Cosmic Ray Blues – Svensmark Sings Synchronicity

Svensmark Sings

In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen discovered a connection between cosmic rays and global cloud cover.

In 1996 a surprising discovery was announced that the intensity of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere correlates closely with variations of global cloud cover [Svensmark and FriisChristensen 1996].

Clouds both reflect incoming and trap outgoing radiation, and they thus play an important role in the Earth’s radiation budget.

Center for Sun-Climate Research – Technical University of Denmark

The discovery revealed a 2% variation in cloud cover during the solar sunspot cycle.

The reported variation of cloud cover was approximately 2% over the course of a sunspot cycle.

This may appear to be quite small; however, the possible consequences on the global radiation (energy) budget are not.

Simple estimates indicate that the resultant global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

Center for Sun-Climate Research – Technical University of Denmark

Eleven years later Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder revived interest in the discovery when their “new theory of climate change” was published.

During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them.

Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds—and a warmer world.

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change – Totem Books – 2007

Obviously, claiming cosmic rays “have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2” ran contrary to the mainstream Global Warming Juggernaut.

Unsurprisingly, experimental verification of the theory has been slow and controversial.

SKY Experiment
Svensmark conducted proof of concept experiments in the SKY Experiment at the Danish National Space Institute.

To investigate the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation low in the Earth’s atmosphere, the SKY experiment used natural muons (heavy electrons) that can penetrate even to the basement of the National Space Institute in Copenhagen.

The hypothesis, verified by the experiment, is that electrons released in the air by the passing muons promote the formation of molecular clusters that are building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei.

Critics of the hypothesis claimed that particle clusters produced measured just a few nanometres across, whereas aerosols typically need to have a diameter of at least 50 nm in order to serve as so-called cloud condensation nuclei.

Further experiments by Svensmark and collaborators published in 2013 that showed that aerosols with diameter larger than 50 nm are produced by ultraviolet light (from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor), large enough to serve as cloud condensation nuclei.

However, lets bypass the newspeak from Wikipedia and get the theory straight from the horse’s mouth.

Henrik Svensmark

Center for Sun-Climate Research – Technical University of Denmark

Unfortunately, the hypothesis is subject to interpretation because it uses the phase “cosmic rays”.

Hard core astrophysicists would interpret “cosmic rays” to mean “particles” with energies above 108 eV and see an inverse relationship between “cosmic rays” and sunspots.

Cosmic Ray particles versus Sunspots

Variation of cosmic ray intensity and monthly sunspot activity since 1958 according to the Germany Cosmic Ray Monitor in Kiel (GCRM) and NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), respectively.

High sunspot activity correlates with low cosmic ray intensity, and vice versa.

Last month incorporated: August 2009 (GCRM) and October 2009 (NGDC). Last diagram update: 6 November 2009.

Soft core astronomers would interpret “cosmic rays” to mean electromagnetic energy ranging from X-Rays to Gamma Rays and see a synchronous relationship with sunspots.

Sunspots versus Solar X-Rays

Figure 10: 1-8 Å (1.55-12.4 keV) solar X-ray flux at 1.0 AU, measured with the GOES satellites. The times of the Chandra and XMM-Newton observations are marked, together with the corresponding mean solar X-ray flux, which was highly variable during the XMM-Newton observation.

First observation of Mars with XMM-Newton
High resolution X-ray spectroscopy with RGS
K. Dennerl1 – C. M. Lisse – A. Bhardwaj – V. Burwitz – J. Englhauser – H. Gunell – M. Holmström – F. Jansen – V. Kharchenko – P. M. Rodríguez-Pascual
A&A 451, 709-722 (2006)

Furthermore, soft core astronomers looking at the “0.50-0.96 MeV proton differential flux” also see a synchronous relationship with sunspots.

0.50-0.96 MeV proton differential flux versus Sunspots

Solar Energetic Particle Variations
David Lario – George M Simnett

The stalled mainstream “experimental verification” [of Svensmark’s theory] has focussed upon the hard core particle Galactic Cosmic Rays that have an inverse relationship with sunspots.

Therefore, in the interests of science, let’s follow the soft core Solar Cosmic Ray thread.

Firstly, the lower energies associated with Solar Cosmic Rays means:

a) A flux of “about 10,000 per square meter per second”.
b) Electromagnetic Showers [not Hadronic Showers].
c) The majority of the Electromagnetic Showers will originate in the D Layer.

