moscow.png

Dan
March 15, 2009 9:03 am

The cosmic rays of interest in the Svensmark idea are the GCRs, not the SCRs. GCRs decrease during solar maximum while SCRs increase. However, GCRs are more penetrating and thus able to ionize the air just above earth’s surface. This near-surface ionization is hypothesized to increase the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in clean maritime regions where the natural background CCN concentrations are very small. By boosting CCN concentrations, reslutant clouds consist of more and smaller droplets that give the clouds longer persistence and a higher albedo that increase the shielding of downwelling solar radiation. The result of this process is to cool the ocean surface.

March 15, 2009 9:10 am

Dan (09:03:05) :
The cosmic rays of interest in the Svensmark idea are the GCRs, not the SCRs. GCRs decrease during solar maximum while SCRs increase.
Almost all cosmic rays we observe are GCRs, not SCRs. The plots shown are of GCRs. SCRs are very rare: in ~60 years of monitoring only about 60 SCR-events have penetrated deep into the atmosphere.

Pamela Gray
March 15, 2009 9:11 am

In your above post, I think that you meant to say that if minimum had passed cosmic ray count would be decreasing. I am also wondering why it seems to me that three of the graphs look like a pause and even downward trend is evident with two graphs continuing to show an upward tread. However, an eyeball trend could be nothing more than a pause along the way up. So I am just trying to see the graphs the way they are right now and have no idea if counts will continue up, or down. There are so few measuring stations given here it is hard to come to a conclusion. I am wondering if location explains the varying data traces? If so, the end trace could also be affected?
REPLY: I fixed that within about 5 minutes of posting, several commenters also spotted it. Please refresh the page.- Anthony

Tim L
March 15, 2009 9:16 am

The cosmic modulation has a time shift of 6-12 months with respect to solar activity.
So we have 6-12 months after the first sign of real spots? maybe june of 2010?
uhmm

Pamela Gray
March 15, 2009 9:21 am

Anthony, just so you know, when I started writing my comment there were no other comments entered yet. I knew what you meant to say and I was more interested in the different trends seen in the graphs. Sorry if I sounded like an echo, but honestly, there were no other comments posted yet.

Pamela Gray
March 15, 2009 9:24 am

And thanks Leif for the quick review of site issues. If there is one thing we know about here, it is snow on the roof of measuring stations.

Pierre Gosselin
March 15, 2009 9:28 am

Wow!
Thanks for the highly interesting and informative chapter on
Cosmic Ray Flux.
With every additional passing month of solar pacifism, the closer we get to the brink of another Dalton Minimum – or worse.

March 15, 2009 9:28 am

Tim L (09:16:33) :
So we have 6-12 months after the first sign of real spots? maybe june of 2010?
uhmm

No, the statistical minimum will be 6-12 months before the CR downturn.
Pamela Gray (09:11:46) :
There are so few measuring stations given here it is hard to come to a conclusion. I am wondering if location explains the varying data traces? If so, the end trace could also be affected?
There is about a 100 observing stations, and they all show slightly varying data [see my post above on that]. People tend to pick a few from that bunch that seems to support their pet opinion. Overall, the picture right now is that the increase has halted and a decrease has started or is imminent [the peaks for odd-even minima tend to be very sharp].

Benjamin P.
March 15, 2009 9:38 am

This cosmic ray cloud seeding stuff is some new stuff to me. Does anyone have some links to some resources? I am curious about how great an effect this has on cloud formation and the types of increases it can cause on total earth cover, things like that.
I looked on the resource page but did not find exactly what I was looking for, and perhaps, exactly what I am looking for is not out there.

Frederick Michael
March 15, 2009 9:46 am

Interesting — yet another time lag between the sunspot minimum and global temp effects. I wonder when we’ll see clouds ameliorate the summer melting of arctic sea ice. Last year’s recovery was minimal; this year’s is an important data point. Significant recovery would be a stake through the heart of the AGW preachers.
Does it make any sense to watch the weather forecast for Barrow, AK? The next 10 days show a lot of clouds, but there’s no standard of comparison. Also, the clouds noted in the forecast might not be the ones that matter.

Robert Bateman
March 15, 2009 9:51 am

I have looked over as many as allow more than 6 mos worth of data (the neutron monitors). I continue to see the uptrend, with some momentary sawtooths dips on the way up.
Since there seems to be a concensus on 6-12 months lag, and given the poor showing of SC24 spots vs SC23 spots, adding in the recent downturn of solar flux, I would then give 6-12 months before GCR graphs show the downramp.
In short, due to the horrific lack of spots, I am going to rely on the flux as my guide.
A very good site is Northwest Research Assoc. Tuc. AZ
http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/ssne-year.html
They do an effective sunspot based on the flux.
I find it very helpful and insightful work they do there.
Where else can you see the solar activity that is submerged?

Carbone
March 15, 2009 9:53 am

Leif Svalgaard:
“There is about a 100 observing stations, and they all show slightly varying data…”
Where can I find them?
Thanks.

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 15, 2009 9:58 am

Svensmark hypothesis is that increased CRF will lead to an increase in cloud formation and therefore change the Earth’s albedo. There is now evidence being collected that the albedo has increased by about 1% since its minimum value in 1998-2000. Re: the “Earthshine Project”:
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
A 1% increase would correspond to a decrease of about 14W/msq in the solar forcing, about 3 times the forcing attributed to greenhouse gasses (5W/msq). More than sufficient to explain the recent cooling trend. Conclusion: changes in temperature are dominated by clouds, not by greenhouse gasses.
The question remains, of course, whether the change in albedo is indeed caused by the high CRF, but here the beauty of Svensmark’s work is that it can be tested in the lab. Perhaps he is on the road to a Nobel Prize for himself, a real one, I mean, the one for physics. Good luck to him is what I say.

