CLOUD results add to the knowledge but it's too early to confirm or deny anything significant, like claiming 'no trends' when CLOUD shows unexpected aerosol results for example.
The science is certainly interesting, but it looks as though the really important results are somewhere other than what it is going to tell us about recent cosmic ray climate interactions - especially as nothing CLOUD achieves will magic a trend from nowhere. It could certainly improve aerosol modelling, however, which is an acknowledged deficiency in our present understanding.
You are seriously asking me to explain to you the difference between high-energy GCRs and high energy neutrinos?
Well.. it could be amusing. Are neutrinos 'GCRs'? Are neutrinos products of GCR/atmosphere interaction? Why aren't we just measuring protons?
Most GCRs (including all the ones that Svensmark thinks are important) are at much lower energy, as are the neutrinos that are created by spallation in the atmosphere.
And other protons & particles.. Don't forget those. Or do you really think all are GCR's? It's perhaps more a quantity thing than an energy thing though.
This is noise, to be filtered out.
And seemingly in your mind, discarded as potentially inconvenient.
Once again, nobody is using neutrino measurements, or veto detectors, to measure GCR flux. The former wouldn't work, and the latter would just be silly.
Strange. Did you by any chance read the thesis about Moon shadowing available via IceCube? Somehow I suspect not. Or the lower energy detectors being installed there. Or even the famous/infamous Milagro observatory that was designed as a gamma ray observatory but found odd things about GCR's. They were being silly I guess. They should have thrown away the GCR data because it wasn't gamma stuff.
You can ramble on all you like, but it is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
Perhaps you could simplify things by explaining exactly which GCR's we should be measuring, what you mean by 'GCR flux' and why you think there are 'no trends'?
Looks like they may well be wrong about aerosols.. amongst many other things. Like solar variability, missing heat, melting glaciers, polar bears, flooding, tornadoes and hurricanes, sea level increases, temperature increases etc etc.
What they were dead right about is climate 'science' is hugely expensive, and costing us the earth.
But still, what's a few orders of magnitude between deniers? And needless to say, it had nothing to do with cosmoclimatology,
Ah, you're so certain of this.. why? You don't even seem able to tell me where protons come from.
or Multi-decadal Leprechaun Oscillations or whatever you are pinning your hopes on this week.
Ok, so you really don't understand this stuff at all.
But that doesn't suprise me. Official, climatalurgically approved GCR's are unspecified origin, energy level and type. Presumably low energy because higher energy particles get detected by neutrino detectors but aren't, in the eyes of your Church worthy of being GCR's, and thus are not sanctified to nucleate or assisst in nucleation.
You don't know what they are but you know there are no trends. Faith is a wonderful thing.
Ok, so you really don't understand this stuff at all.
Eel: "My error is in fact your error. As supporting evidence, see all the posts by my fellow theorists Cloud and Millam that make the same claim."
But that doesn't suprise me. Official, climatalurgically approved GCR's are unspecified origin, energy level and type. Presumably low energy because higher energy particles get detected by neutrino detectors but aren't, in the eyes of your Church worthy of being GCR's, and thus are not sanctified to nucleate or assisst in nucleation.
Eel: "Particle physicists are part of the conspiracy for refusing to categorise neutrinos, which I've only recently heard of and find shiny and exciting, as cosmic rays. They do this in an attempt to hide the obvious fact that they must be affecting the climate more than CO2 (after all, everything I've ever heard of affects the climate more than CO2!).
But we blog scientists are not fooled. The fact that neutrinos are completely unaffected by changes in the Sun's magnetic field (the modulation mechanism that we think allows other so-called cosmic rays to affect the climate) will not stop us hammering this latest final nail in the coffin of AGW. Nor will the fact that neutrinos hardly ever interact with matter - because I've just learned that some neutrinos are very energetic and I think this must mean they affect the climate even more than the puny ones I first read about a few weeks ago. I don't care that there are far, far fewer of them, or that they are just as unlikely to interact with matter as neutrinos of lower energy. It means the IPCC is WRONG. We don't need no stinkin' peer review!"
You don't know what they are but you know there are no trends. Faith is a wonderful thing.
Just so we know, is it now your contention that there is a trend in neutrinos, or a trend in ultra high energy GCR, or a trend in something else? You do know, don't you, that ultra high energy GCRs are rather rare, and that Svensmark's proposed mechanism needs very large numbers of GCRs at much lower energies? And of course nobody apart from you thinks neutrinos affect the climate.
Is this you rewriting Svensmark's theory again, like you did before, in your head?
Eel: "My error is in fact your error. As supporting evidence, see all the posts by my fellow theorists Cloud and Millam that make the same claim."
I know you're used to editing and distorting information to serve your cause, but here it's rather pathetic..
Eel: "Particle physicists are part of the conspiracy for refusing to categorise neutrinos,
No, it's just very obvious that you don't understand detection of GCR's. I cited various links showing neutrino dectectors also detect GCR's, you simply deny those because they're in your mind, the wrong kind of GCRs. Or the data should be thrown away.