Ionosphere D Layer

Additionally, the Solar Cosmic Ray flux of “about 10,000 per square meter per second” is a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the Galactic Cosmic Ray flux.

The flux of incoming cosmic rays at the upper atmosphere is dependent on the solar wind, the Earth’s magnetic field, and the energy of the cosmic rays.

The combined effects of all of the factors mentioned contribute to the flux of cosmic rays at Earth’s surface.

For 1 GeV particles, the rate of arrival is about 10,000 per square meter per second.

Cosmic ray flux versus particle energy

Therefore, any variation in the flux of Solar Cosmic Rays [Gamma Rays, X-Rays and Solar Wind] is going to directly effect the electromagnetic energy flux arriving at the “Earth’s surface”.

Electromagnetic shower

As we have seen, both the Solar Proton flux and the Solar X-Ray flux are synchronised with the Solar Sunspot cycle.

Solar X-Ray Flux

Figure 13: 1-8 Å (1.55-12.4 keV) solar X-ray flux at 1.0 AU, measured with GOES-7 (before March 1995) and GOES-8 (afterwards). During the ROSAT and Chandra observations (indicated by dashed vertical lines), the solar X-ray flux was similar.

Discovery of X-rays from Mars with Chandra
K. Dennerl – Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik
A&A 394, 1119-1128 (2002)

An X-ray telescope (XRT) is a telescope that is designed to observe remote objects in the X-ray spectrum.

In order to get above the Earth’s atmosphere, which is opaque to X-rays, X-ray telescopes must be mounted on high altitude rockets or artificial satellites.

Therefore, mainstream science has already verified the Svensmark hypothesis [without having to fall down the rabbit hole of climate science].

It really is that simple [provided Solar Cosmic Rays don’t have an unfortunate accident].

Additionally, more Solar Cosmic Rays will result in more Electromagnetic Showers and this will lead to more ionization and more photodissociation in the atmosphere as the energy of the Solar Cosmic Rays is dissipated in an electromagnetic cascade.

The dissipated Solar Cosmic Ray energy is then realised as thermal energy when the particles recombine to form neutral elements and molecules.

Thus the lower atmosphere is [also] warmed via Solar Cosmic Ray.

This atmospheric warming is clearly documented and demonstrably peaks [just below the D Layer] at an altitude of 50 kilometres.

D Band and Temperature profile

Ultimately, through the mediation of Solar Cosmic Rays, the Earth’s surface temperature is marginally [as in degrees Kelvin] synchronised with the solar sunspot cycle.

Thankfully, some sections of mainstream science are beginning to understand this solar connection as they consider the implications of an extreme Carrington event.

Ionization rates

Influence of a Carrington-like event on the atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics: revised
M Calisto, I Usoskin and E Rozanov – 2013
Environmental Research Letters Vol: 8 Num: 4

Clearly, this is [not] a wonderful Christmas present for settled science.

But let’s hope that Mikey and the Mechanics are gleefully singing the Cosmic Rays Blues around the Christmas tree this year.

“If our eyes could see high-energy gamma rays, this is what the Earth would look like from space,” said Dr. Dirk Petry of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
Earth in three gamma-ray energy bands
Here we see a false-color image of the Earth in three gamma-ray energy bands, analogous to the colors red (lower energy), green (mid energy) and blue (higher energy) in the visible spectrum.

Gamma rays are millions to trillions of times more energetic than visible light; and they span an energy range far wider than the familiar visible rainbow from red to violet.

Visible light has an energy value of about 1.6 to 3.3 electron volts (eV).

Gamma rays are measured in Mega-electron volts (MeV) and Giga-electron volts (GeV) — and sometimes Tera-electron volts (TeV).

The red image corresponds to gamma rays at 35-100 MeV;
the green image corresponds to gamma rays at 100 MeV to 1 GeV;
the blue image corresponds to gamma rays at 1-10 GeV; and
the brownish image shows the full mix of energies.

Because the satellite was so close to the Earth, the image has an extreme wide-angle view as if one were taking a picture with a 35 mm photo camera equipped with an 8 mm fish-eye lens.

The Earth’s rim is much brighter than the center because cosmic rays hitting the rim at a shallow angle are more likely to create detectable gamma rays.

The asymmetry in intensity between East and West is caused by the Earth’s magnetic field.

Image credit: NASA/CGRO/EGRET/ Dirk Petry

Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Atmospheric Science, Cosmic Rays, Earth, Inventions and Deceptions, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.