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
bill p
March 18, 2009 1:23 pm

Leif,
I wondered if you would comment on some recent news events that bear on the satellite industry. I’m talking about recent “space junk” stories.
One event was the smash-up of the Iridium and Russian polar-orbiting satellites last Feb. 12.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16584-satellite-collision-creates-copious-space-junk.html
The near-miss at the International Space Station, during which crew were forced to take refuge while the 5-inch object passed within about 3 miles, has added to the alarm at the possibility of a “cascade” of collisions.
I know this is off the CO2 / solar cycle topic, but… thought I’d ask.
Is there significant debris threat to satellites in stationary earth orbit?
Also, have you endorsed (or proposed) any clean-up plan that seems better than others? Or is this simply not worth the trouble?

March 18, 2009 4:46 pm

gary gulrud (13:12:35) :
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
You are opaque as usual. I have no idea what you a talking about, hopefully it makes sense to you, it does not to me.
bill p (13:23:04) :
Is there significant debris threat to satellites in stationary earth orbit?
It has been known for 50 years that there would be space junk and that it would get worse and worse until such point is reached that we begin to wring our hands about it. This is the human condition with everything.
NASA has a good FAQ about space debris. Geostationary orbit [GSO] has less debris, but there is a significant difference with LEO [low earth orbit]. At LEO, the Earth is self-cleaning [to a point] as the orbits of the junk eventually decay and the debris burns up in the atmosphere.
Also, have you endorsed (or proposed) any clean-up plan that seems better than others? Or is this simply not worth the trouble?
No, I have not. The obvious remedy is to put less junk in space. At GSO, old decommissioned satellites are often move to a higher orbit to get out of the way, because a GSO is a precious resource.

March 18, 2009 6:18 pm

bill p (13:23:04) :
Is there significant debris threat to satellites in stationary earth orbit?
I forgot to give the link:
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faqs.html

March 18, 2009 6:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:18:24) :
bill p (13:23:04) :
any clean-up plan that seems better than others? Or is this simply not worth the trouble?
It has been argued [long ago] that there probably was so much else out there of natural origin [meteorites] to drown out the junk, so it wouldn’t help much to try to do something about the junk.

gary gulrud
March 19, 2009 7:09 am

“I have no idea what you a talking about, hopefully it makes sense to you, it does not to me.”
That the sun is constant unchanging is conventional wisdom from time immemorial. Your work implying a need for revision of SS numbers relies on the forgoing, null hypothesis. You have neglected to mention that your proof, itself, has been critiqued by some of your peers as badly done.

Greylar
March 19, 2009 7:45 am

This seems very strange to me. Look at the last 10 readings (months) on the radio flux chart. To me it looks very unnatural being as consistent as they are. Maybe someone has already addressed this but I haven’t found it. Can anyone enlighten me?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/f10.gif
Thanks,
G

March 19, 2009 7:56 am

gary gulrud (07:09:26) :
That the sun is constant unchanging is conventional wisdom from time immemorial. Your work implying a need for revision of SS numbers relies on the forgoing, null hypothesis.
Of course, it does not. Your statement is ludicrous, much as I don’t like to use such a word, but it fits.
You have neglected to mention that your proof, itself, has been critiqued by some of your peers as badly done.
“Badly done” hardly. The folks you are referring to have their own ax to grind, and I have repeatedly pointed out that my work flies in the face of the [new] conventional wisdom, that solar activity is at an all-time high. And I take exception to use of the word ‘neglected’ as that implies non-existent intent.

March 19, 2009 7:58 am

Greylar (07:45:46) :
To me it looks very unnatural being as consistent as they are.
They are ‘correct’ [showing the flux at Earth, modulated by the changing distance to the Sun]. It is just that the Sun is very quiet.
]

Greylar
March 19, 2009 8:19 am

Thanks Leif,
By unnatural I didn’t mean fake. What I meant was it just looked like all the variability went out of it. Is there any example of this happening before? ( a 10 month streak with little or no variation?)
The end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 were at roughly the same levels as we are now but had significantly more variability. Just eyeballing it, it looks like something changed in May.
G

March 19, 2009 9:53 am

Greylar (08:19:05) :
Is there any example of this happening before? ( a 10 month streak with little or no variation?)
Certainly, happens at most solar minima, even a minimum just before a monster cycle [#19]: http://www.leif.org/research/F107-1954.png

bill p
March 19, 2009 11:00 am

Leif,
Thanks for opinions / explanations on space debris questions. It seems the “handwringers” will have their work cut out for them as it appears (to me, at least) that momentum is building to “do something” about it.
A fair number of articles recently (one in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago) have proposed active remedies that will no doubt require some serious money (as opposed to launching fewer craft). Some of these seem pretty far-fetched. Your NASA site postulates “tens of millions” of bits of detritus in LEO. Going in active pursuit of these objects with some kind of scoop would on the surface seem rather futile.
I think you’re right to see parallels to other kinds of alarmism. The scenarios of the global warmers get more dire by the day, along with their “over the top” solutions and out of this world price tags. So maybe this is also a matter of drumming up the appropriate level of worry.

