The job of the veto detector is to detect particles other than neutrinos which would trigger the neutrino detector.
Depends on the design. So.. in your 'demolition', you're now saying neutrino detectors can't be shielded, and veto detectors detect... something that may be vaguely related to GCR's and thus provide useful data. Which according to you should be discarded, because it doesn't fit what you think is the primary purpose of the experiment.
(course if the actual detector thresholds are set to trigger on higher energy levels, then stuff below those levels obviously won't trigger the detector and generate data)
Just when I think we've finally plumbed the depths of your misconceptions, you manage to surprise me yet again.
Suprise me further by explaining this, if you can-
Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV
Context is determining GCR flux..
If you can't, then it's obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
You think it is trying to detect neutrinos that come from GCR interactions in the atmosphere.
As you said before, it can't help detecting those, they cannot be blocked. Cosmic rays are tricky like that, see also-
neat little graph showing whilst CERN's scrubbing field was on, particles didn't form. As soon as it was off, GCR's started doing their thing. Demonstrates that people who are afraid of radiation because of green lies need to wear lots and lots more tin foil..
It is not. It is trying to detect neutrinos that come from the same source as cosmic rays. This is something completely different.
Not exactly because you can't be sure it's the same source. GCR's being somewhat easier to deflect after all than neutrinos.
The magnitude of this misconception is breathtaking.
Indeedy.. So while we're on the subject of misconceptions, any comment on this?
Super Kamiokande is a large volume of water surrounded by photomultiplier tubes that watch for the Cherenkov radiation emitted when an incoming neutrino creates an electron or muon in the water.
Do you think that's correct?
And again with the lies.
What? Do we have a miracle? Are you now agreeing neutrino detectors detect GCRs? So you'll be withdrawing your previous comment-
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.
But I guess you'll wriggle out of that one..
The wriggle will involve attempting to define or redefine 'flux', ignoring where I asked nlp to explain what energy levels he thinks are significant earlier.. but nlp couldn't answer that one.
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
You kind of explained it yourself, although you have some wriggle room regarding source, which you'll no doubt attempt to exploit to it's fullest..
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.
Another sceptic schism, The Eel seems to think all the peer reviewed scientists should be involved in writing the IPCC reports rather than a few. You're saying people with no relevant experience should be used.
You know nothing about the science or the history of the science. The idea that cosmic rays might have a role in aerosol nucleation pre-dates Svensmark by many years, so that isn't his theory, and nobody has dismissed it out of hand. What Svensmark did was to claim that he could explain away recent warming using this mechanism alone (and put out a press release to that effect). So the science of cosmic ray / climate interactions is certainly interesting, but Svensmark's contributions are less than honourable (including some very dodgy correlations), which is probably why he is no longer involved with the CLOUD experiment.
The CLOUD results add to our knowledge of aerosol processes, and raise some interesting new questions - most of which have nothing to do with GCR - but they aren't going to vanquish CO2 as a primary driver of climate change. It's not even clear at this stage if any cosmic ray modulation (which has yet to be demonstrated) would go in the opposite sense to the one required by Svensmark, since clouds can warm or cool the planet, depending on where they form.
The "proven wrong" claim is just a lie. CLOUD has yet to demonstrate that ion-induced aerosols can grow to sufficient size to act as cloud-condensation nuclei. And even then, it would remain to be demonstrated that this had a significant effect on cloud cover (because there are lots of other CCNs) and that the radiative forcing was in the direction Svensmark claims, rather than the opposite.
And even then, there would be the teeny-weeny problem of there not having been any trend in GCR since the 1950s (which is why Eel starts rambling on about neutrinos and other things he doesn't understand, in the hope they'll somehow fill the gap). So there doesn't seem to be any way in which the mechanism, even if it is eventually demonstrated, can have a role in recent warming.
you do not know what I know or do not know.
Cosmic Rays and Climate
The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.
But you can't point to where we can check that the IPCC themselves said what you said someone said they'd said?
