CERN Studies Connection Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change

Layzej writes with this quote from Nature: "For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. It is hypothesized that clouds might then build up around the droplets — possibly affecting the Earth's climate. To find out, [Jasper] Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). ... Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change (abstract). The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometer-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds."

Comments

Lack of

[sphealey]

In other words, CERN studies lack of connection between cosmic rays and climate change.

sPh

Re:Lack of

[NeverVotedBush]

I would think the crucial information would be if there had been a significant change in the cosmic ray flux over the last century and how that correlates with a change in cloud coverage or density.

Re:Lack of

[interkin3tic]

Are you saying that's the null hypothesis they will be testing (pedantic) or are you merely saying they won't find a connection (unscientific)?

Re:Lack of

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on, we all know the answer to this one. A couple days ago we were all able to blame epidemics on religion, so I'm sure we can blame climate change on religion, too. In fact, we can probably also blame cosmic rays on religion.

Man, it's great having a convenient fallback answer for anything we don't fully understand!

Re:Lack of

[Pino Grigio]

I'm honestly not sure how you can come to this conclusion. Look at the graph:

Cloud Graph.

I was convinced there was more to this after reading Calder's book, "The Chilling Stars", quite some time ago. This experiment simply adds to the evidence gathered and presented there. The next question concerns the growth of CCN after this initial formation of small sized particles. It's interesting to me that this is immediately dismissed by hockey-stick fiddlers. There is a certain closed-mindedness to anything other than the current dogma in certain circles.

Re:Lack of

[bonch]

There is a certain closed-mindedness to anything other than the current dogma in certain circles.

Just look at the negative moderation of your post. Certain people have latched onto current climate change dogma so strongly that it's become a source of self-worth for them, proof of how much smarter they are than the "deniers." Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm, opposing opinion supported by evidence.

Re:Lack of

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Flat Earthists back in the day. How very scientific.

Re:Lack of

[GameboyRMH]

It's because the deniers have previously presented this theory as an alternative explanation to global warming vs. human-released fossil carbon, and while it was found that cosmic radiation can have some influence, the effects are nowhere near significant enough on their own.

So of course when this theory shows up in an article the first reaction of scientifically-minded people is to put that dead horse back in the ground before the deniers get a chance to beat on it again, because that's a frustrating waste of everybody's time.

So, yes it has an effect that's worth studying. But NO this wasn't the mystery factor that those elitist scientists didn't notice 'cuz they're fulla book learnin' but ain't got no common sense.

Re:Lack of

[amRadioHed]

I think he's saying that he read the summary all the way through. Particularly the last line, "high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometer-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds."

Re:Lack of

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, gases in the atmosphere leading to climate change let more cosmic particles through.

Re:Lack of

[bonch]

Which is the opposite of the conclusion, but okay, whatever goes along with Slashdot's groupthink, I guess.

Re:Lack of

[Livius]

Either way it's a step forward for human knowledge.

Re:Lack of

[geekoid]

OR, they actually read the article and understand why his post was nonsense?

Re:Lack of

[Pinkybum]

That graph is shit - it doesn't explain anything to me.

Re:Lack of

[geekoid]

This.

Re:Lack of

[Rockoon]

...and since we all know that Slashdot summaries are flawless crystals of perfection...

Re:Lack of

[treeves]

"the day" being pre-classical Greek civilization, say, pre-300BC?

Re:Lack of

[Layzej]

I would think the crucial information would be if there had been a significant change in the cosmic ray flux over the last century and how that correlates with a change in cloud coverage or density.

Studies in that area have been inconclusive. The IPCC AR4 summarizes:

There appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001)

Here are some more recent studies which also have been unable to show a definitive link:

Calogovic, J., et al. (2010): Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03802, doi:10.1029/2009GL041327.

Erlykin, A.D., et al (2009a): On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71, 17-18, 1794-1806, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.06.012.

Kulmala, M., et al. (2010): Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 1885-1898, doi:10.5194/acp-10-1885-2010.

Pierce, J.R., and P.J. Adams (2009): Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.

Sloan, T., and A.W. Wolfendale (2008): Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 024001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001.

Re:Lack of

[Layzej]

I don't know, this one looks pretty good. I'm going to keep my eye open for more submissions from this Layzej guy ;)

Re:Lack of

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no_global_warming_from_cosmic_rays.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

1. Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
2. Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
3. Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
4. Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

You like images more than words? http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark/image/image_view_fullscreen

Re:Lack of

[Layzej]

The studies author concluded: "those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."

Labeling the graph a "cloud graph" is somewhat misleading.

Re:Lack of

[Anonymous Coward]

NO. 99% of the people, including scientists, that support efforts to change our energy/fossil fuel consumption habits based on the results of anthropogenic climate change do so because, since the THEORY (proven) is factually accurate, it would be morally repugnant to do otherwise. If 1% of those people are clinging to the THEORY (proven) out of a desperate attempt to believe they are better than others, thats THEIR problem. The deniers, on the other hand, may have already doomed the human race to massive, previously avoidable die-offs, based on the fact that 99% of THEM are attached to a dogma (fundamentalist christianity) in a desperate attempt to believe they are better than others, ARE OUR PROBLEM. When a human tribe recognizes a minority of the tribe is out to destroy the tribe, for any reason, the offending minority (child abusers, murderers, dangerous cults, etc) are expelled or killed. since there is no place to expel these lunatics, we have a moral obligation to KILL THEM. If we cannot do this out of a sense of respect for human life, we have to find a way to shut them out of the debate forever. However, that won't happen, and i weep at the future of the human race. hopefully, the space aliens will come to fix this. THEY wont hesitate to wipe out the crazies, even though they may go overboard and kill all of us on the planet, as John Varley wrote about.

Re:Lack of

[flaming error]

> Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm,
> opposing opinion supported by evidence.

Everybody is allowed to offer whatever opinion they want. But convincing scientists will probably require more "evidence" than "I read a book which convinced me" .

Re:Lack of

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this video at YouTube that shows what may be cloud nucleation being affected by what may be cosmic rays. It's pretty neat to see the phenomenon occurring at this scale.

From what I'd understand, cold temperatures and low pressures at high altitude allows for atmospheric water to reach its triple-point. Then all it takes is something like particles in the atmosphere to trigger seeding. Basically what you're seeing is a Wilson chamber phenomena working on a much larger scale.

Re:Lack of

[ravenshrike]

He had a giant dome which he dropped the interior temp and pressure of and a portable cosmic ray generator in which to test this?

Re:Lack of

[ravenshrike]

Unless we go full luddite, and nuke everyone else to the same standard, the only long term solution is to use carbon sequestering. End of discussion.

Re:Lack of

[amRadioHed]

Right, though I'm not sure I would agree with your designation of the LHC proton preaccelerator as portable.

Re:Lack of

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow wow wow. Are you implying that statistics is the only kind of evidence we have for climate change ? That there is "nothing more" to climate theory than "these 2 numbers seem to be related in our datasets from the past".

In a minute you'll be saying we don't actually have confirmed experiments where increasing co2 levels causes heating in an artificial athmosphere under realistic assumptions*.
Oh wait ... we don't.

*(as in we know that moving from 0 to ~250ppm causes a bit of warming. That's cute but the 19th century is over and done with. The real question, of course, is whether what is happening now, ie 330 to 400 ppm also causes warming. spoler : It doesn't).