March 19, 2009 11:22 am

Greylar (08:19:05) :
Is there any example of this happening before? ( a 10 month streak with little or no variation?)
Comparison F10.7 at minima now [blue] and in 1954 [red, and shifted by eye to match the low point]:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png

March 19, 2009 11:23 pm

“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.”
I want to see what the SC’s would look like if we continued counting the groups straight up to the present. No modifications. They apply your corrections.
From Galieo’s time to now.
Observatorie de la Paris reports that since the 1920’s, minispots have increased faster than the groups. If I could get that info for group counts from where it was changed to spots, I would make the graph myself.

gary gulrud
March 20, 2009 7:17 am

“Badly done” hardly.”
Actually, the verification can be made here, at WUWT, last July or thereabouts. Surprised your recall fails you.

March 20, 2009 7:53 am

gary gulrud (07:17:31) :
“Badly done” hardly.”
Actually, the verification can be made here, at WUWT, last July or thereabouts. Surprised your recall fails you.

Believing [as those folks do] that the secular change of the conductivity of the ionosphere is not new solar-terrestrial relationship rather than simply due to the Earth’s changing magnetic field [weaker field -> greater conductivity] can hardly be described as ‘verification’. But it seems to me that you are not interested in the science, but, alas, would not fail a habitual ad-hom.

March 20, 2009 8:08 am

Robert Bateman (23:23:56) :
If I could get that info for group counts from where it was changed to spots, I would make the graph myself.
A simple [but accurate] way to get a group count is to use the size of the yearly files at:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml
g1874.txt 33kb text file
g1876.txt 20kb text file
etc
Each group is recorded as an 80-byte record, so to get the group count for 1874, divide 33*1024 by 81, result 33*1024/81 = 417. Since it is normal practice to count the groups on every day they appear, you have to divide by the number of days [365] in a year to get a yearly average 417/365 =1.143. For 2008:
g2008.txt 9kb text file, so average group count = 9*1024/81/365 = 0.31. Since a group has on average ~10 spots, Schatten argues that one should multiply by 12.08 to get the raw ‘equivalent’ Wolf number, in casu: 0.31*12.08 = 3.8. SIDC applies a correction fator of 0.6 to bring it onto Wolfer’s scale, so 3.8 * 0.6 = 2.3 [close enough, perhaps, to the official R-value of 2.8 for 2008].
The file size for 1978 may be wrong [I think some groups were counted twice].

March 20, 2009 8:50 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:53:06) :
gary gulrud (07:17:31) :
Believing [as those folks do] that the secular change of the conductivity of the ionosphere is a new solar-terrestrial relationship rather than simply due to the Earth’s changing …
correction

March 20, 2009 9:19 am

Robert Bateman (23:23:56) :
“If I could get that info for group counts from where it was changed to spots, I would make the graph myself.”
A simple [but accurate] way to get a group count is to use the size of the yearly files at:

a fun exercise is to take to group counts so derived [except for 1978] and divide them by the official sunspot number for each year. Make a plot of that. Derive from the plot when Wolf died and when Waldmeier took over. Possibly even when SIDC started.

March 22, 2009 11:17 am

Leif – well, when C-14 is high, so is Be-10, thought the latter shows more variability – comparing the two would need to know what smoothing was used – but it does look as if the Maunder Minimum had a higher level of cosmic rays coming in as we would expect. That leaves the open question relating to the sun’s variability with regard to sunlight – and I would expect the MM only to be 0.1% lower, as during a normal solar minimum, bit obviously for a much longer period. It is this long period of lower activity that might count, as oceanographers can identify the 11/22 year cycle in surface temperature records – varying by 0.2C.
Presumably the UV flux would vary by a larger amount, and this is likely also of climate significance – links to the jetstream are postulated.
Much appreciate the links.

1 6 7 8