Slashdot Mirror


Cosmic Ray Intensity Reaches Highest Levels In 50 years

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."

263 comments

  1. Cosmic Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly we need more energy-efficient stars.

    1. Re:Cosmic Warming? by cloudscout · · Score: 1

      It's all due to our refusal to support an Intergalactic Cap and Trade plan.

  2. I've got one thing to say to that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello superpowers! I hope I get flight!

    1. Re:I've got one thing to say to that... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      I want to be invisible, then you'll see me spoiling the Vatican's secrets... oops!

    2. Re:I've got one thing to say to that... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Flight, invisibility, sheesh. You'll both long since be rotted away while I'm still having fun.

      And the Vatican's "secrets" are just largely already-known writings that show stuff in the Bible as evolving from other sources. Didja know there's a quote floating around from the year 400 AD of some guy whining that these documents must be a clever forge by the Devil just to make it look like the accepted cannon was derivative crap?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. BOFH by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 4, Funny
    BOFH Excuse #98734

    "It's Cosmic Rays mutating the electrons."

    --
    I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
    I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    1. Re:BOFH by cjfs · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:BOFH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      OH YEAH? Well, my $300 gold-plated Monster HDMI cable absorbs them and converts them to audio warmth for a more in tune with the universe sound..

    3. Re:BOFH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet the new Depeche Mode album sounds much better with it :D

    4. Re:BOFH by Jared555 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My $500 ethernet cable reflects them back at government spy satellites!

    5. Re:BOFH by Krupuk · · Score: 3, Funny

      This amazon article's comments are nearly as good as the Tuscan Milk one's!

    6. Re:BOFH by pckl300 · · Score: 1

      That's nothing! My $7000 Anjou Pear cable eats gamma rays!

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    7. Re:BOFH by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, my $500 stereo knobs make my stereo potentiometers absorb them and turn them into Pat Benatar tunes.

      I'm in hell :(

    8. Re:BOFH by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

      Well the government's spending $12,000 on a toilet set reflects them up the astronauts' a**. Maybe we can get them to power the next nuclear site that runs out of uranium?

  4. Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Bush did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.

    1. Re:Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, his best was pretty fucking miserable.

    2. Re:Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but we weren't done plumbing the depths of horrible presidents, so we followed him up with a *real* loser. I wonder who we'll follow Obama up with, or if maybe we'll have learned our lesson about electing corrupt idiots by then.

    3. Re:Clinton's fault by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      ...maybe we'll have learned our lesson about electing corrupt idiots by then.

      Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.

      I agree, but it wasn't Clinton who gave him those genes.

    5. Re:Clinton's fault by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course Bush. Cause he was sooooo different. Enron, Halliburton etc would never happen on his watch!

    7. Re:Clinton's fault by M8e · · Score: 1

      Clinton, Bush, *Real* loser, Obama?
      Right?

    8. Re:Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      With clinton's track record in that department, are we really sure of that?

    9. Re:Clinton's fault by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Damn, I'm trying to cut down on feeding the trolls. Clinton was arguably the best President I've seen as an adult, and the first President I voted for was Nixon.

      Clinton took a federal deficit and turned it into a surplus. He inhereted a recession and did the right things to end it -- he put money into the hands of those who would actually spend it, like SMALL businessmen, working people, and city governments. He paid to put put 100,000 extra cops on the street, and that coupled with the improved economy caused a marked decrease in crime, particularly violent crime.

      There were no wars on his watch, although there were two terrorist acts: Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center. The perpetrators of both terrorist acts were caught, sent to trial, and imprisoned and (in the case of McVeigh) executed.

      There were other downsides; Ruby Ridge and Waco were certainly fuckups. But compared to every single other President I've had the chance to vote for or against, he was the best one I saw. I actually voted against him in his first term, but when I saw what a good job he was doing I voted for his re-election.

      Contrast that to the incredible incompetent that replaced him. I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter, but Bush proved me wrong. He turned Clinton's budget surplus into the biggest defecit in American history, got us into two wars that we're still fighting (note I was for attacking Afghanistan, but we had no reason to invade Iraq). He took a big federal bureaucracy and expanded it to mind boggling hugeness, stifled human rights by imprisoning people, even American citizens arrested on our soil, with no trials and proceeded to use torture against them.

      He fucked up royally every time there was a natural disaster, the worst fuckup being Katrina (with help from the equally inept La and NO governments).

      I don't know what you Clinton-hating Bush lovers are smoking, but I suspect it's white and looks like small rocks.

    10. Re:Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enron "happened" on Clinton's watch. They got caught, prosecuted and convicted on Bush's watch.

    11. Re:Clinton's fault by Eudial · · Score: 1

      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.

      Politicians aren't criminals, they're insane. They can't help themselves.

      How do I know they're insane? Well, no sane person would accept the job.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    12. Re:Clinton's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hate to bust your fanboy bubble, but Clinton inherited a post-recession booming economy (5% growth by the time of the election, well before he even took office). To the extent that anyone took action resulting in a reduction of the deficit, you can credit Newt Gingrich, although the dot-com boom had more to do with it than any particular policy or budget. Clinton's team was actually opposed to a balanced budget at the time.
      I can't disagree with much of the vitriol heaped on Bush II, although the federal level Katrina screw-ups were more PR than factual. They are hamstrung by local sovereignty even to this day.
      As far as creating the biggest budget deficit in American history, I'm afraid he's ceded that title to our current Dear Leader. We've managed to run up a bigger deficit this year than the entire Iraq war cost or Bush's entire first term in office. Wow. In fact, this year's deficit is larger than the entire tax receipts of the Federal Government. Seriously. We spent way more than twice what we took in. Holy crap, that takes a lot of effort.
      And that doesn't even count the trillion dollars spent by the federal reserve increasing our money supply. Holy Inflation, mcgrew!

  5. putting a mission to Mars in Jeopardy. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Funny

    In this Brian de Palma film, a mission to rescue astronauts stranded on the titular planet finds a hill shaped like a giant face, with alien technology inside.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:putting a mission to Mars in Jeopardy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh heh... heh heh... you said "titular".

    2. Re:putting a mission to Mars in Jeopardy. by TrashGod · · Score: 1

      You may have misread the title: this is the Alex Trebek game show category, with alien technology inside.