And another minute and you might look up that
1. Climate is chaotic, especially temperature variation
2. It is mathematically obvious that statistics are not able to predict chaotic systems

Another minute and you might ask yourself the obvious question :

There have been lots of climate predictions. Let's take those made by the IPCC. Now the judge of a theory used to be how correct those past predictions were ... So the obvious question is : given the predictions of past IPCC Assessment reports, how many were correct ?

Answer 1 out of 5 predictions is *barely* correct (and 0/5 if you count the prediction of solar output). It's also the one that was made in 2010 (in other words, the accomplishment in that is mostly correctly reading the thermometer, not actual prediction).

And let's just ignore the fact that it is basically completely impossible for anyone, even with a million dollar investment, to use the prediction algorithms and verify the results. Why ? 2 reasons, one completely damning and the other a big philosophical problem : first, the algorithms are not publicized, which used to be enough to get you kicked out of the scientific community. Second a million dollars is not enough by far. We only have the word of the scientists, and we have to blindly trust that the one experiment didn't screw up their math.

Re:Lack of

[Vintermann]

Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm, opposing opinion supported by evidence.

Never mind that they're at 5 insightful? and you're at 4 insightful as I write this? Despite denouncing climate science as dogma and calling mainstream climate scientists "hockey stick fiddlers"? Go on playing the victim card.

Re:Lack of

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you should re-read the last line.
"But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds."

Re:Lack of

[OolimPhon]

Well, isn't "God did it" the ultimate fallback answer?

Re:Lack of

[NotBorg]

Laugh it up, but once they succeed in opening up a wormhole your definition of portable will be obsolete. And it's not like the occasional accidental black hole doesn't show promise for moving large masses.

Re:Lack of

[Pino Grigio]

Sorry, it was. It should have been CLOUD graph - because CLOUD is the name of the experiment.

Re:Lack of

[Layzej]

as in we know that moving from 0 to ~250ppm causes a bit of warming. That's cute but the 19th century is over and done with. The real question, of course, is whether what is happening now, ie 330 to 400 ppm also causes warming.

You can find the answer to that question with the following formula (spoiler - it does):

dF=5.35*ln(c/c0) W/m^-2

Where C is the current ppm of carbon. C0 is the reference ppm.

Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD)

[Chris Mattern]

Face it, your desperate attempt to get a cute acronym has just left you looking like a CLOD.

Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD)

[ozbird]

Denialists Really Off the Planet; Latest Excuse Tenuous (DROPLET.)

Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD)

[Kagura]

Face it, your desperate attempt to get a cute acronym has just left you looking like a CLOD.

A very PROUD CLOD.

Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD)

[tallbloke]

Warmista Anxiously Rebut: Mention Impending Sizzling Thermageddon Again

Poor Acronym

[Anonymous Coward]

Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets = CLOUD?

I don't like incorrect acronyms, you insensitive clod!

No doubt

[wsxyz]

There is no doubt that if cosmic rays are driving global warming, then human activity is driving cosmic rays.

Re:No doubt

[Rei]

Obligatory graph. That shows the different climate forcings, their medians, and their error bars. What the current study is working on is cloud formation. You'll notice that cloud formation has a pretty huge error bar; we're not very good at modelling it, and there's a lot of research to try to improve that. But note that even if you assume the best-case cooling effect from clouds, rather than the median (or the worst, for that matter), you're still not cancelling out the other forcings. Note the error bars on the net result at the bottom.

Re:No doubt

[Poorcku]

Bad modelling hasn't yet stopped "scientists" from influencing policy making... [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE] - if you know what I mean. Yes Greenpeace, I am looking at you.

Re:No doubt

[DerekLyons]

Translation: My mind is made up, no scientific evidence need apply and no further study is necessary.
 
Seriously, I find it disturbing as hell that climate change zealots and doomsayers point at scientific evidence to 'prove' their point.... (Of course, we all know that science at this level is about correlation and best fit models, not 'proof'.) But let someone investigate something that may disturb their dogma - and their support of science goes right out the window.

Re:No doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

The CO2 forcing in the chart that you link to is over-estimated per the most up-to-date observational data (Lindzen/Choi 2011 http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf) and the effects of clouds are underestimated per the CLOUD experiment. A 2% change in cloudiness can account for all of the observed warming in the 20th century.

Re:No doubt

[geekoid]

TRANSLATION: I'm too stupid to RTFA.

Keep ignoring the prediction they make, and keep spreading your ignorance of modeling and statistics.

Re:No doubt

[GrumblyStuff]

There are other benefits to fighting at least what we perceive as Climate Change. It's hard to produce energy from fossil fuels without producing carbon dioxide so any research on alternative energy sources and conservation is a good thing (more so as oil becomes harder and harder to extract). Also, oceans of carbonic acid isn't very good for the food chain.

I fully agree that this should be checked out. If the evidence comes out that cosmic rays are an influence (either as the majority or minority cause of CC), then we can move on from there and think of ways to reactively combat the phenomenon. In the meantime, we still should be working to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

Re:No doubt

[GrumblyStuff]

This is the culture developed in the West. Defend our thoughts to the death! Never give an inch! Never admit guilt or responsibility! Pay them off just enough to make them go away.

Man, it sucks how what goes around comes around.

Re:No doubt

[Rising Ape]

And what exactly does Greenpeace have to do with climate scientists?

Re:No doubt

[Marc Madness]

Bad modelling hasn't yet stopped "scientists" from influencing policy making... [...] Yes Greenpeace, I am looking at you.

When did scaling government buildings to protest climate change become science?

Re:No doubt

[XDirtypunkX]

Yes, how dare they point to the scientific evidence that is in their favour to support their argument! Especially when the other side of the debate is lacking said evidence! What an unfair fight!

Re:No doubt

[jovius]

Clouds do not only cool. During the nights when heat is radiating upwards from the ground they can act as an entrapment. Basically the net effect of clouds could be positive if they only appeared during nights.

Re:No doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

the only really Armageddonist message from Greenpeace i can remember was the planet turning into a desert.

but that was NOT because of CO2/climate change but because of CFK's and ozone depletion.
and it was good thing they had a effect on policy on that issue.

Re:No doubt

[Rei]

One paper overturns all of climate science, really? ;) You can't be serious.

If you'd spend less time on denier blogs, you'd be aware of the vast breadth of research papers on each topic. And how Lindzen and Choi don't exactly have the best record out there. That paper was first rejected from the Journal of Geophysical Research. Then it was rejected by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, and only later accepted by a rather no-name journal (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences). Here's PNAS's rejection of it.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Climate Change was anthropomorphic... You mean there might actually be a cause from outside the Earth? Someone alert Al Gore!

Re:Wait...

[wsxyz]

anthropomorphic?

* sigh *

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 34, bro

Re:Wait...

[Chris Mattern]

I thought Climate Change was anthropomorphic

That's *Mister* Climate Change to you, pal!

Re:Wait...

[Rei]

Anthropomorphic climate change? Like this? ;)

CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[tp1024]

The problem with a lot of public climate science is a matter of language. Specifically, the utter abuse of language by the IPCC to imply absolute scientific certainty where there is in fact, little more than strong hints in need of further investigation. Which is not surprising, as an intergovernmental panel is not a scientific, but a political institution.