No surprise. You've fulfilled your aim of not impressing me.
glad I didn't disappoint you then. so your like all the other arm chair AGW scientists that want everything put on a plate in front of you. well tough find them for yourself.
they look like this one,
The direct RF due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced from the TAR. The best estimate is +0.12 W m–2 (90% confidence interval: +0.06 to +0.30 W m–2). While there have been advances in the direct solar irradiance variation, there remain large uncertainties. The level of scientific understanding is elevated to low relative to TAR for solar forcing due to direct irradiance change, while declared as very low for cosmic ray influences (Section 2.9, Table 2.11).
Of course it was those old people who replaced all those green practices with the high energy ones we have now.
you mean scientists and inventors and the like. yes that's how man kind got the wheel, internet ect. and all those other goodies. blame the scientists, its their fault.
Another sceptic schism, The Eel seems to think all the peer reviewed scientists should be involved in writing the IPCC reports rather than a few. You're saying people with no relevant experience should be used.
seeing as its not peer reviewed unless its sceptical yes. lots of impartiality. much less of singing your own praises.
who said they do not need relevant experience. lets have some old close to or retired scientists doing the job. people who have nothing to gain one way or the other. ie impartial
you mean scientists and inventors and the like. yes that's how man kind got the wheel, internet ect. and all those other goodies. blame the scientists, its their fault.
Not so fast. Most of those were engineers, not scientists. If we'd left wheels to scientists they'd form cliques arguing over how many sides a wheel should have and be demanding loadsamoney for computers to simulate them. Prolly split into the odds and evens.. triangular vs square wheels trumped by pentagons etc etc.. till after enough model runs they'd realise cutting corners makes a better wheel.. but not climate model.
Just look at how many pages it takes a scientist to prove 1+1=2 because 1 is a 'complex number'. Not to an engineer it isn't. Or look at how engineers made more efficient power sources and allowed us to stop relying on wind and windmills. Now scientists are trying to reinvent the windmill. They're even trying to put them under water-
Panning out at about £9 million per MW, that makes this particular installation about three times more expensive than offshore wind – although the prices are not directly comparable as this is a test rig.
Presumably testing just how much rent can be sought before someone realises this is a bloody stupid idea..
Not so fast. Most of those were engineers, not scientists. If we'd left wheels to scientists they'd form cliques arguing over how many sides a wheel should have and be demanding loadsamoney for computers to simulate them. Prolly split into the odds and evens.. triangular vs square wheels trumped by pentagons etc etc.. till after enough model runs they'd realise cutting corners makes a better wheel.. but not climate model.
Just look at how many pages it takes a scientist to prove 1+1=2 because 1 is a 'complex number'. Not to an engineer it isn't. Or look at how engineers made more efficient power sources and allowed us to stop relying on wind and windmills. Now scientists are trying to reinvent the windmill. They're even trying to put them under water-
Panning out at about £9 million per MW, that makes this particular installation about three times more expensive than offshore wind – although the prices are not directly comparable as this is a test rig.
Presumably testing just how much rent can be sought before someone realises this is a bloody stupid idea..
are but engineers are scientists in there own right. :D:D
definitely know more about it than the normal scientist anyway. :p
I did not realise they relied on climate models for their scientific assessment of climate warming.
perhaps they should all go back to school, eek eek eek:
Perhaps you should tell us how they assess the likely outcome of more CO2 without using models oh wise teacher.
Perhaps you should tell us how they assess the likely outcome of more CO2 without using models oh wise teacher.
I've already asked this, apparently computer models are useless because of GIGO!:) Never mind that they model our past climate quite well and that the denialists have nothing at all but still make predictions.
Yes, which Spencer has "interpreted" with the aid of his phoney model. The findings are very much his own, and not NASA's. But science deniers like to stamp the NASA imprimatur on things they like the sound of, even when (as in this case) it is entirely inappropriate.
You should make yourself a tinfoil hat.
He already has, he didn't like me pointing out his errors so put me on ignore.
Actually we know that you don't know the difference between Joules and Watts, you don't know that the only way to see what will happen if we keep emitting CO2 is to use models, you don't know that the World Bank report you approvingly cited used models, that shipping can't account for observed sea level rises and so on.
