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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
![[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)
Can we name the new Solar Minimum?
Fat Albert Minimum?
Robert Bateman (09:09:20) :
If the C14 leads to an opposite indication by proxy of sunspot activity, there has to be a reason why. Who knows, the C14 may only be half of the story of the proxy.
The 14C, magnetic needle, and sunspot data all show the same thing: a large cycle 4.
Leif Svalgaard (07:31:27) :
New word: ‘compact’. Assuming it means ‘dense’, as per my earlier posting, the atmosphere as such [with your definition of ‘dense’] cannot be more ‘compact’ as a whole. So where is it more compact? Where are regions A and B?
Looks to me as if you are in stone wall mode.
Perhaps we can agree that if the ionosphere is inflated by short wave radiation of the variety to which it is opaque the atmosphere generally becomes less compact.
As the atmosphere generally becomes less compact does the relationship between the surface pressure at the equator and the night pole change? Do we see a reduction in atmospheric density (and surface pressure) over the night pole and an increase in density (and surface pressure) over the equator?
erlhapp (13:22:16) :
Perhaps we can agree that if the ionosphere is inflated by short wave radiation of the variety to which it is opaque the atmosphere generally becomes less compact.
If the ionosphere is heated on the dayside, it expands on the dayside. The ‘atmosphere’ is too general a word in this connection, because a thermal expansion of the dayside ionosphere does not change the number of molecules on the dayside [there is a quirk here – thermal winds – which we’ll ignore for now] does not change, hence the surface pressure on the dayside does not change, and no change, of course, of either on the nightside.
As the atmosphere generally becomes less compact does the relationship between the surface pressure at the equator and the night pole change?
The ionosphere [not the ‘atmosphere’] is heated most at the subsolar point [within 23 degrees of the equator and will expand most there, but as we just saw, the surface pressure does not change anywhere when the ionosphere expands vertically.
With me so far?
Leif,
With me so far?
Thanks. Hope so! Is there more?
erlhapp (16:47:21) :
Hope so! Is there more?
It basically ends there. The movement of the ionosphere up or down does not change the pressure at the surface. Now, for the thermal winds, they make the ionosphere move laterally so move air from one area to another. That changes the surface pressure, but because the ionosphere is from 1 million to 1 trillion times less dense that the troposphere, the change in pressure is infinitesimal and cannot be measured or have any effect.
TomLama (09:15:44) :
“Can we name the new Solar Minimum?
Fat …. Minimum?”
We shall seriously name it after an important human being, the Jose Minimum.
Link: http://www.giurfa.com/jose.pdf
The list of observers for SC4 (1785 to 1798)
STAUDACHER, J.C., NUREMBERG
KONIG, K.J., MANNHEIM
BEIGEL, G.W.S., DRESDEN
LIPPOLD, G.H.E., WIEN
PIGOTT, E., BOOTHAM
MESSIER, PARIS
STRNADT, PRAGUE
SCHROTER, J.H., LILIENTHAL
BUGGE, T., COPENHAGEN
METZBURG, G.I., WIEN
TOALDO, J., PATVINA
FLAUGERGUES, H., VIVIERS
BODE, J.E., BERLIN
TREISNECKER, F.V.P., WIEN
ZOLLINGER, INNSBRUCK
FEER, ZURICH
SANDT, RIGA
BEITLER, MITAU
CASSINI, J.D., THURY
HUBER, J.J., BASEL
ENDE, F.A., CELLE
HERSCHEL, W., LONDON
FLAUGERGUES, H. (C.DE.T.)
GEMEINER, A.T., REGENSBURG
MESSIER, PARIS
REINCKE, HAMBURG
HAMILTON, J., ARMAGH OBS., IRELAND
LALANDE, J., PARIS
DANGOS, MALTA
FRITSCH, J.H., GERMANY
KOHLER, J.G., GERMANY
Quite the list of dedicated observers. Pioneers.
Leif
It occurred to me that I could check the data myself via http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
I note:
1. Rise in 30hPa temperature at 80-90°S since 1948 is associated with falling surface pressure in that region.
2. Falling sea level pressure at 80-90°S is associated with rising sea level pressure in the latitude band 10N to 10S.
3. On a year to year basis a collapse of pressure over Antarctica is associated with rising pressure over the Equator.
4. Change prior to 1978 was more dramatic than after 1978.
5. In the most recent episode S.L.Pressure over Antarctica began falling and S.L.Pressure began rising at the Equator in 2007. That trend continues.
My interpretation: falling pressure over Antarctica represents a weakening vortex. Since the vortex introduces nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere that erode ozone this should be associated with rising ozone content in the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere rendering the upper troposphere more sensitive to changes in UVB. This has implications for ice cloud density and the strength of the downdraft in the mid latitude high pressure cells.