  6. Oh good grief... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will the legacy of environmental disaster that was George W. Bush's presidency never end?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Oh good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Clearly, we need a longer school year and racist Supreme Court Justices.

    2. Re:Oh good grief... by macshit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Will the legacy of environmental disaster that was George W. Bush's presidency never end?

      He's not dead yet!

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    3. Re:Oh good grief... by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about longer school years but the US has never had a shortage of racist Supreme Court Justices.

    4. Re:Oh good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame longer school years, gay weddings and Obama bin Laden.

    5. Re:Oh good grief... by Alamais · · Score: 1

      Win.

    6. Re:Oh good grief... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Not only did Bush not respect international law, but he doesn't even respect physical law and the limits on the speed of light!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:Oh good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he's very sick...

    8. Re:Oh good grief... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, based on how most countries operate, I would hazard a guess that just about every nation has their fair share of their own racists supreme court justices.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Oh good grief... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      ...but he's feeling much better. He said he would like to go for a walk now.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    10. Re:Oh good grief... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:Oh good grief... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      'E was coughing up blood last night!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:Oh good grief... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Both your humorous comment and your .sig are of equal comedic quality!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Oh good grief... by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      All you need to know about the Bush administration is that the tax code quadrupled while that monkey inhabited the big chair. He promised to simplify the tax code before he was elected, and obfuscated it beyond all reason after. To what end? To allow corporate criminals to keep more of their money! A few paltry dollars for the poor here and there to confuse the issue, and he could just swim home on a river of cash at the end of his period of "service".

      P.S. A non-plug-in parallel hybrid, which is to say everything you can actually buy, has a higher lifetime energy cost than a turbo diesel even before you take battery recycling into account, because of the parallel drive trains and the batteries themselves. Hybrids are a boondoggle designed to transfer huge sums of money between hands in front and at the expense of the people.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Oh good grief... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Both your humorous comment and your .sig are of equal comedic quality!

      Equally lousy? :)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  7. global cooling by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1, Informative

    The increased cosmic ray flux will undoubtably cause global cooling. The high energy rays and penetrate deep into the atmosphere where they create nucleation points which increase cloud over. The inreased cloud cover reflects more energy into space and the planet will cool.

    This is likely the mechanizm behind the little ice age which occurred during the Maunder minimum between 1645 and 1715.

    At this point solar cycle #24 is more than 2 years late. Solar cycle #25 was predicted to be very weak but #24 was predicted to be more or less normal. The predictions for #24 are proving to be in error.

    A cooling trend can go on for decades.

    1. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! Then we have to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the projected temperature increase of 4-5C around 2060 I read about on the BBC yesterday! YAY personal responsibility.

    2. Re:global cooling by brentonboy · · 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.

    3. Re:global cooling by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Beware of over correction.

    4. Re:global cooling by digitalunity · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    5. Re:global cooling by farrellj · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this intensity of cosmic rays is what is fscking up the sun-spot cycle on our local star?

      --
      CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    6. Re:global cooling by Verteiron · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    7. Re:global cooling by bughunter · · Score: 5, Informative

      The high energy rays and penetrate deep into the atmosphere where they create nucleation points which increase cloud over. The inreased cloud cover reflects more energy into space and the planet will cool.

      Why didn't you provide any citations? Perhaps because it was disproved in 2007.

      Thirty seconds with google and the keywords "cosmic rays global warming" 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.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    8. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] The inreased cloud cover reflects more energy into space and the planet will cool. [...]

      True, clouds do increase the reflection of solar radiation, but there is also a greenhouse effect which reduces outgoing radiation.
      A slight increase in clouds could help cool the Earth, but too many clouds could help warm it.

      Realize that there is a lot of uncertainty around clouds and their global warming/cooling effects.

    9. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully GP will eventually get modded down. Grats on using citations.

    10. Re:global cooling by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      MOD the GP informative! And here's my $0.02.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:global cooling by coldmist · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Don't steal. The government hates competition.
    12. Re:global cooling by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:global cooling by elthicko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe it's those bastards doing warp 10 around the sun causing all the problems. If only we could reverse the polarity on the main deflector to radiate a tachyon pulse directly into the sun. That oughta solve any problem we come across.

    14. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cloud cover is both a reflector and an insulator.

    15. Re:global cooling by sams67 · · Score: 1

      Almost as convincing as a "scientific" anti-wrinkle cream advertisement .. but not quite. Perhaps you need to look prettier?

    16. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure we could apply some of the technology people use to grow pot indoors to grow other things...

    17. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so surprised when you hear about a connection between solar activity and cosmic rays, via the geomagnetic field? Do you perhaps not know what a cosmic ray is?

    18. Re:global cooling by DeltaQH · · Score: 1

      Damned is global warming, damned is global cooling!

    19. Re:global cooling by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I thought the Little Ice Age was caused by boring volcanism.

      The current cosmic ray flux, I think, isn't too far out of normal, just outside of the immediate (short term) norm.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    20. Re:global cooling by Burnhard · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your research is a little old. try finding some newer research to back up your arguments. Of course not many people are working on this hypothesis. Scientists are very busy cherry picking dendro-proxies to make it look like recent warming is unprecidented. They don't have much time for solar variance.

    21. Re:global cooling by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Why, do we use a different Sun or atmosphere than poorer nations ? Crops are crops.

    22. Re:global cooling by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but my food comes in tins and the metal shielding will protect it from all this, won't it?

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    23. Re:global cooling by Joren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not having access to anything but the abstracts, I have to ask...

      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 the data selection process or they had different criteria for deciding what's a correlation and what's not. That doesn't sound like being "out of date" to me...that sounds more like having different presuppositions and methodologies going in. A one year difference isn't enough to wave the wand and make all prior research go away - you've got to demonstrate that either the methodology or the data of the old research was flawed.

      * I'm not claiming I know which research is closer to the truth. It could be this year's, it could be last year's. The date isn't going to tell us.

      --
      -- Joren
    24. Re:global cooling by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re:global cooling by shadow349 · · Score: 1

      Disproved? Perhaps you want to go tell CERN that the science is settled because Science Daily, Wired, and Discover magazine say it is so?

    26. Re:global cooling by JDevers · · Score: 1

      True, but even a 50% reduction in food output in Europe and North America would still leave plenty for the natives... If the increased rain led to more irrigation in desert like areas, our food output wouldn't go down much at all...it would just get more expensive to farm.