Super Kamiokande is a large volume of water surrounded by photomultiplier tubes that watch for the Cherenkov radiation emitted when an incoming neutrino creates an electron or muon in the water.
Do you think that's correct?
Yes, of course I think that's correct.
What? Do we have a miracle? Are you now agreeing neutrino detectors detect GCRs? So you'll be withdrawing your previous comment-
I've never argued that neutrino detectors don't detect GCR. If you had a scientific neurone in your head, you would have noticed my multiple attempts to educate you about why they have no choice in the matter, and why this means you have to take steps to avoid or filter out the confounding events. And no, I stand by my previous comment, because it remains correct.
I said:
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
To which you now reply:
You kind of explained it yourself, although you have some wriggle room regarding source, which you'll no doubt attempt to exploit to it's fullest..
I have some "wriggle room regarding the source"? No, I don't. The whole sodding point of the neutrino observations is to attempt to determine where in the Universe cosmic rays come from. This is something of a mystery, and scientists like to solve mysteries. It is especially a mystery when it comes to ultra-high energy cosmic rays, for reasons involving physics that is far beyond your intellectual reach.
But on Planet Eel, the search ends a few thousand feet above the planetary surface. The Eel isn't interested in where cosmic rays start from; he's just interested in their point of arrival, for no apparent reason.
It's worth exploring further the difference in magnitude of the Eel's ambitions, as compared to those of neutrino astronomers:
One candidate as a source of ultra high energy cosmic rays is a gamma ray burster. The nearest GRB yet discovered is GRB 030329, which lies a mere 2.6 billion light years from Earth.
Most cosmic ray air showers start quite high up, so let's take a figure of 30,000 feet for the Eel's observations (we'll ignore the fact that he still seems to think that atmospheric neutrinos are being observed up there, which is completely wrong).
So: Typical distances of interest:
The Eel: 3 x 10^4 feet
Neutrino astronomers: 8 x 10^25 feet
The difference in scale is 21 orders of magnitude, which I think is a record, even for the Eel.
If we'd left wheels to scientists they'd form cliques arguing over how many sides a wheel should have and be demanding loadsamoney for computers to simulate them. Prolly split into the odds and evens.. triangular vs square wheels trumped by pentagons etc etc.. till after enough model runs they'd realise cutting corners makes a better wheel.. but not climate model.
Just look at how many pages it takes a scientist to prove 1+1=2 because 1 is a 'complex number'. Not to an engineer it isn't.
The Eel's crackpot agenda is now clear. He hates both science and mathematics. Though quite where he got the idea that "scientists" think that 1 is a "complex number" is a mystery. It certainly wasn't Russell's Principia.
So why do you think they can't interact with the atmosphere?
I've never argued that neutrino detectors don't detect GCR. ..And no, I stand by my previous comment, because it remains correct.
Hmm.. strange idea of correctness. Nobody uses those observatories to detect GCR's except for the ones they're detecting..
I said:
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
Ah, you've made your usual mistake of misinterpreting what I'd said (or not said, but you thought I may have meant).
I have some "wriggle room regarding the source"? No, I don't. The whole sodding point of the neutrino observations is to attempt to determine where in the Universe cosmic rays come from.
I thought we already knew that because we know there are 'no trends' and thus they can't possibly be affecting the climate, even though some detection methods haven't been running for very long..
This is something of a mystery, and scientists like to solve mysteries. It is especially a mystery when it comes to ultra-high energy cosmic rays,
But didn't you say previously that scientists should be deleting GCR data because they/you are only interested in neutrinos?
for reasons involving physics that is far beyond your intellectual reach.
Ahem.. Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV? Thoughts on that one?
The Eel isn't interested in where cosmic rays start from; he's just interested in their point of arrival, for no apparent reason.
Errm.. no, this is your interpretation again. You can't be as certain to it's origin given a proton is more easily affected by gravity on it's long journey before it blats into our atmosphere.. at which point it does the air-shower/hadronic cascade thing & if those particles hit a detector, generate a track, which means you can make an educated guess at it's course through the atmosphere.
Do you think you could make a similarly educated guess about it's course before hitting the atmosphere from what you've detected?
