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."
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.
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:
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.
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
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.'"