CERN Studies Connection Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change 193
Layzej writes with this quote from Nature:
"For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. It is hypothesized that clouds might then build up around the droplets — possibly affecting the Earth's climate. To find out, [Jasper] Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). ... Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change (abstract). The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometer-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds."
Lack of (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, CERN studies lack of connection between cosmic rays and climate change.
sPh
Re:Lack of (Score:3)
Re:Lack of (Score:5, Informative)
I would think the crucial information would be if there had been a significant change in the cosmic ray flux over the last century and how that correlates with a change in cloud coverage or density.
Studies in that area have been inconclusive. The IPCC AR4 summarizes:
There appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001)
Here are some more recent studies which also have been unable to show a definitive link:
Calogovic, J., et al. (2010): Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03802, doi:10.1029/2009GL041327.
Erlykin, A.D., et al (2009a): On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71, 17-18, 1794-1806, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.06.012.
Kulmala, M., et al. (2010): Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 1885-1898, doi:10.5194/acp-10-1885-2010.
Pierce, J.R., and P.J. Adams (2009): Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.
Sloan, T., and A.W. Wolfendale (2008): Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 024001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001.
Re:Lack of (Score:3)
Re:Lack of (Score:2)
I think he's saying that he read the summary all the way through. Particularly the last line, "high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometer-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds."
Re:Lack of (Score:2)
Re:Lack of (Score:3)
Re:Lack of (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloud Graph [wordpress.com].
I was convinced there was more to this after reading Calder's book, "The Chilling Stars", quite some time ago. This experiment simply adds to the evidence gathered and presented there. The next question concerns the growth of CCN after this initial formation of small sized particles. It's interesting to me that this is immediately dismissed by hockey-stick fiddlers. There is a certain closed-mindedness to anything other than the current dogma in certain circles.
Re:Lack of (Score:4, Insightful)
Just look at the negative moderation of your post. Certain people have latched onto current climate change dogma so strongly that it's become a source of self-worth for them, proof of how much smarter they are than the "deniers." Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm, opposing opinion supported by evidence.
Re:Lack of (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because the deniers have previously presented this theory as an alternative explanation to global warming vs. human-released fossil carbon, and while it was found that cosmic radiation can have some influence, the effects are nowhere near significant enough on their own.
So of course when this theory shows up in an article the first reaction of scientifically-minded people is to put that dead horse back in the ground before the deniers get a chance to beat on it again, because that's a frustrating waste of everybody's time.
So, yes it has an effect that's worth studying. But NO this wasn't the mystery factor that those elitist scientists didn't notice 'cuz they're fulla book learnin' but ain't got no common sense.
Re:How is that sand tasting? (Score:4, Insightful)
The graph doesn't say otherwise. It shows that cosmic radiation can cause droplets to form, which we already know. Not that it has an effect great enough to account for any meaningful amount of global warming.
After all that you are unwilling to admit that perhaps there is a lot about climate science yet to discover, unwilling to admit your masters have hoodwinked you.
LOL irony overload! XD
Also I get the feeling that this "unwillingness to share data" argument is the hot new fashion among denialists, maybe a nice big compiled list of data sources and climate simulator source code downloads will make you move on...
Re:How is that sand tasting? (Score:2)
Yay thanks! That'll come in handy! ^_^
Re:How is that sand tasting? (Score:3)
"After all the lies,"
What lies?
" the unwillingness to share data, "
Data is shared all the time.
"the insular peer review,"
the peer review is only insular in the EXPERTS IN THE FIELD peer review. just like every other field.
" lack of temperature increases,"
2010 was the hottest on record. the lack of temp. increase is a LIE.
and now a strong argument that changes how we think about cloud formation, "
ah, I see. You have glommed onto a belief system, and have completely stopped thinking about it. well done, I'm sure Fox news will throw you a towel to wipe their cum off your face.
RTFA, bitch.
Talking to you people is like talking to creationist. Lies, misunderstanding, and all your knowledge about the topic is from headlines and echo chamber sites.