But we blog scientists are not fooled. The fact that neutrinos are completely unaffected by changes in the Sun's magnetic field (the modulation mechanism that we think allows other so-called cosmic rays to affect the climate)
You're easily fooled. You don't understand air showers caused by GCR's hitting the atmosphere, where obviously they interact and can be detected by neutrino detectors. It's the GCR's that would be affected by the Sun and our own magnetic field.
.. I don't care that there are far, far fewer of them, or that they are just as unlikely to interact with matter as neutrinos of lower energy. It means the IPCC is WRONG. We don't need no stinkin' peer review![/I]"
No, you were wrong. You thought neutrinos don't interact with matter but obviously they have to for detection to work. You've now changed that to 'unlikely' to interact because you've realised your error. You still don't seem to have accepted the rest of the detection though.
You do know, don't you, that ultra high energy GCRs are rather rare, and that Svensmark's proposed mechanism needs very large numbers of GCRs at much lower energies?
high energy, well, depends what you mean by 'rare'. Low energy, then we're back to the question you repeatedly failed to answer. CLOUD used protons @ 3.5GeV. Do you think GCR's are the only source of protons at those kinds of energy levels?
And of course nobody apart from you thinks neutrinos affect the climate.
And nobody apart from you thought there was no neutrino interaction.
No, it's just very obvious that you don't understand detection of GCR's. I cited various links showing neutrino dectectors also detect GCR's, you simply deny those because they're in your mind, the wrong kind of GCRs. Or the data should be thrown away.
You cited links that, as usual, you don't understand. That's because you don't know any physics. It's also why the whole of climate science is completely baffling to you, so that you fall back on the simple stories fed to you by crackpots.
You're easily fooled. You don't understand air showers caused by GCR's hitting the atmosphere, where obviously they interact and can be detected by neutrino detectors. It's the GCR's that would be affected by the Sun and our own magnetic field.
And here Eel slithers back to GCRs, and away from neutrinos, which he was previously telling us might be affecting the climate. Or is he now making the even more ludicrous claim that it is atmospheric neutrinos, rather than ones of extraterrestrial origin, that are affecting the climate?
It's hard to tell, because it's all just empty waffle.
No, you were wrong. You thought neutrinos don't interact with matter but obviously they have to for detection to work.
Er, right. Apart from in the posts where I told you that they interact with matter, but do so only extremely rarely, which is why they are so hard to detect, despite the truly enormous neutrino flux. I'll tell you again, since clearly getting knowledge to interact with your brain cells is a problem on a similar scale:
Every single second, day or night (it makes no difference) every square centimetre of your body will be struck by around 7 x 10^10 neutrinos from the Sun, and around 3 x 10^12 neutrinos from other sources. Perhaps you can't do scientific notation. So that's 70 billion solar neutrinos, and 3 trillion primordial neutrinos. Per square centimetre. Per second. In your lifetime, on average, just one of those neutrinos will interact with the matter in your body, via the weak nuclear force. The rest will pass straight through, like scientific knowledge passing through your head.
You've now changed that to 'unlikely' to interact because you've realised your error. You still don't seem to have accepted the rest of the detection though.
That's another Eel lie. If you disagree, you could prove me wrong by finding a post where I claim neutrinos never interact with matter. I won't be holding my breath.
And nobody apart from you thought there was no neutrino interaction.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. Of course, this technique is the only one the science deniers have at their disposal.
You cited links that, as usual, you don't understand.
Just so I'm clear.. Are you still denying neutrino detectors can/are being used to detect GCR's, either as a primary or secondary purpose?
And here Eel slithers back to GCRs, and away from neutrinos, which he was previously telling us might be affecting the climate.
Like I sad before, it's a precision thing. You don't seem to think neutrinos can interact with matter yet that's how they're detected. If they can and do interact with matter, then they may do something on their trip down through our atmosphere where they may interact with something.
You though simply deny they can have any effect. You don't know this.
It's hard to tell, because it's all just empty waffle.
It neatly demonstrated your ignorance and your anti-science approach.
That's another Eel lie. If you disagree, you could prove me wrong by finding a post where I claim neutrinos never interact with matter. I won't be holding my breath.
Nope, this is your lie. My question was whether you've accepted that neutrino detectors can and do detect GCR's. Are you still denying this?
Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. Of course, this technique is the only one the science deniers have at their disposal.
Another is ignoring inconvenient questions, like this one, which you've failed to answer again-
Low energy, then we're back to the question you repeatedly failed to answer. CLOUD used protons @ 3.5GeV. Do you think GCR's are the only source of protons at those kinds of energy levels?
I don't think we can make further progress until you admit you are a congenital liar and seek help for the condition.
Somewhere in cyberspace, nlp's pram is missing it's toys..
I doubt 'we' will make any progress till you try answering this question, if you can.. or dare.
Low energy, then we're back to the question you repeatedly failed to answer. CLOUD used protons @ 3.5GeV. Do you think GCR's are the only source of protons at those kinds of energy levels?
Then you might want to think about CERN's follow-on projects to investigate secondary particles inducing nucleation at lower levels in the atmosphere. But you're already denying that could possibly have any effect.
I doubt 'we' will make any progress till you try answering this question, if you can.. or dare.
Low energy, then we're back to the question you repeatedly failed to answer. CLOUD used protons @ 3.5GeV. Do you think GCR's are the only source of protons at those kinds of energy levels?
