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.”
Leif.
Could you answer Anna’s point – anna v (22:46:31) – that the NASA plot is of Fe (Iron) nuclei, whereas your plots are of the resultant nutron showers.
Could the Fe plot not be fully represented in the nutron monitors?
.
The sunspots count cannot be negative. However, the change of the total energy is easily cancealed by the change of negative energy of the Earth’s gravity field, so the change of the total solar irradiance could acquire negative magnitudes or magnitudes below zero.
Nasif,
I was attempting humour regarding negative sunspot counts. Seems to me that having a floor of zero makes the sunspot count a poor proxy for irradiance, for the lower end of range. In particular, during the maunder minimum. Would be better to stick with 10be or such.
Ed
Allan Kiik (06:13:40) :
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
So on one thread Mr. smith says the effect of a cloud is instanteaneous on temperature under it and here we are say that this will be slowed by the ocean heat sink!
In my view:
Over the land temperature differences caused by increased cloud cover will show immediately. Global averages will be much less as the ocean will slow changes. Changes should not be great because clouds act as GHG as well as increase albedo. So a bit of cancelling must happen.
ralph (07:23:45) :
Could the Fe plot not be fully represented in the neutron monitors?
86% of the GCRs are protons (Hydrogen), 11% are Helium, and 0.1% (that is 1 in a 1000) is Fe http://nuastro-zeuthen.desy.de/e111/e617/infoboxContent625/Bernhard_CCR_composition.pdf . The energy range of those as quoted in the NASA graph [ACE measurements] is 0.250-0.450 GeV, i.e. on the low side. As you can see here http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
The solar modulation increases with decreasing energy of the GCR, and is small for the higher energes, that according to Svensmark should be responsible for the clouds.
ralph (07:23:45) :
Could the Fe plot not be fully represented in the neutron monitors?
86% of the GCRs are protons (Hydrogen), 11% are Helium, and 0.1% (that is 1 in a 1000) is Fe http://nuastro-zeuthen.desy.de/e111/e617/infoboxContent625/Bernhard_CCR_composition.pdf . The energy range of those as quoted in the NASA graph [ACE measurements] is 0.250-0.450 GeV, i.e. on the low side. As you can see here http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
The solar modulation increases with decreasing energy of the GCR, and is small for the higher energes, that according to Svensmark should be responsible for the clouds.
Nasif Nahle (08:22:21) :
However, the change of the total energy is easily cancealed by the change of negative energy of the Earth’s gravity field, so the change of the total solar irradiance could acquire negative magnitudes or magnitudes below zero.
As I said before, this is utter nonsense.
ET (08:35:36) :
Seems to me that having a floor of zero makes the sunspot count a poor proxy for irradiance
It is not a proxy for irradiance, just for the tiny portion [0.1%] that varies with time, and for that the SSN is a good proxy [provided we get the SSN correct – http://www.leif.org/research/Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf ]
ET (08:35:36) :
Nasif,
I was attempting humour regarding negative sunspot counts. Seems to me that having a floor of zero makes the sunspot count a poor proxy for irradiance, for the lower end of range. In particular, during the maunder minimum. Would be better to stick with 10be or such.
Ed,
🙂 Sorry. Absolutely agree. I’m still working on another proxy better than sunspots, i.e. the hematite stained grains. These have been regulated by 10Be, 16C and other heavy ions data.
Nasif
Tilo Reber (20:52:10) :
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.
Leif thinks it’s BS (Bad Science).
Tilo Reber (20:52:10) :
I would like to see Leif give his full response to the Svensmark theory
The simplest and most direct response is that the observed cosmic ray variation does not follow that of the observed [with all its flaws – e.g. UHI effect, etc] temperature, nor of the albedo. Since there is no good correlation, one need not even invoke the ‘correlation is not causation’ maxim. But the shoe is on the other foot: I don’t have to prove him wrong, he has to prove himself right, and he hasn’t. He and many of his disciples may think he has, but it is not convincing to me. Simple as that. If you are convinced, you can stay and be happy in that belief, I’m not.
I have found exactly the opposite with respect to Shaviv and Svensmark’s allegations:
http://www.biocab.org/Anomaly_ICR_and_Change_T.jpg
I sketched the graph and added it to my original article in 2007, which had been published in 2005 under the category of educational paper. I could have not doubts about Svensmark hypothesis on the promotion of cloudiness by GCR particles; however, I don’t see much clear evidence on the other side of his hypothesis regarding the negative effect of cosmic rays on the tropospheric temperature.
I would have to inverse the GCR graph for having the cooling effect implied in Svensmark’s hypothesis.
“Puzzling, eh?”
Hardly, warmeners. One cc of ocean stores the same quantity of kinetic energy(heat) as a liter of air at one Atm. Water’s heat capacity is roughly 3 times that of dry earth.
One cc of ocean evaporating removes 70 calories from the ocean, to be released in the atmosphere a few thousand feet above with precipitation.
85% of solar energy incident to the earth’s surface falls between the Tropics, i.e., most of the visible and UV spectrum. This energy is absorbed by the top 100 feet of the oceans and stored.
The emissivity of water, in turn is only 2/3 that of earth.
Therefore, one may regard the SO as the Earth’s heat sink and the NH as its radiator fins.
Look for record extent and density of noctilucent clouds this NH winter.
It’s Adolpho. Boy, that guy just does not know how to conceal his identity
Don´t get mad that HCS it´s just La Nina´s mini skirt
That’s interesting Nasif. I have a modified version of an excel model (I think it originated with Bob Tisdale), with a solar proxy, every ocean cycle I could get my hands on (weighted and averaged together), and no matter what I do, I’m always left with a ±0.1C 22yr ripple error when comparing with Hadcrut. If I add the CRF without inversion, it cancels the ripple error. It would add error if inverted.
Really wish we had cosmic ray flux from 1900-1960 so we could understand the impact of cosmic ray flux when the sun was ramping up, when it really mattered (unlike the last 40-50yrs when the sun didn’t change much). Without, we’ll just have to all guess…until the next 2 solar cycles are done.
OT, but nice:
Here is a new video about HMI.
Eve’s video:
Leif Svalgaard (13:26:59) :
OT, but nice:
Here is a new video about HMI.
ET (12:44:07) :
Really wish we had cosmic ray flux from 1900-1960 so we could understand the impact of cosmic ray flux when the sun was ramping up, when it really mattered
We have the cosmic ray flux 1930-1951 from ion-chamber measurements and from 1952 from neutron monitor data. The problem is that we are not sure about the calibration of the early data. Based on a single balloon flight in the 1930s, some researchers [McCracken et al.] believe that during the early data, the flux was 12% larger than after 1951. I.e. that the flux at solar maximum back then would be higher than it is now at solar minimum. This is not very likely [and the change would have to have taken place with a year or two around 1950], so until we get issue resolved we don’t really know.
gary gulrud (10:41:34) :
One cc of ocean evaporating removes 70 calories from the ocean
Isn’t the latent heat of evaporation of water 540(varies slightly with temp) cal/gm, so that would be 540 calories for 1 cc. OK slightly less because of the salt content but not much.
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.
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]
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
I think I understand both your point of view and the idea that it takes a long time to change the earth’s temperature. Yes, indeed, with more low clouds we should notice a quick drop in temperature in the places where the sun previously was shining. On the other hand, the contribution from this reduced heat supply to our earth’s energy budget _has_ to go through the first law of thermodynamics,
m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node129.html
Due to the immense thermal mass of our earth (m•cp), in particular the oceans, we must wait a long time to see the overall global temperature drop significantly – this is not an immediate effect – we have to wait years.
Do you agree?
Best Regards,
Invariant
Invariant (14:06:06) :
I think I understand both your point of view and the idea that it takes a long time to change the earth’s temperature.
People who peddle the Sun-Climate relation usually claim an immediate effect, e.g.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/primer/Sun-SST.gif
If it takes a long time to change the temperature then that would also smooth out any short-term variations, so remove most of the ‘clear correlations’ people claim, e.g. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/primer/cosmoclimatology1.gif
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]
Simply because the energy content of the oceans and the atmosphere is very large, and all the other processes at work have an enormous variance which can and will dwarf what can happen from a small change in albedo due to increasing cloudiness. However over time the energy balance induced by higher albedo can have a very large effect. It’s no different than any other forcing. There should be nothing instantaneous about it unless you have some precise way of measuring all the forcings simultaneously along with the global heat content.
Its really no different from the calculation of increasing heat content over time due to the presumed forcing of C02. This one would just work in the other direction.
Leif Svalgaard (13:34:06) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:26:59) :
OT, but nice:
Here is a new video about HMI.
When Woody Allen comes on the scene? 🙂
In the second part of the video, the magnetic field of the Sun is shown like a wireframe hank. What does it mean with regard to the Sun’s composition and the distribution of He, H I and H II?
Please, don’t misinterpret my open question; I am highly interested on this issue.
Leif
Obviously approaching this from a layman’s perspective, but I get the sense that there is a relationship between solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover, which goes beyond the obvious infrared driven heat/evaporation, and represents a significant piece in Earth’s climatic puzzle. Putting aside infrared and Svensmark’s hypothesis for a moment, what other impacts might the sun have on Earth’s cloud cover?
For example, this paper discusses “Daily changes in global cloud cover and Earth transits of the
heliospheric current sheet”:
https://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/tin_dcgcc.pdf
and this one discusses, “INFLUENCE OF SOLAR WIND ON THE GLOBAL ELECTRIC CIRCUIT, AND INFERRED EFFECTS ON CLOUD MICROPHYSICS, TEMPERATURE, AND DYNAMICS IN THE TROPOSPHERE”
https://ah.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Tin_rev.pdf
Are you familiar with Brian Tinsley?
http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
I feel like you and Brian might be able to sort all this out over a couple beers…
Also, the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) seems to be collecting a bunch of data on Earth’s cloud cover:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/index.html
I wonder if marrying up your solar data with their cloud data might expose some interesting correlations.
Leif Svalgaard (14:28:46): People who peddle the Sun-Climate relation usually claim an immediate effect, e.g.
To be honest I am more interested in the laws of thermodynamics than what most people claim. 🙂 My favourite is the fourth law, the Norwegian Onsager’s theorem for dissipative thermodynamics, that was rewarded a Nobel Prize in 1968. Going back to the paper by Markov in 1906
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers,
I think we can argue along the lines of the law of large numbers that a spatial average reduction of low clouds can lead to a reduced time average of low clouds too. I am not stating that this is the case – merely that it is a possibility.