Re:How is that sand tasting? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is always an ad hoc special pleading available for a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis that is never unambiguously stated. Keep showing refutations of individual points, and warmists will keep insisting that it's all the *other* points that count.
Re:How is that sand tasting? (Score:2)
What does that graph refute? It goes against nothing I've said.
Re:Lack of (Score:2)
OR, they actually read the article and understand why his post was nonsense?
The Real Flat Earthers (Score:2)
Science allows peer reviews from anyone, not just friends with the same belief. Come to think of it, Flat Earthers thought that was peer reviewed also because a handful of ships captains said it was true...
How ironic you bring up such a fitting description for the declining members of your cult, each one of you clinging to ancient "truths" while the rest of the world goes on to realize there is more to the facts than they had thought.
Re:The Real Flat Earthers (Score:3)
Come to think of it, Flat Earthers thought that was peer reviewed also because a handful of ships captains said it was true..
Don't attack one myth with another. <WP:Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth> [wikipedia.org]
Re:Lack of (Score:3)
"the day" being pre-classical Greek civilization, say, pre-300BC?
Re:Lack of (Score:2)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.
Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.
You like images more than words? http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark/image/image_view_fullscreen [ossfoundation.us]
Re:Lack of (Score:2)
The studies author concluded: "those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."
Labeling the graph a "cloud graph" is somewhat misleading.
Re:Lack of (Score:3)
Which is the opposite of the conclusion, but okay, whatever goes along with Slashdot's groupthink, I guess.
Re:Lack of (Score:3)
Either way it's a step forward for human knowledge.
Re:Lack of (Score:2)
This.
Re:Lack of evidence does not imply.. (Score:2)
Yes, it does. You might want to look up the definition of 'imply'.
If you have no evidence, then you can not have any statistical connection. Logically, lack of evidence implies no connection.
Could there be a connect through some unforeseen mechanism? perhaps, however unlikely.
Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) (Score:5, Funny)
Face it, your desperate attempt to get a cute acronym has just left you looking like a CLOD.
Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) (Score:2)
Face it, your desperate attempt to get a cute acronym has just left you looking like a CLOD.
A very PROUD CLOD.
No doubt (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No doubt (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory graph [photobucket.com]. That shows the different climate forcings, their medians, and their error bars. What the current study is working on is cloud formation. You'll notice that cloud formation has a pretty huge error bar; we're not very good at modelling it, and there's a lot of research to try to improve that. But note that even if you assume the best-case cooling effect from clouds, rather than the median (or the worst, for that matter), you're still not cancelling out the other forcings. Note the error bars on the net result at the bottom.
Re:No doubt (Score:2)
Re:No doubt (Score:2)
There are other benefits to fighting at least what we perceive as Climate Change. It's hard to produce energy from fossil fuels without producing carbon dioxide so any research on alternative energy sources and conservation is a good thing (more so as oil becomes harder and harder to extract). Also, oceans of carbonic acid isn't very good for the food chain.
I fully agree that this should be checked out. If the evidence comes out that cosmic rays are an influence (either as the majority or minority cause of CC), then we can move on from there and think of ways to reactively combat the phenomenon. In the meantime, we still should be working to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.
Re:No doubt (Score:3)
And what exactly does Greenpeace have to do with climate scientists?
Re:No dice (Score:2)
Stratospheric water vapour and co2 are in the wrong forcing ratio on that graph. SWV is about 30% as effective as a ghg. It's been falling in concentration since around 2000 and partially explains the hiatus in warming. Solomon 2010 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488 [sciencemag.org]
Re:No doubt (Score:2, Flamebait)
Translation: My mind is made up, no scientific evidence need apply and no further study is necessary.
Seriously, I find it disturbing as hell that climate change zealots and doomsayers point at scientific evidence to 'prove' their point.... (Of course, we all know that science at this level is about correlation and best fit models, not 'proof'.) But let someone investigate something that may disturb their dogma - and their support of science goes right out the window.