I've been avoiding your stupid question for the very good reason that I am trying to make you stick to the point, which on this occasion is the weird science you have invented concerning neutrinos and cosmic rays. Trying to marshal your "thoughts" (I use the term loosely) in a single coherent direction is about as futile as trying to herd cats. Once we follow you down your latest rabbit hole, before we know it you'll be claiming that climate change is caused by anti-matter trapped between the Van Allen belts, we'll be engulfed in a swirling vortex of idiocy, and we'll never find our way back out again.
How about retracting your lie about me claiming that neutrinos cannot interact with matter? That would be a start.
I've been avoiding your stupid question for the very good reason that I am trying to make you stick to the point, which on this occasion is the weird science you have invented concerning neutrinos and cosmic rays.
No, what you're doing is realising you're hopelessly wrong about this and doing your usual deflection.
You still won't admit that neutrino observatories can and do measure GCR's. You then said..
You do know, don't you, that ultra high energy GCRs are rather rare, and that Svensmark's proposed mechanism needs very large numbers of GCRs at much lower energies?
But you won't answer the question about proton sources, possibly because you've realised your mistake and are now desperate to deflect. What energy levels do you think Svensmark's hypothesis relies on, and are GCR's the only source of ionisation? Other experiments have shown you don't need 'high power' particle beams to encourage nucleation.
How about retracting your lie about me claiming that neutrinos cannot interact with matter? That would be a start.
You're implying they cannot interact with the atmosphere, which is a rather important part of the climate..
No, what you're doing is realising you're hopelessly wrong about this and doing your usual deflection.
Hopelessly wrong about what? You've actually managed to delude yourself into thinking you understand this stuff, haven't you? Then again, that's what science deniers do, and the results can be seen in the malodorous stream of dimwittery that attends any post on Anthony Watts' useless website, which serves as your primary source of "education".
Comical Eely, the DS doyen of anti-science.
You still won't admit that neutrino observatories can and do measure GCR's.
Let's be clear about your original claim, lest you slither around until it becomes a different claim, in your usual fashion. Your original claim was that neutrinos (about which you know nothing) were a useful proxy for GCR (about which you also know nothing). The reason you made this claim was to try to save face after making a post in which you muddled up neutrons and neutrinos. Ever since, you have been desperate to find some evidence that you must (quite by accident) have been right. You aren't.
I've made a timeline of some selected highlights for you, with links to your posts:
18/12/2010: The first post in which Eel muddles up neutrons and neutrinos (I had in fact linked to neutron monitor data). A couple of posts later, I am unable to contain my mirth.
21/12/2010: Desperate to salvage something from the train wreck of his post, Eel looks up neutrinos on Wikipedia, and excitedly reports, as evidence that he was right all along, that "The primary aim of the experiment is to use neutrinos as a tool to study particle acceleration mechanisms in energetic astrophysical objects such as active galactic nuclei and gamma-ray bursts, which may also shed light on the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays.". Here Eel makes two further errors. He confuses "origins" (as in, where these cosmic rays are coming from) with flux (as in, how many of them are arriving on Earth), and he fails to realise that ultra-high energy cosmic rays are a very different beast from the ones involved in Svensmark's theory. There are far, far too few of them, for a start. One post, two massive errors.
But rather than admit his multiple errors, Eel just digs ever deeper, linking to even more things he doesn't understand:
25/08/2011: Eventually, Eel discovers that neutrino detectors use veto detectors to avoid spurious results from the primary detectors, and decides that these must be used to measure GCR. Of course, they aren't, and Eel won't ever be able to find any evidence that they are, or that they could be if those lazy scientists would only analyse the data he mistakenly thinks is being logged.
By now, Eel has read so much stuff about neutrinos in an attempt to show that he didn't really muddle them up with neutrons that he has convinced himself that they might be affecting the climate directly! He has convinced himself of this despite the fact that they hardly ever interact with matter, despite the fact that they are blissfully immune to the heliosphere modulation that affects cosmic rays (the science deniers previous best hope), and despite the fact that the idea that there might be a trend in neutrino flux is quite possibly the stupidest idea ever to emerge from a science denier's head. As far as I know, this is Eel's very own contribution to the morass of idiotic ideas that pervade the deniosphere. I actually think he may have come up with it all on his own.
But you won't answer the question about proton sources, possibly because you've realised your mistake and are now desperate to deflect.
Er, no. Just trying to make you stick to the point.
What energy levels do you think Svensmark's hypothesis relies on, and are GCR's the only source of ionisation? Other experiments have shown you don't need 'high power' particle beams to encourage nucleation.
You really have no idea why you are talking about, have you? Svensmark's theory relies on GCR in the range of energies to which neutron detectors are sensitive, as I have explained to you before. And the experiment to which you refer used an experimental technique which had nothing to do with the physical reality, as was acknowledged in the paper. It was an experimental convenience, nothing more. But it sent you off down another rabbit hole, and lead you to think that gamma rays might be causing global warming and ozone depletion.
You're implying [neutrinos] cannot interact with the atmosphere, which is a rather important part of the climate..
