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.
In order to get the oceans to show a cooling, you have to take away a hell of a lot of heat away from the system.
This is indeed a great natural experiment that will probably be the end of the AGW crowd. It will also be the dawning of a new age of solar science.
This plot shows more history of how deep minimums get. This one is near the 90th percentile, but that’s all.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
I have never posted here though I have been an avid fan of WUWT for about two years now. When I saw this on the AP this morning I thought about Svensmark’s GCR theory; which I had read about here. I am not a real math person or versed well in climatology, however, I am well versed in History as for that is my chosen profession. I happen to be one who believes that all things historical are cyclical. Human understanding may very well be within the liner realm of possibilities but this planet has in the past oscillated through periods of glaciations’ and extreme aridity.
Perhaps one of the Scientists can explain to me if maybe, and even if just maybe, the earth can distinguish between cosmic cycles as it does the with other cyclical commonalities such as the coming of fall, spring, winter, and summer? You see to my feeble mind I can’t help but think that the warming event seen in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s could have actually been part of the cycle of revving up the CO2 in the atmosphere in order to have adequate amounts of this compound readily available for continued photosynthesis during a natural cycle of cooling.
If indeed our current “Gore” minimum reaches the same level of cooling as the much talked about mini-ice age, then much of the CO2 causing ingredients will simply cease to exist. As the global warming fascists like to point out, if high temperatures could cause global positioning by the developed nations for natural resources such as water, arable land, and known factors of production then global cooling might just have a ten fold effect on the global community. If and when people, as well as all mammals, begin to freeze, which is a proven fact that more humans die every year from exposure to extreme cold than do those exposed to extreme heat, we will not have to worry about who was right and wrong on this subject; which we all know is “settle science”. We will be fighting to save or own society and ourselves.
Has anyone seen Lief Svalgaard’s response to Svensmark’s theory? I would like to know what it is. In the past I have posted to Lief that I thought the solar activity to temperature correlation was just too good. But if I remember right, his response was along the lines of correlation is not causation. In any case, I would like to see Lief give his full response to the Svensmark theory.
Why can’t sunspot counts be negative?
Let’s say, every day there isn’t a sunspot count, we add a negative 1 to the last count? Would match the inverted CRF better…
Zero seems to be such a poor indicator of amplitude…at least for solar activity or lack thereof. I mean, there is Zero, and then there is really Zero!
Just imagine how Zero the maunder minimum sunspot activity really was…
Or is Zero really always Zero?
Which is worse…a modest global cooling or the legislation proposed by the warmest? Neither is a good thing, but the legislation is far more detrimental than a global cooling of a degree or two. If the cool-down stops the legislation, we win. Unfortunately, we may get both. The cool-down may be too late to stop the legislative insanity. Eventually, the global warming laws will be overturned, but the framework of global governance will be strengthened by the legislation, and we will all suffer for it.
So where are the the people who laughed at my tinfoil hat ? Hah ! Not laughing now, are they ?
I’m switching over to heavy duty freezer wrap.
While I’m busy folding foil, I recommend Don B (17:41:33) ‘s arxiv pdf link above. It’s a great explanation of the GCR/cloud connection.
philincalifornia (20:15:33) :
Climate Progress?
What we now need for the GCR argument of climate mediation is a concurrent plot of the albedo. I wonder what Palle et al are doing.
Many inputs go into whether ionizing radiation will seed clouds. One of them for example is the humidity available to be seeded. In the summer in Greece humidity is usually very low. I watch the blue sky for the jets that pass very high up on the way to the north and west and see no tracks. As the season progresses and humidity rises tracks appear crisscrossing and remaining there for a long time. This means that the PDO ENSO and the rest of the alphabet soup will play a large role on how any extra seeding manifests.
The whole question of galactic cosmics and weather is another dynamical chaotic effect which has be studied carefully IMO, with modelling a la Tsonis et al.
Until temperatures drop and continue until the sunspots max out, even I won’t believe that cosmic ray increases will lead to global cooling. And since cycle 24 is showing signs of life…there is no clear cut immediate effect. Perhaps a lagging effect? May be? But not enough to overpower natural noise or the still plausible effects of global warming from whatever the cause.