Re:No doubt (Score:2)
TRANSLATION: I'm too stupid to RTFA.
Keep ignoring the prediction they make, and keep spreading your ignorance of modeling and statistics.
Re:No doubt (Score:2)
This is the culture developed in the West. Defend our thoughts to the death! Never give an inch! Never admit guilt or responsibility! Pay them off just enough to make them go away.
Man, it sucks how what goes around comes around.
CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:3, Insightful)
This is in contrast with the particle scientists CERN, who are much more careful with their language, because they have not thrown scientific integrity out of the window in order to overstate their findings. Which is all the more remarkable given the huge expenditure on some experiments like the LHC. I've written a rather longish piece [wordpress.com] on that topic a few days ago.
Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon (Score:2)
Its' a scientific fact, not a story.
But hey, you keep misreading crap and presenting it as evidence there isn't climate change.
twad.
Re:There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon (Score:2, Insightful)
This word you use...I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yes, climate change is a scientific fact. Let's expound on that a bit.
Natural climate change is a scientific fact. We can assert this because climate change happened long before anything we currently deem "artificial" or "anthropogenic" existed.
Now, perhaps you only partially agree with this scientific fact. Perhaps you believe that natural climate change has stopped, and current climate change is no longer natural, but anthropogenic. On top of that, perhaps you even believe that this climate change is going to be catastrophic.
Anthropogenic climate change is far from scientific fact, and I'll bet you can't even start the scientific method by stating a succinct falsifiable hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. But hey, go ahead and try!
Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:2)
Different fields have different capabilities to obtain data and achieve statistical certainty. My gut says particle physicists have an easier time collecting new of data, testing different hypothesis, and therefore can afford (and need) a higher standard of statistical confidence. If you're performing 20 different experiments, and one comes back positive, than 95% confidence doesn't mean much and you should easily be able to do better. But if you only have one real big experiment, and collecting another data point means waiting another year, than 95% suddenly means a lot more and might be the best you can do.
These are different fields talking about very different kinds of hypothesis with very different kinds of data. Doesn't it make sense that they calibrate their language usage differently?
Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:2)
But if you only have one real big experiment, and collecting another data point means waiting another year, than 95% suddenly means a lot more and might be the best you can do.
Sorry, no. This would amount to special pleading. 95% statistical certainty has the exact same meaning independent of whether you can get another data point within the next second or within the next year. And if that's the best you can do ... well, I'm terribly sorry, but then the best you can do, is just not very good.
The difficulty of obtaining data doesn't change the likelihood of mistaking an effect for an artifact in statistical analysis (because math is blissfully ignorant of such difficulties), except insofar as you have a lot of time to think about it. But in this case your reasoning has to be very conclusive and obviously cannot rely on statistics to demonstrate its validity. But the latter is exactly what is being done.
Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:2)
So there's two issues here.
The first is you have to make do with what you can. For many problem types they can't achieve results with the rigour of particle physicists, but that doesn't mean the results they can get aren't useful science. Like it or not that's the confidence they can achieve, now the question is what do you do with that information. If someone is 95% sure something important is going to happen, and you choose to ignore them because they can't achieve the answer you want, than a lot of the time you're probably going to regret it.
The second reason is publication bias. When a scientist gets a 99% confidence that doesn't really mean there's only a 1% chance they're wrong, it only means there's a 1% chance that particular experiment would produce a false positive if they were wrong. But if a 1000 scientists are doing the same experiment, and they're all wrong, there's still going to be a lot of people getting a positive result with 99% confidence.
I suspect particle physics effectively has a lot more data, and a lot more experiments, so they're a lot more susceptible to publication bias. It's entirely possible that the true probability of a particle physics experiment with 99% confidence is lower than a climate model with 95% confidence.
I don't know enough about either field to say to what degree this is the case, but I don't think you can compare the probabilities as simply as you do. And your resulting indictment of the integrity and competency of climate scientists is on very shaky ground.
Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:2)
If someone is 95% sure something important is going to happen, and you choose to ignore them because they can't achieve the answer you want, than a lot of the time you're probably going to regret it.
First of all, the 95% does not mean something happened the way you described it. It only means that the implied null-hypothesis has a chance of 5% to be true. That's it. It says nothing about the truth value of your hypothesis, nor does it say anything about the truth value of any other possible hypothesis that could give apparently similar results. (I recommend read Nicolas Nassim Taleb on those matters. Unfortunately, he closed down his ridiculously ugly, but also ridiculously informative, website fooledbyrandomness.com last month.)
If you can't get your confidence way up, there is very little way of ascertaining that a particular approach is correct. You're still open to ridiculous coincidences that you can't tease out with statistics alone anymore, because you lack a sufficient data base.
And secondly, as already stated above, you're putting up a straw-man by implying that the alternative is doing nothing. That's neither the case nor is it what I said. The reason being, that there are a huge lot of very good reasons to switch to non-fossil fuels, that you will have much less trouble justifying on a scientific and highly reliable basis. (In short: we're running out of and kill each other trying to gain access to this stuff.)
Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:2)
The Science is IN
Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (Score:2)
More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:5, Interesting)
It fits pretty nicely with other research that showed that people's willingness to accept global warming seemed to hinge on whether or not they needed to change their lives as a result. (As if facts were true or not depending on their consequences for their own lives.)
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
a hint that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and climate change, and they're already convinced.
Don't worry, they will return to being skeptical when someone shows them the graph clearly indicating that cosmic ray levels haven't been increasing during the warming trend.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Sounds you're pinning your hopes. So much for scientific objectivity.
Skeptics aren't anti-AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
Skeptics are pro-objective. Even the main body of the IPCC AR report is filled with "maybe"s, "likely"s, and "possibly"s.
It's the summary for policy makers that's tacked-on to the end that's filled with "impending doom!" - it's an entriely political document, not a scientific one.
Re:Skeptics aren't anti-AGW (Score:2)
Yeah the main body says nice scientific things like.
"Likely will kill between 2million and 3million people but maybe more."
It's that political doomsday document tacked on that has outlandish non-scientific conclusions like "Since it's probably going to kill 2 million people, we should probably do something to stop it."
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
That's because there is also decades of opposing evidence as well as convincing criticism of many of the pro-AWG conclusions. Hell, even the lead scientist of the study on those drowning polar bears in Al Gore's movie is now on administrative leave after a federal investigation into the fact that all he saw was four corpses from 1,500 feet up in a helicopter--no actual collection or study done. It's not as black-and-white and obvious as you seem to believe.
I think it's more interesting that, at the slightest hint that your current model of global warming may not be entirely accurate, you write a reactionary defensive post that leads into other tangents and doesn't actually respond to the research about cosmic rays affecting climate change.
Something everyone here should see: George Carlin on saving the planet [youtube.com]
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
George Carlin's jobs was that of a comedian, not to present logical fact based argument.
And I use 'Comedian' in the loosest term. He turned into a stupid ranting old man about as funny as a crazy old man at the park.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
It's a well known phenomenon called confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]. It's one of the things you have to learn not to be fooled by to do science. In fact, it's after I actually started doing scientific research of my own (in an unrelated field) that I stopped being an AGW "sceptic", as I noticed how strongly that view was affected by it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the most vocal AGW sceptics have no scientific research experience of any kind.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
"All-AGW-All-The-Time crowd"
Let's call them Watermelons - green on the outside, Red on the inside.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:4, Insightful)
people have been told that the cure happens to be a reording of global affairs in a way that happens to line up with their politics. Typically, taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity, etc
Really? I haven't been told that redistributing wealth or centralized control of econimics are the cure for AGW, what I've been told the AGW is for us to stop polluting so damn much.
Now some people have some funny ideas about how to go about that, some are dead wrong and could do much worse damage to the climate than we have, but I haven't heard that what would amount to communism to be a cure. In fact there is not a communist country with a good environmental record.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
I suppose there is a strong correlation between those two demographics, but I have to ask: what do wind turbines, solar power, and higher gas prices have to do with taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity?
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
what do wind turbines, solar power, and higher gas prices have to do with taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity?
Wind turbines? Solar power? Neither are cost effective and rely on government involvement and subsidies (subsidies are dollars taken from someone else as taxes and given to someone else to pursue something that doesn't have its own sufficient, built-in incentives). Higher gas prices? Do you mean, higher because taxes have been added to the prices? That has everything to do with taxing productivity, be definition.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Solar is not cost-effective now. (I'll need a citation for wind turbines.) If we'd actually put some effort into researching alternative power, that would change.
That, and ending oil subsidies.
Umm, because someone has a gun to your head, forcing you to buy gas, right? See, this is why we can't have nice things. Like it or not, the fossil fuels are going to run out, someday. Why not change things now, when it's easy, rather than waiting until it's all gone, and society has collapsed.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, solar subsidies aren't directing resources to research -> they're simply subsidizing the existing, non-cost effective solar technology.
Not sure if that's true. Abiogenic petroleum represents an alternative view that puts the assertion into question. That being said, changing things before costs actually rise and scarcity is actually there is a significant opportunity cost. You could be improving efficiency technologies, instead of trying to do basic research on alternative energy sources, for example.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Let me just add one thing to what I said, above. We went to Iraq primarily to secure a source of oil for the US and, as a result, our national debt is around $2 trillion higher than it should be. In what way does it not make sense to tax oil products to repay that part of the debt?
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:3)
We went to Iraq primarily to secure a source of oil for the US
Actually, we, and many other countries, went because Iraq invaded Kuwait and showed every inclination to also invade Saudi Arabia, and use the resulting power grab to run much of the middle east the same way that Saddam was running Iraq. You do remember that part, right?
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Wrong war.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:3)
Wrong war.
No, same war. Saddam agreed to all sorts of things as he got kicked back out of Kuwait.He followed through on essentially none of those things, and contined - without interruption - to shoot at allied aircraft patroling the no-fly zones (to which he agreed). He never stopped shooting in the war he started when he invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait. And that's just the tip of that iceberg.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
You do remember there was a second part, right?
Yes, there was a second action taken because Saddam never actually followed through on the many things to which he agreed as his forces were being pushed back from Kuwait. He never stopped shooting at patroling aircraft, he never stopped importing and working on long-range missiles, he never disclosed what he did with mountains of VX and other nasties, etc. His aggression against Kuwait was what started it, and he never backed down to the posture he was told would be necessary if he wanted his regime to survive. He didn't, and so ... he didn't.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Solar is cost effective, it's just cost effective over time and require up front capital... however it's getting cheaper.
Also, Coal, oil, and nuclear also ALL require government involvement and subsidies.
Higher because there is less of it. Talking about Barrel prices, not pump prices.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
I have to admit: it would be interesting if the government ended all energy subsidies for a few years, just so we could see the true cost of the various forms of energy.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
There is some climate science that is pretty much settled, as far as any science gets. The average temperature changing throughout the twentieth century, for instance. There may be some quibbling, but nothing serious. I'll agree with you, though, that anybody treating forecasts using climate models as any sort of reliable evidence is abusing science.
Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (Score:2)
Anytime someone says that the science is conclusive and need not be questioned I will stop listening as they are obviously now talking religion, as science does not ever stop questioning.
There is some climate science that is pretty much settled, as far as any science gets. The average temperature changing throughout the twentieth century, for instance. There may be some quibbling, but nothing serious. I'll agree with you, though, that anybody treating forecasts using climate models as any sort of reliable evidence is abusing science.
The fact that climate is changing is established science based on observation. What all of the various causes/drivers of it is not.
I remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
...posting on this very topic a couple of years back in a climate change thread. I was troll moderated to hell and quickly attacked by the slashdot masses about how this could never cause anything to happen. Never mind such research has been going on for easily a decade, if not the very preliminary work for over two decades.
So according to the slashdot herd, this is completely wrong and there is absolutely no need to ever study it as they long ago confirmed this is all nonsense. Hurry! We've all been saved by the massive stupidity which is the slashdot masses.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
Link or it didn't happen. I mean be serious, if you are going to claim that you wrote something and the reaction here condemns "the slashdot herd" to hypocrisy, lets see exactly what you are basing your claims on. I've got this funny feeling the reality of what happened isn't anywhere near as drastic as you want to make it out to be.
Or is it that you just expect everyone here to take it all on your word without any actual evidence? That would be rich.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that you are full of shit?
Link or shut up.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
Your post clearly says you're a really dumb fucking idiot to suggest herd-think doesn't exist on slashdot.
No. I'm saying that your particular claims of herd think validating your POV need to be substantiated. It is a logical fallacy to say, "Herd think exists, therefore I am a victim of it." But that's precisely the argument you just made in your vitriolic response.
Re:I remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, the CERN research showed that cosmic rays are at best a tiny fraction of the nucleation factors that create clouds.
I remember when this possibility came up during climate change discussions. What you were most likely modded down for is that you took a very speculative article with little supporting evidence, and trumpeted it as proof that AGW is bogus.
Sometimes, the masses are right, and they are laughing at Bozo the clown.
Quite the contrary (Score:2)
Re:Quite the contrary (Score:2)
It has shown that the current explanations using sulfates and ammonia for nucleation can be boosted by a factor of ten pending on the presence of cosmic radiation. They also say that further research will be required to see what effect cosmic rays have on the nucleation properties of other compounds to get the full picture.
Not [realclimate.org].
Thus the nucleation change as a result of real world GCR modulation is going to be much smaller than seen in these experiments, and much less important than the amount of pollutants.
In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
Re:Quite the contrary (Score:2)
Re:Quite the contrary (Score:2)
How bizarre, linking to a group with the best understanding of the subject. I suppose you also distrust medical advice given by doctors on the grounds that they profit from medical treatments?
Fortunately, they present actual arguments, not mere assertions, so you don't have to take anybody's word for anything.
Re:Quite the contrary (Score:2)
I'm not going to go through the paper again to show you the quote that you misunderstood, so I'll just ask you to support your claim by quoting the relevant part of the original paper. Good luck with that.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
I love how you constructed a "most likely" hypothetical scenario with no direct evidence and then used it to call someone names.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
I've similarly posted in many climate threads about my friend's research dating back 15 years now that strongly suggested that cosmic DUST (not ray) accretion is a strong climate driver, based on variations in the Earth's orbit sweeping out slightly different parts of space and thus accreting different amounts of dust. Just like the Perseid meteor shower changes slightly each year because the relative position between the Earth and that quasi-static dust lane changes from year to year, the Earth encounters more or less dust along its entire orbit, and any periodicity in the orbital variation changes dust accretion. Dust accretion is strongly suspected to influence terrestrial cloud dynamics, and, therefore climate.
Here's my friend's article (in Nature, so this isn't some fly-by-night idea, but rigorous science, and, knowing the second author well, as I do, I can vouch that it is *highly* rigorous and objective science): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6557/abs/378600a0.html [nature.com] But don't take my word for it: the article has 89 references according to Google Scholar (about 3x the impact factor of Nature, so raising their statistics). There were a couple of follow-up articles as well.
Re:I remember... (Score:3)
Someone else here made an excellent observation [slashdot.org] that many, and perhaps most, of those who embrace the idea of anthropogenic global warming also happen to be people whose cure for the global warming involves solutions that align with their political views. It's strange that there seems to be no recognition of the link between anti-industry, centralized-economic politics and belief in manmade global warming.
An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies). In fact, you'll find this same formula in almost every belief system, from religions to political parties. Everyone thinks they're fighting selfish humans to return the world to some perfect state, if only governments would institute their policies.