This is in contrast with the particle scientists CERN, who are much more careful with their language, because they have not thrown scientific integrity out of the window in order to overstate their findings. Which is all the more remarkable given the huge expenditure on some experiments like the LHC. I've written a rather longish piece on that topic a few days ago.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[brit74]

Industry loves uncertain language, as well. Afterall, no action can be taken if everything is uncertain. No wonder they've been working so hard to raise doubts.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with a lot of public climate science is a matter of language. Specifically, the utter abuse of language by the IPCC to imply absolute scientific certainty where there is in fact, little more than strong hints in need of further investigation.

Would you care to quote some examples? I've never seen it peddled as being any more certain than any other knowledge acquired by science.

In fact, ISTM and a lot of other people that the IPCC is overcautious in its predictions for the sake of consensus building and political sensitivity, and that reality unfailingly outstrips what the IPCC predicts in terms of bad news.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[tp1024]

I described examples at length in the linked posting. Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't cover your health insurance, if you should stretch a tendon in the act of using your mouse to click on it. But I can assure you, that this particular mouse click is worth the extra risk to your health.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[quantaman]

Different fields have different capabilities to obtain data and achieve statistical certainty. My gut says particle physicists have an easier time collecting new of data, testing different hypothesis, and therefore can afford (and need) a higher standard of statistical confidence. If you're performing 20 different experiments, and one comes back positive, than 95% confidence doesn't mean much and you should easily be able to do better. But if you only have one real big experiment, and collecting another data point means waiting another year, than 95% suddenly means a lot more and might be the best you can do.

These are different fields talking about very different kinds of hypothesis with very different kinds of data. Doesn't it make sense that they calibrate their language usage differently?

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[tp1024]

But if you only have one real big experiment, and collecting another data point means waiting another year, than 95% suddenly means a lot more and might be the best you can do.

Sorry, no. This would amount to special pleading. 95% statistical certainty has the exact same meaning independent of whether you can get another data point within the next second or within the next year. And if that's the best you can do ... well, I'm terribly sorry, but then the best you can do, is just not very good.

The difficulty of obtaining data doesn't change the likelihood of mistaking an effect for an artifact in statistical analysis (because math is blissfully ignorant of such difficulties), except insofar as you have a lot of time to think about it. But in this case your reasoning has to be very conclusive and obviously cannot rely on statistics to demonstrate its validity. But the latter is exactly what is being done.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[quantaman]

So there's two issues here.

The first is you have to make do with what you can. For many problem types they can't achieve results with the rigour of particle physicists, but that doesn't mean the results they can get aren't useful science. Like it or not that's the confidence they can achieve, now the question is what do you do with that information. If someone is 95% sure something important is going to happen, and you choose to ignore them because they can't achieve the answer you want, than a lot of the time you're probably going to regret it.

The second reason is publication bias. When a scientist gets a 99% confidence that doesn't really mean there's only a 1% chance they're wrong, it only means there's a 1% chance that particular experiment would produce a false positive if they were wrong. But if a 1000 scientists are doing the same experiment, and they're all wrong, there's still going to be a lot of people getting a positive result with 99% confidence.

I suspect particle physics effectively has a lot more data, and a lot more experiments, so they're a lot more susceptible to publication bias. It's entirely possible that the true probability of a particle physics experiment with 99% confidence is lower than a climate model with 95% confidence.

I don't know enough about either field to say to what degree this is the case, but I don't think you can compare the probabilities as simply as you do. And your resulting indictment of the integrity and competency of climate scientists is on very shaky ground.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[Anonymous Coward]

we cant be absolutely certain about climate change until way to late.

if your doctor said you had a 95% chance of having cancer, but he could not give you treatment because he was not certain what would you say?

and PS: have you even read the executive summary of the IPCC assessment. it is very clear about how it defines probabilities.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[tp1024]

If someone is 95% sure something important is going to happen, and you choose to ignore them because they can't achieve the answer you want, than a lot of the time you're probably going to regret it.

First of all, the 95% does not mean something happened the way you described it. It only means that the implied null-hypothesis has a chance of 5% to be true. That's it. It says nothing about the truth value of your hypothesis, nor does it say anything about the truth value of any other possible hypothesis that could give apparently similar results. (I recommend read Nicolas Nassim Taleb on those matters. Unfortunately, he closed down his ridiculously ugly, but also ridiculously informative, website fooledbyrandomness.com last month.)

If you can't get your confidence way up, there is very little way of ascertaining that a particular approach is correct. You're still open to ridiculous coincidences that you can't tease out with statistics alone anymore, because you lack a sufficient data base.

And secondly, as already stated above, you're putting up a straw-man by implying that the alternative is doing nothing. That's neither the case nor is it what I said. The reason being, that there are a huge lot of very good reasons to switch to non-fossil fuels, that you will have much less trouble justifying on a scientific and highly reliable basis. (In short: we're running out of and kill each other trying to gain access to this stuff.)

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[Curunir_wolf]

The Science is IN

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[The_countess]

"little more than strong hints in need of further investigation" i believe you got this quit wrong. there is uncertainty true. but man made climate change is a undeniable fact. the only uncertainty is in how much of one. and preparing for the worst case scenario for that seems only prudent to me. specially considering that this issue can be fixed for pretty much chump change now compared to what it could cost in the future.

More Anti-AGW Commenters

[brit74]

I like how, when faced with decades of research on the CO2 - global warming connection, the anti-AWG crowd are completely skeptical. But, a hint that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and climate change, and they're already convinced.

It fits pretty nicely with other research that showed that people's willingness to accept global warming seemed to hinge on whether or not they needed to change their lives as a result. (As if facts were true or not depending on their consequences for their own lives.)

In one version of the news story, however, the scientific study was described as calling for “increased antipollution regulation,” whereas in another it was described as calling for “revitalization of the nation’s nuclear power industry".... individualists who received the “nuclear power” [solution to global warming] were less inclined to dismiss the facts [of global warming] related by the described report http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/nuclear-power-makes-individualists-see-green/

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

>It fits pretty nicely with other research that showed that people's willingness to accept global warming seemed to hinge on whether or not they needed to change their lives as a result. (As if facts were true or not depending on their consequences for their own lives.)

I'm pretty sure that applies to all sorts of things. Old people + computers, for example.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear power only, of course.

The other kind, Nuke-ya-lur power, is still loved and widely accepted :)

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[skids]

a hint that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and climate change, and they're already convinced.

Don't worry, they will return to being skeptical when someone shows them the graph clearly indicating that cosmic ray levels haven't been increasing during the warming trend.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

people's willingness to accept global warming seemed to hinge on whether or not they needed to change their lives as a resul

I've noticed a different variation on that, myself. I see that the people who strongly embrace the notion that any changes in the climate are entirely anthropogenic (and specifically WHA, "western hemisphere anthropogenesis"), are the people have been told that the cure happens to be a reording of global affairs in a way that happens to line up with their politics. Typically, taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity, etc. In other words, I see a strong correlation between the All-AGW-All-The-Time crowd, and the Nanny-State/Statist demographic. They dismiss all non-anthropogenic factors as being meaningless because those tend to chip away at the Hopey Changey stuff that is their actual agenda.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[subl33t]

"All-AGW-All-The-Time crowd"
Let's call them Watermelons - green on the outside, Red on the inside.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that makes me doubt the science behind AGW is when scientists say things like "the *facts* [of global warming] " when there are truly only theories that are supported to some extent by facts. Anytime someone says that the science is conclusive and need not be questioned I will stop listening as they are obviously now talking religion, as science does not ever stop questioning.