      In North America, the only crops that would see a serious decline would be sunflowers which aren't a big deal and wheat, which is a big deal...but the total reduction wouldn't be that bad as we could simply move wheat production further south where corn is grown now and corn could move in to Oklahoma and north Texas were the most important crop is dust and tornadoes. With enough of a rain increase in eastern Colorado, western Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska will actually increase in productivity pretty nicely and get outright hot in the summer now...so even a 10-20 degree F drop wouldn't destroy agriculture there thanks to the severe continental climate.

    27. Re:global cooling by Burnhard · · Score: 0, Troll
      You call it "magic", but I notice you haven't read the paper! I'm sorry if I've punctured your obvious religious faith on this issue. I don't think these kind of journals are in the habit of publishing "magic", even though they generally turn a blind eye to "magic" in the dendro-climatological sphere.

      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? Now that isn't such a hard thing to do, is it? It's similar to imagining that we don't know how mountain ranges form, what causes earthquakes, or how volcanoes form. Obviously there are thousands of peer reviewed papers around in various areas of scientific endevour that are wrong. For example, all those geology papers published pre-plate tectonics, or all of those papers published in medical journals about the causes of stomach ulcers, pre-discovery of a certain type of bacterium. Well, I for one don't think the science is EVER settled. CERN certainly think there's an issue worth investigating (the CLOUD experiment isn't cheap).

      On the point of the difference between the two papers, this is easy to see. From the conclusions:

      Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism, the loss of ions from the air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans. So marked is the response to relatively small variations in the total ionization, we suspect that a large fraction of Earth's clouds could be controlled by ionization. Future work should estimate how large a volume of the Earth's atmosphere is involved in the ion process that leads to the changes seen in CCN and its importance for the Earth's radiation budget. From solar activity to cosmic ray ionization to aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale.

      In fact, the effect is noticed around 7 days after the event. It is not yet understood why this is the case. Further research is needed and is planned but if they took your attitude, it wouldn't get funding or take place at all. As I keep saying in these types of discussion, the "team" warmists have all the funding, even though much of their research is bollocks. This is hardly surprising; they peer review each others papers, use each others data (without archiving it for replication) and cite each other all the time, as Wegman discoverd when he did a statistical network analysis of their inter-relationships. If you've read and understood the criticisms of Steig et al (for example), you'll see how far you can get in climate science with a Principle Component algorithm, some data cherry picking and a few friends either too stupid or too corrupt to challenge your assertions.

    28. Re:global cooling by mopomi · · Score: 1
      That's all fine and dandy, but there is no correlation between cosmic ray activity and cloud formation.

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JD000560.shtml
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm

      The Maunder minimum was a period of low sunspot activity in the mid 1600s to early 1700s. The "Little Ice Age" lasted from about 1250 (when the arctic ice pack started to grow at an accelerated rate) to about 1820. What does something that happened around 1650 have to do with something that started in 1250?
      We've been experiencing a low sunspot activity period since about 1985, during which time we have experienced the highest temperatures on record.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

    29. Re:global cooling by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      According to the History Channel (I know, a dubious source considering some of their lame programming), the little ice age was caused by a natural dam breaking, causing one of the North American great lakes to suddenly spill into the Atlantic ocean, and since it was fresh water it disrupted the Gulf Stream.

      Also, that global warming could actually cause another little ice age because of all the glacier melt into the Atlantic doing the same thing as the natural dam breakage that caused the historical one.

    30. Re:global cooling by macintyred · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Solar flares correlate with solar activity and, at least in theory, increased solar activity shields Earth from Cosmic Rays. i.e: more solar flares implies more solar activity which implies less cosmic rays reaching earth which implies fewer clouds which implies more sunlight which implies hotter temperatures on the planet which implies global warming.

    31. Re:global cooling by macintyred · · Score: 1

      My personal problem with the theory that this flux is going to cause global cooling is that, at least according to the actual temperature measurements, global cooling has preceeded the flux by a couple of years.

      If the data is an indicator, something else is affecting the climate and that something has already been in effect for some time.

      But of course, this messes up all the other theories on global warming I've heard of as well. I guess it never pays to muddy up a perfectly good theory by comparing it with data, does it?

    32. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not healthy to get all your information from one clearly biased source.

    33. Re:global cooling by Joren · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Did you even read my post? Specifically, did you read the following?

      * I'm not claiming I know which research is closer to the truth. It could be this year's, it could be last year's. The date isn't going to tell us.

      They both claim reliance on MODIS data and reach opposite conclusions. So... what gives?

      To be honest, it sounds like you skimmed what I wrote and decided I was a global warming nut. If you enjoy arguing against them, then by all means have fun pretending that I am one. By all means, tell me what "my attitude" is - I'm sure it'd be news to me, since I never expressed an opinion about what should receive funding and what should not. But I digress...

      My main point isn't about which one's right or wrong - frankly I don't know or care. It's about the rules of logic. You're saying the other research is "a little old" when it's only one year older than the link you cited. It matters little which side a person is on - what matters is that they follow the rules of logic and provide a refutation that goes beyond "it's [one year] old." They both use the same MODIS data and reach different conclusions - that points to a difference that cannot be explained by one being a year older than the other. There must be different methodologies, and one has to decide which one is closer to the truth. I would like to know what the difference in how they assess the MODIS data is - unfortunately, I can't know, because I don't have access to anything beyond the abstract of the research you cited. The full papers seem to require paying for access.

      --
      -- Joren
    34. Re:global cooling by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No. Its the sun spot activity that's letting more cosmic rays in, they even mention it in the article.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:global cooling by NotNormallyNormal · · Score: 1

      This article is theoretical in nature however. They have obviously made some assumptions in their model (no model is ever 100% correct - or even close). So while they say that it is 2 orders of magnitude too small, is this because of their assumptions? What could be the error? We/They should look for actual evidence (you know, an experiment or observations in the real world) to back this claim up.

      (I guess that is the experimentalist in me... I never do trust models that much, especially when they don't predict the actual observations under the same conditions)

    36. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a tool...

    37. Re:global cooling by geekoid · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    38. Re:global cooling by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I dno't think they reached differenct conclisions.

