Cosmic Ray Intensity Reaches Highest Levels In 50 years 263
An anonymous reader writes "A NASA probe found that cosmic ray intensities in 2009 had increased by almost 20 percent beyond anything seen in the past 50 years. Such cosmic rays arise from distant supernova explosions and consist mostly of protons and heavier subatomic particles — just one cosmic ray could disable unlucky satellites or even put a mission to Mars in jeopardy."
Cosmic Warming? (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly we need more energy-efficient stars.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all due to our refusal to support an Intergalactic Cap and Trade plan.
BOFH (Score:5, Funny)
"It's Cosmic Rays mutating the electrons."
Re:BOFH (Score:5, Funny)
It's Cosmic Rays mutating the electrons.
My 150.00 gold-plated Monster HDMI cable protects against those. It must be something else this time.
Re:BOFH (Score:5, Funny)
My $500 ethernet cable [amazon.com] reflects them back at government spy satellites!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
putting a mission to Mars in Jeopardy. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh good grief... (Score:5, Funny)
Will the legacy of environmental disaster that was George W. Bush's presidency never end?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only did Bush not respect international law, but he doesn't even respect physical law and the limits on the speed of light!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know... Near the end of the Clinton Administrator Big gas guzzling SUV were all the rage and status symbols. At the end of the Bush Administration Small light hybrid cars were all the rage. In many ways the Bush administration threw "Tough Love" actually changed american behaviors more then any other president. Letting us go to far make huge mistakes and take the consequences, Seems to help alter our culture far better then just normal regulation where people just see it as Nanny state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about longer school years but the US has never had a shortage of racist Supreme Court Justices.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the chances? (Score:5, Funny)
Cosmic rays damaging electronic equipment? I've been using this computer for years and my RAM is doing just fi
Re:What are the chances? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What are the chances? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What are the chances? (Score:5, Funny)
in the olden days, by crackey we would use the
NO CARRIER
joke. you younguns wouldn't even know what a carrier was.
Now get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What are the chances? (Score:5, Funny)
you younguns wouldn't even know what a carrier was.
A big boat that holds airplanes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are the chances? (Score:5, Funny)
Carrier, two examples that I'm aware of:
First is the age old joke:
Second in the spirit of Jeff Foxworthy..
Use Carrier in a sentence..
"My girlfriend was so drunk she couldn't walk home, so I had to carrier."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A carrier brings me my network kit in large boxes, or is that a courier? Carrie Fisher? I dunno.
Anyw £($_! NO PACKET
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cosmic rays damaging electronic equipment? I've been using this computer for years and my RAM is doing just fi
How did you manage to submit half the posting after your RAM was hit by a cosmic ra
He didn't- what he originally typed was
"Help, my RAM is being corrupted up by cosmic rays."
Which just goes to prove his point!
By the way, I'm having the same problems with random-but-oddly-coincidental data corruption so if you see anything odd with this message DISREgarD th4T i 5UCk c0CKS. Thank you.
Why it's more dangerous. (Score:5, Informative)
I was wondering, "Why are cosmic rays so dangerous, It's just protons and electrons, just like the solar wind".
However, there's a huge energy difference between the two.
The particles in cosmic radiation have 1x10^20eV and the solar wind is 1x10^3eV
So, while it's the same "stuff", the cosmic particles are moving a lot faster relative to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why it's more dangerous. (Score:5, Funny)
So it's like the difference between being hit by a car going 1mph and one going 100,000,000,000,000,000mph? Am I doing these car analogy things right?
Re:Why it's more dangerous. (Score:4, Interesting)
The car analogy should more properly compare the increase in non-relativistic Kinetic Energy. KE=0.5 m v^2, so it should be an increase of sqrt(10^17), which is about 3 x 10^8 (also amusingly the speed of light in S.I. units).
like the difference between being hit by a car going 1mph and one going 300'000'000mph?
Re: (Score:2)
The car analogy should more properly compare the increase in non-relativistic Kinetic Energy. KE=0.5 m v^2, so it should be an increase of sqrt(10^17), which is about 3 x 10^8 (also amusingly the speed of light in S.I. units).
like the difference between being hit by a car going 1mph and one going 300'000'000mph?
Actually it's more like the difference between being hit by a car at 1km/h and one going at the speed of light. Which, would not be so different from the cosmic rays.
From which we can conclude that cosmic rays are just the third stage of cars that kept accelerating after becoming solar wind.
Re:Why it's more dangerous. (Score:5, Funny)
So it's like the difference between being hit by a car going 1mph and one going 100,000,000,000,000,000mph? Am I doing these car analogy things right?
But the cars are very tiny.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what, cosmic rays are Yugos? Geo Metros? Mini Coopers? Help us out here!
Re: (Score:2)
They're Peel P50s [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So it's like the difference between being hit by a car going 1mph and one going 100,000,000,000,000,000mph? Am I doing these car analogy things right?
But the cars are very tiny.
Do they get stuck in tubes?
Re: (Score:2)
I used to hit my baby brother with Hot Wheels... does that mean cosmic rays are mostly harmless?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to find the bouncer that crashed into someone's helmet at 90+, but couldn't.
And from what I know, a cricket ball is quite a bit harder than a baseball.
Re: (Score:2)
Lose a tooth, even when wearing a helmet [youtube.com]
26 seconds in... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
it's more like the difference between Moby Dick and the entire Library of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it's the difference between buying American vs German.
Re:Why it's more dangerous. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno - I thought it happened every time Nemesis came around. The Mayan calendar, and all that other nonsense. The dark star approaches (insert something sinister, like the theme from Jaws) and there's nothing we can do about it!!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
*rimshot* (Score:5, Funny)
FYI. Cosmic rays have been known to cause bit-flips in RAM.
But the odds are astronomical.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, sort of for one single bit. The last numbers I saw where something like one bit-flip per gigabyte-month RAM. So while the probability of flipping one specific bit is astronomical, it adds up pretty quickly...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess now would be a good time to use ECC RAM in consumer PCs and not just servers anymore.
Note that Intel are a bunch of $^@#! and try to segment the market by disabling this on their desktop processors. I've been trying to decide whether getting ECC might just be worth taking the 30% (or whatever it is at your favored price point) performance hit of going with AMD.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WTF??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Centuries ago, cosmic-ray concentrations grew to be as much as 200 percent more intense than they are now, yet humankind survived.
How do we know this? Who was measuring cosmic-ray concentrations centuries ago, and how did they measure them? How accurate were the measurements, and how certain are we of that accuracy?
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "In 1910 Theodor Wulf developed an electrometer (a device to measure the rate of ion production inside a hermetically sealed container) and used it to show higher levels of radiation at the top of the Eiffel Tower than at its base." That sounds like a bit less than "centuries ago".
Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Informative)
We know this because we can look for these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_isotope#Natural [wikipedia.org]
in the geological record.
Unless of course they were planted there by [insert diety] in which case - ha ha you've been punk'd(TM)!
Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Funny)
Not only that, but where's the proof that humankind survived?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How do we know this?
We understand the theory of what influence cosmic rays numbers. It's the solar cycles and the earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field we have geologic evidence of it's strength. Sunspot numbers have sporadic data going back 400 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png).
There's plenty of phenomenon we predict using indirect observations and theory.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when the Sun is Quiet (Score:4, Informative)
The Sun has been very quiet recently, so this is not surprising. Now that the Sunspots are back [westender.com.au] and the Sun is getting more active, I would expect things to go back to normal.
Re: (Score:2)
[[citation needed]]
Bring on the mutants (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah. The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hear it for cosmic rays. We need something to kick evolution into gear. Things seem to have been at a standstill lately.
I disagree, it's just not a good idea. I've got some bad experiences with this. When the last wave of cosmic rays hit, I got a useless superpower (the power to kill a yak from 200 yards away). But there are no yaks where I live.
However (Score:2)
SUV's are responsible for global warming. Damn them!
Re:However (Score:4, Interesting)
SUV's are responsible for global warming. Damn them!
SUVs are partly responsible for global warming, but so are compact cars (which are less responsible than SUVs). But as to the "damn them", considering that more people die in SUVs per passenger mile than any other type of vehicle, I'd say Darwin is working hard to get rid of the SUV drivers.
SUVs are so dangerous because of a lot of factors:
BTW and offtopic, SUV is an acronym, not a contraction. The apostrophe doesn't belong there.
Not a Big Problem. (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't raise alarm too much, cosmic rays affect a space craft in mainly three ways: Single Even Upset (SEU), Single Event Latchup (SEL), and Total Ionization Dose (TID) measured in kRad. The higher cosmic rays increase the TID, but all these satellites are built for it and it shouldn't raise an alarm except for very long term missions. SEUs and SELs are what the phrase "just one cosmic ray could disable unlucky satellites or even put a mission to Mars in jeopardy." is mentioning. SEUs aren't too much too worry about, usually nothing too harmful, just a few errors and at worst a reset of some subsystems. The bad one is the SELs. These can cause a temporary short and potentially cause damage. The key thing with SEUs and SELs is that they're typically temporary and the spacecraft's power systems nowadays can easily handle them. The solid state switches/fuses they started with Cassini (and are now typical for NASA missions) are very effective (accidently proven so during integration) and can cut off a shorted subsystem quite fast and prevent damage.
In a nutshell, don't get your panties in a bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell, don't get your panties in a bunch.
Though that would provide an extra degree of shielding in vital areas...
Solar Wind Decreasing (Score:2, Informative)
The solar activity is decreasing we are in a sunspot minimum temps will decrease on the earth and more cosmic rays will mean more rainfall due to the "cloud chamber effect" in the upper atmosphere.
What? Where's my flash forward? (Score:2)
Has anyone thought to run the supercolliders a couple times? I'd really like to know the spread on the superbowl.
Closing Bugs (Score:3, Funny)
Bug 13272: Memory leak in widget_process_task()
RESOLVED/INVALID: cosmic rays
Bug 11207: Database corrupted by invalid user input
RESOLVED/INVALID: cosmic rays
Bug 12304: "if (A = B)" in the code where clearly "if (A == B)" was intended
RESOLVED/INVALID: cosmic rays
Ignorant Taggers..... (Score:2)
Whoever was stupid enough to tag this " globalwarming " isn't doing the whole "Green" movement much good.
That tag on this story just screams IGNORANCE.
What kind of rays? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the nature of these "rays"? Duration, frequency, intensity and width would be of interest.
Any direct correlation? (Score:2)
Any direct correlation between the activitity and the current natural earthquakes/typhoons etc?
Global warming ate my data (Score:3, Insightful)
I posted this to Slashdot but it appears that the editors are more interested in Cosmic rays.
To quote from Theregister:
The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:global cooling (Score:4, Funny)
Yay! This is our chance to use up all the fossil fuels real quick-like and then by the time the cold spell is over we'll all be using nuclear and solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
Beware of over correction.
Re:global cooling (Score:4, Interesting)
Terrible plan. When the next sun cycle starts and the cloud cover is gone, global warming will hit us like a train.
Better idea is to use geothermal heating to keep us all warm during an ice age. The technology exists today but there is no reason to use it while energy is cheap. A period of rapid global cooling would cause energy prices to skyrocket as electric, gas, oil and wood furnaces blaze to keep people warm. The coal plants will roar ahead like nothing is wrong, wind and solar won't be doing very well but that's ok - they dont make up much of the grid right now anyway.
If global cooling became a real problem, food shortage would actually be the most serious impediment to our survival. Extra rain would be good, but the reduced sunlight would hurt crops catastrophically and the average surface temperature really doesn't need to go down that much for crops to be impacted.
Re: (Score:2)
If global cooling became a real problem, food shortage would actually be the most serious impediment to our survival.
It'd be more realistic to say that it'd be a serious impediment to the survival of those in poorer nations. Do you really see the people of the United States or Western Europe wanting for food?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but my food comes in tins and the metal shielding will protect it from all this, won't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this intensity of cosmic rays is what is fscking up the sun-spot cycle on our local star?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or vice versa: The screwy solar cycle is messing with the heliopheric current sheet and thus allowing more cosmic rays to enter the system. We know that even minor solar fluctuations can manipulate the termination shock, so the idea is not -entirely- implausible. Dress it up in some Star Trek language and it'll sound more convincing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your Universal WX forecast (Score:3, Funny)
Re:global cooling (Score:5, Informative)
Why didn't you provide any citations? Perhaps because it was [sciencedaily.com] disproved [discovermagazine.com] in 2007 [wired.com].
Thirty seconds with google and the keywords "cosmic rays global warming [google.com]" brought a wealth of stories describing research which found no correlation of any kind between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover. Sure, you'll find articles describing this theory, but it's called a "hypothesis," and "controversial" at best. And all those stories are older than the 2008 analysis of MODIS data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Further to this, a recent Geophys Res Lett paper show using a GCM that the "ion-aerosol clear-air" hypothesis cannot explain current climate change.
Pierce, J. R., and P. J. Adams (2009), Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.
Re: (Score:2)
Disproved? Perhaps you want to go tell CERN that the science is settled [web.cern.ch] because Science Daily, Wired, and Discover magazine say it is so?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What does a one year difference in date have anything to do with reaching drastically different claims using the same data source? According to GP, in 2008, MODIS data was inconsistent with cosmic rays causing cloud formation. According to your "newer research" in 2009, MODIS data magically became consistent with the theory. They both claim reliance on MODIS data and reach opposite conclusions. So... what gives? Either they played with
Re:global cooling (Score:5, Interesting)
"Imagine, if you like, that we just don't know enough about the system to say one way or the other whether cosmic rays influence low cloud cover?"
there is a lot we don't know, but we do know that doesn't happen.