As an aside I find it funny that many atheistic and so called enlightened people defend AGW with religious fervor that make evangelicals seem like C&E Christians.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how, when faced with decades of research on the CO2 - global warming connection, the anti-AWG crowd are completely skeptical. But, a hint that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and climate change, and they're already convinced.

Of course - that's how pseudoscience works.

And BTW, showing that cosmic rays have an effect on climate is not sufficient. To pin climate *change* on cosmic rays, you also have to show that the flux of cosmic rays is changing.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Ragun]

Of course they believe the one highlighting nuclear power over one highlighting regulation.

Attaching a study to a political stance will ALWAYS lower peoples trust of the findings, no matter which way the stance points. The conclusion may be true, but there are plenty of explanations for the distrust.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Toonol]

Anytime someone says that the science is conclusive and need not be questioned I will stop listening as they are obviously now talking religion, as science does not ever stop questioning.

There is some climate science that is pretty much settled, as far as any science gets. The average temperature changing throughout the twentieth century, for instance. There may be some quibbling, but nothing serious. I'll agree with you, though, that anybody treating forecasts using climate models as any sort of reliable evidence is abusing science.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Jeng]

people have been told that the cure happens to be a reording of global affairs in a way that happens to line up with their politics. Typically, taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity, etc

Really? I haven't been told that redistributing wealth or centralized control of econimics are the cure for AGW, what I've been told the AGW is for us to stop polluting so damn much.

Now some people have some funny ideas about how to go about that, some are dead wrong and could do much worse damage to the climate than we have, but I haven't heard that what would amount to communism to be a cure. In fact there is not a communist country with a good environmental record.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Dadoo]

people have been told that the cure happens to be a reording of global affairs in a way that happens to line up with their politics. Typically, taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity, etc. In other words, I see a strong correlation between the All-AGW-All-The-Time crowd, and the Nanny-State/Statist demographic.

I suppose there is a strong correlation between those two demographics, but I have to ask: what do wind turbines, solar power, and higher gas prices have to do with taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity?

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[bonch]

I like how, when faced with decades of research on the CO2 - global warming connection, the anti-AWG crowd are completely skeptical.

That's because there is also decades of opposing evidence as well as convincing criticism of many of the pro-AWG conclusions. Hell, even the lead scientist of the study on those drowning polar bears in Al Gore's movie is now on administrative leave after a federal investigation into the fact that all he saw was four corpses from 1,500 feet up in a helicopter--no actual collection or study done. It's not as black-and-white and obvious as you seem to believe.

But, a hint that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and climate change, and they're already convinced.

I think it's more interesting that, at the slightest hint that your current model of global warming may not be entirely accurate, you write a reactionary defensive post that leads into other tangents and doesn't actually respond to the research about cosmic rays affecting climate change.

Something everyone here should see: George Carlin on saving the planet

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[bonch]

Sounds you're pinning your hopes. So much for scientific objectivity.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

what do wind turbines, solar power, and higher gas prices have to do with taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity?

Wind turbines? Solar power? Neither are cost effective and rely on government involvement and subsidies (subsidies are dollars taken from someone else as taxes and given to someone else to pursue something that doesn't have its own sufficient, built-in incentives). Higher gas prices? Do you mean, higher because taxes have been added to the prices? That has everything to do with taxing productivity, be definition.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[medcalf]

I'm certainly more skeptical of people who want us to spend trillions of dollars and remake our political institutions because of their theories, than I am of people whose theories cause them to say, "Huh. That's odd."

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[dreamchaser]

Anytime someone says that the science is conclusive and need not be questioned I will stop listening as they are obviously now talking religion, as science does not ever stop questioning.

There is some climate science that is pretty much settled, as far as any science gets. The average temperature changing throughout the twentieth century, for instance. There may be some quibbling, but nothing serious. I'll agree with you, though, that anybody treating forecasts using climate models as any sort of reliable evidence is abusing science.

The fact that climate is changing is established science based on observation. What all of the various causes/drivers of it is not.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Dadoo]

Wind turbines? Solar power? Neither are cost effective

Solar is not cost-effective now. (I'll need a citation for wind turbines.) If we'd actually put some effort into researching alternative power, that would change.

Do you mean, higher because taxes have been added to the prices?

That, and ending oil subsidies.

That has everything to do with taxing productivity, be definition.

Umm, because someone has a gun to your head, forcing you to buy gas, right? See, this is why we can't have nice things. Like it or not, the fossil fuels are going to run out, someday. Why not change things now, when it's easy, rather than waiting until it's all gone, and society has collapsed.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Dadoo]

Do you mean, higher because taxes have been added to the prices?

Let me just add one thing to what I said, above. We went to Iraq primarily to secure a source of oil for the US and, as a result, our national debt is around $2 trillion higher than it should be. In what way does it not make sense to tax oil products to repay that part of the debt?

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

We went to Iraq primarily to secure a source of oil for the US

Actually, we, and many other countries, went because Iraq invaded Kuwait and showed every inclination to also invade Saudi Arabia, and use the resulting power grab to run much of the middle east the same way that Saddam was running Iraq. You do remember that part, right?

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Pinkybum]

...the anti-AWG crowd are completely skeptical... I think the term you are looking for is ignorant.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[geekoid]

Solar is cost effective, it's just cost effective over time and require up front capital... however it's getting cheaper.
Also, Coal, oil, and nuclear also ALL require government involvement and subsidies.

Higher because there is less of it. Talking about Barrel prices, not pump prices.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Dadoo]

Iraq invaded Kuwait

Wrong war.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[geekoid]

George Carlin's jobs was that of a comedian, not to present logical fact based argument.

And I use 'Comedian' in the loosest term. He turned into a stupid ranting old man about as funny as a crazy old man at the park.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Dadoo]

Also, Coal, oil, and nuclear also ALL require government involvement and subsidies.

I have to admit: it would be interesting if the government ended all energy subsidies for a few years, just so we could see the true cost of the various forms of energy.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[hsthompson69]

Solar is not cost-effective now. (I'll need a citation for wind turbines.) If we'd actually put some effort into researching alternative power, that would change.

As far as I can tell, solar subsidies aren't directing resources to research -> they're simply subsidizing the existing, non-cost effective solar technology.

Like it or not, the fossil fuels are going to run out, someday.

Not sure if that's true. Abiogenic petroleum represents an alternative view that puts the assertion into question. That being said, changing things before costs actually rise and scarcity is actually there is a significant opportunity cost. You could be improving efficiency technologies, instead of trying to do basic research on alternative energy sources, for example.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we, and many other countries, went because Iraq invaded Kuwait and showed every inclination to also invade Saudi Arabia, and use the resulting power grab to run much of the middle east the same way that Saddam was running Iraq. You do remember that part, right?

Yes, I remember the first gulf war. You do remember there was a second part, right?

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Rising Ape]

It's a well known phenomenon called confirmation bias. It's one of the things you have to learn not to be fooled by to do science. In fact, it's after I actually started doing scientific research of my own (in an unrelated field) that I stopped being an AGW "sceptic", as I noticed how strongly that view was affected by it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the most vocal AGW sceptics have no scientific research experience of any kind.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

Wrong war.