You really are hopeless. I'll tell you what. Since this is your personal theory, why don't you attach some numbers to it? Tell us how many neutrinos you expect to interact with the atmosphere each second, and compare it with the number of cosmic ray interactions in the same period.
You provide clarity? Let me call Heathrow ATC so I can order some fresh bacon..
I've made a timeline of some selected highlights for you, with links to your posts:
The first post in which Eel muddles up neutrons and neutrinos (I had in fact linked to neutron monitor data).
Edited highlights.. You don't start with your claimed link for example..
Here Eel makes two further errors. He confuses "origins" (as in, where these cosmic rays are coming from) with flux (as in, how many of them are arriving on Earth), and he fails to realise that ultra-high energy cosmic rays are a very different beast from the ones involved in Svensmark's theory. There are far, far too few of them, for a start. One post, two massive errors.
Err.. no. You seem to think a neutrino observatory can ID the source of GCR's without counting them.. The GCR data should be thrown away because it's not neutrino data remember? As for ultra-high energy, you haven't stated what energy levels you think are required for Svensmarks theory, but given it's about cloud formation in the lower atmosphere, they have to be high enough energy to penetrate that deep.
But rather than admit his multiple errors, Eel just digs ever deeper, linking to even more things he doesn't understand
Whilst nlp desperately tries to deflect attention away from his own errors by switching the focus to 'ultra high energy GCR's'..
Eventually, Eel discovers that neutrino detectors use veto detectors to avoid spurious results from the primary detectors, and decides that these must be used to measure GCR. Of course, they aren't,
Well, they are, and you've presumably realised this by switching to higher energy GCRs.. not to mention stuff like IceTop. So of course they are, eg-
Calibration of air shower signals in the IceTop
detector using cosmic ray muons
Which includes a nice intro to cosmic rays with a flux distribution on p.7 and also mentions some of the energy levels of interest, ie <10^10eV and they're more likely deflected by earth/sun magnetic fields and not even reach the atmosphere. Over that level they've got a better chance. Even higher and they may create the large airshowers & secondary particles that can be picked up by surface neutron counters.. And it also mentions the thing you don't dare mention-
One certain source of cosmic rays with energies below the knee is our sun. In 1946, S.E. Forbush showed that a rise in particle flux up to several GeV energies is connected to solar flares [For46]. These solar flares as well as sunspots are coupled to very intense magnetic fields that are able to accelerate charged particles (see Section 2.4.1).
'several GeV' being similar to the 3.5GeV used by CLOUD.. So basically you're wrong about them not measuring GCR's. You may have some points about energy levels, but that depends on which observatory, design, detector trigger threshold etc etc.
By now, Eel has read so much stuff about neutrinos in an attempt to show that he didn't really muddle them up with neutrons that he has convinced himself that they might be affecting the climate directly!
Err.. no. You stated with extreme confidence that they can't affect the atmosphere...
Er, no. Just trying to make you stick to the point.
Hmm.. the point you're trying to invent to cover up your own idiocy..
You really have no idea why you are talking about, have you? Svensmark's theory relies on GCR in the range of energies to which neutron detectors are sensitive,
Ah, bit of circular reasoning here.. But you still don't seem to know what energy levels these are. They have to be fairly high to reach the surface and get detected, but you don't seem to know the detail. Not really very suprising.
But it sent you off down another rabbit hole, and lead you to think that gamma rays might be causing global warming and ozone depletion.
Err, no. Ionisation seems to do that & there are a few things that can have that effect that have been demonstrated experimentally now, so protons or gamma sources. As for ozone, that's still more likely UV variability which SORCE found was more than expected.
You really are hopeless. I'll tell you what. Since this is your personal theory, why don't you attach some numbers to it?
And now you're doing the Trenberth. You're telling me I'm talking about the 'wrong kind of GCRs' but don't seem capable of stating what energy levels should be of interest, or why. So put up or shut up and admit you're clueless.
I'm going to revert to my earlier policy of dealing only with your most egregious errors, rather than every single error you make. That's far too tedious, since your posts are constructed almost entirely of errors.
Err.. no. You seem to think a neutrino observatory can ID the source of GCR's without counting them..
Yes, that's exactly what I think. The whole sodding point of looking at the neutrinos is that they come from their source in a straight line (subject only to the curvature of the space-time continuum). Nothing else affects their path. The cosmic rays with which they are associated, on the other hand, are affected by magnetic fields en-route, and are much more likely to interact with matter and so the chances of them ending up hitting the same detector are vanishingly small. They might not even hit the same planet. What links the neutrinos to ultra-high energy cosmic rays is their energy, not simultaneous measurement of a neutrino and a cosmic ray. The CGRs which are being vetoed (not counted) are the ones which could interfere with the experiment, because of their direct interactions within the primary detector. They are not the same cosmic rays as the ones whose source the neutrino detector is trying to identify!
The GCR data should be thrown away because it's not neutrino data remember?
Yes, that's right.
As for ultra-high energy, you haven't stated what energy levels you think are required for Svensmarks theory, but given it's about cloud formation in the lower atmosphere, they have to be high enough energy to penetrate that deep.