"Well, I for one don't think the science is EVER settled."
that statement makes me wonder if you know what science is? by definition science is never settled.
That doesn't mean everything that pops into someones head is possible, or that we don't understand anything, or that the unknown is unknowable.
The data gathered in the linked paper is from one event. it is in no way strong enough evidence to counter the 22 other events where this did NOT happen. Just looking at the data shows that there is no statiscal correlation.
"Further research is needed"
Only if they take a new tack, the current equopement doesn't show any statical correlation.
If any one in this post has a religious faith on this issue, it appear to be you. You do realize that that paper is not about global warming at all?
He didn't say they don't cause "Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds". He said there is no link to global warming, and there isn't.
"As I keep saying in these types of discussion, the "team" warmists have all the funding, even though much of their research is bollocks."
Both those statements are provable false.
"hey peer review each others papers, use each others data (without archiving it for replication) and cite each other all the time,"
yes, as does every else, Including coutries that would like very much to show that man has no impact on global warming.
The BIB monney is in man not ahving an effect. Very powerfull companies and countries have a lot more money to spend if it's real.
All the data points to it being man made. There is not correlation with the INCREASED temperature and suna ctivity. In short, when cosmic rays and sun activity are in a phase for a 'cool' earth, the temperature doesn't return to pre industrial numbers of similar events.
Add ot it, it should be COOLER do to increase contrails and particulate matter; which is in fact helping keep the temperature down.
If you bother to calm down and think,you would notice that it's the anti warmers that are cherry picking data. The will ignore volumes of data to highlight one flaw.
Do you know whaer the money and prize is in science? doing studies the disprove previous theory, or discovering something radically new. It is in the best interest of corporate paid, and some emerging government paid scientist to show that man has no effect on global temperature, not to mention OPEC.The most interested, most heavily invest, and powerful groups can't find data to show that the earths warming isn't man made. Thye people making big money are books written by deniers. Any scientist that can disprove the man isn't impacting the global temperature would get wheel barrels of money from those groups.
So, your PhD is in...?
Finally:
Linking to a study that most people wont't be able to get to is BAD FORM in the extreme.
Too bad for you that not only can I get to the study, I had previously read the draft.
Re: (Score:2)
Now wait. You are saying the Maunder Minimum, which corresponded with fewer solar flares (well, almost none, really) was from the same "mechanizm", ie increased cosmic rays?
Are you implying that cosmic rays influence the solar flares, or are you really that "cloud covered" (ie dim) to say same net effect from two independent sources is really the same source?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the Little Ice Age was caused by boring volcanism [amazon.com].
The current cosmic ray flux, I think, isn't too far out of normal, just outside of the immediate (short term) norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Even trolls need feeding from time to time...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/ [realclimate.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ant core samples? Just how large are these ants?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, whether we like it or not, with or without us, the climate will change. We have proof of this from Ant/arctic core samples and other sources that point to prehistoric changes in the Earth's atmosphere. It was warmer during the time of the dinosaurs and colder during the reign of the mammoths.
No one disputes this -- at least not on the side of people who accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The important difference is that the changes you list took VERY long times to happen; even so, many species couldn't adapt.
Maybe it's time to start testing those orbital solar reflectors or beefing up our Near Earth Asteroid Tracking efforts?
Maybe it would be actually much cheaper to change things on the ground rather than to attempt a MASSIVE orbital engineering project. You think it's a bitch getting modern industrial societies to pay to save energy and switch generation sources? Imagine trying to fund a p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mars doesn't have a pervasive biosphere because we haven't rehabilitated it yet. On a global level there's little difference in difficulty level between rehabiltating Mars and rehabilitating Earth. On Mars opposing ventures aren't going to counteract your efforts. Martian climate is about that of antarctica, and the establishment of a biosphere will change that. Either Martian or Terran solution is going to have to leverage biogenic action because self-replicating actors are cheaper than man-manufacture
Re: (Score:2)
Galactic Warming is a LIE LIE LIE! (Score:2)
Galactic Warming, a green-blooded commie Vulcan myth!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am so sorry for your loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least you have a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So just because a guy is black it automatically means he is a criminal?
No, just because a guy is a politician it automatically means he is a criminal.