Ah, where you did your usual strawman and made some assumptions.
Hardly. You decided to waffle about things you don't understand - particle physics, in this instance - and I simply pointed out your many errors. In other words, it was just a regular njp-Eel interaction.
Then on the next page, see a rare admission of an error-
I'm so glad you've drawn attention to the thread, because it makes entertaining reading for anyone with some understanding of the subject matter. Readers can enjoy you pontificating about a fictitious neutrino shield which you imagine experimenters use (no such thing exists). They can see you opining about the effects of gravity on high energy protons (almost non-existent, yet you manage to completely miss the real reason why determining the origin of cosmic rays is so hard).
And of course you omitted a link to the post in which I made the correction (which has no bearing on your bogus claims) because you don't want people to read it in its entirety. So I'll just quote it here, in full:
"Eel science for beginners
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! "
Although it took you a while to work that one out even after I'd cited stuff to try and enlighten you.
Nothing you cited had any bearing on my correction, and nothing you cited offered any support for your erroneous claims. As usual, mainstream science never supports anything you say.
graph from Dr Spencer makes that clear, and the only rebuttal from your trusty sidekick has been to ridicule religious beliefs.
Er, I gave a link explaining in some detail why Spencer's science can't be trusted.
My reference to his religious beliefs came later, after you criticised my sources, and I then pointed out that the only person with any scientific qualifications at all who you routinely cite is also a creationist who claims to have rejected evolution after studying the evidence, and who is on record as stating that global warming can't be a problem because God won't allow it to be a problem, what with the Earth having been created specifically for us so we can bathe in His reflected glory. Or something.
(which could be evidence of an offence..)
Ridiculing creationists is an offence now? When did that happen?
Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia) is now drilling in tight sands reservoirs where permeability and porosity is greater than that of shale formations but below that of conventional oil and gas bearing sands. “We do have shale, but shale will take a little bit more time because we need to go with the low-risk, high-rewards projects to get our revenue,” a spokesman said. The bottom line as reported: Saudi Aramco has come up with cost-effective ways to get at its tight gas and is now targeting a competitive price of $2.00 to $3.00 per thousand cubic feet and the United States has got more shale gas than it needs with the price of it plummeting. Rather than expanding, it needs to export.
What he's said is evidence, that he's calculated statistical significance and found it to be at the 95% level, in the case of RSS, from June 1989 and earlier, so he states that from July it's not.
That's irrefutable evidence, neither you nor Cloud can come up with any other explanation, however implausible, which doesn't normally stop either of you.
But if you think of another explanation for:
"the times to the nearest month that the warming is not statistically significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since July 1989..."
that RSS does not show statistically significant warming to June 1989 I'd be very amused to hear it.
Certainly. It's what you do. You learned it from your mentor, the Eel.
This is a very familiar tactic. You make a daft claim. I carefully explain to you why you are wrong. You then invite me to consider various irrelevant factors you have just read about, and to explain why they show that you are in fact right. This being impossible (because you are always wrong), you then declare victory. At no point will you attempt to explain why you think your irrelevant factors show that you are right.
Of course not. I am still right, and you are still wrong, for the reasons I first gave you over a month ago.
There really is no part of mainstream science or engineering you understand, is there?
So on the one hand you claim that the only effect on the generartor due to the extra current drawn by the 0.5PF load is to increase I^2R losses in the generator.
Whilst on the other you accept that the full load current flows through the generator in acordance with Kirchhoffs Current Law.
I think we can all accurately say where your level of expertise on this subject is.
Silly man. The original bogus claims were on a blog (obviously this kind of crap can't get published), so a refutation on a respectable blog is perfectly acceptable.
Sorry NJ, you set the standard so you've got to stick to it.
In other words, it was just a regular njp-Eel interaction.
Yup
.. because you don't want people to read it in its entirety. So I'll just quote it here, in full
Nope. Again this is you seeing conspiracies where none exist. You provided the link, I suggested anyone interested skips to the next page.. Or skips back where you'll find an nlp emboldend demand a few times..
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
And eventually you twigged this is possible. Which is probably good news for all the scientists camped out in some fairly harsh environments tracking particles..
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.
Mostly right. See the wiki article on CR's and their reference-
Rather than coming from points scattered across the sky, the tracks of most of these rays led straight back to nearby regions in space that are home to active galactic nuclei—supermassive black holes at the centers of some galaxies, such as Centaurus A.
Clever stuff huh?
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
I guess the Auger team have enough of a map for a route to Centaurus A. Plus this is semi-relevant to the eternal climate 'science' debate.
For this purpose (and this purpose alone), the "origin" of the cosmic rays can be inferred by detecting the secondary particles from air showers.
Uhuh. So you're saying the Auger team were wrong? Centaurus A is not the grassy knoll? Why haven't you updated the wiki page.. Something is wrong on the Internet!
The Moon (I hope we can all agree) is not really the source of negative cosmic rays!
I suspect andykins would try..
Nothing you cited had any bearing on my correction, and nothing you cited offered any support for your erroneous claims. As usual, mainstream science never supports anything you say.