No, same war. Saddam agreed to all sorts of things as he got kicked back out of Kuwait.He followed through on essentially none of those things, and contined - without interruption - to shoot at allied aircraft patroling the no-fly zones (to which he agreed). He never stopped shooting in the war he started when he invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait. And that's just the tip of that iceberg.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

You do remember there was a second part, right?

Yes, there was a second action taken because Saddam never actually followed through on the many things to which he agreed as his forces were being pushed back from Kuwait. He never stopped shooting at patroling aircraft, he never stopped importing and working on long-range missiles, he never disclosed what he did with mountains of VX and other nasties, etc. His aggression against Kuwait was what started it, and he never backed down to the posture he was told would be necessary if he wanted his regime to survive. He didn't, and so ... he didn't.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[sdguero]

What does anti-AWG stand for?

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[umarekawaru]

Ice Core data going back many thousands of years, that Al Gore popularized, actually make the case against CO2 affecting climate. You have to zoom in on the data - something Al Gore avoided. Temperature increases always precede CO2 rises by 100 to 600 years. The reason is that the ocean in a gigantic "carbon sink" that takes 100 to 600 years to adjust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_oceans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeze, not that again. Nothing about temperatures leading CO2 in the past says CO2 can't lead temperatures.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Dadoo]

Like it or not, the fossil fuels are going to run out, someday.

Not sure if that's true. Abiogenic petroleum represents an alternative view that puts the assertion into question.

C'mon, seriously? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

You could be improving efficiency technologies, instead of trying to do basic research on alternative energy sources, for example.

I certainly wouldn't argue that, but most global warming deniers would.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Abiogenic petroleum? Good luck with that.

Basic research continues to be done and alternative energy sources are quickly becoming competitive with more traditional sources.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/08/21/solar-energy-match-coal-price-2015-china-globally-2020/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/23/302008/in-brazil-auction-wind-power-is-cheaper-than-natural-gas/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/09/241120/solar-is-ready-now-%E2%80%9Cferocious-cost-reductions-make-solar-pv-competitive/

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I wish we'd get a nice spike in cosmic rays for a year or so. A significant excursion from the norm would surely tell us how viable the CR/cloud theory is.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[voidphoenix]

People keep referring to that Carlin bit on saving the planet, mostly to support anti-AGW positions. Get a clue, people: His spiel is actually a pro-environment stance. He is criticizing the reasons (and excuses) that people give as to why we should clean up our act. He is criticizing the language we use to support pro-environmental ideas. In a nutshell: "Fuck you and your holier-than-thou 'save the planet' bullshit. The planet is fine, the people are fucked. Call it like it is, it's self-interest that drives this, and we're actually trying to save ourselves." But in all that, GC recognized the bottom line: the way things are going, the people are fucked. We're facing extinction, and we're recklessly, heedlessly contributing to it.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ShakaUVM]

>>I like how, when faced with decades of research on the CO2 - global warming connection, the anti-AWG crowd are completely skeptical. But, a hint that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and climate change, and they're already convinced.

That's how human brains work. If a fact meshes with the collection of facts we have established in our brains, it is readily accepted. Often times, too easily. If it does not mesh, then it can only be accepted after a lot of reading, and a lot of people won't accept it even then, if it disagrees with their established world view too strongly.

This applies equally well to right-wing people and left-wing people. The notion, for example, that Bush was behind 9/11 is just as laughable as the notion that Obama wants to introduce communism to our country.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[garyebickford]

redistributing wealth or centralized control of econimics are the cure for AGW

*cough*Carbon Tax*/cough* *cough*Cap and Trade*/cough* *cough*auto fuel mileage regulations*/cough* *cough*banning oil from shale*/cough*
Not to say which (if any) of these are right or wrong (much less whether they might actually achieve any useful environmental improvement), but they are all examples of using regulation to achieve centralized control of the economy. Along with many others. Regulation of economic activity has replaced actual takeover by the state as the primary method of achieving central planning and control.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[BergZ]

Wow, George Carlin took something figurative "save the planet" and he talked about it literally! That's genius!
... but seriously, imagine someone trying to tell you that preventing a nuclear war wasn't "saving the planet" because the post-apocalypse Earth would continue to orbit the Sun. It's needlessly pedantic. The end of humanity figuratively means the end of the planet.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[BergZ]

The political consequences of averting catastrophic climate change has no bearing on the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change.
For example:
Creationists love to claim that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Evolution requires supporting involuntary Eugenics programs. We all know that isn't true, but the Creationists claim it anyway.
Many people will try to tell you that accepting the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change requires "living in mud huts (or any other form of economic fearmongering)". We all know that isn't true, but the climate change "skeptics" will claim it anyway.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, of course. It doesn't also say that aliens didn't do it. Or planktons. Or ...

What it doesn't do is support the conjecture, however.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Troed]

You really need to find less biased sources for your daily information flow.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

You really need to find less biased sources for your daily information flow.

You mean, less biased towards the actual events that happened? Please be specific. Explain that I'm wrong about Saddam continuing to target patroling aircraft. Explain that I'm wrong about his continued import of NK scuds, and diversion of UN-program oil-for-food funds into his military. Explain that I'm wrong about UN inspectors' observations of large VX stockpiles at the sites they were able to freely visit following the Kuwait invasion, but for which they were able to obtain no information regarding disposal, and of which they could only find partial remains. Really, do tell.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Troed]

I'm from the same country as Hans Blix.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hans-blix-slams-bush-blair-over-iraq-war-20100728-10uo8.html

He was right you know, and what was it Bush said about him and his work again?

#37: "When he [Saddam Hussein] chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him" - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3907

My guess is that you're so deep into partisan US politics to ever be able to understand how the rest of the world looks at your actions.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

So, to be clear, it's your position that one of the things that Bush said in the context of that particular discussion, makes all of the other facts - and everything else said about them at the time - suddenly no longer true?

My guess is that you're so deep into partisan US politics to ever be able to understand how the rest of the world looks at your actions.

My guess is that you're so pleased to let other people pay in blood and money to deal with many of the world's bad guys that the only way you can make yourself feel better about it is to pretend you resent them for it. It's craven of you, but I get it.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Troed]

I'm not in support of murdering 100000 innocent civilians just because a guy who believe God made him president had a fit, no.

Hans Blix said Saddam wasn't lying. He was right.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[hsthompson69]

Yeah, Abiogenic petroleum is the big fly in the ointment of the whole Peak Oil crowd. Oil companies get to have it both ways - they keep prices artificially high by insisting that they're selling a non-renewable resource, when in fact they've got "dry" wells filling back up mysteriously :)

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[rgviza]

you don't need to be anti-agw to believe that agw isn't the only factor in global warming. sheesh, you act like it's an all or nothing thing, like a religion or something.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats because its a crowd of big oil zombies either getting paid to blog bullshit, or a subsection of their happily ignorant audience trying to feel important. Some could be tax-payer paid govt cronified trolls pushing misinformation just for the sake of confounding public awareness. The end result is keeping (sensible) regulation enforcement ineffective. They don't give a damn about the state of the biosphere, nor the future of life. God damned bastards all.

I remember...