(or should you just delete the data cos it's GCR stuff and nobody is interested in that, least of all nlp's idea of climate 'scientists')
Most cosmic ray air showers start quite high up, so let's take a figure of 30,000 feet for the Eel's observations (we'll ignore the fact that he still seems to think that atmospheric neutrinos are being observed up there, which is completely wrong).
Errr.. when did I ever say that? You really must lay off the drugs, or try not to interpret too hard.. Because once again, you make mistakes and show your ignorance.
GCR's have never been detected using say, balloons.. or even satellites? There's a handy list of those here-
but silly me.. I keep forgetting the only climatalurgically approved source for sanctified data are neutron detectors..
The difference in scale is 21 orders of magnitude, which I think is a record, even for the Eel.
Well done. But when did I ever mention detection at TOA, or even altitude? Pretty sure the observatories I've cited so far have all been on the surface. But hey ho, I guess it amused you for a couple of hours working that smear out..
The Eel's crackpot agenda is now clear. He hates both science and mathematics.
Nah, I like both, which is why I dislike what climate 'scientists' are doing to them.
glad I didn't disappoint you then. so your like all the other arm chair AGW scientists that want everything put on a plate in front of you. well tough find them for yourself.
OK, thanks for that, I can now be sure that's what they say.
No, I don't expect it on a plate. I expect to have to do a bit of hunting around for information to support my case, but not yours! If you want to persuade people of something, then it's up to you to provide the evidence to make your case, from a reputable science-based source. An opinion or secondhand re-interpretation is easy to dismiss. If you don't bother it just looks like you can't find something and your argument falls flat. But if you do, an IPCC quote and link will do nicely.
So why do you think they can't interact with the atmosphere?
I don't. But almost every single cosmic ray will interact with the atmosphere, whereas hardly any neutrinos will. You remain as utterly clueless about the nature of neutrinos as you were at the outset. How are you getting on with your neutrino shield?
Hmm.. strange idea of correctness. Nobody uses those observatories to detect GCR's except for the ones they're detecting..
Slippery Eel. What I said was that nobody uses neutrino detectors to measure GCR flux. I am right.
I thought we already knew [the source of cosmic rays] because we know there are 'no trends' and thus they can't possibly be affecting the climate, even though some detection methods haven't been running for very long..
There really is absolutely nothing about this that you understand. We can measure GCR flux perfectly well without knowing where the GCRs are coming from.
Errm.. no, this is your interpretation again. You can't be as certain to it's origin given a proton is more easily affected by gravity on it's long journey before it blats into our atmosphere.. at which point it does the air-shower/hadronic cascade thing & if those particles hit a detector, generate a track, which means you can make an educated guess at it's course through the atmosphere.
And again with the cluelessness. Gravity is not the issue. Magnetic fields are the issue, what with protons being charged particles, and the magnetic force being vastly more powerful than the gravitational force. And nobody (apart, apparently, from you) is interested in tracking a proton's course through our atmosphere (even if it could be done, which it can't).
Do you think you could make a similarly educated guess about it's course before hitting the atmosphere from what you've detected?
No, absolutely not! And neither do the scientists who study the problem, which is why they have built rather large neutrino observatories, whose purpose you have manifestly failed to grasp.
Well done. But when did I ever mention detection at TOA, or even altitude? Pretty sure the observatories I've cited so far have all been on the surface. But hey ho, I guess it amused you for a couple of hours working that smear out..
Oh. In that case I guess we need to add a few more orders of magnitude to your error. It's worse than I thought!
But don't confuse your mathematical abilities with mine. I can do sums quite quickly.
I think we've now dragged enough information out of the Eel to be able to make a more detailed comparison between the way he thinks scientists identify the source of cosmic rays, and the way scientists think scientists do it.
The science according to Eel:
Cosmic ray proton from remote region of the cosmos hits upper atmosphere of Earth. It generates a secondary cascade of particles which are detected on Earth, and this is used to identify the track of the proton through the Earth's atmosphere. The proton's energy is calculated, and this is then fed into Eel's astonishingly sophisticated mathematical model of the magnetic field distribution of the entire cosmos to determine where it came from.
