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

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.
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:

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
McMurdo Neutron Monitor
Thule Neutron Monitor
Fort Smith Neutron Monitor
Inuvik Neutron Monitor
![[image]](https://i0.wp.com/neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/theplot2.gif?resize=486%2C328)
![[image]](https://i0.wp.com/neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/themcplot2.gif?resize=486%2C328)
![[image]](https://i0.wp.com/neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/thethplot2.gif?resize=486%2C328)
![[image]](https://i0.wp.com/neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/thefsplot2.gif?resize=486%2C328)
![[image]](https://i0.wp.com/neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/theinplot2.gif?resize=486%2C328)
Robert Bateman (10:54:06) :
And the Solar Flux has a lag time too.
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.
Never, EVER, look at the observed flux as a measure of solar activity. ALWAYS use the corrected flux. The corrected flux shows a clear increase since August of last year.
Ed Zuiderwijk @ur momisugly 09:58:09
I’m aware of the Earthshine project but cannot find any other attempts to monitor albedo.
Also, when clouds form, isn’t the latent heat of vaporisation released, thus increasing heat transfer upwards as well as reducing incoming radiation?
References
Veizer & Shaviv 2003 at
http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf
shaviv 2004
http://www.fi.infn.it/conferenze/ecrs2004/Pages/Presentazioni/04%20Shaviv.pdf
google also svensmark henrik cosmic rays
Regards, Allan
Looking at the Canadian DRAO data, it looks like the flux (adjusted) is still flat-lined.
Great link, Leif.
I’m still having a hard time thinking of these energetic beasts “drifting” but then on stellar scales…
I have looked at the corrected flux, Leif. I graphed it Friday night. It shows to me a flatline with a downturn the last month. Neither the dip of August, the statistical within running range rise, nor the statistical within running range downturn is impressive. It’s not going anywhere. I find it easier to look at the uncorreced as it is graphed daily running and mentally adjust. Someone could write a computer program to generate daily the corrected and the 0.9x corrected, if they really feel it will help. I don’t really need it at this point, others may.
The corrected flux has been running in a statistical flatline since Mid-April 2008.
It’s not going anywhere.
I am wondering how closely related are these cosmic rays with terrestrial gamma ray bursts which happen in our own atmosphere. I know they are close cousins to types of lightening call blue sprits, perhaps others.
Anyone one with some links (for us low tech folk). I like the fact that Anthony takes the time to word information for those of us without an advance degree in astromony and related fields. But do give me credit for being curious!
I am a real certified spotter and have on several occasions caught odd cloud formation which can not be explained.
Also is it possible the relation with cosmic rays or TGRB causes some storms to produce outflow gusts and boundaries seen on radar. These usually cause new storms to generate 50-100 miles away from the parent thunderstorm. Seems like a great amount of power is released in the skies overhead.
Michael Ronayne (10:55:40) :
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
These are simple unbiased monthly averages just normalized to have the same mean over the whole interval shown for plotting purposes. I fail too see how that can introduce anything untowards.
It is common practice to blame the data if they don’t fit. Yet Moscow and Oulu have a correlation coefficient of 0.99 for daily values.
In the case of large convective storms like supercell thunderstorms, that would be true, warmmoist air is lifted to the tropopause and frozen over a very short time period, effectively carrying all that stored low level heat to 50-65k ft altitude where it should be easily radiated to space. Simultaneously you get, a large shield of dense cloud formed which shades the ground below the storm.
When storm chasing, you can see this effect is strong enough that the shading effect of a near by thunderstorm drastically cuts ground level heating and can prevent additional nearby storm development due to the drop in solar heat gain. You can go from 80-90 deg F in bright sun to temperatures in the 70’s in a matter of minutes and with cold down drafts from the storm you significantly cool the ground level as all that now cooled water falls back to earth. A large thunderstorm is a very efficient heat pump to move low level heat to high altitudes, and shade hundreds of square miles from direct solar heat gain.
Larry
If you go to the Armargh Observatory pages and search for “Earthshine” you’ll come across a very good powerpoint presentation on the Earth’s albedo and its changes.
http://star.arm.ac.uk/solarphysics.html
Warning: May make Al Gore Warmers sweat a little 🙂
Another warning: The file is 11MBytes, so you might want to download it and look at it off-line.
for veizer shaviv 2003 GSA Today try also
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173(2003)013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
pdf should be at
http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf
This low-tech fella doesn’t see anything to shout about as far as an impending ramp of SC24 goes.
Nothing has changed for almost 1 full year: We hit bottom and have statistically stayed there.
NASA’s new study grant will have something to study when awarded.
Whether that is studying a statistical solar dud or studing the ramp out of Lodi
is not apparent in my crystal ball, but if nothing changes, the former will greet the awardee.
That’s my point here. Nothing is moving.
Robert Wood (11:14:05) :
Looking at the Canadian DRAO data, it looks like the flux (adjusted) is still flat-lined.
Robert Bateman (11:31:57) :
I have looked at the corrected flux, Leif. I graphed it Friday night. It shows to me a flatline with a downturn the last month.
F10.7 flux has two components:
1) contribution from active regions CAR [just made up these acronyms]
2) ‘slowly varying component’ SVC
The SVC comes about simply because electrons as the move in the solar atmosphere are deflected by other charged particles. Each deflection is an acceleration because of the change of direction, and accelerated charged particles radiate. Since the atmosphere is always there, the SVC does not fall to zero at solar minimum, but only to about 65. This number, 65, is not expected to vary in time, and hasn’t from minimum to minimum. But as the chromosphere heats up and become denser as we go towards solar maximum, the SVC will slowly increase.