I've told you on several occasions, but knowledge passes through your head like neutrinos through a planet, rarely interacting with any of your (admittedly sparse) brain cells. These are cosmic rays of moderate energy, not ultra high energies, which are many orders of magnitude more energetic, and much, much rarer.
Whilst nlp desperately tries to deflect attention away from his own errors by switching the focus to 'ultra high energy GCR's'..
You were the one who introduced them to the "discussion", when you quoted a piece from Wikipedia as though it supported one of your daft claims. I merely pointed out that these are not the GCRs of interest to Svensmark, and that the experiment wasn't measuring their flux.
The rest of your post is just you not understanding yet another piece of science.
.. and are much more likely to interact with matter and so the chances of them ending up hitting the same detector are vanishingly small.
But they're coming from all over the place. And when a GCR interacts with matter, it produces... what?
They might not even hit the same planet. What links the neutrinos to ultra-high energy cosmic rays is their energy,
Well, yes, I guess you could say that, ie the higher the energy, the bigger the shower/cascade of subsequent particles. So the primary GCR hits an atmospheric nucleus, produces secondary cosmic rays and a hadronic shower which is mostly muons and neutrinos which get detected by... what detector?
(oh, and some neutrons, C14 and mebbe some other isotopes)
The CGRs which are being vetoed (not counted) are the ones which could interfere with the experiment,
Again you don't know what you're talking about. There's different types of veto or cutoffs used to filter out the particles/energy levels of interest. Some don't trigger below a set energy level so obviously won't collect data. Same is true with the neutron detectors.
Yes, that's right.
Wrong, but I guess you're happiest denying things you don't understand.
These are cosmic rays of moderate energy, not ultra high energies, which are many orders of magnitude more energetic, and much, much rarer.
Tell me again, or did some passing particle knock one of your few remaining braincells out of your head, taking that data with it? If you don't know the energy levels involved then you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
It's true ultra high energy particles are rare and may only show up 1 per km^2 per year or less for the really high energy stuff, but they're not really the ones of interest.
I merely pointed out that these are not the GCRs of interest to Svensmark, and that the experiment wasn't measuring their flux.
You don't seem to know which particles are of interest, so again don't know what you're denying and probably have no clue where you should be looking to find trends.. For a clue though, Svensmark I think used the Climax neutron monitor.
The rest of your post is just you not understanding yet another piece of science.
Nope.. you're simply demonstrating your own ignorance.
No, I'm not saying that. Clearly there are astronomical sources of both. But gamma rays aren't cosmic rays.
Is it so difficult for you to give a simple answer? Cosmic rays hit nuclei and produce an electromagnetic shower along with the hadronic shower. The electromagnetic shower is mostly gamma rays, which were shown to have an effect on nucleation...
But they're coming from all over the place. And when a GCR interacts with matter, it produces... what?
Slither, slither, slither...
What does that have to do with my point that the cosmic rays that created the neutrinos of interest (the ones of extra-solar or extra-galactic origin) are not the ones that are being detected, or vetoed?
You really aren't ready for grown-up physics when it's clear you haven't even mastered the basics. Did you do any physics at all at school, or weren't you good enough?
Is it so difficult for you to give a simple answer? Cosmic rays hit nuclei and produce an electromagnetic shower along with the hadronic shower. The electromagnetic shower is mostly gamma rays, which were shown to have an effect on nucleation...
This is you rewriting Svensmark's theory, without his approval. It's not a claim he makes, and it doesn't make any sense. As usual, you understand nothing.
What does that have to do with my point that the cosmic rays that created the neutrinos of interest (the ones of extra-solar or extra-galactic origin) are not the ones that are being detected, or vetoed?
Err.. is this you now admitting that neutrino detectors do detect GCR's? Your statement doesn't really make much sense other than you wriggling back to those only supposedly detecting the very highest energy level GCR's. As I said before, that depends on which observatory.
You really aren't ready for grown-up physics when it's clear you haven't even mastered the basics. Did you do any physics at all at school, or weren't you good enough?
I think some time ago you said you were homeschooled in physics and I guess that's showing now.
You don't seem to understand how the observatories do kind of 'forensic physics' by detecting the wreckage from GCR interactions, then using that to figure out origin & energy levels of the primary GCR.
Comments
Well.. it could be amusing. Are neutrinos 'GCRs'? Are neutrinos products of GCR/atmosphere interaction? Why aren't we just measuring protons?
And other protons & particles.. Don't forget those. Or do you really think all are GCR's? It's perhaps more a quantity thing than an energy thing though.
And seemingly in your mind, discarded as potentially inconvenient.
Strange. Did you by any chance read the thesis about Moon shadowing available via IceCube? Somehow I suspect not. Or the lower energy detectors being installed there. Or even the famous/infamous Milagro observatory that was designed as a gamma ray observatory but found odd things about GCR's. They were being silly I guess. They should have thrown away the GCR data because it wasn't gamma stuff.
Perhaps you could simplify things by explaining exactly which GCR's we should be measuring, what you mean by 'GCR flux' and why you think there are 'no trends'?
this pic may help you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shower_detection.png
Looks like they may well be wrong about aerosols.. amongst many other things. Like solar variability, missing heat, melting glaciers, polar bears, flooding, tornadoes and hurricanes, sea level increases, temperature increases etc etc.