[GooberToo]

...posting on this very topic a couple of years back in a climate change thread. I was troll moderated to hell and quickly attacked by the slashdot masses about how this could never cause anything to happen. Never mind such research has been going on for easily a decade, if not the very preliminary work for over two decades.

So according to the slashdot herd, this is completely wrong and there is absolutely no need to ever study it as they long ago confirmed this is all nonsense. Hurry! We've all been saved by the massive stupidity which is the slashdot masses.

Re:I remember...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Link or it didn't happen. I mean be serious, if you are going to claim that you wrote something and the reaction here condemns "the slashdot herd" to hypocrisy, lets see exactly what you are basing your claims on. I've got this funny feeling the reality of what happened isn't anywhere near as drastic as you want to make it out to be.

Or is it that you just expect everyone here to take it all on your word without any actual evidence? That would be rich.

Re:I remember...

[NeutronCowboy]

And yet, the CERN research showed that cosmic rays are at best a tiny fraction of the nucleation factors that create clouds.

I remember when this possibility came up during climate change discussions. What you were most likely modded down for is that you took a very speculative article with little supporting evidence, and trumpeted it as proof that AGW is bogus.

Sometimes, the masses are right, and they are laughing at Bozo the clown.

Re:I remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was troll moderated to hell and quickly attacked by the slashdot masses about how this could never cause anything to happen.

Please don't take it personally; we just don't like you.

Re:I remember...

[GooberToo]

Wrong. What I was modded down was that everyone found the mere correlation of preliminary research indicated that things are far more complex and the other camp could stand it that climate change is really fucking complex and us humans are still trying to figure out the variables, let alone how things actually work.

You see, when it comes to climate change and slashdot, rarely does intelligence prevail. Censorship, by means of moderation rather than debate, generally prevails.

Re:I remember...

[Jeng]

So what you are saying is that you are full of shit?

Link or shut up.

Re:I remember...

[NeutronCowboy]

I stop paying attention to people who don't understand what censorship really is. It's as sad and pathetic as white people complaining that they're being oppressed. To quote South Park: "You don't get it."

Re:I remember...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your post clearly says you're a really dumb fucking idiot to suggest herd-think doesn't exist on slashdot.

No. I'm saying that your particular claims of herd think validating your POV need to be substantiated. It is a logical fallacy to say, "Herd think exists, therefore I am a victim of it." But that's precisely the argument you just made in your vitriolic response.

Re:I remember...

[pz]

I've similarly posted in many climate threads about my friend's research dating back 15 years now that strongly suggested that cosmic DUST (not ray) accretion is a strong climate driver, based on variations in the Earth's orbit sweeping out slightly different parts of space and thus accreting different amounts of dust. Just like the Perseid meteor shower changes slightly each year because the relative position between the Earth and that quasi-static dust lane changes from year to year, the Earth encounters more or less dust along its entire orbit, and any periodicity in the orbital variation changes dust accretion. Dust accretion is strongly suspected to influence terrestrial cloud dynamics, and, therefore climate.

Here's my friend's article (in Nature, so this isn't some fly-by-night idea, but rigorous science, and, knowing the second author well, as I do, I can vouch that it is *highly* rigorous and objective science): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6557/abs/378600a0.html But don't take my word for it: the article has 89 references according to Google Scholar (about 3x the impact factor of Nature, so raising their statistics). There were a couple of follow-up articles as well.

Re:I remember...

[bonch]

Someone else here made an excellent observation that many, and perhaps most, of those who embrace the idea of anthropogenic global warming also happen to be people whose cure for the global warming involves solutions that align with their political views. It's strange that there seems to be no recognition of the link between anti-industry, centralized-economic politics and belief in manmade global warming.

An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies). In fact, you'll find this same formula in almost every belief system, from religions to political parties. Everyone thinks they're fighting selfish humans to return the world to some perfect state, if only governments would institute their policies.

Already, there are several defensive posts from people trying to nip this article in the bud because their beliefs are under threat.

Re:I remember...

[bonch]

I love how you constructed a "most likely" hypothetical scenario with no direct evidence and then used it to call someone names.

Re:I remember...

[Dadoo]

Well, I can't speak for any of the people who modded you down, back then, but pretty much every person I've talked to, who doesn't believe in climate change, has an ulterior motive. It's always an excuse like "OH NOES, I CAN'T DRIVE MY FORD EXPEDITION 100 MILES TO WORK EACH WAY!!" or "OH NOES, I CAN'T HAVE EVERY LIGHT IN MY HOUSE ON 24 HOURS A DAY!!" or "OH NOES, I MIGHT HAVE TO BUY SMALL CAR!!" Sorry, but when you're talking about a global problem that could potentially cause a death toll in the billions (assuming the scientists are correct), and that might be preventable, those are not valid excuses. When that's all you hear from the global warming deniers, instead of counter-arguments to actual evidence, it tends to get frustrating.

Re:I remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of billions dead would be a long step in the right direction of lowering CO2 emissions. Why don't you give us all a head start by drinking some poison?

Re:I remember...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I love how you constructed a "most likely" hypothetical scenario with no direct evidence and then used it to call someone names.

Which is exactly what the OP did. Do you see any direct evidence from him? Hell, he could have made it all up in his head for all we know.

Re:I remember...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies).

The major difference being, of course, that just about anyone can see for themselves the pollution caused by man. It doesn't even take something as dastic as the Cuyhoga catching on fire either. Anyone in LA can see the smog and anyone who has lived in LA since the 70s can see the effect of 'sacrifice and prayer' (lol!). It shouldn't be all that hard to distinguish the effects of those environmental policies from some virgin sacrifice to bring a bountiful harvest.

Re:I remember...

[riverat1]

... happen to be people whose cure ... involves solutions that align with their political views.

The cures people choose nearly always align with their political views. Duh.

Re:I remember...

[Rudisaurus]

Great herd-think.

My next point...how fucking stupid are you? Your UID clearly says you've been here a long time but your post clearly says you're a really dumb fucking idiot to suggest herd-think doesn't exist on slashdot. Your post does not make sense in the least. It is in of itself a complete contradiction.

It was a reasonable request. Provide a link or STFU, you attention-seeking git.

Slashdot is fucking dead - jumped the shark over a year ago.

What, you're still here? Why?

Re:I remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be "we just don't like people like you" for consistency?

Wrong acronym

[wolfemi1]

"Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" makes the acronym CLOD, you insensitive cloud!

Re:Wrong acronym

[93 Escort Wagon]

"Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" makes the acronym CLOD, you insensitive cloud!

I completely agree with you, but it's not even close to the worst example of bad acronym-ization I've seen.

Here at UW one group was working on an RFID-using location service for friends and co-workers. Since it allowed for instant notification, and because Twitter had recently exploded onto the public consciousness... although the acronym they picked was "RFIDder", they initially tried to get everyone to pronounce it as "fritter"* even though the letters are in the wrong order. Apparently they hoped no one would notice and it would take off if they repeated it enough. Anyway, they finally gave up and went with "ar-fidder" instead.

* Sorry that link is a PDF, but that group has done a pretty good job of scrubbing references to "fritter". See page 9 or search the doc for "fritter".

There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon

[tp1024]

As you obviously didn't read the piece I wrote, let me quote the second to last paragraph:

There are enough reasons to reduce the use of carbon based fossil fuels. Be it the fundamental scarcity of fossil fuels; the unavoidable environmental damage associated with their use and extraction; or their price that will inexorably rise as the world is industrializing, which will hamper the economies of the industrialized countries unless they reduce their dependence upon them.