The CAR comes from sunspots and other magnetic areas and will vary in proportion to those. Now, besides sunspots there are many other much smaller regions that come and go, called Ephemeral Regions. These also vary a bit with the cycle [but less than the big regions].
The combination of SVC and the part of CAR that come from Ephemeral regions will go up slowly as be climb out of the minimum, and will form the bottom ‘envelope’ of a F10.7 graph as I have indicated by black lines on this one: http://www.leif.org/research/F107-minimum.pdf
You can see the climb-out. On top of this bottom envelope there will be the part of CAR that is directly related to the stronger active regions. The green curve at the bottom of the graph shows the sunspot number. You can see the addition to the pink F10.7 whenever the green curve makes a blip. But the important point is that the F10.7 ‘baseline’ [the SVC] is climbing. The TSI which is shown by the blue symbols also follow a similar lower envelope.
Ed Zuiderwijk (09:58:09) :
. . . 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.
Good link. From a paper in their bibliography, we have a graph showing an albedo decline to a sharp trough in 1998, with a rise thereafter.
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2004_Science.pdf
Figure 3 shows a coincidence with the AGW temp climb to the peak temp of 1998. Perhaps the temp trend is a result not of complete combustion to CO2, but incomplete combustion to aerosols.
So
the Chinese with their new coal-fired power plant per weekwe are to blame after all.The only answer is nuclear power (until we can get enough windmills built using subsidies from Chinese lending while waiting for fusion reactors to come on line).
Ed Zuiderwijk is right, though. An albedo change can far outweigh even the most enthusiastic CO2 sensitivity multiplier plugged into one of the global climate models.
Robert Bateman (09:58:56) :
What is really needed is a monster graph of hourly over a full solar cycle.
Hourly data for Thule since 2007 is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Neutron-Monitor-2007-Now.png
The pink line fit has little significance as such fits have no real predictive power, but is meant to draw your eye, of course.
Robert Wood / Ed Zuiderwijk
It is our growing understanding that clouds/water vapour in fact act as a negative forcing [contrary to IPCC dogma] that is causing heartburn amongst AGW/ACC proponents. The recent Paltridge et. al. paper came under heavy fire from the Team and Co for suggesting precisely that, and the same group are doing everything to pretend that Svensmark, Spencer and Christy and their peer reviewed work don’t exist.
Very interesting stuff and a very nice summary with all the charts. What about the spike on the right of the McMurdo graph? Is this sort of thing common? It is the most extreme of the spikes in these graphs and all the others seem to be followed by regressing toward the mean.
And Leif, thanks for the comment on SCR vs. GCR – I was wondering what was going on there.
Yes, exactly, Leif. It rolled @ur momisugly 2007.65 and is doing the same thing right now starting 2009.1x. Which way will Thule go from here? The past doesn’t predict the future, but it does give us an idea of what to expect.
John F. Hultquist (13:41:48) :
What about the spike on the right of the McMurdo graph? Is this sort of thing common?
This is raw data and still has to be quality-controlled.
If you look at this one from Thule:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/thule.html
you can see a red dot near the bottom of the first graph. It is an hourly value that is ‘out of order’ probably due to some noise. It also shows up in the blue curve which is a running mean as a spike.
Some of these spikes can also be real random variations of the count rate. The thing NOT to do is to go ga-ga over the spikes and ascribe things to them.
Leif Svalgaard (11:52:54) :
Dr. Svalgaard,
Over averaging highly variable data masks the day to day changes within the dataset creating the illusion that the data is better behaved than it really is. For Thule and Oulu the downturn occurs in only the last month (February 2009) plotted. Only the Moscow neutron monitor is showing a sustained decrease in cosmic ray activity.
The plots I have generated directly from the Oulu database are in good agreement with your plots for that station. My concern is for the long-term correlation of Moscow with other neutron monitoring stations because of my perception that there is an increasing negative bias in the data over time.
As I indicated at SC24 I want to download the adjusted neutron monitor data and play with the numbers myself. I really don’t have any preconceived notions about the data but I don‘t understand the behavior of the Moscow. Admittedly I could be wrong and if I find that I am will so report that fact. The graphics from UDEL are updated daily so we will be able visually track cosmic ray activity for those five stations. For now there are six easily accessible real-time neutron monitors that are showing increasing cosmic rays activity over a six month period and one which is not. Given the variability in the data it will take several months do determine if there is a significant change in cosmic ray activity.
Mike
Benjamin P
Cosmic ray influence May I suggest you read “The Chjlling Stars” by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder. The answers are all there.
Benjamin P. (09:38:15) :
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.
Here you go:
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157
“Ed Zuiderwijk (09:58:09) : Conclusion: changes in temperature are dominated by clouds, not by greenhouse gasses.”
Not to be picky on you Ed, but here’s some blogger peer review (maybe BPR–Blogger Peer Review–should be added to the glossary) : clouds are H2O. H2O is a greenhouse gas.
Cooling from a greenhouse gas, hmm… interesting, huh.
Predictive power? I’ve got plenty. Oulu will peak at approximately 6900 in mid-2010.
Thanks Leif, regarding real-time nature of those charts.
Of general interest, I went back and looked at the “Climax Corrected” values in the first chart – top of page (blue line) and sunspots (yellow). Herein the data points are monthly mean counts per hour per 1000 for the neutron monitor values over a 50+ year period. The five charts with the red lines (from Newark, McMurdo,…) are hour averages per 100 over six months.
I’m learning to watch for these scale changes, including the occasional inverted scales in some of these posts. It does help to pay attention to details. Thanks to all the contributors here.