What they were dead right about is climate 'science' is hugely expensive, and costing us the earth.
Ah, you're so certain of this.. why? You don't even seem able to tell me where protons come from.
More fun than CO2..
I've ignored the rest of your fatuous, flatulent drivel, because it didn't get any better. I suspect you've overdosed on crackpot websites.
Ok, so you really don't understand this stuff at all.
But that doesn't suprise me. Official, climatalurgically approved GCR's are unspecified origin, energy level and type. Presumably low energy because higher energy particles get detected by neutrino detectors but aren't, in the eyes of your Church worthy of being GCR's, and thus are not sanctified to nucleate or assisst in nucleation.
You don't know what they are but you know there are no trends. Faith is a wonderful thing.
Eel: "Particle physicists are part of the conspiracy for refusing to categorise neutrinos, which I've only recently heard of and find shiny and exciting, as cosmic rays. They do this in an attempt to hide the obvious fact that they must be affecting the climate more than CO2 (after all, everything I've ever heard of affects the climate more than CO2!).
But we blog scientists are not fooled. The fact that neutrinos are completely unaffected by changes in the Sun's magnetic field (the modulation mechanism that we think allows other so-called cosmic rays to affect the climate) will not stop us hammering this latest final nail in the coffin of AGW. Nor will the fact that neutrinos hardly ever interact with matter - because I've just learned that some neutrinos are very energetic and I think this must mean they affect the climate even more than the puny ones I first read about a few weeks ago. I don't care that there are far, far fewer of them, or that they are just as unlikely to interact with matter as neutrinos of lower energy. It means the IPCC is WRONG. We don't need no stinkin' peer review!"
Just so we know, is it now your contention that there is a trend in neutrinos, or a trend in ultra high energy GCR, or a trend in something else? You do know, don't you, that ultra high energy GCRs are rather rare, and that Svensmark's proposed mechanism needs very large numbers of GCRs at much lower energies? And of course nobody apart from you thinks neutrinos affect the climate.
Is this you rewriting Svensmark's theory again, like you did before, in your head?
I know you're used to editing and distorting information to serve your cause, but here it's rather pathetic..
No, it's just very obvious that you don't understand detection of GCR's. I cited various links showing neutrino dectectors also detect GCR's, you simply deny those because they're in your mind, the wrong kind of GCRs. Or the data should be thrown away.
You're easily fooled. You don't understand air showers caused by GCR's hitting the atmosphere, where obviously they interact and can be detected by neutrino detectors. It's the GCR's that would be affected by the Sun and our own magnetic field.
No, you were wrong. You thought neutrinos don't interact with matter but obviously they have to for detection to work. You've now changed that to 'unlikely' to interact because you've realised your error. You still don't seem to have accepted the rest of the detection though.
high energy, well, depends what you mean by 'rare'. Low energy, then we're back to the question you repeatedly failed to answer. CLOUD used protons @ 3.5GeV. Do you think GCR's are the only source of protons at those kinds of energy levels?
And nobody apart from you thought there was no neutrino interaction.
”We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”
And here Eel slithers back to GCRs, and away from neutrinos, which he was previously telling us might be affecting the climate. Or is he now making the even more ludicrous claim that it is atmospheric neutrinos, rather than ones of extraterrestrial origin, that are affecting the climate?
It's hard to tell, because it's all just empty waffle.
Er, right. Apart from in the posts where I told you that they interact with matter, but do so only extremely rarely, which is why they are so hard to detect, despite the truly enormous neutrino flux. I'll tell you again, since clearly getting knowledge to interact with your brain cells is a problem on a similar scale:
Every single second, day or night (it makes no difference) every square centimetre of your body will be struck by around 7 x 10^10 neutrinos from the Sun, and around 3 x 10^12 neutrinos from other sources. Perhaps you can't do scientific notation. So that's 70 billion solar neutrinos, and 3 trillion primordial neutrinos. Per square centimetre. Per second. In your lifetime, on average, just one of those neutrinos will interact with the matter in your body, via the weak nuclear force. The rest will pass straight through, like scientific knowledge passing through your head.
That's another Eel lie. If you disagree, you could prove me wrong by finding a post where I claim neutrinos never interact with matter. I won't be holding my breath.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. Of course, this technique is the only one the science deniers have at their disposal.
Just so I'm clear.. Are you still denying neutrino detectors can/are being used to detect GCR's, either as a primary or secondary purpose?
Like I sad before, it's a precision thing. You don't seem to think neutrinos can interact with matter yet that's how they're detected. If they can and do interact with matter, then they may do something on their trip down through our atmosphere where they may interact with something.
You though simply deny they can have any effect. You don't know this.
It neatly demonstrated your ignorance and your anti-science approach.
Nope, this is your lie. My question was whether you've accepted that neutrino detectors can and do detect GCR's. Are you still denying this?
Another is ignoring inconvenient questions, like this one, which you've failed to answer again-
Low energy, then we're back to the question you repeatedly failed to answer. CLOUD used protons @ 3.5GeV. Do you think GCR's are the only source of protons at those kinds of energy levels?
Somewhere in cyberspace, nlp's pram is missing it's toys..
