In an announcement sure to cause controversy over Svensmark’s theory of cosmic ray to cloud modulation, which is said to be affecting earth’s climate. Svensmark says this is now leading to a global cooling phase. Just a couple of weeks after Svensmark’s bold announcement, NASA has announced that we have hit a new record high in Galactic Cosmic Rays, GCR’s. Apparently, Nature is conducting a grand experiment. – Anthony
From NASA News: Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA’s ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.
“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.”
The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls “a perfect storm of cosmic rays.”
“We’re experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, “so it is no surprise that cosmic rays are at record levels for the Space Age.”
Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are subatomic particles–mainly protons but also some heavy nuclei–accelerated to almost light speed by distant supernova explosions. Cosmic rays cause “air showers” of secondary particles when they hit Earth’s atmosphere; they pose a health hazard to astronauts; and a single cosmic ray can disable a satellite if it hits an unlucky integrated circuit.
The sun’s magnetic field is our first line of defense against these highly-charged, energetic particles. The entire solar system from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is surrounded by a bubble of solar magnetism called “the heliosphere.” It springs from the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo and is inflated to gargantuan proportions by the solar wind. When a cosmic ray tries to enter the solar system, it must fight through the heliosphere’s outer layers; and if it makes it inside, there is a thicket of magnetic fields waiting to scatter and deflect the intruder.
“At times of low solar activity, this natural shielding is weakened, and more cosmic rays are able to reach the inner solar system,” explains Pesnell.
Mewaldt lists three aspects of the current solar minimum that are combining to create the perfect storm:
- The sun’s magnetic field is weak. “There has been a sharp decline in the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) down to only 4 nanoTesla (nT) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT,” he says. “This record-low IMF undoubtedly contributes to the record-high cosmic ray fluxes.”
- The solar wind is flagging. “Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft show that solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low,” he continues, “so the magnetic bubble that protects the solar system is not being inflated as much as usual.” A smaller bubble gives cosmic rays a shorter-shot into the solar system. Once a cosmic ray enters the solar system, it must “swim upstream” against the solar wind. Solar wind speeds have dropped to very low levels in 2008 and 2009, making it easier than usual for a cosmic ray to proceed.
- The current sheet is flattening. Imagine the sun wearing a ballerina’s skirt as wide as the entire solar system with an electrical current flowing along the wavy folds. That is the “heliospheric current sheet,” a vast transition zone where the polarity of the sun’s magnetic field changes from plus (north) to minus (south). The current sheet is important because cosmic rays tend to be guided by its folds. Lately, the current sheet has been flattening itself out, allowing cosmic rays more direct access to the inner solar system.
The heliospheric current sheet is shaped like a ballerina’s skirt. Credit: J. R. Jokipii, University of Arizona
“If the flattening continues as it has in previous solar minima, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs,” predicts Mewaldt.
Earth is in no great peril from the extra cosmic rays. The planet’s atmosphere and magnetic field combine to form a formidable shield against space radiation, protecting humans on the surface. Indeed, we’ve weathered storms much worse than this. Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% higher than they are now. Researchers know this because when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice. By examining ice cores, it is possible to estimate cosmic ray fluxes more than a thousand years into the past. Even with the recent surge, cosmic rays today are much weaker than they have been at times in the past millennium.
“The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity,” says Mewaldt. “We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
RW:
“The confusing thing is that the global average temperature from 2004-2008 is slightly higher than the global average temperature of 1999-2003,”
Which data set are you using?
As much as I dislike the AGW scare, if cooling comes it will be bad. I don’t fear warming, but I do fear cooling.
If carbon dioxide really did have a measureable effect on climate to warm, I’d be advocating increased carbon emissions. But I don’t think it does.
Cooling is nothing to cheer about.
I’m guessing that we’ll see a lag between the minimum we are seeing now and colder temperatures. This is due to the heat stored in the oceans. Temps have come down but are still above average. That won’t continue. The cooling will continue for some years after the Sun wakes back up.
Just my thoughts on this …
MattN–
I believe Leif wrote that the Oulu count appeared to have peaked in May, which was accurate at the time.
On the other hand, he also said on one thread, approximately, that the peak GCR at each solar minimum was about the same, because the solar (sunspot?) level couldn’t go below zero. ..must have been a typo. This is in stark contrast to the NASA announcement musing that the GCR count could go 30% above previous peaks.