      One was about Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and
      clouds

      The other was do cosmic rays impact global temperatures.

      These are different things.

      In any case they don't impact global temperature or cloud formation anywhere near what con trails do, not to mention particulate matter. Both of which are helping to minimize the impact of CO2 global warming. It's still warming, just not as much as it would without them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    39. Re:global cooling by emilper · · Score: 1

      Last glaciation (the big one, not the "little ice age" that did or did not exist) had temperatures with only 5 degrees Celsius lower, so don't be so sure 20 F. below current averages is that good.

      On the flip side, there will be a lot more tall blondes available in meridional climates than before :)

    40. Re:global cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Almost. The plasma drill (or something like that) is still missing from the technological tool kit as boring holes through 12 km of rock is currently very expensive and slow. Perhaps the Vasimir project for creating a plasma based propulsion could apply some of its know-how to create plasma based cutters and drills. Bye bye to the explosives use in construction sites and the related damages to buildings and equipment.

    41. Re:global cooling by NelsChristian · · Score: 1
      Better idea is to use geothermal heating to keep us all warm during an ice age

      Right. Cool the core of the planet down by piping the heat to the surface and venting it to space. Makes a lot of sense to me. That's fossil heat you know, been there since the creation of the planet, not really renewable. Well, not unless you think the heats being created by slow nuclear reactions in the core. And if that's the case, why don't we just pile up some of that nuclear material and make some electricity for light too....

    42. Re:global cooling by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      FYI, estimates of earths core temperature range from about 4800 kelvins to 7300 kelvins, which is freaking hot. This high temperature is believed to be latent from the forming of the planet, and secondarily from radioactive elements present in the composition of the planet.

      The temperature is so high, and the volume of the earth so large that man has no hope of cooling it significantly anytime this millennium. That's not to say there would be as yet unknown consequences in tectonic action or magnetic pole shift/reversal. It's merely to say that instead of burning up fossil fuels at record pace, we could give the atmosphere a break by using the energy we already have in productive ways.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    43. Re:global cooling by NelsChristian · · Score: 1

      There was a bit of sarcasm to my answer. And my suggestion was to go to nuke power, not oil/coal.

  8. I guess the paranoids were right, sorta by Captain+Spam · · Score: 1

    A NASA probe found that cosmic ray intensities in 2009 had increased by almost 20 percent beyond anything seen in the past 50 years.

    Well, crap, then. Maybe we actually SHOULD all get out our tinfoil hats.

    Actually, lead foil might be a better bet...

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    1. Re:I guess the paranoids were right, sorta by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      Actually, lead foil might be a better bet...

      No silly.... lead is why the Romans forgot to wear their helmets.

    2. Re:I guess the paranoids were right, sorta by wellingj · · Score: 1

      No problem. I'll just use the lead foil that I was using to wrap my sandwiches in... Can't be to careful in this nuclear age ya' know?

    3. Re:I guess the paranoids were right, sorta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you could create a full helmet out of aluminum screen, which is grounded. At least that in principal would act like a Faraday cage and block most frequencies.

  9. What are the chances? by Ironchew · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cosmic rays damaging electronic equipment? I've been using this computer for years and my RAM is doing just fi

    1. Re:What are the chances? by siddesu · · Score: 4, Funny

      How did you manage to submit half the posting after your RAM was hit by a cosmic ra

    2. Re:What are the chances? by B4light · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't suppose Candlejack has anything to do wi

    3. Re:What are the chances? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:What are the chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Meh. No carrier happens when the FBI cuts your phone line. In this case, his computer was hit by a cosmic ray. Totally different joke. Obviously land-mowing don't make you smart.

    5. Re:What are the chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      you younguns wouldn't even know what a carrier was.

      A big boat that holds airplanes?

    6. Re:What are the chances? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Nowadays, they use the Candlejack joke. Whether that is more fun or less fun, it's up t

    7. Re:What are the chances? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Carrier, two examples that I'm aware of:

      First is the age old joke:

      Canadians: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to
      avoid collision.

      Americans: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the
      North to avoid a collision.

      Canadians: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15
      degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

      Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again,
      divert YOUR course.

      Canadians: No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.

      Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND
      LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE
      ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS
      SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES
      NORTH--I SAY AGAIN, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH--OR
      COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.

      Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

      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."

    8. Re:What are the chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stupid!

      I know lawnyer is a good carrier! I watched Legally Blond !

    9. Re:What are the chances? by forand · · Score: 1

      CARRIER was the name of the pigeon I used to transmit information between work and external offices.

    10. Re:What are the chances? by mattbode · · Score: 1

      Carrier has arrived! Kokal tul...

    11. Re:What are the chances? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      A Protoss vehicle ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    12. Re:What are the chances? by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      A carrier brings me my network kit in large boxes, or is that a courier? Carrie Fisher? I dunno.

      Anyw £($_! NO PACKET

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    13. Re:What are the chances? by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    14. Re:What are the chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YIP yip YIP yip YIP yip YIP
      YIP yip YIP yip YIP yip YIP

      #(^*()$*%9039468kdjf#(

      NO TERRIER

    15. Re:What are the chances? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      But can you whistle a 300 BAUD connection tone?

    16. Re:What are the chances? by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Fine here t$)!D)A@)003292@ @($&#*%&DYRW*@HD(!HF(#y freakin' sweet.

    17. Re:What are the chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are we to do; take tranqulizers

    18. Re:What are the chances? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well carriers just arrived and your supposed to mass carriers always. ALWAYS.

  10. Why it's more dangerous. by Jason+Pollock · · 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
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation

    1. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by MachDelta · · Score: 4, 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?

    2. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      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!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by SanguineV · · Score: 1

      How many libraries of congress is that?

    4. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    5. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by flydude18 · · Score: 1

      Almost. The kinetic energy of the car is proportional to the square of the velocity. So, if the energy goes up by a factor of 1e17, the corresponding velocity increase is only by a factor of sqrt(1e17), or about 3e8.

    6. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by flydude18 · · Score: 1

      (This space reserved for another physics nazi's relativistic corrections).