I doubt 'we' will make any progress till you try answering this question, if you can.. or dare.
Low energy, then we're back to the question you repeatedly failed to answer. CLOUD used protons @ 3.5GeV. Do you think GCR's are the only source of protons at those kinds of energy levels?
Then you might want to think about CERN's follow-on projects to investigate secondary particles inducing nucleation at lower levels in the atmosphere. But you're already denying that could possibly have any effect.
How about retracting your lie about me claiming that neutrinos cannot interact with matter? That would be a start.
No, what you're doing is realising you're hopelessly wrong about this and doing your usual deflection.
You still won't admit that neutrino observatories can and do measure GCR's. You then said..
But you won't answer the question about proton sources, possibly because you've realised your mistake and are now desperate to deflect. What energy levels do you think Svensmark's hypothesis relies on, and are GCR's the only source of ionisation? Other experiments have shown you don't need 'high power' particle beams to encourage nucleation.
You're implying they cannot interact with the atmosphere, which is a rather important part of the climate..
Comical Eely, the DS doyen of anti-science.
Let's be clear about your original claim, lest you slither around until it becomes a different claim, in your usual fashion. Your original claim was that neutrinos (about which you know nothing) were a useful proxy for GCR (about which you also know nothing). The reason you made this claim was to try to save face after making a post in which you muddled up neutrons and neutrinos. Ever since, you have been desperate to find some evidence that you must (quite by accident) have been right. You aren't.
I've made a timeline of some selected highlights for you, with links to your posts:
18/12/2010: The first post in which Eel muddles up neutrons and neutrinos (I had in fact linked to neutron monitor data). A couple of posts later, I am unable to contain my mirth.
21/12/2010: Desperate to salvage something from the train wreck of his post, Eel looks up neutrinos on Wikipedia, and excitedly reports, as evidence that he was right all along, that "The primary aim of the experiment is to use neutrinos as a tool to study particle acceleration mechanisms in energetic astrophysical objects such as active galactic nuclei and gamma-ray bursts, which may also shed light on the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays.". Here Eel makes two further errors. He confuses "origins" (as in, where these cosmic rays are coming from) with flux (as in, how many of them are arriving on Earth), and he fails to realise that ultra-high energy cosmic rays are a very different beast from the ones involved in Svensmark's theory. There are far, far too few of them, for a start. One post, two massive errors.
But rather than admit his multiple errors, Eel just digs ever deeper, linking to even more things he doesn't understand:
25/08/2011: Eventually, Eel discovers that neutrino detectors use veto detectors to avoid spurious results from the primary detectors, and decides that these must be used to measure GCR. Of course, they aren't, and Eel won't ever be able to find any evidence that they are, or that they could be if those lazy scientists would only analyse the data he mistakenly thinks is being logged.
By now, Eel has read so much stuff about neutrinos in an attempt to show that he didn't really muddle them up with neutrons that he has convinced himself that they might be affecting the climate directly! He has convinced himself of this despite the fact that they hardly ever interact with matter, despite the fact that they are blissfully immune to the heliosphere modulation that affects cosmic rays (the science deniers previous best hope), and despite the fact that the idea that there might be a trend in neutrino flux is quite possibly the stupidest idea ever to emerge from a science denier's head. As far as I know, this is Eel's very own contribution to the morass of idiotic ideas that pervade the deniosphere. I actually think he may have come up with it all on his own.
Er, no. Just trying to make you stick to the point.
You really have no idea why you are talking about, have you? Svensmark's theory relies on GCR in the range of energies to which neutron detectors are sensitive, as I have explained to you before. And the experiment to which you refer used an experimental technique which had nothing to do with the physical reality, as was acknowledged in the paper. It was an experimental convenience, nothing more. But it sent you off down another rabbit hole, and lead you to think that gamma rays might be causing global warming and ozone depletion.
You really are hopeless. I'll tell you what. Since this is your personal theory, why don't you attach some numbers to it? Tell us how many neutrinos you expect to interact with the atmosphere each second, and compare it with the number of cosmic ray interactions in the same period.
You provide clarity? Let me call Heathrow ATC so I can order some fresh bacon..
Edited highlights.. You don't start with your claimed link for example..
Err.. no. You seem to think a neutrino observatory can ID the source of GCR's without counting them.. The GCR data should be thrown away because it's not neutrino data remember? As for ultra-high energy, you haven't stated what energy levels you think are required for Svensmarks theory, but given it's about cloud formation in the lower atmosphere, they have to be high enough energy to penetrate that deep.
Whilst nlp desperately tries to deflect attention away from his own errors by switching the focus to 'ultra high energy GCR's'..
Well, they are, and you've presumably realised this by switching to higher energy GCRs.. not to mention stuff like IceTop. So of course they are, eg-
http://nuastro-zeuthen.desy.de/neutrino_experimente/icecube/publikationen/diplomarbeiten/e597/infoboxContent684/MBeimforde_icecube_200702002_v1.pdf
Calibration of air shower signals in the IceTop
detector using cosmic ray muons
Which includes a nice intro to cosmic rays with a flux distribution on p.7 and also mentions some of the energy levels of interest, ie <10^10eV and they're more likely deflected by earth/sun magnetic fields and not even reach the atmosphere. Over that level they've got a better chance. Even higher and they may create the large airshowers & secondary particles that can be picked up by surface neutron counters.. And it also mentions the thing you don't dare mention-
One certain source of cosmic rays with energies below the knee is our sun. In 1946, S.E. Forbush showed that a rise in particle flux up to several GeV energies is connected to solar flares [For46]. These solar flares as well as sunspots are coupled to very intense magnetic fields that are able to accelerate charged particles (see Section 2.4.1).