There is no reason to desperately hang on to the climate change story, if you are concerned about CO2. Emissions are increasing massively anyway, because people need more energy resources, which leads to scarcities, which in turn lead to stupid wars in Iraq or Libya or wherever. We are in dire need of alternatives anyway.

It's people like you who sacrifice scientific integrity on the altar of the climate church, without doing a thing to help to change those things you don't want to see anymore.

Re:There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon

[geekoid]

Its' a scientific fact, not a story.

But hey, you keep misreading crap and presenting it as evidence there isn't climate change.

twad.

Re:There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon

[hsthompson69]

Its' a scientific fact, not a story.

This word you use...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, climate change is a scientific fact. Let's expound on that a bit.

Natural climate change is a scientific fact. We can assert this because climate change happened long before anything we currently deem "artificial" or "anthropogenic" existed.

Now, perhaps you only partially agree with this scientific fact. Perhaps you believe that natural climate change has stopped, and current climate change is no longer natural, but anthropogenic. On top of that, perhaps you even believe that this climate change is going to be catastrophic.

Anthropogenic climate change is far from scientific fact, and I'll bet you can't even start the scientific method by stating a succinct falsifiable hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. But hey, go ahead and try!

Re:There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon

[rgviza]

Heretic! Blasphemer! Nevermind the facts! Algore has spoken!

Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[barlevg]

So, here's a question: if Cosmic Rays *are* found to be able to seed clouds, and, presumably, more cloud cover means less warming, couldn't we build a giant gamma ray beam and shoot it up into the sky?

[Answering my own question: not with current technology. From here, "Cosmic rays can have energies of over 10^20 eV, far higher than the 10^12 to 10^13 eV that Terrestrial particle accelerators can produce."]

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[tp1024]

If only people would remember how quickly earth ran out of energy reserves in that movie, once the sun was blocked ....

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[Toonol]

There's some evidence that jet contrails have altered temperatures by up to a degree. They've based this on statistical analysis of temperatures during the grounding of all flights after 9/11. One article is here.
Actually, I think that's crazy, and I would bet money it was a spurious effect. If it was true, then it would easily be within our capability to lower temperatures several degrees on demand. But just because I think it's crazy, doesn't mean it it's necessarily wrong.

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[geekoid]

It's plausible, look at how much surface ares a con trail has,and it's high in reflective. Look at how many there are.

However ti is not a tool to prevent global warming. Because we need light for plants so we can eat.

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[Anonymous Coward]

gamma ray != cosmic ray.

Read your own link. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles.

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn in your nerd card and watch the movie again. The probe had a mitigating effect on all forms of energy generation.

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[barlevg]

Well, if you want to get technical, ANY photon is a gamma ray. But if you're talking common parliance, there is also no upper limit on the energy of a gamma ray, unless you're talking those produced by radioactive decays, which is just a practical limit.

Quoting Wikipedia,

Gamma rays typically have frequencies above 10 exahertz (or >10^19 Hz), and therefore have energies above 100 keV and wavelength less than 10 picometers, less than the diameter of an atom. However, this is not a hard and fast definition which is agreed to by all scientific naming standards bodies, but rather only a rule-of-thumb description for natural processes. Gamma rays from radioactive decay commonly have energies of a few hundred keV, and almost always less than 10 MeV. There is effectively no lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay. Energies from astronomical sources can be much higher, ranging over 10 TeV (this is far too large to result from radioactive decay).

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[barlevg]

Except that I'm an idiot. I just reread your post and then my article.

About 89% of cosmic rays are simple protons or hydrogen nuclei...

Skeptics aren't anti-AGW

[subl33t]

Skeptics are pro-objective. Even the main body of the IPCC AR report is filled with "maybe"s, "likely"s, and "possibly"s.
It's the summary for policy makers that's tacked-on to the end that's filled with "impending doom!" - it's an entriely political document, not a scientific one.

Re:Skeptics aren't anti-AGW

[im_thatoneguy]

Yeah the main body says nice scientific things like.

"Likely will kill between 2million and 3million people but maybe more."

It's that political doomsday document tacked on that has outlandish non-scientific conclusions like "Since it's probably going to kill 2 million people, we should probably do something to stop it."

Quite the contrary

[tp1024]

It has shown that the current explanations using sulfates and ammonia for nucleation can be boosted by a factor of ten pending on the presence of cosmic radiation. They also say that further research will be required to see what effect cosmic rays have on the nucleation properties of other compounds to get the full picture.

Re:Quite the contrary

[hawkfish]

It has shown that the current explanations using sulfates and ammonia for nucleation can be boosted by a factor of ten pending on the presence of cosmic radiation. They also say that further research will be required to see what effect cosmic rays have on the nucleation properties of other compounds to get the full picture.

Not.

Thus the nucleation change as a result of real world GCR modulation is going to be much smaller than seen in these experiments, and much less important than the amount of pollutants.

In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.

Re:Quite the contrary

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm not going to go through the paper again to show you the quote that you misunderstood, so I'll just ask you to support your claim by quoting the relevant part of the original paper. Good luck with that.

Re:Quite the contrary

[tp1024]

I read it and found it interesting. But I don't have enough information on my hands to reply to this in a meaningful way, so right now I can't say much more than I (truly!) appreciate your comment, however bland that may read.

Re:Quite the contrary

[Anonymous Coward]

You're linking to an environmentalist blog run by people who make their living as climate change scientists. That's like linking to an article written by Microsoft engineers talking about how the Linux kernel sucks.

Re:Quite the contrary

[Rising Ape]

How bizarre, linking to a group with the best understanding of the subject. I suppose you also distrust medical advice given by doctors on the grounds that they profit from medical treatments?

Fortunately, they present actual arguments, not mere assertions, so you don't have to take anybody's word for anything.

AGW causing cosmic rays too?

[XxtraLarGe]

AGW is even worse than we expected!

Re:AGW causing cosmic rays too?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are trying too hard.

Re:AGW causing cosmic rays too?

[Toonol]

Climate warming creates, as a side effect, a tachyon-based ripple effect that goes back decades in time and motivates humans to release carbon. Our models don't take superluminal effects into account, and hence we foolishly believe carbon is causing the warming, instead of the other way around.

Lack of evidence does not imply..

[intellitech]

Lack of evidence does not necessarily imply lack of connection.

Re:Lack of evidence does not imply..

[geekoid]

Yes, it does. You might want to look up the definition of 'imply'.

If you have no evidence, then you can not have any statistical connection. Logically, lack of evidence implies no connection.

Could there be a connect through some unforeseen mechanism? perhaps, however unlikely.

Irene good night Cern

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Irene might just start to make the oil/coal consuming nay sayers wake up. Don't forget the season is just cranking into full gear.
Maybe BP, et-all are funding some of these scientists? Desperate times require desperate measures....in short park your car and tell the jerks to go take a hike..and do it en-mass!

Re:Irene good night Cern

[Toonol]

Blaming Irene on global warming is embarrassingly unscientific.

The Real Flat Earthers

[SuperKendall]

Science allows peer reviews from anyone, not just friends with the same belief. Come to think of it, Flat Earthers thought that was peer reviewed also because a handful of ships captains said it was true...