Already, there are several defensive posts from people trying to nip this article in the bud because their beliefs are under threat.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies).
The major difference being, of course, that just about anyone can see for themselves the pollution caused by man. It doesn't even take something as dastic as the Cuyhoga catching on fire either. Anyone in LA can see the smog and anyone who has lived in LA since the 70s can see the effect of 'sacrifice and prayer' (lol!). It shouldn't be all that hard to distinguish the effects of those environmental policies from some virgin sacrifice to bring a bountiful harvest.
Re:I remember... (Score:2)
Well, I can't speak for any of the people who modded you down, back then, but pretty much every person I've talked to, who doesn't believe in climate change, has an ulterior motive. It's always an excuse like "OH NOES, I CAN'T DRIVE MY FORD EXPEDITION 100 MILES TO WORK EACH WAY!!" or "OH NOES, I CAN'T HAVE EVERY LIGHT IN MY HOUSE ON 24 HOURS A DAY!!" or "OH NOES, I MIGHT HAVE TO BUY SMALL CAR!!" Sorry, but when you're talking about a global problem that could potentially cause a death toll in the billions (assuming the scientists are correct), and that might be preventable, those are not valid excuses. When that's all you hear from the global warming deniers, instead of counter-arguments to actual evidence, it tends to get frustrating.
Wrong acronym (Score:2)
Re:Wrong acronym (Score:2)
"Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" makes the acronym CLOD, you insensitive cloud!
I completely agree with you, but it's not even close to the worst example of bad acronym-ization I've seen.
Here at UW one group was working on an RFID-using location service for friends and co-workers. Since it allowed for instant notification, and because Twitter had recently exploded onto the public consciousness... although the acronym they picked was "RFIDder", they initially tried to get everyone to pronounce it as "fritter" [washington.edu]* even though the letters are in the wrong order. Apparently they hoped no one would notice and it would take off if they repeated it enough. Anyway, they finally gave up and went with "ar-fidder" instead.
* Sorry that link is a PDF, but that group has done a pretty good job of scrubbing references to "fritter". See page 9 or search the doc for "fritter".
Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE! (Score:2)
So, here's a question: if Cosmic Rays *are* found to be able to seed clouds, and, presumably, more cloud cover means less warming, couldn't we build a giant gamma ray beam and shoot it up into the sky?
[Answering my own question: not with current technology. From here [wikipedia.org], "Cosmic rays can have energies of over 10^20 eV, far higher than the 10^12 to 10^13 eV that Terrestrial particle accelerators can produce."]
Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE! (Score:3)
Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE! (Score:2)
Actually, I think that's crazy, and I would bet money it was a spurious effect. If it was true, then it would easily be within our capability to lower temperatures several degrees on demand. But just because I think it's crazy, doesn't mean it it's necessarily wrong.
Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE! (Score:2)
It's plausible, look at how much surface ares a con trail has,and it's high in reflective. Look at how many there are.
However ti is not a tool to prevent global warming. Because we need light for plants so we can eat.
AGW causing cosmic rays too? (Score:3)
Re:AGW causing cosmic rays too? (Score:3)
Not CLOUD -- it's CLOD -- you clod! (Score:3)
The name of this project is horribly contrived and invented only to result in a certain cool acronym, which it does not! It's easy to see that someone spent some time thinking about the name, but obviously not enough.
Clearly the acronym for "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" is CLOD, and possibly CLOuD, but not CLOUD!
Was the lead author as incompetent and unimaginative with the rest of his project? If he conducted his research the same way he arrived at his acronym, it doesn't bode well! Of course, I could check by reading his paper, but since I refuse to pay Nature's subscription fee, I don't feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Re:Wait... (Score:2)
* sigh *
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Funny)
That's *Mister* Climate Change to you, pal!
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Anthropomorphic climate change? Like this [blogspot.com]? ;)
Re:Irene good night Cern (Score:3)