From Oulo
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/01/01&starttime=01:00&enddate=2009/09/29&endtime=21:00&resolution=0&picture=on
RW (16:42:29) :
So, this ultra-deep solar minimum and its incredible effect on temperatures… The confusing thing is that the global average temperature from 2004-2008 is slightly higher than the global average temperature of 1999-2003, which was over the solar maximum. Puzzling, eh?
Certainly worthy of note. Some theorize the effects of minimum (or maximum) have more to do with (transmitted energy) area under the curve over a decade or more (slowly increasing or diminishing ocean heat content) before the effect becomes evident. Perhaps we’ll get an opportunity to find out.
The direction of the solar system’s bow shock is presumably in the vicinity of the direction of Galactic rotation — not aligned with the plane of the solar system as the “Richard Mewaldt/Caltech” artwork misleadingly implies. The angular inclination of the solar plane (the ecliptic) to the Galactic plane is ~60 degrees.
This inspires an interesting question: Does the cosmic ray influx have an apex in in the Northern Hemisphere? Or are the rays so stirred up by the heliospheric currents that they have no directional bias by the time they reach earth?
Is NASA going to fix their recent climate data mistake? Or how about this 1.9 billion dollar boondoggle. I don’ know how the MSM missed this one too. The comments are precious.
NASA’s Carbon Satellite Fails, See Video of Launch
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/launchfailure/
Speaking of the Heliosphere the IBEX team is expecting to release it’s first findings in the middle of October.
http://www.ibex.swri.edu/
I ran a trend line through the sunspot record last year and it yeilded the same basic conclusion that is referenced in the Svensmark film clip. Namely that solar activity had doubled over the last hundred years. Here is a link to my graph.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/20th-century-sunspot-trend.html
I have to believe the scientific community when they say that there is not enough change in TSI to explain global warming. But the long term correlations between sunspot activity and global temperature is simply too good to be an accident. The Svensmark theory explains why it is not an accident. I’m extremely confident that when they run the experiments at CERN next year that Svensmark will be proven correct. The big question is which do we get first, crushing climate legislation or the CERN results. I feel certain that after the CERN results the game will be over.
Cloudy
The sky is gray and white and cloudy,
Sometimes I think it’s hanging down on me.
And it’s a hitchhike a hundred miles.
I’m a rag-a-muffin child.
Pointed finger-painted smile.
I left my shadow waiting down the road for me a while.
Cloudy
My thoughts are scattered and they’re cloudy,
They have no borders, no boundaries.
They echo and they swell
From Tolstoi to Tinker Bell.
Down from Berkeley to Carmel.
Got some pictures in my pocket and a lot of time to kill.
Hey sunshine
I haven’t seen you in a long time.
Why don’t you show your face and bend my mind?
These clouds stick to the sky
Like floating questions, why?
And they linger there to die.
They don’t know where they are going, and, my friend, neither do I.
Cloudy,
Cloudy. Paul Simon from http://www.risa.co.uk/sla/song.php?songid=15430
Uh huh, like Svensmark said, ” Enjoy your Global Warming while it lasts”.
Limited time offer, expires when the lag catches up with us, which it surely will.
If you thought there was a bit of consternation last winter, wait ’till they get a load of the Northern winter. There wasn’t a record-low melt season in the Arctic this year just because and no other reason.
NASA is right to put up the orange flags. Someone has to step up to the plate. Darn warmistas won’t do it. Media is out to lunch on this.
3 full years of very low solar activity.
Gene Nemetz (16:49:34) had just the first of the parts of Svensmark’s video on cosmic rays & cloud formation embedded on his comment. Some months back I posted all five videos in one place on my blog….
http://algorelied.com/?p=2423
Fascinating stuff, and here’s a great quote by Svensmark from the video:
If anyone has any spare investment cash laying around, buy into coal stocks.
Leif
I’m confused. On September 17th in comments on this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/ncar-number-of-sunspots-provides-an-incomplete-measure-of-changes-in-the-suns-impact-on-earth/#comments
you wrote:
“Except that the cosmic ray intensity has not shown any long-term variation since modern measurements started in the early 1950s.”
and:
“The various records from dozens of cosmic ray observatories, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-1958-now.gif
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux.png
http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
etc, etc. Note that there are small differences between various CR stations.”
Your statement above seems incongruent with the statement by Richard Mewaldt of Caltech that “In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years”
What is the basis for this difference in opinions? Is it a question of what a “long-term variation” is? Is there a significant difference between the data sources, e.g. space versus ground based GCR measurements systems? Interpretation? Otherwise?