And as is often the case, it started with a simple question-
Suprise me further by explaining this, if you can-
Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV
Context is determining GCR flux
which I don't think you ever answered. But it's still relevant as a possible explanation for 'The Pause', eg Svensmark's theory, or Evan's 'X-factor' in his notch model.
But where's your proof.
Without Watts calculation we can't know if you're just making that up or not.
It doesn't particularly matter whether Watts calculation is correct or not, what matters is his implicit admission himself of statistically significant warming.
There's plenty of other scientific evidence around but that's not the issue.
Er, I gave a link explaining in some detail why Spencer's science can't be trusted
The science was a simple plot of CMIP-5 model runs comparing it to reality.
My reference to his religious beliefs came later,.
And pretty irrelevant other than for showing a pattern of behaviour. Can't attack the science so attack the man instead.
Ridiculing creationists is an offence now? When did that happen?
Generally a long time ago. See religious discrimination or hate speech laws, possibly even good'ol fashioned heresy. Luckily I think climate science has some exemptions, even though they're trying to recreate the world in their own image. Kinda silicon creationists I suppose.
So.. Back to reality. Do you believe in the 17yr pause that man's created? I say this is anthropogenic as cAGW dogma says no natural (or divine) power is sufficient to overcome anthropogenic effects on temperatures.
The bottom line as reported: Saudi Aramco has come up with cost-effective ways to get at its tight gas and is now targeting a competitive price of $2.00 to $3.00 per thousand cubic feet and the United States has got more shale gas than it needs with the price of it plummeting. Rather than expanding, it needs to export.
Yey, another not-Peak Gas! Another reason to rejoice as the Big-6 energy companies reduce our bills! But do you know this is fraccing?
So on the one hand you claim that the only effect on the generartor due to the extra current drawn by the 0.5PF load is to increase I^2R losses in the generator.
Whilst on the other you accept that the full load current flows through the generator in acordance with Kirchhoffs Current Law.
These two claims are in no way mutually exclusive. How bizarre that you should think they are! And how conclusive in showing that you have no understanding of even basic electrical engineering, let alone climate science.
More evidence of this is available on the thread where I am revisiting the Eel's peculiar beliefs about particle physics. Your fellow theorist, bmillam, makes an appearance, and continues to defend his earlier claim that Watts and Joules are the same thing. And you can't resist joining in to repeat your peculiar metaphysical ideas on the subject.
Ah, yes. Who could forget that, whilst not agreeing with bmillam that Watts are the same thing as Joules, you nevertheless felt moved to post your own peculiar views on the subject, insisting that "a Watt can only exist for a second".
It's like a microcosm of what we see with the arguments over climate science: the science deniers usually disagree with each other, but they all agree that the mainstream is wrong.
And then you go on to tell us how mainstream science was wrong about gyroscopes, and Eric Laithwaite was right!
It's a denier tour-de-farce.
I think we can all accurately say where your level of expertise on this subject is.
He's pointing out that my post says the exact opposite of what you claim it says. As usual, you have applied your unique interpretive skills to arrive at the wrong answer.
Sorry NJ, you set the standard so you've got to stick to it.
Where did I set a "standard" that nobody can refer to blogs? Why is it OK for you or the Eel to cite a blog promoting some lie or other, but not OK for me to cite a blog pointing out why your blog is lying?
Rather than coming from points scattered across the sky, the tracks of most of these rays led straight back to nearby regions in space that are home to active galactic nuclei—supermassive black holes at the centers of some galaxies, such as Centaurus A.
Clever stuff huh?
Too clever for you, certainly. This has nothing to do with the neutrino observations we were arguing about (though of course you often get neutrinos muddled up with neutrons, so you probably won't remember). These were enormously powerful cosmic rays of relatively nearby origin. As the article says:
"They looked at the 27 most energetic cosmic rays, those with energies of more than 57 billion billion electron volts [...] Most cosmic rays travel in gently curving, unpredictable lines, deflected by magnetic fields as they make their way through the universe. They also lose energy as they interact with the ever-present bath of the cosmic microwave background - the afterglow of the big bang. But rays that travel at very high energy are barely deflected. Even after traveling a few hundred million light years - a relatively short distance, on a cosmic scale - they still point back within a few degrees of their sources"
I guess the Auger team have enough of a map for a route to Centaurus A. Plus this is semi-relevant to the eternal climate 'science' debate.
No, what they have is a few cosmic rays that are so powerful that they are barely affected by magnetic fields over the distances of interest. And of course they are of no relevance at all to climate science.
Uhuh. So you're saying the Auger team were wrong? Centaurus A is not the grassy knoll? Why haven't you updated the wiki page.. Something is wrong on the Internet!
Hey, Eely - would you like me to explain the meaning of "extragalactic"? Would you also like me to explain the meaning of "galactic", as used in (for example) Galactic Cosmic Rays?
The reason why the Pierre Auger Observatory can make statistical spatial correlations with the sources of some extremely high energy (and thus rare) cosmic rays of extragalactic origin within a certain distance of our own galaxy is that their gyroradius is much larger than any galaxy, so the deflection is rather small.