'several GeV' being similar to the 3.5GeV used by CLOUD.. So basically you're wrong about them not measuring GCR's. You may have some points about energy levels, but that depends on which observatory, design, detector trigger threshold etc etc.
Err.. no. You stated with extreme confidence that they can't affect the atmosphere...
Hmm.. the point you're trying to invent to cover up your own idiocy..
Ah, bit of circular reasoning here.. But you still don't seem to know what energy levels these are. They have to be fairly high to reach the surface and get detected, but you don't seem to know the detail. Not really very suprising.
Err, no. Ionisation seems to do that & there are a few things that can have that effect that have been demonstrated experimentally now, so protons or gamma sources. As for ozone, that's still more likely UV variability which SORCE found was more than expected.
And now you're doing the Trenberth. You're telling me I'm talking about the 'wrong kind of GCRs' but don't seem capable of stating what energy levels should be of interest, or why. So put up or shut up and admit you're clueless.
GCR's and gamma rays, any connection you can think of?
Yes, that's exactly what I think. The whole sodding point of looking at the neutrinos is that they come from their source in a straight line (subject only to the curvature of the space-time continuum). Nothing else affects their path. The cosmic rays with which they are associated, on the other hand, are affected by magnetic fields en-route, and are much more likely to interact with matter and so the chances of them ending up hitting the same detector are vanishingly small. They might not even hit the same planet. What links the neutrinos to ultra-high energy cosmic rays is their energy, not simultaneous measurement of a neutrino and a cosmic ray. The CGRs which are being vetoed (not counted) are the ones which could interfere with the experiment, because of their direct interactions within the primary detector. They are not the same cosmic rays as the ones whose source the neutrino detector is trying to identify!
Yes, that's right.
I've told you on several occasions, but knowledge passes through your head like neutrinos through a planet, rarely interacting with any of your (admittedly sparse) brain cells. These are cosmic rays of moderate energy, not ultra high energies, which are many orders of magnitude more energetic, and much, much rarer.
You were the one who introduced them to the "discussion", when you quoted a piece from Wikipedia as though it supported one of your daft claims. I merely pointed out that these are not the GCRs of interest to Svensmark, and that the experiment wasn't measuring their flux.
The rest of your post is just you not understanding yet another piece of science.
Gamma rays aren't cosmic rays, just as neutrinos aren't cosmic rays. You've got all muddled in your head again.
Ahh.. you're saying there's no connection? Just so I'm clear...
No, I'm not saying that. Clearly there are astronomical sources of both. But gamma rays aren't cosmic rays.
But they're coming from all over the place. And when a GCR interacts with matter, it produces... what?
Well, yes, I guess you could say that, ie the higher the energy, the bigger the shower/cascade of subsequent particles. So the primary GCR hits an atmospheric nucleus, produces secondary cosmic rays and a hadronic shower which is mostly muons and neutrinos which get detected by... what detector?
(oh, and some neutrons, C14 and mebbe some other isotopes)
Again you don't know what you're talking about. There's different types of veto or cutoffs used to filter out the particles/energy levels of interest. Some don't trigger below a set energy level so obviously won't collect data. Same is true with the neutron detectors.
Wrong, but I guess you're happiest denying things you don't understand.
Tell me again, or did some passing particle knock one of your few remaining braincells out of your head, taking that data with it? If you don't know the energy levels involved then you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
It's true ultra high energy particles are rare and may only show up 1 per km^2 per year or less for the really high energy stuff, but they're not really the ones of interest.
You don't seem to know which particles are of interest, so again don't know what you're denying and probably have no clue where you should be looking to find trends.. For a clue though, Svensmark I think used the Climax neutron monitor.
Nope.. you're simply demonstrating your own ignorance.
Is it so difficult for you to give a simple answer? Cosmic rays hit nuclei and produce an electromagnetic shower along with the hadronic shower. The electromagnetic shower is mostly gamma rays, which were shown to have an effect on nucleation...
What does that have to do with my point that the cosmic rays that created the neutrinos of interest (the ones of extra-solar or extra-galactic origin) are not the ones that are being detected, or vetoed?
You really aren't ready for grown-up physics when it's clear you haven't even mastered the basics. Did you do any physics at all at school, or weren't you good enough?
You don't need to provide your own sfx..
Err.. is this you now admitting that neutrino detectors do detect GCR's? Your statement doesn't really make much sense other than you wriggling back to those only supposedly detecting the very highest energy level GCR's. As I said before, that depends on which observatory.
I think some time ago you said you were homeschooled in physics and I guess that's showing now.
You don't seem to understand how the observatories do kind of 'forensic physics' by detecting the wreckage from GCR interactions, then using that to figure out origin & energy levels of the primary GCR.