[At this point I want to correct something I said in my previous post. I am in fact happy that the proton track through the atmosphere can be inferred from detection of the secondary particles. This is because although there are a great number of them, with a wide lateral spread, most of the secondary muons will be concentrated within a core with a very small angular displacement from the path of the primary particle.]
The science according to actual scientists:
Lacking Eel's map of the magnetic fields of the entire Cosmos (I guess he hasn't published it yet), along with a suitable model to use it, scientists exploit the unique properties of neutrinos - their total immunity to magnetic fields, and the fact that they can pass unhindered through almost any amount of cosmic debris, or planets, or stars, and hence point straight back to their source. By detecting such neutrinos in giant instruments designed expressly for the purpose, scientists can work out where they are coming from. And since the energy of the neutrinos can be inferred from their (very rare) interactions with matter, they can be associated with the events that produced both them and cosmic rays of corresponding energy.
How did Eel arrive at such an egregious misconception?
Glib answer: Eel always arrives at the wrong answer. This is why he denies climate science, and in fact most of mainstream science. This, and he always wants me to be wrong, so refuses to learn anything from my posts.
Slightly more charitable answer: Eel has become confused by what he has read about the Moon shadow experiments. In order to calibrate their detectors, the scientists would like a point source of cosmic rays. But no such thing exists in the cosmos, so they are cleverly using the Moon's cosmic ray shadow as a negative point source. For this purpose (and this purpose alone), the "origin" of the cosmic rays can be inferred by detecting the secondary particles from air showers.
The Moon (I hope we can all agree) is not really the source of negative cosmic rays!
Comments
Anyway, where had we got to? Ah, yes:
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
Depends on the design. So.. in your 'demolition', you're now saying neutrino detectors can't be shielded, and veto detectors detect... something that may be vaguely related to GCR's and thus provide useful data. Which according to you should be discarded, because it doesn't fit what you think is the primary purpose of the experiment.
(course if the actual detector thresholds are set to trigger on higher energy levels, then stuff below those levels obviously won't trigger the detector and generate data)
Suprise me further by explaining this, if you can-
Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV
Context is determining GCR flux..
If you can't, then it's obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
As you said before, it can't help detecting those, they cannot be blocked. Cosmic rays are tricky like that, see also-
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
neat little graph showing whilst CERN's scrubbing field was on, particles didn't form. As soon as it was off, GCR's started doing their thing. Demonstrates that people who are afraid of radiation because of green lies need to wear lots and lots more tin foil..
Not exactly because you can't be sure it's the same source. GCR's being somewhat easier to deflect after all than neutrinos.
Indeedy.. So while we're on the subject of misconceptions, any comment on this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Neutrino_detection
Super Kamiokande is a large volume of water surrounded by photomultiplier tubes that watch for the Cherenkov radiation emitted when an incoming neutrino creates an electron or muon in the water.
Do you think that's correct?
What? Do we have a miracle? Are you now agreeing neutrino detectors detect GCRs? So you'll be withdrawing your previous comment-
But I guess you'll wriggle out of that one..
You kind of explained it yourself, although you have some wriggle room regarding source, which you'll no doubt attempt to exploit to it's fullest..
Another sceptic schism, The Eel seems to think all the peer reviewed scientists should be involved in writing the IPCC reports rather than a few. You're saying people with no relevant experience should be used.
A lot of them aren't scientists. They're hack programmers who couldn't get a decent job anywhere else.
Where did I say that? The IPCC has a problem that the 'few' dominate the IPCC processes..
which is bad, especially when the IPCC appoints railway engineers or WWF PR hacks to work on the 'science'.
ps.. global warming explained here-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent,21088/
you do not know what I know or do not know.
