×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CERN Studies Connection Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the outer-space-attacks dept.

Science 193

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

193 comments

Lack of (3, Insightful)

sphealey (2855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222466)

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

sPh

Re:Lack of (2)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222640)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37222684)

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

sPh

Not at all - the real story was near the end:

There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years

CERN studies ways in which to keep a bunch of overhyped retards paid after wasting a HUGE sum of money, and possibly injecting some black holes into the core of the Earth in the process (which we won't even know of one way or another for another 10 years).

They should have cut funding and shot the "researchers" when they put out that rap video.

Re:Lack of (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222724)

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 (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223488)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37222750)

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 (5, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222772)

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

Cloud Graph [wordpress.com].

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

Re:Lack of (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223238)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223304)

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

The Real Flat Earthers (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223654)

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:Lack of (2, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223398)

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.

How is that sand tasting? (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223628)

while it was found that cosmic radiation can have some influence, the effects are nowhere near significant enough on their own.

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.

After all the lies, the unwillingness to share data, the insular peer review, lack of temperature increases, and now a strong argument that changes how we think about cloud formation, after all that you still stick to your dream of a Great Anthropomorphic Spaghetti Monster tweaking its noodly appendages and sending temperatures skyrocketing. 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.

Well good luck with that I say, but at least at this point you can no longer to the rest of us any harm. Thankfully the whole charade was exposed before you and the rest of the clergy moved on to terraforming environment and economies alike.

Re:How is that sand tasting? (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223734)

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? (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223814)

"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:Lack of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223496)

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

Re:Lack of (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223500)

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

Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) (4, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222476)

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

Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) (3, Funny)

ozbird (127571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222884)

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

Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223804)

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

A very PROUD CLOD.

Poor Acronym (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37222480)

Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets = CLOUD?

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

No doubt (3, Funny)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222512)

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

Re:No doubt (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222760)

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

Re:No doubt (2)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223216)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223392)

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 (1, Flamebait)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223278)

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 (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223826)

TRANSLATION: I'm too stupid to RTFA.

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

Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37222518)

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

CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (2, Insightful)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222622)

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 [wordpress.com] on that topic a few days ago.

Re:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (3, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222740)

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.

There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon (0, Flamebait)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222914)

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 (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223850)

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:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223090)

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 (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223164)

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 (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223266)

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 (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223428)

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 (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223710)

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 (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223932)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223916)

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.

More Anti-AGW Commenters (5, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222690)

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/ [wordpress.com]

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37222796)

>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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37222832)

Nuclear power only, of course.

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

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222840)

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 (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223330)

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

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222842)

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 (1)

subl33t (739983) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222996)

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

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (3, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223292)

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 (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223308)

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 (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223352)

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 (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223516)

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 (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223686)

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 (2)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223752)

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 (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223884)

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.

Skeptics aren't anti-AGW (4, Insightful)

subl33t (739983) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222962)

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 (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223290)

Yeah the main body says nice scientific things like.

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

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

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223006)

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 (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223282)

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 (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223470)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223008)

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 (1)

Ragun (1885816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223184)

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 (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223326)

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 [youtube.com]

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters (1)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223452)

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 (1)

Pinkybum (960069) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223798)

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

I remember... (3, Interesting)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222744)

...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... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222856)

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... (-1, Flamebait)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223002)

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.

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

Re:I remember... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223196)

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... (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222942)

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

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

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

Quite the contrary (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223026)

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 (1)

hawkfish (8978) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223110)

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

Not [realclimate.org].

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

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

Re:Quite the contrary (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223466)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223494)

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 (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223222)

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

Re:I remember... (1, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223034)

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... (0)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223170)

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... (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223422)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37222966)

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... (1)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223286)

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

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

Re:I remember... (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223394)

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

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

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

Re:I remember... (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223434)

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

Wrong acronym (1)

wolfemi1 (765089) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222800)

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

Re:Wrong acronym (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223046)

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

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

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

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

Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE! (1)

barlevg (2111272) | more than 2 years ago | (#37222934)

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

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

Re:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE! (2)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223056)

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! (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223426)

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. [csmonitor.com]
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.

AGW causing cosmic rays too? (2)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223078)

AGW is even worse than we expected!

Re:AGW causing cosmic rays too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223138)

You are trying too hard.

Re:AGW causing cosmic rays too? (2)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37223438)

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.

Irene good night Cern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37223158)

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!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...