John Silver said at (16:04:56) :
“Antarctic sea ice extent also just hit a record high. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but it’s there, none the less.”
Where do you get that statistic from? Looking at cryosphere charts for area it’s nowhere near. SoI’m puzzled?
Regards
Andy
Geoff Sharp said at(20:27:24) :
“This is indeed a great natural experiment that will probably be the end of the AGW crowd. It will also be the dawning of a new age of solar science.”
Unless it’s a load of poppycock of course! Good in theory or the lab, has no effect on larger scales….
I know which I’d bet on 😀
Regards
Andy
Graeme Rodaughan (16:59:28) :
“…. it is 90% certain that this Unprecendented Crisis of Increasing Cosmic Radiation is due to Human Industrial Activity and Human reliance on Fossil Fuels….”
“…. Dangerous Cosmic Rays are a threat to Polar Habitats and could well cause the extinction of the Polar Bear…”
Ha ha ha ha..my first thought upon reading this article was, “I wonder how long it will be before our Congressional geniuses decide we need to outlaw cosmic rays because they might contribute to “climate change”.
As usual, this is another unfounded PR stunt from NASA. And particularly damning and cherry picked. The Figure does not show what the current minimum is compared with [the red dashed line] as the curve has been carefully cut of. Here is the uncut curve:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews122.html
As you can see, the current minimum is compared with the previous minimum in 1996-1997. It is no wonder that it is higher, as every second minimum is higher than the others [the peaked-flat pattern]. To put things in perspective, here is the cosmic ray ray record since 1957 from Thule near the magnetic pole where cosmic rays are deflected the least by the Earth’s magnetic field:
http://www.leif.org/research/Bartol-Thule-Cosmic-Rays.png
It should be clear that the current minimum is not unusual and that cosmic rays return to the same level at every minimum of the same kind [odd-even and even-odd minima have slightly different levels]. We have this discussion regularly every few months. So, nothing special to write home about. Just the usual drum-beating by NASA about how unusual everything is, and about how we have never seen anything like it, and about how baffled they are, and that we are all going to die 🙂 . Bluntly spoken: the is BS.
For people who wonder about the ULU monitor plots and the plot above:
ULU says clearly it is a neutron count, and does not show the energy of the neutrons.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Neutrons are notoriously neutral, i.e. not ions, and are measured as a proxy of cascade collisions for the cosmic radiation, that has ions too. It is not unreasonable because being neutral more reach the ground.
The plot above says Fe around 270-450 MeV/nucleon.
Now iron has atomic number 26, i.e if stripped it has 26 times the ionization possibility of a proton, and 30 neutrons. This is a high energy cosmic ray, on average carrying 15 GeV producing cascades that will eventually produce neutrons that will be eventually counted as proxies of GCR on the ground at ULU etc.
Now this plot shows that the high energy, cascade producing, cosmics are on the increase.
If the neutron monitors do not see this they should be filed under “proxies to be checked”. As we well know, there are many assumptions entering when proxies are used.
Off hand I would say the cascade modeling is at fault, or that neutral fluxes do not correspond to charged fluxes, or …
BTW , my first abortive experiment was in building spark chamber detectors to measure cosmic ray cascades eventually, back in 1965. The group went then into bubble chamber physics at CERN and my thesis subject changed to K- proton scattering :).
MartinGAtkins (21:28:04) :
philincalifornia (20:15:33) :
Climate Progress?
——————————–
No but:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Aaaargh, the even more insignificant one. Sorry for being preoccupied with other comments on other threads.
“Just the usual drum-beating by NASA about how unusual everything is, and about how we have never seen anything like it, and about how baffled they are, and that we are all going to die 🙂 . Bluntly spoken: the is BS.”
Understood. And I defer to your expertise.
But why…..what is the reason…or reasons…that NASA would pull this kind of PR stunt.
It is just disconcerting that that entity that the West looks to for Science…would resort to this.
Why would they do this???