    7. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by ignavus · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    8. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by kimvette · · Score: 1

      So, what, cosmic rays are Yugos? Geo Metros? Mini Coopers? Help us out here!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    9. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      It's really more like the difference between getting hit by a pebble at 1mm per hour and a baseball at 23mph. ;)

    10. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by somepunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the most extreme upper limit. Only a handful of these extremem events have been recorded. Furthermore, cosmic rays (like particles from solar wind) almost never impact you directly, unless you're in space. They interact with the atmosphere, creating showers of particles, which spread the energy over a large area. I'm not going to do the math now, but the useful figure for effecting electronics might be per square cm per year, at ground level. Most of the cross section of your computer wouldn't notice much if some ionizing radiation passed through it. The CPU and major chips are a pretty small portion of total area. The magnetic domains on your disk platters are probably large enough to be unaffected.

      --
      Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
    11. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multipass?

    12. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by antibryce · · Score: 1

      it's more like the difference between Moby Dick and the entire Library of Congress.

    13. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also your body is made of cars.

    14. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    15. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      Basically, it's the difference between buying American vs German.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    16. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by forand · · Score: 1

      It is much more complex than that. The flux of 10^20 eV particles has NOT increased it is still very very low (like 1 per 100km^2 per century). Check out the Auger Southern observatory site for some info on those particles. What is being discussed in this article is much lower energies. These cause damage only as a side effect and virtually all space mission will not be effected by them. What can happen is that electronics which are not radiation hardened can be put into a funky state by the passage of a charged particle through a sensitive portion of the electronics causing a fault which could be unrecoverable. All NASA missions require radiation hardened electronics for any mission critical components and are thus much less likely to fail due to interactions with cosmic rays.

      More info on Auger can be found here.

    17. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      I used to hit my baby brother with Hot Wheels... does that mean cosmic rays are mostly harmless?

      --
      Be relentless!
    18. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 5, Funny

      its like being hit by a library of congress instead of a car.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    19. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Canazza · · Score: 1

      They're Peel P50s

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    20. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this car would hit you before it is even built since 100,000,000,000,000,000mph is 150 million times the speed of light.

    21. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, how did your brother turn out?

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    23. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by caluml · · Score: 1

      Or a cricket ball at 100+? Ouch.

      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.

    24. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Sorry, its _very_ missleading to say that cosmic rays HAVE 10^20eV. Most are many orders of magnitude lower.
      Take a look here:
      http://images.iop.org/objects/cern/cern/39/10/8/cernnews8_12-99.gif
      A 10^20eV Cosmic Ray is a "1 per km^2 per 100 years" event.
      Thats why the Oh My God particle was such an extraordinary event.
      Btw, that graph is even steeper than it looks, as the Y-axis is energetic flux, not perticle flux. (thus higher energy particles are overemphasized)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    25. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Since when are 'mph' S.I. units? I think you were going for 300,000,000 m/s .

      --
      I come here for the love
    26. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flux of c.r. at 10^20 eV is one per square kilometer per century. Furthermore, the interaction
      length is such that they'd more than likely pass straight through your body without interacting.
      On the other hand, the low energy flux (eg kilo-eVs) is vastly (I mean VASTLY) higher and you'll
      note that its still plenty energetic enough to be considered ionizing radiation.

    27. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

      How much is that in non dendro-proxies?

    28. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be LoC/m^3, actually.

    29. Re:Why it's more dangerous. by malandro23 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but did you check on the flux of cosmic rays of this energy? It's 1 per square kilometer per century. Cosmic rays with 10^20 eV happen, but very infrequently. Obviously as you go lower in energy, the higher the flux, so particles that are significantly affected by the solar wind and earth's magnetic field dominate the cosmic ray spectrum. I never thought I could use this knowledge for anything, good to see I didn't waste 5 years of my life. Oh wait...

  11. Great by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 0

    Prepare for a new wave of Earth destruction movies. On a serious note, anyone know a good page, paper, or interesting sites concerning the heliosphere?

    --
    L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
  12. Use ECC Memory by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess now would be a good time to use ECC RAM in consumer PCs and not just servers anymore. In fact, I've always been in favor of ECC in every workstation. At least nVidia is talking it seriously.

    FYI. Cosmic rays have been known to cause bit-flips in RAM. That's why using ECC is important in preventing data corruption committed back to disk.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Use ECC Memory by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, 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.

    2. Re:Use ECC Memory by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to Crucial and other sites that benchmark, going ECC is only 2% slower than non-ECC memory. That's a very good trade off for reliability IMHO.

      As for Intel. Yes, ECC support is restricted to their Xeon line now. You will also need a workstation motherboard. Even though Intel's latest "high-end" desktop gaming board (X58 chipset) supports the Xeon CPU, ECC support is not available. At least, no reference was mentioned in the manual.

      I think my next workstation build will be AMD based.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Use ECC Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People use Windows and Excell and you worry about cosmic rays?????

  13. WTF??? by vrmlguy · · Score: 2, 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, "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".

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    1. Re:WTF??? by BlackSabbath · · Score: 5, Informative

      We know this because we can look for these...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_isotope#Natural
      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)!

    2. Re:WTF??? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not only that, but where's the proof that humankind survived?

    3. Re:WTF??? by Vellmont · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Measuring the isotope concentrations of different elements relative to today's values will be an indicator for the amount of external radiation that the system has received.

    5. Re:WTF??? by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Could I get a Theo Wulf cluster of those?

      --
      signature is pants
    6. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course they were planted there by [insert diety] in which case - ha ha you've been punk'd(TM)!

      You mean like

      Unless of course they were planted there by vegans

      or

      Unless of course they were planted there by carnivores

    7. Re:WTF??? by Loomismeister · · Score: 1

      Umm... No... He is sarcastically mentioning that God may have planted this fake evidence in our earth. Are you implying that animals shit everywhere and that's what people are mistakenly studying today?

    8. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some cool stuff that can be done with these cosmogenic isotopes, such as determining how long a land surface has been exposed, versus being buried beneath surface sediments ("cosmogenic exposure dating"). Some of the applications are listed a little further down the page. And, yeah, if there are big changes in the flux of cosmic rays, it shows up in the results.

    9. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL when I read that I instictively did the "Twilight Zone" jingle under my breath.

    10. Re:WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon me good sir, but you appear to have not even RTFS.

      Try again.

    11. Re:WTF??? by mokus000 · · Score: 1

      "Deity" is spelled similarly to the non-word "diety". I'm pretty sure that's all he's on about.

