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.
Leif Svalgaard (23:46:16) :
The two images are completely different. One is like a 2 headed sprinkler the other a 1 headed. Also the height of the HCS grows with distance on your version.
anna v (23:34:16) :
Does the acceptance angle/vs energy incoming not change with the intensity of the magnetic field even in this case ?
The main effect comes from the variation of density compressions, as I explained. Here is a nice movie of the change in solar wind speed in a meridional plane as the Sun rotates:
http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Movie-hi.gif
and here of the density:
http://www.leif.org/research/Dens-Movie.gif
You can see the ‘shields’ being built before your eyes.
Geoff Sharp (00:16:10) :
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 difference is very small, and as the HCS now is rather flat [and with increasing SC24 activity will begin to warp again], there will not be much more stripping to do.
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.?
SC21 is not all that different. One should be careful not to overinterpret the data [to fit one’s ideas, perhaps]. Some of the finer details are different from cosmic ray station to cosmic ray station. Here is Moscow: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux-Moscow.png
The year 1980 was a bit unusual as the solar wind speed was abnormally low. That tends to skew the modulation a bit.
As the background comes from a very large volume of the Galaxy it is hard to have any short-term variation of the background.
Geoff Sharp (00:22:02) :
The two images are completely different. One is like a 2 headed sprinkler the other a 1 headed. Also the height of the HCS grows with distance on your version.
Yes, mine has two spirals and Jokipii’s only one. So in mine the polarity will change four times during a solar rotation and the Jokipii’s only two times. During the years leading up to solar minimum we usually observe four such ‘sector boundaries’ and not two. And the ‘height’ should grow with distance, because the solar wind expands radially, so the angle is constant. You can see the same growth here: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Movie-hi.gif
[in other words: the Figure in the press release is no good].
Leif Svalgaard (22:43:57) :
[…]
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.
NASA is saying how unusual everything is? The last sentence in the article seems to say the opposite: “We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries.”
NASA is saying we have never seen anything like it? The article says, “Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% higher than they are now.”
NASA is baffled? “Lately, the current [HCS] sheet has been flattening itself out, allowing cosmic rays more direct access to the inner solar system.” Isn’t that what you are saying?
We are all going to die? NASA says the opposite in the article: “Earth is in no great peril from the extra cosmic rays.”
Finally, I think NASA’s claim that cosmic rays are 19% higher than anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years is confirmed by the Thule cosmic ray graph you provided a link to.
In short, I don’t see the alarmism and BS in the article that you do. Some of their previous articles are a different story, but in this case I don’t see it.
>>>Leif 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
Yes, but we have ‘negative’ Sunspots now 😉
.
The other important factor is, is there a cloud-cover dataset somewhere, so we can compare cosmic ray flux with resulting cloud cover. This, after all, is the nub of Svenmark’s theory.
.
>>Leif
>>It is no wonder that it is higher, as every second minimum
>>is higher than the others
Understood, this peak is higher than the last.
But that is not what the graphic at the top says. It says “19% higher than the previous space age record high”. That is, since the 1960s.
So is this a lie? Judging by your Thule monitor graph it is NOT 19% higher, so is this a lie, or are they talking about something else?
.
>>Note a subtle difference with the ballerina skirt version
>>>of HCS from the press release.
The ballerina has lost one arm of her skirt. DOes that make a difference?
.
Geoff Sharp (00:16:10) :
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….
Yes but the cooling began ~20 years earlier. There was little or no cooling after 1965. This is the problem I have with solar/climate links. The order of events appears to be irrelevant. It’s OK to associate a cooling event with a high GCR count 20 years later, but when someone asks why the earth isn’t much cooler now then they’re not understanding the lag due to thermal inertia.
I suspect this lag is going to become quite flexible and quite a bit longer in the coming years.
Leif Svalgaard (00:23:55) :
anna v (23:34:16) :
Does the acceptance angle/vs energy incoming not change with the intensity of the magnetic field even in this case ?
The main effect comes from the variation of density compressions, as I explained.
Thanks for the movies, they are lovely, but of course I cannot gauge whether there will be differences in these compressions that will affect appreciably the number of GCR coming through from minimum to minimum.
The article seems to be saying that there are. On the other hand the importance of the observation, whether new or old, is that there is a variation in the GCR that according to the proposed theory should increase cloud cover. So one maybe should ask Palle what they are currently finding, though I do not believe on linear effects in climate. It is a pushme pullyou all the way through, and that is why I keep harping that all these observations should be entered in a truly chaotic simulation, a la Tsonis et al .
Mike Abbott (00:48:55) :
Finally, I think NASA’s claim that cosmic rays are 19% higher than anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years is confirmed by the Thule cosmic ray graph you provided a link to.
ralph (02:22:26) :
Judging by your Thule monitor graph it is NOT 19% higher
“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech.
Is not correct. The 19% is compared to 1996-1997. The Press Release uses words like ‘record high’. What would have been the impact if it had said in the title: “everything is normal”. The tone of the PR [and the various comments it has elicited here] is clearly somewhat sensational and that is not warranted.
Mike Abbott (00:48:55) :
Finally, I think NASA’s claim that cosmic rays are 19% higher than anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years is confirmed by the Thule cosmic ray graph you provided a link to.
Here are some more stations:
http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
The basic fact is that the intensity now is just where it always has been for odd-even solar minima. That should have been the take-home message of the press release, or even in the title.