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Here is the uncut curve:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews122.html
From the second Figure and the text you see that the ’tilt’ of the Heliospheric Current Sheet is an important factor in the modulation of cosmic rays. As we said so many years ago:
Title: Structure of the extended solar magnetic field and the sunspot cycle variation in cosmic ray intensity
Authors: Svalgaard, L.; Wilcox, J. M.
(Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.),
Nature, vol. 262, Aug. 26, 1976, p. 766-768.
Abstract: It is proposed that a relation exists between the extent of interplanetary-magnetic-field sectors and observed variations in cosmic-ray intensity at earth. Changes that take place in the sector magnetic fields and solar polar fields during a sunspot cycle are described. It is argued that a geometrical effect arising from changes in sector-field and polar-field extent during sunspot cycles may be the principal cause of the 11-yr modulation of cosmic-ray intensity observed at earth. The fraction of the heliosphere occupied by sector fields is estimated as a function of time through an average sunspot cycle, the solid angle of the heliosphere occupied by the extended solar polar fields is plotted through the same cycle, and monthly averages of observed absolute intensities of primary cosmic rays with a rigidity greater than 0.5 GV are compared with the plot of polar-field extent. It is found that the average sunspot-cycle variation of the solid angle of the extended polar fields is rather similar to the observed variation in the flux of the cosmic rays considered.
As the tilt can’t be smaller than zero, that sets the maximum cosmic ray intensity, which will be reached every time the HCS is flat enough [and right now it is very flat]. All this is old hat and no big mystery.
Leif Svalgaard (23:11:10) :
As the tilt can’t be smaller than zero, that sets the maximum cosmic ray intensity, which will be reached every time the HCS is flat enough [and right now it is very flat]. All this is old hat and no big mystery.
HCS? definition thereof?
Granted that the tilt can’t be smaller than zero, but what about the intensity of the magnetic fields? Does the acceptance angle/vs energy incoming not change with the intensity of the magnetic field even in this case ?
savethesharks (23:02:42) :
Why would they do this???
Lemme see: if this minimum is unique, never seen before, etc, perhaps it is easier to pry some funds loose, as compared with the situation where we have already seen it all many times before….
Now, we should rather ask for funding based on a different premise, namely that we now have much better instruments and computers etc and so can really learn something new that has value for society.
BTW, the Nature paper cited above contains the drawing that was the basis for the now justly famous image of the HCS:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/helio.gif
which we got Werner Heil at Ames Research Center to make for us.
Note a subtle difference with the ballerina skirt version of HCS from the press release. Can anybody here figure out what the essential difference is?
Leif Svalgaard (22:43:57) :
As you can see, the current minimum is compared with the previous minimum in 1996-1997. It is no wonder that it is higher, as every second minimum is higher than the others [the peaked-flat pattern]. To put things in perspective, here is the cosmic ray ray record since 1957 from Thule near the magnetic pole where cosmic rays are deflected the least by the Earth’s magnetic field:
http://www.leif.org/research/Bartol-Thule-Cosmic-Rays.png
Yes the 1996 minimum is not enough to compare against, but the current level according to your supplied reference is starting to outstrip the min of 1965 which is a substantial event in itself. The Earth was going through a cooling phase and SC20 was very close to being the start of a grand minimum (it would have been if the underlying factor was stronger).
Also of interest is SC21 which looks to go out of phase with the other cycles, perhaps an argument for a non constant background GCR level.?
anna v (23:34:16) :
HCS? definition thereof?
The magnetic field in the Heliosphere has basically one polarity one side of the Heliospheric Current Sheet and the opposite polarity on the other side. The the HCS is a surface separating opposite magnetic polarity. It looks like this http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/helio.gif
but what about the intensity of the magnetic fields? Does the acceptance angle/vs energy incoming not change with the intensity of the magnetic field even in this case ?
The biggest effect is the angle, not the field, which in any case only changes little from minimum to minimum. The effect of the tilt is that if the HCS has warps in it, then solar wind plasma of different speeds will be emitted in the same direction as the Sun rotates. This causes the speed to vary along a radius vector in the equatorial plane. The fast wind will plough into the slow wind and create a strongly compression of the plasma, and it are those compressions that scatter the cosmic rays.