      --
      Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
    12. Re:WTF??? by NotNormallyNormal · · Score: 1

      And, surprisingly, the thickness of tree rings corresponds very well with the isotope concentration. The is also related to the temperature at the tree of course. Whether the two are directly related - unknown...

    13. Re:WTF??? by NotNormallyNormal · · Score: 1

      Actually, not the Earth's field at all. Cosmic rays are influenced by the Sun's magnetic field. If the field is larger there are less cosmic rays in the heliosphere thus less interacting with the planets.

      The sunspot number data are actually very continuous - as your figure shows. There is no "sporadic" data. Observations (telescopic) started around 1610 by the English astronomer Thomas Harriot and Frisian astronomers Johannes and David Fabricius.1 as well as Galileo.

    14. Re:WTF??? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Actually, not the Earth's field at all.

      Not according to the article:

      In addition to being protected by the Sun, we are also safeguarded by our planet's own magnetic field, which is strong enough to deflect the vast majority of incoming space radiation, or convert it into harmless, elementary particles.


      The sunspot number data are actually very continuous - as your figure shows. There is no "sporadic" data.

      Wrong again. The graph is very clear that the observations are sporadic. The article actually clearly explains this:

      Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available

      --
      AccountKiller
    15. Re:WTF??? by Zarf · · Score: 1

      I thought he didn't finish the sentence... you know... like he *meant* to say: insert diety fad here ... diet-y as in diet-ish or diet-like.

      --
      [signature]
    16. Re:WTF??? by NotNormallyNormal · · Score: 1

      > Actually, not the Earth's field at all. Not according to the article:

      In addition to being protected by the Sun, we are also safeguarded by our planet's own magnetic field, which is strong enough to deflect the vast majority of incoming space radiation, or convert it into harmless, elementary particles.

      Actually, that is somewhat true. The Earth's magnetic field does protect us from the solar wind which is the vast majority of the incoming radiation. However, this is not true for cosmic rays (I'm talking galactic cosmic rays also) which travel near the speed of light (energies near 1 GeV or greater). They are modulated solely by the Sun's magnetic field. The Earth's field is far to weak to deflect them. The Earth is protected from cosmic rays by it ATMOSPHERE. Cosmic rays enter the neutral atmosphere where they collide and produce a wide range of charged and uncharged particles including protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Most of these particles do not reach the ground and are "swallowed" by continuous interactions with the neutral atmosphere (save the neutrinos which travel unimpeded through the Earth).

  14. *rimshot* by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Funny

    FYI. Cosmic rays have been known to cause bit-flips in RAM.

    But the odds are astronomical.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:*rimshot* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But since the rays are cosmic, they cancel out the astronomical probability.

      ECC FTW. Too bad Apple only has the Mac Pro with ECC support.

    2. Re:*rimshot* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the odds are economical .

      FTFY

    3. Re:*rimshot* by lordholm · · 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...

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  15. As a matter of fact by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    "...or even put a mission to Mars in jeopardy." If you are talking about a human mission to Mars, even the lightest of cosmic radiation would only allow for a one way trip for any human. A round trip would provide fatal doses (just a side note).

  16. Time to change the climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I know it's the height of transhumanist hubris. But news like this make me wonder if now is the time to start thinking about causing rather than preventing climate change. 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. Maybe it's time to start testing those orbital solar reflectors or beefing up our Near Earth Asteroid Tracking efforts?

    1. Re:Time to change the climate? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      If we're going to set a course of deliberate climate change, I'm going to go out on a limb and nominate Mars for the pilot project. Let's try it there and if it works, bring it home.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Time to change the climate? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I don't think that makes sense. Mars, as far as we know, doesn't have a pervasive biosphere. The reaction of the Martian climate to a given input probably has no correlation at all to the reaction the Earth's climate would have to the same input. Think about the amount of CO2 which is modulated into/out of the atmosphere by life.

    3. Re:Time to change the climate? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Ant core samples? Just how large are these ants?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Time to change the climate? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      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 project to put a structure large enough to shade the Earth in a stable position between us and the Sun (i.e. the L1 point).

      So, yeah, no. But it's not like we can do a damn thing about cosmic rays, and it's not like they have much influence on global warming, anyway.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    5. Re:Time to change the climate? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      attempting to engineer our climate is a massive fuck up. anyone who suggests it needs to step back and evaluate thier compertence....

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    6. Re:Time to change the climate? by symbolset · · Score: 2, 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-manufactured ones, especially on a global scale. I'm sure we have samples of phtotosynthetic biogenic organisms that operate in low pressure and cold environments even without bioengineering anything new. I think may be easier to Terraform Mars than it is to Terraform Earth.

      Mars's atmosphere is currently frozen at its poles. In order to engage some Martian Global Warming we'll need to thaw the CO2 and convert massive quantities of water ice to CO2 and hydrocarbons (We'll need some carbon). Still no Nitrogen but if we can't find any in the soil we should be able to mine it somewhere.

      I've been thinking about this Mars thing a lot lately. A rocket sled to Deimos seems inefficient and unreliable even though there's some gravity assist if you use the Olympic skijump model of ramp made of ice. I think that it should be easy enough to build a cannon out of the available ice and use steam propulsion to launch multiton ice slugs up to Deimos, if you can adequately control the steam pressure and timing. If you want to get fancy you might put some minor steam propulsion in the ice slug and some minor intelligence to guide it. If you miss your shot it falls to barren Mars, so lots of practice shots are possible.

      The gravity on Deimos is only 400 Micro G, so the shot's got to get pretty close. Once you have tons of water in a shallow gravity well with plenty of electrical energy you've changed the game for off-earth work and life.

      Martian global warming might just be a side-effect of us doing what we're supposed to do: explore. Hopefully in 200 years the very idea of activating a Martian atmosphere will sound silly.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:Time to change the climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The important difference is that the changes you list took VERY long times to happen; even so, many species couldn't adapt.

      So what? You AGW idiots cant predict the climate on *any* scale: centuries, decades, years, months even days (which you dismiss as mere weather forecasting, but it still has a better track record than you lot).

      The changes he mentions clearly do apply at shorter timescales - otherwise the year-on-year climate data would conform to your predictions. It never has.

