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
Leon Brozyna
March 15, 2009 3:09 pm

I find these type of posts related to solar & related events to be so interesting, informative, and focused, especially in the comments that follow. Dr. Svalgaard does a terrific job in making points in easily to apprehend non-technical language.
So, how much longer will it be before enough data is in and the minimum is officially declared? I understand that it’s usually about 6 mos after the minimum is reached before a pronouncement is made.

Robert Wood
March 15, 2009 3:30 pm

Leif said:
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.
But it may also be a real value. You cannot say it isn’t. After all, the real world can be just as noisy as the data is 🙂
Especially when things like cosmic rays and atomic processes are inherently random and statistical in nature.

Robert Wood
March 15, 2009 3:38 pm

Yes Leif, I have seen your graph and understand your argument. But I don’t buy that slight up-curve in 10.7 as meaningful. We will need to wait another 6 months at least.
And especially as we have no visual Sun spots, but there are two magneto-specks from SC23.
Time will tell, as they say.

Lance
March 15, 2009 3:45 pm

“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.”
Most ridicules, dissolved sea salt? In what?!
It doesn’t go up with the evaporation of sea water and nor does the CO2.
CO2 being heaver then air and as a matter of fact, comes down from the atmosphere when water vapor and other gases meet up with the galactic dust in the ionosphere. Electro chemical posses there creates a nuclei of particulate(salt, minerals, carbon 14, etc.) and CO2, chlorine that’s expelled as a by product and rains down on us literally, rain/fog /mist…. THIS Rain/fog/mist cannot form without that nuclei. They have some strange ideas about how the salt blowing up from storms on the oceans blows up into the atmosphere and to the edge of space to make it rain in land .
When Evaporation or boiling takes place there is no salt in condensation of water, 0.
Water vapor(#1 greenhouse gas, over 95%) is the main ingredient rising and hitting the ionosphere , only a small amount being expelled from fires/volcanoes/rotting logs/bogs/us.
Ask yourself , how does CO2 a greenhouse gas 0.03 percent of the air , that is a heaver gas then air get up there? Forget about the idea of HC/CFC’s get up there and destroying ozone. We are told that our aerosol chlorine is killing ozone, but chlorine is being produced with other chemicals that can be found in rain and thousands of years ice core sample.
Think about it, it goes from snow(or rain) on a mountain or higher altitude and then to a stream, then a river and finally empties it’s deposits of water soluble CO2 and salt into the oceans or basins. That’s why our oceans are salty and CO2 dissolved in it. Salt is not from the ground like many mineral deposits. Even meteorites have salt in them and so does the dust from the galaxy meeting up with our ionosphere.
Bring in minerals(salts) and what not into our ionosphere. Look at the suns high activity in the summer months. The dust is pushed away by the suns heat or waves and more ozone is created, less high cloud. Winter months, more dust is able to get through(cold) and more gases that destroy the ozone are produced from the incoming dust, high clouds and more rain and cold.
Depending on the area of our earth to the solar system in relation to our spinning galaxy that we are part of . The debris from our forward solar systems will guide our way, and maybe poison our way. All influence including debris/meteors are coming in, and through chemical electrolysis they have seeded the building blocks for life.
Really, it’s the suns waves controlling it . It’s just that the suns inactivity can’t ward off the creation(or replacement) of nitrous oxide, carbon Dioxide, o3, salt ( in rain/fog/snow), carbon 14, molecules from the electro chemical processes and effect and halt the making of ozone, even in the summer.
It’s not the other way around, suns heat/waves makes more ozone and the lack of sun hampers the making of ozone and thus CO2 levels go up. Also explaining the lag between the temperature rise and fall with CO2 ppm still climbing. Off gassing of CO2 with temperature rise will only raise the surface % of CO2, not the atmospheric. Of course more water vapor will be released up into the atmosphere at this time.
Simply put, low sun activity, can’t push away the GD, we get cooler, and more acids/chlorine/CO2 are formed in the atmosphere and depleted(less) ozone is observed.

Robert Bateman
March 15, 2009 3:46 pm

Moscow is showing a sustained decrease??
I was just there, ran it for mid 1996 to present daily, and Jan 2008 to present hourly, and I didn’t get any decrease.
Perhaps you meant another monitor?
I’m miffed.

Just Want Truth...
March 15, 2009 3:50 pm

“Ray Harper UK (14:24:04) : Cosmic ray influence May I suggest you read “The Chilling Stars” by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder. The answers are all there.”
I think we have to be like Willie Soon and say it’s not ALL about the sun and that we can’t reject the hypothesis that the sun effects earth’s climate system in some serious way.
Here’s a nice video synopsis on cosmic particles :

Just Want Truth...
March 15, 2009 4:35 pm

correction :
Just Want Truth… (15:50:40) :
“I think we have to be like Willie Soon and say it’s not ALL about the sun and that we can’t reject the hypothesis that the sun effects earth’s climate system in some serious way.”
would be better to read
“I think we have to be like Willie Soon and say–both– it’s not ALL about the sun and that we can’t reject the hypothesis that the sun effects earth’s climate system in some serious way.”

Rob S
March 15, 2009 5:00 pm

Leif
I seem to remember that you have stated that the decay of a solar cycle is fairly predictable, But the start of the next cycle cannot be reliably predicted. Is it accurate to say that because we are in uncharted territory in terms of the suns behavior that we cannot predict anything about SC24 from a plateau of CR rates ?.
And when we see CR rates start to decline it implies that SC24 has begun to ramp 6-12 months prior ?.
It seems like predicting the sun and the stock market have a lot in common. By the time you know for sure … its to late. BTW, I have enjoyed your contribution to this blog and you make us all smarter by just reading you!.
Thanks

Mike Ramsey
March 15, 2009 5:07 pm

Leif Svalgaard (08:57:25) :
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.

So you are saying that when we finally do see a decrease in galactic cosmic rays we can say that the solar sunspot number minimum occurred within the last year. Saying it another way, the SSN minimum predicts the next GCR maximum; not the other way around.
–Mike Ramsey

Stephen
March 15, 2009 5:15 pm

Question… I read somewhere that some of the present increase in the 10.7 flux may be related to the distance from the sun? In other words, all else being equal, we would expect to see an increase from July to Jan, and a corresponding decrease from Feb. to Jun.? I guess, if the sun remains quiet, we might find the answer in the next 6 months?

jae
March 15, 2009 5:33 pm

“Predictive power? I’ve got plenty. Oulu will peak at approximately 6900 in mid-2010.”
OK, lucia, let’s have a contest. Vote for Leif or Archibald (or Bateman, if he has a prediction). I’m betting on Archibald, because I want to see Leif wrong, once.

jae
March 15, 2009 5:35 pm

Nuts, I meant Anthony, not Lucia. Can’t keep track of whose blog I’m on these days. 🙂

March 15, 2009 5:37 pm

So we are told not to look at only one station when evaluating the neutron count, and Moscow seems to be the one to avoid?
Great work by Michael and the Roberts.
Do we have a record from reliable stations that show the overall neutron trend since the 1970’s. Oulu certainly shows the neutron count at present going through the so called solar floor.

Austin
March 15, 2009 5:53 pm

There has to be a particular wavelength signature of GCM-formed water vapor. Its very rapid phase change in a small area.

SSSailor
March 15, 2009 6:19 pm

I’m late to the discussion, so perhaps I’v missed something. Been watching Moscow-Izmiran since 87. Regarding the morphology of the alternate SC profiles over entire record, I expected the shape SC 23 minimum to appear similar to SC19 and SC 21. SC 23 profile definately indicates a change of behavior of some solar process. Can someone offer an explanation?
Anthony and Freinds: Congrats on a great Blog, and the lucid discussion.

Gary P
March 15, 2009 6:23 pm

Anthony, I believe you have a picture of an ionization chamber where cosmic rays cause an electrical discharge though a gas between highly charged plates. You can see how the cosmic ray shower interacts with the metal plates. A cloud chamber does not have plates.
The reason aerosols are needed is rarely mentioned. The reason water needs aerosols to cause condensation is because of the energy absorbed in the surface tension of a droplet. A very tiny droplet has a lot of surface area per unit volume and the surface energy from the surface tension can be higher than the condensation energy for a very small volume. In such a situation, the water will only condense on a pre-existing surface such as an existing droplet or some aerosol.
The idea for seeding clouds to make rain depends on special conditions where seeding causes droplets to form, the heat of condensation causes the seeded parcel of air to remain warmer as it rises to a higher level and though an inversion layer. Hopefully an instability is created where more moist air follows the seeded parcel and a large cloud develops. This is not likely to work during a dry dusty drought where there is already lots of condensation aerosols.