Now, if you agree with me that that is the case, then there is little reason to make the press release a big deal, or even issuing it in the first place.
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?
And both periods are less than 1932-1939. Is this also confusing?
anna v (04:10:38) :
I cannot gauge whether there will be differences in these compressions that will affect appreciably the number of GCR coming through from minimum to minimum.
Observations indicated that there are no differences.
Tim Clark (05:05:50) :
“Puzzling, eh?”
And both periods are less than 1932-1939. Is this also confusing?
The puzzle and confusion disappears if you accept [the heresy around here] that the cosmic rays have nothing to do with the climate.
Leif 22:34:57
Back to this ‘peaked-flat’ pattern in alternating solar cycles. If there are three solar cycles in each phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, then there are two of each type of cosmic ray pattern in each phase and one of the other. If the peaked-flat’ pattern has any effect on clouds, then the cycling of the PDO can be explained by the accumulation of two of each type in one phase of the PDO and two of the other type in the next phase.
=========================================
Leif,
If the GCR cloud seeding theory has any validity, its effect on earths temperature is going to be through the integral of GCR’s over time. The unprecedented (at least in the space age time) of this cycle is not GCRmax but the length of time we are in the minimum. If GCR’s seed clouds and clouds change albedo that is a very potent mechanism for inducing climate change. According to IPCC the radiation budget is currently out of balance by 0.9w/m2 and this is going to roast us. A 1% change in albedo is worth about 3x that.
david_a (05:23:44) :
If the GCR cloud seeding theory has any validity, its effect on earths temperature is going to be through the integral of GCR’s over time.
Why is that? The change of albedo would be immediate [a cloud doesn’t last very long – hours or days]
Leif Svalgaard (05:12:34) :
Tim Clark (05:05:50) :
“Puzzling, eh?”
And both periods are less than 1932-1939. Is this also confusing?
The puzzle and confusion disappears if you accept [the heresy around here] that the cosmic rays have nothing to do with the climate.
I don’t accept “nothing” as an appropriate descriptor, but agree there is little evidence of significant influence. And I’m not the one confused. I’m unconcerned about 1 (or so) degrees/century.
Tim Clark (05:36:30) :
I don’t accept “nothing” as an appropriate descriptor, but agree there is little evidence of significant influence.
A null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance). There is little evidence that the null hypothesis of no effect can be rejected.
Leif Svalgaard (05:34:26) :
Why is that? The change of albedo would be immediate [a cloud doesn’t last very long – hours or days]
May be because of “low-pass filter” provided by oceans? As most of the earths climate systems energy is in the oceans, we must have some lag in temperatures.
We can see immediate results in albedo tracking satellites, of course.
Mike Abbott (00:48:55) :
I think some of Leif’s comments referred to NASA’s history of issuing sensational and often impressively wrong press releases, such as the following string related to solar activity:
Nov 12, 2003: “The Sun Goes Haywire – Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/12nov_haywire.htm
Oct 18, 2004: “Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say scientists, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm
May 5, 2005: “Solar Myth – With solar minimum near, the sun continues to be surprisingly active.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05may_solarmyth.htm
Sept 15, 2005: “Solar Minimum Explodes – Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_solarminexplodes.htm
Aug 15th, 2006: “Backward Sunspot – A strange little sunspot may herald the coming of one of the stormiest solar cycles in decades.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm
Dec 21, 2006 “Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle – Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Dec 14, 2007 “Is a New Solar Cycle Beginning? – The solar physics community is abuzz this week.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/14dec_excitement.htm
Jan 10, 2008: “Solar Cycle 24 – Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
March 28, 2008: “Old Solar Cycle Returns – Barely three months after forecasters announced the beginning of new Solar Cycle 24, old Solar Cycle 23 has returned.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/28mar_oldcycle.htm
July 11, 2008: “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) – Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
Sept. 30, 2008: “Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
– Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low – We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
Nov. 7, 2008: “The Sun Shows Signs of Life – I think solar minimum is behind us”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/07nov_signsoflife.htm
April 1, 2009: “Deep Solar Minimum – We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum – This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
May 29, 2009: “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
June 17, 2009: “Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved? The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm
September 3, 2009: “Are Sunspots Disappearing? – Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
George E. Smith (17:36:17) :
“Well it might also be interesting to follow what happens with ozone holes to see if higher levels of cosmic rays striking the earth lead to more ozone manufacture.”
Reply: That was my understanding too George, but I came across this recently at Physics World:-
“Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?
Mar 26, 2009
New data gathered from satellites and ground-based stations support the idea that much of the destruction of Antarctic ozone involves the action of cosmic rays, says a physicist in Canada. This goes against the widely-accepted notion that the ozone layer — which shields Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation — is depleted via the action of direct sunlight.”
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38398
Seems the science isn’t settled yet in this area?
So, if the increased galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are causing increased droplet or ice crystal formation in clouds, and are masking the effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, what happens when the current solar minimum passes and GCRs decrease, as they have every 11 years or so for the last several hundred years?
Are we being shielded from our own actions, and are we setting ourselves up for truly runaway warming when the next solar maximum occurs?
Solar cycles are variable.
Do we really want to risk the future of the human race on solar cycles?
Or do we want a stable climate, with low greenhouse gas concentrations, safe from any possible effects of solar cycles and galactic cosmic rays?
Leif Svalgaard (22:43:57) :
For your reference, in terms of baffling, while the recent NASA press release on solar activity states that, “In the 17th century, the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
I believe that credit for origination of the baffling goes to the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm