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.
david_a (14:33:02) :
However over time the energy balance induced by higher albedo can have a very large effect.
If for a million years the cosmic ray intensity, the albedo, the sunspots, whatever are absolutely constant, the oceans [and the soil] would obtain a certain equilibrium temperature. Now increase the energy input [from whichever of the sources from my list] as a step function and keep it there for the next million years. another equilibrium temperature would be established. This higher temperature would be very small if the energy change is very small [actually 1/4 of the relative energy change] and there would be no ‘very large effect’. The fact that there is an energy difference between the two 1-million year intervals, does not mean that during the 2nd million year slot, the temperature continues to go up, up, up, up…
As this get warmer, they also radiate more, so cool a bit again.
Nasif Nahle (14:35:55) :
What does it mean with regard to the Sun’s composition and the distribution of He, H I and H II?
The sound speed [which HMI will measure] inside the Sun depends on the composition. From our current measurements the calculated sound speed [based on our assumed and measured compositions] matches the observed one incredibly closely. We expect that still to be the case with HMI, and will be able to verify that. There have been recent adjustments to some of the heavier element abundances, but nothing to He and H.
OT, Bill Livingston made 12 measurements of the magnetic field of the recent 1027 SC24 spots over 4 days. The mean field strength was 1917 Gauss, just where it should be [!}: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Just The Facts (14:56:20) :
https://ah.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Tin_rev.pdf
This one gives a warning !!!
Are you familiar with Brian Tinsley?
Yes, Brian is a good friend of mine. The first paper you referenced is based on early work by Wilcox, myself, and others.
He is still working on an effect that I have abandoned long ago.
I wonder if marrying up your solar data with their cloud data might expose some interesting correlations.
Once we have enough data…
Invariant (15:01:49) :
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.
likely, yes
It will also be interesting to see if there is an increase in failures of computers and computer controlled machinery (such as the recent Airbus crashes).
Most (all?) of the computer memory we use was developed and tested in a lower cosmic ray environment. In the 1980s the size of a memory cell became small enough that using memory with no “error correction” (called ECC) built in started showing failures from a cosmic ray impact “flipping a bit” to the other state. ECC memory is supposed to “correct one, detect two” in most cases. But what happens when your QA was done with one rate of “issue” and now you have 20% more (or 50% more than during the time of testing a few years ago…)
I’m not very worried about it, but it does bear watching. I’ve seen non-ECC memory suffer from such failures and seen it cured with ECC memory AND I’ve seen the memory logs from some machines showing a “double bit” error detect in ECC memory. There will be a larger number of undetected triple bit memory errors with higher cosmic ray counts. Will it matter? We’ll see …
(FWIW, the Airbus is largely “fly by wire” with the pilot making suggestions and the computers figuring out what to do. Boeing is more traditional with more mechanical / hydraulic backups and the pilot is the final decision maker – and can decide badly some times. It is an argument of human error vs computer failure as to which is better. Jury still out and no clear statistical advantage to either approach, yet… One hopes they put extra shielding around avionics computers; but I’m not sure how you shield against high energy cosmic rays without lead. And I would not hesitate to take an Airbus flight. I’d think about it, and order a double Scotch, and get on board 😎
Leif Svalgaard (16:23:21) :
“This one gives a warning !!!”
Somebody forgot to put a valid security certificate on it, but I overrode the warning and the contents appear to be safe. Try this Google cached html version:
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:9GBhcY0ZTUgJ:https://ah.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Tin_rev.pdf+SOLAR+WIND+ON+THE+GLOBAL+ELECTRIC+CIRCUIT,&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Some folks doing research on canceling gravity and possibly making it go negative (worm hole territory).
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1488
It is based on Einstein’s “Mach’s Principle”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
BTW one of the experimenters chimes in at the first link. So far nothing conclusive. Results so far have been written off as experimental error. I suggested a better way of measuring for more definitive results later down in the thread.
This is in response to Nasif’s thought about negative gravitational fields. I’m not sure they have been observed in nature but a working experiment (or even null results) would tell us something.
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.
The Earth’s oceans cool constantly, while simultaneously warming from direct sunlight. The heat flow from the oceans is orders of magnitude larger than the heat gain from the claimed atmospheric warming.
On a daily basis, the oceans release about twice as much heat as the heat received by the Earth’s land area from sunshine.
Even a small increase in cloud cover will result in appreciable ocean cooling.
Leif,
“We have the cosmic ray flux 1930-1951 from ion-chamber measurements and from 1952 from neutron monitor data”.
Can we see it? Please?
Ed
“E.M.Smith (16:50:10) :
(FWIW, the Airbus is largely “fly by wire” with the pilot making suggestions and the computers figuring out what to do. Boeing is more traditional with more mechanical / hydraulic backups and the pilot is the final decision maker – and can decide badly some times. ”
Its actually a little stranger than that, based on past crashes both Boeing and Airbus have been involved in.
Boeing has made a statement along the lines of “We will never reduce a pilots control authority or ability to fly his plane”.
Airbus (which has seen some terrible accidents based on human error) has come down on the side of “We will never allow a pilot to cause the plane to enter a configuration or attitude where it can no longer fly”
(quoting both statements from memory)
Both companies have reached their position after strings of serious accidents so I can see both points based on their histories
(PS sorry for the OT post, its been an interesting discussion and it gave me a kick to contribute even if it wasn’t helpful)
Ed (22:05:40) :
“We have the cosmic ray flux 1930-1951 from ion-chamber measurements and from 1952 from neutron monitor data”.
Can we see it? Please?
Sure, slide 15 of
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Open%20Flux%20Has%20Been%20Constant%20Since%201840s%20(SHINE2007).pdf
and slide 32 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-SPRG-2008.pdf
The big black dots indicate balloon measurements used for calibration. The ‘jump’ at the red line is caused by that single balloon measurement in the early 1940s.
Tim Clark (05:05:50) :
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?
Let me guess – you’re an american – right?
It’s only americans who think that the 2% of the earth covered by the US actually represents the entire world.
>>I would have to inverse the GCR graph for having the
>>cooling effect implied in Svensmark’s hypothesis.
>> http://www.biocab.org/Anomaly_ICR_and_Change_T.jpg
But if the cloud nucleation was in the lower levels of the atmosphere, would not the troposphere warm with increased cosmic ray activity, as your graph demonstrates?
More low-level cloud = more reflected TSI to warm the troposphere.
.
>>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 would have to inverse the GCR graph for having the cooling
>>effect implied in Svensmark’s hypothesis.
But if the cloud nucleation was in the lower levels of the atmosphere, then the troposphere may well warm with increasing cosmic ray flux, as your graph appears to demonstrate.
More cloud = more reflected TSI to warm the troposphere.
Philincalifornia
Checked your ref to desdemonadespair. Spooky stuff coming from a renowned expert. Noted there were no comments so maybe he wasn’t so well renowned. Also noted the other news items. No wonder she despairs if she only picks up the bad news, all of which is caused by AGW no doubt. It’s well known here in Australia that the economicic downturn is a manifestation of GW and our Kevin Canute (Prime minister) will cure it with an ETS. Maybe you yanks should all vote at the mid terms to put a few more non-believing Republicans in. America holds the key to stopping this charade. If it’s out China won’t join and the rest of the world will just have put up with what ever nature brings. I am a farmer and I KNOW that crops don’t grow when it’s cold and cattle don’t get fat. Cool climate = lots of hunger. Thats in the record too.
ralph (02:37:48) :
I have found exactly the opposite with respect to
>>Shaviv and Svensmark’s allegations:
>> http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biocab.org%2FAnomaly_ICR_and_Change_T.jpg
>>I would have to inverse the GCR graph for having the cooling
>>effect implied in Svensmark’s hypothesis.
But if the cloud nucleation was in the lower levels of the atmosphere, then the troposphere may well warm with increasing cosmic ray flux, as your graph appears to demonstrate.
More cloud = more reflected TSI to warm the troposphere.
I had not considered that possibility, which is important for a reevaluation. I would like to know if there is a consistent source of information for cloudiness during the same period.
Historically we have done a lot with our first-order mathematical approximations and statistics. But now, rather than talking about simple correlations, what about multi-dimensional phase space diagrams? Where does chaos theory enter climate modeling? What causes a system to go to a different attractor? What are the butterflies (tipping points) in this? I guess we need more centuries of data collection before we begin to understand our planet’s chaotic model for its climate.
noaaprogrammer (16:03:30) “Historically we have done a lot with our first-order mathematical approximations and statistics. But now, rather than talking about simple correlations, what about multi-dimensional phase space diagrams? Where does chaos theory enter climate modeling? What causes a system to go to a different attractor? What are the butterflies (tipping points) in this?”
You raise interesting points. Linear correlation is not enough. I am finding co-plots (conditioning plots) & cross-wavelet methods to be useful in working out change-points.
noaaprogrammer (16:03:30) “I guess we need more centuries of data collection before we begin to understand our planet’s chaotic model for its climate.”
This might be the conventional view, but it is also the lazy one. I don’t imagine the people who make the first major breakthroughs will be from the conventional, administratively-oriented “build in menacing nuisances, obstacles, strawmen, & delays to defend tradition” crowd. I expect a paradigm shift and I think Barkin is pointing us in the right direction.
–
Tallbloke, if you are around you may be interested to know that I have now found a conditioning variable (based on empirical observation) that can mathematically account for the phase-change in the relationship you previously noted.
OT, but, where is poster kim these days? (Haven’t seen her here or on the CA mirror)
Missing her take and witticisms …
.
.
.
I’ll become worried when the radios start ‘dancing’ across the band (controlled by microprocessors) and the GPS likewise shows highly erratic operations or our cell phones begin to mis-dial like crazy; point being, most of the flight processing data is HIGHLY integrated and one ‘fouled’ sample is probably tossed as an ‘outlier’ and significantly smaller values are again subject to an averaging/integration process that renders reasonable control values (and therefore a robust control process) to the flight surfaces.
I’ve written control/interface software to ‘outside’ sensors that could at times have highly questionable logic states if sampled only once in time and not *qualified* via over/under counts or numerical integration techniques. The result was always robust and deterministic in the face of real-world impulse noise generated by all manner of appliances powering up-and-down creating noise spikes off the AC-line.
.
.