    8. Re:Time to change the climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      attempting to engineer our climate is a massive fuck up.

      As shown by the engineering we've already done, particularly since the start of the industrial age.

    9. Re:Time to change the climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that Mars has no protective magnetic field. The solar wind will strip any atmosphere over time.

  17. That's what happens when the Sun is Quiet by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Sun has been very quiet recently, so this is not surprising. Now that the Sunspots are back and the Sun is getting more active, I would expect things to go back to normal.

    1. Re:That's what happens when the Sun is Quiet by AnotherUsername · · Score: 1

      The Sun has been very quiet recently, so this is not surprising. Now that the Sunspots are back and the Sun is getting more active, I would expect things to go back to normal.

      It may go back to normal...or it may do a bit of a pendulum...

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    2. Re:That's what happens when the Sun is Quiet by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      [[citation needed]]

    3. Re:That's what happens when the Sun is Quiet by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The Sun influences the flux of particles from stars other than the Sun? That's pretty weird juju.

    4. Re:That's what happens when the Sun is Quiet by cathector · · Score: 1

      i don't know for sure,
      but i'm assuming that the solad wind shields us from some degree of cosmic rays.
      [ah - yep]

      the article summary is pretty bad, IMO.
      it gives the impression that the number of cosmic rays out there is more,
      when in fact it's just that the solar system's shielding is cyclic,
      and we happen to be in an extra-low minimum.

  18. Re:global warming by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1
  19. Bring on the mutants by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's hear it for cosmic rays. We need something to kick evolution into gear. Things seem to have been at a standstill lately.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Bring on the mutants by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Sort of an interesting idea. We know evolution proceeds in quick leaps ever once in a while. While I'm sure much of these had more to do with temperature and oxygen levels. But I bet certain cosmic events could act as a catalyst for evolution. Even if cosmic rays aren't necessarily one of them.

    2. Re:Bring on the mutants by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades!!!

    3. Re:Bring on the mutants by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    4. Re:Bring on the mutants by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Let's hear it for cosmic rays. We need something to kick evolution into gear. Things seem to have been at a standstill lately.

      On the contrary...

  20. However by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    SUV's are responsible for global warming. Damn them!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:However by mcgrew · · Score: 3, 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:

      • Non-unibody construction
      • No crumple zones
      • Top heavy, so they'll roll over when a sensible car won't
      • Due to their weight they steer like a drunken cow
      • Due to their weight they have long stopping distances
      • Their size makes the drivers feel safe, even invincible

      BTW and offtopic, SUV is an acronym, not a contraction. The apostrophe doesn't belong there.

    2. Re:However by shermo · · Score: 1

      However the practice of putting apostrophes between acronyms and the following 's' is so prevalent that it almost does belong there. If enough people are wrong for long enough, they're right,

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    3. Re:However by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, the only two places I see it is the New York Times (but no other newspaper, magazine, or book) and in internet messageboards by the same people who type "Their going to loose there shirts".

      The apostrophe has two uses -- to show a posessive, and a contraction. Now, look at CEO pay.

      The CEOs are all well paid. This CEO's pay is not like other CEOs' pay.

      If you put an apostrophe in the plural "CEO's", how do you show a plural possessive? CEO's is a singular possessive, CEOs' is a plural possessive. The apostrophe is an important tool in written communication, and if allowed to "evolve" in such an illiterate, illogical way it loses it utility. If you use my screwdriver as a prybar, it will be ruined for driving screws.

      Aren't we supposed to be intelligent, rational, logical, and literate here?

      This is what happens when there are no apostrophes, which are incredibly simple to understand. You have to remember that there are a lot of kids on the internet who aren't paying attention in school, and have been raised on empty-V, cartoons, and action movies who never have read a book for pleasure. That's where this so-called "evolution of language" is comng from.

    4. Re:However by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I know I'm getting old and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, but did you just end a sentence in a comma?

      One grammar nazi deserves another... :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hadn't let me finish!

      I was going to say:

      "If enough people are wrong for long enough, they're right, and that sucks because I'm a grammar nazi.

  21. New Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from being able create a Mr. Fantasic or a Human Torch or any other character from the Fantastic 4 series is there any way that the energy from these intensified cosmic rays can be harvested. If so who knows that could be the fuel alternative that we have been looking for....

  22. Re:Cosmic Naggers? by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    Don't be so hard on yourself.

  23. Not a Big Problem. by Suicidal+Gir · · 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.

    1. Re:Not a Big Problem. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, don't get your panties in a bunch.

      Though that would provide an extra degree of shielding in vital areas...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:Not a Big Problem. by rcamans · · Score: 1

      So if a cosmic ray came along and threw off one bit in a calculation, and that one bit happened to be the msb in a course change, from close flyby to dead center crash, not to worry? SEU.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  24. I Call BS by rozthepimp · · Score: 1

    I went to school with Cosmic Ray and I know for a fact that he died in some ugly drowning incident involving a bong. Ray Dead = No more Cosmic Ray.

    1. Re:I Call BS by conureman · · Score: 1

      I am so sorry for your loss.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    2. Re:I Call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article, it's not the same Cosmic Ray, but a bunch of new ones.

  25. Galactic Warming is a LIE LIE LIE! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Galactic Warming, a green-blooded commie Vulcan myth!

  26. Mod parent down -- Politically Incorrect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is a Bush hater and obviously an environmentalist! This is incompatible with the political fashion around here--he must be modded down for being offensive! Why do you hate Bush? Why do you hate our freedoms?

  27. Re:global warming by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    If any trolls are still hungry, try some of my home made troll food

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  28. Solar Wind Decreasing by jameskojiro · · Score: 1, 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.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  29. Your Universal WX forecast by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mostly clear with scattered cosmic rays, some heavy. Temperature near steady at 3K. Stellar winds light and variable except near stars.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  30. CIA and cosmic rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another good reason for my tinfoil hat.

  31. More cosmic rays caused by weak solar wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    weak solar wind -> more cosmic rays reaching us
    any effects on climate are subject to debate/further research. We'll find out. Solar wind's been super low for the last year.

  32. What? Where's my flash forward? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone thought to run the supercolliders a couple times? I'd really like to know the spread on the superbowl.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  33. Grammatical slit experiment by dugrrr · · Score: 1

    Could someone clarify if you can have "...just one cosmic ray...". I know that high energy particles of this sort are simultaneously considered both a particle stream and a wave-front but that sentence stuck out for me. Not being nit-picky, just curious. thanks.