savethesharks
March 15, 2009 7:00 pm

To which “dry dusty drought where there is already lots of condensation aerosols” are you referring??
Like the warm-AMO induced drought in Georgia, USA…which is now starting to reverse??
What is causing the reversal??
NWS…..The ground across much of north and central Georgia remains
moist from three to four inches of rain that fell on March
1st. Additional rainfall of two to three inches could result
in at least minor flooding of some creeks and streams into
early next week. Several rivers and streams in central Georgia
just fell below flood stage in the last couple of days. Some
periods of urban flooding will also be possible through early
Monday where heavier showers occur.
Drowning here in VA….
Chris
Norfolk, VA

savethesharks
March 15, 2009 7:04 pm

Something has caused this stunning reversal from the dominant SE USA anticyclone over the past few years….and even in the dry January we had….to this…
Cloud formation increases throughout solar minima…especially the ones that are significant….like 23.
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA

Robert Bateman
March 15, 2009 7:37 pm

SC24 will roll along the floor much the same way it did in 2008.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/1solar1-08all2.GIF
The solar thermostat has been set to Low, and next winter will be even colder.
Even if we ramped next month, the die for next winter is cast.
This is just a layman communicating what he sees.
The scientists who can do the math stuff are qualified to make predictions on Solar Cycle depth, breadth and start.
I don’t see anything ramp inspiring, but I do see the results of extended Solar
Paralysis in the natural world around me.
SC24 max < 50.
When is ramp? When the flux wave amplitude is sufficient to start hitting 80 uncorrected repeatedly. Rough guess is 3-4 months to get a running start at it. Sloughing off after perihelion will not get the job done.

Editor
March 15, 2009 8:04 pm

Robert Wood (11:09:00) : Ed Zuiderwijk 09:58:09
I’m aware of the Earthshine project but cannot find any other attempts to monitor albedo.

The latest Earthshine paper on this is
Citation: Pallé, E., P. R. Goode, and P. Montañés-Rodríguez (2009), Interannual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999–2007, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D00D03, doi:10.1029/2008JD010734.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1376.pdf
The first diagram in Figure 2 on p.22 is very interesting.
The paper mentions two other sources of albedo measurements : NASA’s CERES and the ISCCP FD product.
I think you should be able to find both of these quite easily on the internet.

len
March 15, 2009 8:13 pm

Thanks. My personal confidence in the GSR cloud theory has been enhanced. So within the Planets>Sun>Earth model where Tidal forces (Solar System Barycenter) of the Gas Giants influence the Solar Cycle, then you add the better TSI data, add the moderation of the Oceans discussed here (PDO/AMO), and finally put a little faster acting positive feedback of GSR cloud formation. I would say even if you can get past the physics of AGW Theory … that factor in the equation would be stroked out to zero and called insignificant.
It will take more time to digest all the other great comments.

len
March 15, 2009 8:15 pm

Sorry, replace GSR with GCR … I should stop typing for a couple of weeks 😀

March 15, 2009 8:19 pm

Leif,
Unless I have totally misunderstood you in the recent past:
You maintain that should a Dalton (or even Maunder) type event occur with
Solar Cycles 24, 25, (and possibly 26) the effect on average global temperatures would be minimal, perhaps undetectable.
Am I correct with the basics of the above statement?
If so, then I am somewhat confused by this….

This is hardly the sunspot crash that observations from 1645 to 1715 suggest. Back then, the appearance of even a single sunspot was major astronomical news, sparking hurriedly penned communications from one observatory to another. Nevertheless, it’s a sign of things to come. “Sunspot numbers will be extremely small, and when the sun crashes, it crashes hard,” says Svaalgard. “The upcoming sunspot crash could cause the Earth to cool”

New Scientist magazine, 16 September 2006
Granted the statement does not quantify the amount of potential cooling, yet it seems you felt it worthy or significant enough to mention.
Please accept my word that I ask only as a matter of clarification and for no other purpose.
Sincere Regards,
Lee Kington

Graeme Rodaughan
March 15, 2009 8:40 pm

Pierre Gosselin (09:28:16) :
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.

And with the blatant bandwagon jumping of our collective politicians – we are completely unprepared for a cooling climate.

March 15, 2009 8:53 pm

Robert Bateman (19:37:11) :
When is ramp? When the flux wave amplitude is sufficient to start hitting 80 uncorrected repeatedly.
It is meaningless to use the uncorrected flux.