Cosmic Rays and Climate http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
you can waffle all you like science is being dragged along kicking and screaming by the not so AGW scientists.
or should I say REAL scientists.
glad I didn't disappoint you then. so your like all the other arm chair AGW scientists that want everything put on a plate in front of you. well tough find them for yourself.
they look like this one,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html
you mean scientists and inventors and the like. yes that's how man kind got the wheel, internet ect. and all those other goodies. blame the scientists, its their fault.
plenty of correlation
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
you haven't a clue, or you just don't know anything. probably the latter.
by the way don't let those guys at CERN pull the wool over your eyes its all sim science by sceptics.
seeing as its not peer reviewed unless its sceptical yes. lots of impartiality. much less of singing your own praises.
who said they do not need relevant experience. lets have some old close to or retired scientists doing the job. people who have nothing to gain one way or the other. ie impartial
Not so fast. Most of those were engineers, not scientists. If we'd left wheels to scientists they'd form cliques arguing over how many sides a wheel should have and be demanding loadsamoney for computers to simulate them. Prolly split into the odds and evens.. triangular vs square wheels trumped by pentagons etc etc.. till after enough model runs they'd realise cutting corners makes a better wheel.. but not climate model.
Just look at how many pages it takes a scientist to prove 1+1=2 because 1 is a 'complex number'. Not to an engineer it isn't. Or look at how engineers made more efficient power sources and allowed us to stop relying on wind and windmills. Now scientists are trying to reinvent the windmill. They're even trying to put them under water-
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/08/grand-theft-tidal.html
Panning out at about £9 million per MW, that makes this particular installation about three times more expensive than offshore wind – although the prices are not directly comparable as this is a test rig.
Presumably testing just how much rent can be sought before someone realises this is a bloody stupid idea..
definitely know more about it than the normal scientist anyway.
I've already asked this, apparently computer models are useless because of GIGO!:) Never mind that they model our past climate quite well and that the denialists have nothing at all but still make predictions.
I've never argued that neutrino detectors don't detect GCR. If you had a scientific neurone in your head, you would have noticed my multiple attempts to educate you about why they have no choice in the matter, and why this means you have to take steps to avoid or filter out the confounding events. And no, I stand by my previous comment, because it remains correct.
I said:
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
To which you now reply:
I have some "wriggle room regarding the source"? No, I don't. The whole sodding point of the neutrino observations is to attempt to determine where in the Universe cosmic rays come from. This is something of a mystery, and scientists like to solve mysteries. It is especially a mystery when it comes to ultra-high energy cosmic rays, for reasons involving physics that is far beyond your intellectual reach.
But on Planet Eel, the search ends a few thousand feet above the planetary surface. The Eel isn't interested in where cosmic rays start from; he's just interested in their point of arrival, for no apparent reason.
It's worth exploring further the difference in magnitude of the Eel's ambitions, as compared to those of neutrino astronomers:
One candidate as a source of ultra high energy cosmic rays is a gamma ray burster. The nearest GRB yet discovered is GRB 030329, which lies a mere 2.6 billion light years from Earth.
Most cosmic ray air showers start quite high up, so let's take a figure of 30,000 feet for the Eel's observations (we'll ignore the fact that he still seems to think that atmospheric neutrinos are being observed up there, which is completely wrong).
So: Typical distances of interest:
The Eel: 3 x 10^4 feet
Neutrino astronomers: 8 x 10^25 feet
The difference in scale is 21 orders of magnitude, which I think is a record, even for the Eel.
The Eel's crackpot agenda is now clear. He hates both science and mathematics. Though quite where he got the idea that "scientists" think that 1 is a "complex number" is a mystery. It certainly wasn't Russell's Principia.
So why do you think they can't interact with the atmosphere?
Hmm.. strange idea of correctness. Nobody uses those observatories to detect GCR's except for the ones they're detecting..
Ah, you've made your usual mistake of misinterpreting what I'd said (or not said, but you thought I may have meant).
I thought we already knew that because we know there are 'no trends' and thus they can't possibly be affecting the climate, even though some detection methods haven't been running for very long..
But didn't you say previously that scientists should be deleting GCR data because they/you are only interested in neutrinos?
Ahem.. Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV? Thoughts on that one?
Errm.. no, this is your interpretation again. You can't be as certain to it's origin given a proton is more easily affected by gravity on it's long journey before it blats into our atmosphere.. at which point it does the air-shower/hadronic cascade thing & if those particles hit a detector, generate a track, which means you can make an educated guess at it's course through the atmosphere.