Given this state of affairs a small increase in irradiance in the UVB wavelengths is likely to produce a healthy response in terms of reduced ice cloud density and slackening of the trade winds .
As I noted above a similar set of circumstances occurred in early 1987 following solar minimum in September 1986.
Now, what could cause sea level pressure over Antarctica to fall while it builds over the equator?
Robert Bateman (18:20:55) :
The list of observers for SC4 (1785 to 1798)
STAUDACHER, J.C., NUREMBERG
[…]
KOHLER, J.G., GERMANY
Quite the list of dedicated observers. Pioneers.
Yes, and so sad that we don’t know how to calibrate them to the common standard of Wolf 1849-1882, using only solar data. Take 1791:
Staudacher observed 31 groups on 15 days.
Bode 5 groups on 1 day
Feer 6 groups on 1 day
Sandt 3 groups on 1 day
Cassini 5 groups on 1 day
What was the sunspot number for 1791 on the Wolf scale?
In his published list from 1861, Wolf had his Wolf Number W as 46.1 for 1791. In his 1874 list it was adjusted to 53.4, and in 1882 he changed it to 66.6 where it stands today [SIDC]. My value for 1791 is 78.2. What is yours based on the data from the pioneers?
If we take the total number of days with observations [19] and the total number of groups [50], we have 50/19 groups on an average day = 2.63. An average group has 12.08 ‘spots’ [Wolf number divided by number of groups as determined by Ken Schatten], so the sunspot number should be 12.08 * 2.63 = 31.8. So what should it be? Maintaining the unique character of the original data…
Because we have the amplitude of the Declination from several observatories in 1791 and we know what sunspot number we would have today for such an amplitude we can fix the sunspot number in 1791 as ~80. In a sense we don’t need any of the sunspot observations at all, the Declination is all we need [or the 10Be or 14C concentration if we have a good calibration]. In practice we check the Declination against the sunspot number for several years and can then fix the scale for that period and the observers we had then. There is a bit of give-n-take here because the relations are not perfect and there is at times a personal judgment as to the accuracy of either the magnetic needle or the sunspot count for particular years. In the end it comes down to trusting the person putting together the series to do the best science that can be done with the data at hand, and to trust his familiarity with the problem and the data. We all trust Rudolf Wolf if we fervently believe his numbers are sacrosanct, don’t we?
The following three charts are for the McMurdo, Newark DL and Thule Neutron Monitors, maintained by the University of Delaware, from January 1, 2006 through February 28, 2009 with a sampling interval of one day. The minor tic-marks on the X-Axis are in 1/12 of years, not months. A liner trend line was plotted for the data from November 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009 which covers a period of four months. The UDEL database reports neutron counts hourly. The hourly counts were averaged to obtain daily values. In a limited number of cases, when data was not available for a given day the values on either side were averaged to approximate the missing information. While the UDEL NM have real-time feeds, the database is only updated monthly.
I am now working on the Fort Smith, Peawanuck, Nain and Inuvik Neutron Monitor database from the UDEL. All of these stations came on-line after 2000. The five graphs which have already been post must be update to include the source of the data and related documentation.
The McMurdo, Newark DL and Thule data suggests that cosmic ray activity is continuing to increase during the four months for which a linier trend line was calculated. McMurdo and Newark DL show a strong positive trend, while Thule was the weakest but still positive through February 28, 2009. At the start of this article, the real-time graphs from the UDEL for McMurdo, Newark DL and Thule were provided covering the previous six months from the current date.
Mike
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/McMurdo_NM_2006.png
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/Newark_DL_NM_2006.png
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/Thule_NM_2006.png
Leif Svalgaard (20:07:48)
Reduce all later data to groups and plot it all out.
What does the whole shooting match look like?
I prefer to honor them all, inlcuding Wolf, by whatever it takes to do that.
You can take the highest daily group no recorded from all the persons observing. Cloudy weather in Europe is no mystery. Then plot what you have for the early day, omitting plotting anything for which there is NO observations made.
What’s it look like? Ask yourself why. In a Grand Minimum where Be10 indicates high GSR, what phenomenon should you expect?
Really, Leif, take a moment and think where we would be if these folks didn’t spend so darned much time being meticulous observers and recorders for what conditions and equipment allowed. They worked at it. Amazingly enough, they managed to get us a record even when threre was precious little to see, and kept at it.
‘In practice we check the Declination against the sunspot number for several years and can then fix the scale for that period and the observers we had then.’
That REALLY bothers me.
Leif: thanks for that exposition – I thought I was up-to-date, so I have some revision to do on the ‘doubling’.
So when we come to the be-10 data – as posted now by Anthony, is your argument that the variation we see is not related to changes in the magnetic field? Presumably that leaves only internal processes of redistribution of the cosmogenic nuclides (like ocean cycles)? But the c-14 and be-10 data correlate pretty well and the processes would be very different.