How ironic you bring up such a fitting description for the declining members of your cult, each one of you clinging to ancient "truths" while the rest of the world goes on to realize there is more to the facts than they had thought.

Re:The Real Flat Earthers

[bill_mcgonigle]

Come to think of it, Flat Earthers thought that was peer reviewed also because a handful of ships captains said it was true..

Don't attack one myth with another. <WP:Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth>

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[GameboyRMH]

The graph doesn't say otherwise. It shows that cosmic radiation can cause droplets to form, which we already know. Not that it has an effect great enough to account for any meaningful amount of global warming.

After all that you are unwilling to admit that perhaps there is a lot about climate science yet to discover, unwilling to admit your masters have hoodwinked you.

LOL irony overload! XD

Also I get the feeling that this "unwillingness to share data" argument is the hot new fashion among denialists, maybe a nice big compiled list of data sources and climate simulator source code downloads will make you move on...

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[geekoid]

"After all the lies,"

What lies?

" the unwillingness to share data, "
Data is shared all the time.

"the insular peer review,"
the peer review is only insular in the EXPERTS IN THE FIELD peer review. just like every other field.

" lack of temperature increases,"
2010 was the hottest on record. the lack of temp. increase is a LIE.

  and now a strong argument that changes how we think about cloud formation, "

ah, I see. You have glommed onto a belief system, and have completely stopped thinking about it. well done, I'm sure Fox news will throw you a towel to wipe their cum off your face.
RTFA, bitch.

Talking to you people is like talking to creationist. Lies, misunderstanding, and all your knowledge about the topic is from headlines and echo chamber sites.

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[hsthompson69]

The Cloud Graph link posted just one response above the one you are replying to says otherwise, yet here you are Denying the existence of it simply because it does not fit the Dogma you have chosen to believe.

There is always an ad hoc special pleading available for a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis that is never unambiguously stated. Keep showing refutations of individual points, and warmists will keep insisting that it's all the *other* points that count.

Not CLOUD -- it's CLOD -- you clod!

[FridayBob]

The name of this project is horribly contrived and invented only to result in a certain cool acronym, which it does not! It's easy to see that someone spent some time thinking about the name, but obviously not enough.

Clearly the acronym for "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" is CLOD, and possibly CLOuD, but not CLOUD!

Was the lead author as incompetent and unimaginative with the rest of his project? If he conducted his research the same way he arrived at his acronym, it doesn't bode well! Of course, I could check by reading his paper, but since I refuse to pay Nature's subscription fee, I don't feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Just because you cannot see something..

[intellitech]

Poor word choice, perhaps, but just because you cannot see something does not mean it is not there.

Science == skepticism, you DOLT

[Anonymous Coward]

Tossing labels around for people who disagree with you, like "the anti-AGW crowd", or maybe "denier", smacks more of religion than science.

Why don't you use terms that truly describes the way you FEEL about those that don't agree with you? Heretic. Non-believer, Infidel.

Those fit your lack-of-thought processes much better.

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[GameboyRMH]

What does that graph refute? It goes against nothing I've said.

Re:No dice

[tallbloke]

Stratospheric water vapour and co2 are in the wrong forcing ratio on that graph. SWV is about 30% as effective as a ghg. It's been falling in concentration since around 2000 and partially explains the hiatus in warming. Solomon 2010 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know whether to mod that Informative, Funny or Insightful.

As far as a nice big compiled list of data sources and climate simulator source code downloads try this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

You may denigrate the source but it's a good chunk of the data and code you've been asking for. The "unwillingness to share data" argument doesn't hold water any more.

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[GameboyRMH]

Yay thanks! That'll come in handy! ^_^

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[hsthompson69]

That begs the question, what have you said that can be refuted - that is to say, what is the falsifiable hypothesis statement you're making?

When you make an irrefutable statement, you're not doing science. When you make a refutable statement that then *isn't* refuted, then you are.

Re:Spin machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get your hopes up too much about this. This is just the first of a lot of research to come from this area.

Wilson cloud chamber turns 100

[Richard Kirk]

C.T.R.Wilson built the first working cloud chamber in 1911 as part of a lengthy investigation into the mechanisms behind atmospheric cloud formation. He noticed that the nucleations sometimes formed tracks, and established the link between the tracks and the particles that generated them. The connection between cloud seeding and energetic radiation is 100 years old this year.

I remember seeing the tracks of particles from a radioactive source in a cloud chamber when at school. It's a lovely thing. For more info and a video, have a look at...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

Competitive when you put your thumb on the scale

[hsthompson69]

Subsidies and artificial price inflations of natural petroleum is what causes solar and wind to become "competitive". The actual unsubsidized cost per kWH still shows a significant market gap, often of double or more than double the alternatives:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

For wind, you also have the problem of reliability, so every kW of wind power needs to have a corresponding emergency natural petroleum generator to take over when wind dies down.

There's no indication at all that basic research has gotten us significantly closer to economically competitive alternative energy - if it had, we would no longer need subsidies.

Re:Competitive when you put your thumb on the scal

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you look at the last link I provided? The price for solar PV is now down to around $1.50/W and is expected to continue to drop.

Re:Competitive when you put your thumb on the scal

[hsthompson69]

So are you arguing that we no longer need any solar subsidies because the economic model is now self sufficient?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/solar-wind/4306443

"First Solar's eventual goal is "grid parity," a phrase that refers to making solar power cost the same as competing conventional power sources without subsidies. Right now the cost of making panels accounts for a little less than half the total cost of installation. The company estimates that it needs to get manufacturing costs down to $0.65 to $0.70 per watt, and other installation costs down to $1 a watt in order to reach grid parity—goals First Solar plans to reach by 2012. "

This is coming from 2009, of course, and the date has no doubt shifted further into the future since then :)

But hey, keep pickin' those cherries!

Re:Spin machine?

[hsthompson69]

It certainly is more scientific than the unspecified Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis :)

I do look forward to a lot more research in this area, and fully expect that climate science, as we know it today, will continue to evolve, change and surprise us. The likelihood of any of the current explanations of climate variation being even close to complete or accurate is vanishingly small :)

sure, but

[Anonymous Coward]

global warming is chiefly caused from a lack of pirates and modern christian values.

Wow, so old...

[hesaigo999ca]

I had said this in a previous post, not even 1 day after a story had been posted about the solar flares erupting due to some meteor nearby....
and I got shot down by someone saying that I knew nothing, and that it would not affect us this far away from the sun......yet here is claims that the radiation is what will affect us, and maybe the climate and power grids everywhere....so I guess I had a good assumption about this.

I like to read about something where I get this feeling of "you were on the right path with that thinking"....it makes me feel all fuzzy inside...

"Dont hate the player, ......just hate the owners willing to pay millions for them"

Re:No dice

[Rei]

You're (A) grossly misunderstanding that paper, and (B) grossly overattributing it. Especially your "SWV is about 30% as effective as a GHG" line. Actually, WV is a much more effective GHG than CO2. It's the main reason why Earth isn't a snowball as a simple albedo calculation would suggest; over 2/3rds of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to WV. But it also has a very short atmospheric residency, and hence can't act as a driver (forcing), only a feedback.

The whole issue of global warming is not about what happens on the inter-annual or even short-interdecadal timeframe. It's about the change in long-term forcings.