Robert Bateman
March 15, 2009 9:58 am

Leif and I disagree on the question of whether GCR’s are uptrending or turning down. We just see it differently.
I see several magnitudes of imbedded trending in GCR graphs. Zoom in to hourly over 6 mos and you get one picture. Zoom out to 1 solar cycle for daily and you get another. Zoom out to several solar cycles for monthly and you get the overall shape of the alternating sharp peaks/gentle mesas.
What is really needed is a monster graph of hourly over a full solar cycle.
That’s where the picture of where we are in terms of trendup vs downramp will be found.

March 15, 2009 10:02 am

Robert Bateman (09:51:32) :
adding in the recent downturn of solar flux, I would then give 6-12 months before GCR graphs show the downramp.
In short, due to the horrific lack of spots, I am going to rely on the flux as my guide.
A very good site is Northwest Research Assoc. Tuc. AZ
http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/ssne-year.html

The solar f10.7 flux has been going up since last August. You can see that here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png and on the plot at the NWRA you just referred to.

Pamela Gray
March 15, 2009 10:11 am

Leif, I can’t find where I read about why cosmic ray measures during minimum vacillate between flat and sharp. I did an internet search of my question and got nothin. I am going to show my ignorance here but it would seem related to the magnetic polarity switch in sunspots every other cycle, leading to a vacillating weakened magnetic field every other minimum? Just show me where to read.

March 15, 2009 10:50 am

Robert Bateman (09:58:56) :
What is really needed is a monster graph of hourly over a full solar cycle.
Hourly values are not the best for this as there is a clear daily variation on CRs that has nothing to do with the Sun, but with the fact that the Earth is rotating. Daily values filters out that ‘noise’ are what carry the information. Here are daily values for the past three ‘peaks’ from Moscow:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux2.png
Pamela Gray (10:11:06) :
Leif, I can’t find where I read about why cosmic ray measures during minimum vacillate between flat and sharp.
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_1/duldig/paper/node5.html

Robert Bateman
March 15, 2009 10:54 am

And the Solar Flux has a lag time too. I cannot tell you why, but it lagged by roughly the same amount in 2008 before it turned down.
I can just barely make it out in 1953-4.
If you took all the fragments of bottomed out solar flux from records and stitched them together, you might be surprised to find 2008-9 staring back at you.
In about 10 minutes, the F10.7 from Penticon will be in. Expecting on the low side of 68 rounded (68.0 – 68.4) and 67 corrected.
It’s crested, flatlined, and much easier to spot due to lack of noise than 2008.
There are some benefits to lackluster Solar activity, this would be an ingnominous one.

Michael Ronayne
March 15, 2009 10:55 am

Dr. Svalgaard,
I have serious reservations pertaining to the quality of data generated by the Moscow Neutron Counter. If you examine the following graph for the last 670 days there appears to be a significant number of gaps in the historic record, unless we are dealing with a computer graphics error.
Moscow Neutron Monitor (for last 670 days)
http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/days.htm
The Oulu and Thule data correlate well but not Moscow’s.
Moscow Neutron Monitor (since late 1950’)
http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/months.htm
The Moscow neutron monitor is showing a long term downward trend, which is not present in any other neutron monitor to which I have access. I frankly find this to be impossible. This could be an adjustment or calibration issue. Your own website shows a comparison between Oulu and Moscow, where the Moscow data is significantly different from the graphic on the Moscow website for their own data.
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux3.png
Your graphic for Thule, Oulu and Moscow, depends very much on how the data is averaged for the points plotted.
http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Oulu-Moscow.png
Here is the adjusted real-time graphic for the last six months for Oulu, which is consistent with the UDEL.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=2008/09/14&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/03/15&endtime=23:59&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on
The six neutron monitoring stations comprising the UDEL and Oulu are showing continuing increase in cosmic ray activity over the last six months. In the last two weeks there has been a drop in cosmic ray activity but such drops and rebounds are found throughout the six month record. I have no explanation for the behavior of the Moscow neutron monitor but would suggest that a quality control review be conducted for that station. As I suggested above, this could also be software issue, which should be included in the quality control review.
Mike

March 15, 2009 11:02 am

Robert Bateman (09:58:56) :
Here are daily values for the past three ‘peaks’ from Moscow:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux2.png

I forgot to add a note about the ‘legs’, or up- and down-ramps. They are not symmetric: the down-ramp is steeper than the up-ramp. This is, of course, because the rise of a solar cycle is steeper than the decline.

TinyCO2
March 15, 2009 11:02 am

The comment by Leif Svalgaard (09:28:59) “the peaks for odd-even minima tend to be very sharp” reminded me of the post – Evidence of a significant solar imprint in annual globally averaged temperature trends part 2. And from there, this-
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/essifigure4.png
The climax neutron record (cosmic ray intensity) is similar to the smoothed HadCRUTv3 (as is the sunspot record as you pointed out at the time). The sharp peaks of the climax neutron chart appear to precede the smaller peaks on the HadCRUTv3 chart and the rounded climax neutron chart peaks precede the higher HadCRUTv3 peaks.
I’m sure I’m seeing patterns where none exist but it’s fascinating anyway, thanks for the very interesting posts!

1 2 3 8