RW (16:42:29) : “So, this ultra-deep solar minimum and its incredible effect on temperatures… The confusing thing is that the global average temperature from 2004-2008 is slightly higher than the global average temperature of 1999-2003, which was over the solar maximum.
Puzzling, eh?”
No….the confusing thing is that you are making much ado about nothing…in two arenas and in one sentence: i) The unanswered questions of solar variability on Earth’s climate, and ii) temperature swings.
Notwithstanding as to how much or how little solar variability forces Earth’s climate [I will leave that debate to the Titans], your global temperature juxtapositions are just not that significant.
Here’s a better perspective:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SQkAxK2k6CI/AAAAAAAAADs/F4NlhqTzFgM/s1600-h/U+11+Year+Temp+Data.bmp
Boring! (Yeah I see the GISS outlier trying to uptrend….but give me a break its the GISS).
Much ado about nothing.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
RW (16:42:29) :
So, this ultra-deep solar minimum and its incredible effect on temperatures… The confusing thing is that the global average temperature from 2004-2008 is slightly higher than the global average temperature of 1999-2003, which was over the solar maximum. Puzzling, eh?
The current solar minima didn’t start until 2006.
Cherry pick your intervals more wisely, please.
John A (18:26:22) : “If carbon dioxide really did have a measureable effect on climate to warm, I’d be advocating increased carbon emissions. But I don’t think it does.”
Spot on. Fear the cold, not the warm.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Alma Ata station corrected for pressure 6 houly records no such peak:
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4348/cosmicrayalmaata.gif
5 more monitors show no overshoot:
Tsumeb, Namibia, monthly averages [12KB]
Potchefstroom, South Africa, monthly averages [11KB]
Hermanus, South Africa, monthly averages [13KB]
NM64, SANAE, Antarctica, monthly averages [14KB]
4NMD, SANAE, Antarctica, monthly averages [14KB]
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1/srugraph1.jpg
A bit off topic here; but has anyone been banned from climate progress as I have apparently been? My post never goes through.
The way they do things there is practically communistic. And Time magazine gives them kudos….go figure.
This is what we will have to put up with even if the climate change bill fails. they will continue to press this issue until the people throw up their arms and say enough already/
How do we stop this? Science doesn’t seem to have the answer. Do we have to take up arms??? What do you all think?
Phil. (17:31:18) :
It isn’t an ‘ultra-deep’ minimum, it’s a normal depth minimum of longer duration than normal.
It looks a lot deeper to me.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfmms.html
bill (20:02:53) :
Hmm! the heading plot shows only data back to 1999 with a blue line maximum of unknown year.
The plots I retreived contain a number of solarcycles
The current level is similar to peaks in 1965 or 1987 so not necessarily comparing like with like!
Well, I went over to ClimateAudit to see if they were trying to deal with the Piltdown Man the Second situation, but I guess they’re still tied up trying to rebut Lindzens negative feedback papers, or whatever.
I did find this link though. Friends should not let friends have blogs like this:
http://desdemonadespair.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-meter-sea-level-rise-unstoppable.html
“…On the other hand, he also said on one thread, approximately, that the peak GCR at each solar minimum was about the same, because the solar (sunspot?) level couldn’t go below zero”
Leif may have forgotten that sunspots are only an indicator of certain aspects of solar activity, just because they can’t go below zero doesn’t mean other phenomena also connected to solar activity have reached their limit.
This is the first time we’ve had the instramentation to analyze so throughly such a deep and extended minimum, there is much to learn.
Avg. Annual Rate of Sea Level Rise (CU Topex/Jason)
Jan 1999 to Dec 2003: 2.6mm/yr
Jan 2004 to May 2009 : 1.5mm/yr
The 60-unit (~5-yr) moving average of the CU Sea Level curve is essentially flat since 2006… CU Sea Level
The oceans are cooling along with the increase in GCR’s and low cloud cover… Land temp’s followed.
GCR’s started to climb in 2001… Ocean temperatures started to fall in 2003, followed by SH land temp’s in 2005 and NH land temp’s in 2007… UAH LT
SteveSadlov wrote :
“… Look at the current hemispheric pattern in the NH. Way out of whack. Winter will start soon.”
With the usual weather-is-not-climate caveat, let me say that the onset of cooler weather this year in Pacific Northwest is about 2 weeks earlier than normal. Predictions for this weekend are for 1″-4″ of snow above 4,000 feet and 4″-6″ above 5,000 feet.