Do you think you could make a similarly educated guess about it's course before hitting the atmosphere from what you've detected?
(or should you just delete the data cos it's GCR stuff and nobody is interested in that, least of all nlp's idea of climate 'scientists')
Errr.. when did I ever say that? You really must lay off the drugs, or try not to interpret too hard.. Because once again, you make mistakes and show your ignorance.
GCR's have never been detected using say, balloons.. or even satellites? There's a handy list of those here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic-ray_detector#Research_and_experiments
but silly me.. I keep forgetting the only climatalurgically approved source for sanctified data are neutron detectors..
Well done. But when did I ever mention detection at TOA, or even altitude? Pretty sure the observatories I've cited so far have all been on the surface. But hey ho, I guess it amused you for a couple of hours working that smear out..
Nah, I like both, which is why I dislike what climate 'scientists' are doing to them.
No, I don't expect it on a plate. I expect to have to do a bit of hunting around for information to support my case, but not yours! If you want to persuade people of something, then it's up to you to provide the evidence to make your case, from a reputable science-based source. An opinion or secondhand re-interpretation is easy to dismiss. If you don't bother it just looks like you can't find something and your argument falls flat. But if you do, an IPCC quote and link will do nicely.
Slippery Eel. What I said was that nobody uses neutrino detectors to measure GCR flux. I am right.
There really is absolutely nothing about this that you understand. We can measure GCR flux perfectly well without knowing where the GCRs are coming from.
And again with the cluelessness. Gravity is not the issue. Magnetic fields are the issue, what with protons being charged particles, and the magnetic force being vastly more powerful than the gravitational force. And nobody (apart, apparently, from you) is interested in tracking a proton's course through our atmosphere (even if it could be done, which it can't).
No, absolutely not! And neither do the scientists who study the problem, which is why they have built rather large neutrino observatories, whose purpose you have manifestly failed to grasp.
Oh. In that case I guess we need to add a few more orders of magnitude to your error. It's worse than I thought!
But don't confuse your mathematical abilities with mine. I can do sums quite quickly.
The science according to Eel:
Cosmic ray proton from remote region of the cosmos hits upper atmosphere of Earth. It generates a secondary cascade of particles which are detected on Earth, and this is used to identify the track of the proton through the Earth's atmosphere. The proton's energy is calculated, and this is then fed into Eel's astonishingly sophisticated mathematical model of the magnetic field distribution of the entire cosmos to determine where it came from.
[At this point I want to correct something I said in my previous post. I am in fact happy that the proton track through the atmosphere can be inferred from detection of the secondary particles. This is because although there are a great number of them, with a wide lateral spread, most of the secondary muons will be concentrated within a core with a very small angular displacement from the path of the primary particle.]
The science according to actual scientists:
Lacking Eel's map of the magnetic fields of the entire Cosmos (I guess he hasn't published it yet), along with a suitable model to use it, scientists exploit the unique properties of neutrinos - their total immunity to magnetic fields, and the fact that they can pass unhindered through almost any amount of cosmic debris, or planets, or stars, and hence point straight back to their source. By detecting such neutrinos in giant instruments designed expressly for the purpose, scientists can work out where they are coming from. And since the energy of the neutrinos can be inferred from their (very rare) interactions with matter, they can be associated with the events that produced both them and cosmic rays of corresponding energy.
How did Eel arrive at such an egregious misconception?
Glib answer: Eel always arrives at the wrong answer. This is why he denies climate science, and in fact most of mainstream science. This, and he always wants me to be wrong, so refuses to learn anything from my posts.
Slightly more charitable answer: Eel has become confused by what he has read about the Moon shadow experiments. In order to calibrate their detectors, the scientists would like a point source of cosmic rays. But no such thing exists in the cosmos, so they are cleverly using the Moon's cosmic ray shadow as a negative point source. For this purpose (and this purpose alone), the "origin" of the cosmic rays can be inferred by detecting the secondary particles from air showers.
The Moon (I hope we can all agree) is not really the source of negative cosmic rays!