  34. Closing Bugs by Mike610544 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm totally going to clear out my Bugzilla queue tomorrow:

    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

    --
    ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
  35. Good Lord. by FireFlie · · Score: 1

    I attempted to read the comments for this article. I do believe that this is the most troll-filled article ever to hit /.

    1. Re:Good Lord. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I do believe that this is the most troll-filled article ever to hit /.

      Wow, you must be so new here that you've never seen a story about Windows, Mac, or Linux!

  36. Excellent. by Capsy · · Score: 0

    Apparently these cosmic rays are a natural phenomenon. Nevertheless, G Dub is at his ranch right now calling it the work of Al Queda, The Taliban and Hurricane Katrina. Well done Sir.

    --
    "Chance favors only the prepared mind." -Archimedes
  37. Ignorant Taggers..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Ignorant Taggers..... by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      I think they should have tagged it "cosmicwarming."

      It would have made as much as sense and been that much funnier.

      --
      What?
  38. What kind of rays? by Bromskloss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    just one cosmic ray could disable unlucky satellites

    What is the nature of these "rays"? Duration, frequency, intensity and width would be of interest.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:What kind of rays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and, erm, what is *one* ray?

    2. Re:What kind of rays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instantaneous, 1/day, 2d6, and single target.

  39. Earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh! I see, the cosmic rays are the reason of all this Earthquakes.

  40. It has begun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just leading up to the climax in 2012, muhahahaha!

    1. Re:It has begun by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      I'm selling Doomsday Reverse Insurance: You sign up, I pay you $1000 today, and you owe me $10000 to be paid back on December 31st, 2012, unless the world ends before that, in which case you don't owe me anything.

  41. Reed Richards is elastic..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sue can fade from sight.
    Johnny is the Human Torch.
    The Thing just likes to fight.
    Just call for 4.
    Fantastic Four.

    Now I don't need to go to space to become a super-hero!

  42. Any direct correlation? by crivens · · Score: 1

    Any direct correlation between the activitity and the current natural earthquakes/typhoons etc?

    1. Re:Any direct correlation? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      C0rrelation? sure we have a change cosmic rays and we had an earth quake.

      Causation? No.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Any direct correlation? by Troed · · Score: 1

      There are interesting hypothesises on a correlation between low solar activity (and we're in the lowest of a century atm) and increased tectonic stress - yes. Another effect of low solar activity is an increased amount of solar rays, so in a way they would be correlated but without causation.

      Typhoons? Not likely. As with storms in general they aren't getting more severe, we just find out about more now due to satellites, increased amounts of boats etc.

  43. Cloud Chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, you have never heard of a Cloud Chamber. This is not "a hypothesis" nor "controversial". They work. The same process happens naturally. You should take some Syrup of Ipecac for all that Kool-Aid you've been drinking.

  44. Hrmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so the voyager probes punch holes in the termination shock and now we are seeing a increase in cosmic rays.

    Coincidence??? or something more? ???

    You decide.

    1. Re:Hrmmm... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Damn You Carl Sagan!!!! You said once that we would reach the stars if we didn't destroy ourselves first, turn out it was you and your Voyager program which will destroy us and prevent us from reaching the stars!

      A far more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a cosmic ray rise which will burn all of us to a crisp with the power of 400 billion stars!

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  45. Is it by RealErmine · · Score: 1

    Original Cosmic Ray's or Cosmic Original Ray's?

    --
    Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    1. Re:Is it by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but his Sweet Baby's BBQ sauce is delicous.

  46. No way... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    It's obvious that we're starting to hit the Photon Belt

    1. Re:No way... by Samgilljoy · · Score: 1

      I thought I already knew of most newage sewage, but this is an entirely new pile of wackiness. Well played.

    2. Re:No way... by WoRLoKKeD · · Score: 1

      No, really. It'll happen. Not long after, we'll start seeing mutated babies. Some unnaturally short with dense bone structure, some with pointy ears...And people will sneeze causing a nearby person's hair to catch fire. Then California will claim independance and Corporations will claim sovreignty.

      --
      Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  47. Global warming stopped last weekend by ecotretas · · Score: 0, Troll

    With the scary discovery of Steve McIntyre, last weekend, that one of the Global Warming foundation papers (from 2000) resulted from Briffa et al. cherry-picking data, you can declare Global Warming dead. It was never quite alive, though... Check it out at climateaudit.org Ecotretas

    1. Re:Global warming stopped last weekend by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, it's not dead.

      They used cherry picking to declare cherry picking.

      Even if it is true i ONE paper, it doesn't rule out global warming.
      For example:

      If tomorrow I found evidence that Darwin's theory was so flawed as to be discredited, it would change the theory of evolution bacause of the massive volumes of supporting data.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. agreed by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Solar system magnetic field is weaker and more cosmic energy is getting through. This predicts a return to normal as the next solar cycle revs up.

  49. Just one more side effect of man-made ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GLOBAL WARMING!

  50. No mention of the Fantastic Four? by JeTmAn81 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm greatly ensaddened.

    --
    "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
  51. Plays hob with our radiation detectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not so much because there are more cosmics lately, but that they are more variable.
    Most advanced radiation detectors allow the collection of a count with no sample, which is then subtracted from a count with one. The net is the count produced by the sample, simple.

    Lately the variability of the background is really messing with that approach, and we here are having to go with a large area cosmic detector and use that to veto counts as well, it's a real pain.

    We used to able to more or less use the same background count for at least all day, if not a week, but now it's invalid during one measurement of an hour or so.

  52. More references by sam_vilain · · Score: 1

    See Taking Cosmic Rays for a Spin (2006). Also a very informative section in Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming.

    --

  53. Whew! by woolio · · Score: 1

    like the difference between being hit by a car going 1mph and one going 300'000'000mph?

    That square root sure makes all the difference. A difference of 17 orders of magnitude was just difficult to handle.

    But now, the difference between a car going 1mph and ~1.5x the speed of light isn't so bad at all.

    I feel much better!

  54. Global warming ate my data by pkphilip · · Score: 2, 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/

  55. i know who's causing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let's just blame it on Obama and call it a day