I will take this on board, but as you say, the dust has yet to settle!
Many thanks for your continued focus!
Peter Taylor (03:20:18) :
is your argument that the variation we see is not related to changes in the magnetic field?
The variation is strongly related to the magnetic field, but is from time to time contaminated by volcanic eruptions that provided aerosols that in turn increases the deposition rate of 10Be. A good example is the peak in the 1880s-90s [or the trough in the HMF computed from the 10Be]. It is instructive to look at page 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf . The lower panel shows in detail the derived HMF. There are three items of interest:
1) a clear solar cycle variation, showing that the HMF is important
2) a jump ~1948, that is not reflected in the HMF
3) a pronounced minimum [peak in 10Be] around 1883-1896 that looks like a ‘bite’ was taken out. This ‘bite’ does not have a corresponding bite in the HMF and is IMO related to the explosion in 1883 of Krakatoa.
Leif, now that’s an article I can read while lying down. Literally. Or if I turn my notebook on its side ;^))
Robert Bateman (02:33:42) :
‘In practice we check the Declination against the sunspot number for several years and can then fix the scale for that period and the observers we had then.’
That REALLY bothers me.
This is precisely what Rudolf Wolf did. Read what he wrote in 1875: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%20translation.pdf
So, are you REALLY bothered by the Wolf Number?
Pamela Gray (06:09:02) :
Leif, now that’s an article I can read while lying down. Literally. Or if I turn my notebook on its side ;^))
In Adobe’s PDF reader you can click on ‘Tools’, then ‘Optimize toolbar’, then look for ‘Rotate right’.
Peter Taylor (03:20:18) :
But the c-14 and be-10 data correlate pretty well
Would you say that the red and blue curves here http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA18.png correlate pretty well?
” the Jose Minimum.”
Second. Otherwise Eddy.
gary gulrud (07:24:06) :
Eddy
Eddy !
So, are you REALLY bothered by the Wolf Number?
I am really bothered by attempts to devalue the historical record simply because they are not convenient to modern methods, and done so in multiple layers, and without any fair comparison of doing the same to the modern records.
I’ll read what Wolf did later, but I didn’t see any revaluation of the historical record in that excerpt.
You say you have high resistance. True. You are not being impartial or fair in equal treatment. That is my honest assessment of why you are getting flak.
Robert Bateman (09:04:59) :
I am really bothered by attempts to devalue the historical record
We are trying to get the max out of the historical record, no devalue it. It is priceless.
I’ll read what Wolf did later, but I didn’t see any revaluation of the historical record in that excerpt.
on bottom of page 1: “Table II contains for the same years my recomputed, and until now – at least as far as monthly values are concerned – not wholly published Sunspot Relative-Numbers”.
on page 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
you can see Wolf’s 1861 table and SIDC values which is based on Wolf’s ‘recomputed’ numbers.
Robert Bateman (09:04:59) :
You are not being impartial or fair in equal treatment.
Equal treatment with unequal telescopes? Impartial, absolutely as I let the data speak.
You do not seem interested in reading the material I have linked to. I grant, that it at times is heavy going. A referee of one of my papers once called it a ‘technical assault’, so here is instead a simple graph that shows the evolution of the Wolf number, from his first list in 1861, through the recalibrations of 1874 and 1882:
http://www.leif.org/research/Evolution%20of%20the%20Wolf%20Number.png
What my correction is about, is really that I consider Wolf’s latest numbers good, but have discovered that his successors, Wolfer and Waldmeier introduced artificial jumps in the calibration, with the result that modern numbers are now too high by some 20%. It is easier to get people to adjust the old numbers rather than the new [several operational products rely on the modern numbers and nobody wants to update their computer programs or algorithms…].
You have to climb down from the ‘no respect for old data’, ‘these observers did a wonderful job’, ‘equal treatment’, etc molehill and realize that the greatest honor we can bestow on the early observers is to use their priceless data in the best way possible. You will have noticed [in case you have cared to read some of them] that many of my papers end with just such acknowledgment of the value of old data and past observers.
The flak I’m getting [apart from you – and your kind is a new one for me] is that correcting the data will upset many ‘established’ correlations, and THAT is not welcome news.
Leif Svalgaard (13:01:04) :
…from his first lists in 1857 and 1861, through the recalibrations of 1874 and 1882…
Forgot to mention the 1857 list.
“The flak I’m getting [apart from you – and your kind is a new one for me] is that correcting the data will upset many ‘established’ correlations, and THAT is not welcome news.”
That would be sufficient in light of current fluid criteria but your statement is self-serving, cff., Usoskin, Hoyt, etc. In fact, with Lockwood and Froelich on board you are simply not alone