They don't get trapped within a galaxy, so aren't swirling around it for millions of years. And they are massively beyond the range of energies of interest to cosmoclimatology, though I'm sure you will want to enlist them to your army of Otherthings.
And as is often the case, it started with a simple question-
Suprise me further by explaining this, if you can-
Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV
Context is determining GCR flux
which I don't think you ever answered. But it's still relevant as a possible explanation for 'The Pause', eg Svensmark's theory, or Evan's 'X-factor' in his notch model.
Yes, you kept waffling on about that, and I explained it to you several times.
Needless to say, you never did understand what it meant or why it didn't help any of your preferred crackpot theories.
Originally Posted by nlp
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
You were wrong, weren't you?
Yes, you kept waffling on about that, and I explained it to you several times.
Feel free to cite your what you think was your best explanation.
Needless to say, you never did understand what it meant or why it didn't help any of your preferred crackpot theories.
That is again thanks to your usual debating style. There are a few hypotheses that CRs have some effect on the atmosphere and climate, and certainly have an effect on climate proxies. Most famous (or infamous) is Svensmark. Naturally the vapid rebuttal squad moved swiftly to deny this claiming 'no trends'. Naturally trends are everywhere, and those pesky CERN people (et al) showed CCN (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) effects with particle energy levels.. of what value?
"You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works."
You were wrong, weren't you?
Not in the general case, no. And more importantly, not in the case where the argument started, which had to do with the reason neutrinos were being used to infer the origin of cosmic rays, because that was the only way to do it.
Feel free to cite your what you think was your best explanation.
Feel free to look for it yourself. No doubt you still think "cutoff rigidity" is some sort of control knob the conspirators use to conceal the truth, by setting the cosmic ray detection threshold!
That is again thanks to your usual debating style. There are a few hypotheses that CRs have some effect on the atmosphere and climate, and certainly have an effect on climate proxies. Most famous (or infamous) is Svensmark.
The idea that GCRs might affect cloudiness isn't Svensmark's. It predates him by many years. His "contribution" was to invent some spurious correlations in an attempt to explain away recent warming. You yourself invented some new theories in the other thread, in which you suggest that very energetic cosmic rays - ones not subject to heliosphere modulation - might also be affecting the climate. Not to mention neutrinos, which you also thought might be implicated!
Naturally the vapid rebuttal squad moved swiftly to deny this claiming 'no trends'.
Well, that's because there aren't any trends. But I'm glad you've lumped Leif Svalgaard in with the "vapid rebuttal squad". I'd hate to think you might agree with him about something!
Naturally trends are everywhere, and those pesky CERN people (et al) showed CCN (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) effects with particle energy levels.. of what value?
Trends are everywhere in your head, unless they are real trends that you are denying. Even if there was a trend in GCR (which there isn't), the experiments at CERN have not shown that it would influence cloud formation.
We're a long way from green energy. This has turned into a really boring continuation of the previous really boring thread on global warming. .
Yep, it's what the dynamic duo do. When they can't answer a question, drag up something old and irrelevant. You may or may not have noticed nlp's avoiding The Pause. It's a tad inconvenient.
Not in the general case, no. And more importantly, not in the case where the argument started, which had to do with the reason neutrinos were being used to infer the origin of cosmic rays, because that was the only way to do it.
"You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works".
Eventually you twigged that's what they do.
Feel free to look for it yourself. No doubt you still think "cutoff rigidity" is some sort of control knob the conspirators use to conceal the truth, by setting the cosmic ray detection threshold!
Once again you imagine conspiracies where none exist. Easiest way to think of it is as a threshold level. Energy levels below that level can't (or won't) be detected/recorded.
The idea that GCRs might affect cloudiness isn't Svensmark's. It predates him by many years. His "contribution" was to invent some spurious correlations in an attempt to explain away recent warming.
Hence why I said "There are a few hypotheses that CRs have some effect on the atmosphere" but once again you distort what I said and jump into denial mode
You yourself invented some new theories in the other thread, in which you suggest that very energetic cosmic rays - ones not subject to heliosphere modulation - might also be affecting the climate. Not to mention neutrinos, which you also thought might be implicated!
You were struggling to understand air showers, now you're denying they have any impact on the atmosphere. Their effect on the climate is perhaps most noticeable via isotope proxies. But you're also overlooking a few other modulation possibilities, like our magnetosphere. Some of the neutrino stuff was simply for amusement where you denied interaction and didn't understand detection.
Well, that's because there aren't any trends.
Why do you say this when there are trends? Trends can be found everywhere!
But I'm glad you've lumped Leif Svalgaard in with the "vapid rebuttal squad". I'd hate to think you might agree with him about something!
He's not a member of the goon squad, he's a scientist. Being so, he tends to be cautious with his language. You, being.. well, whatever are not. So confuse correlation with causation. But in climate scientology it was ever thus.
Even if there was a trend in GCR (which there isn't), the experiments at CERN have not shown that it would influence cloud formation.
Except by generating proto-CCNs using particles lower than are typically measured for your 'trends'.
Comments
I'm so glad you've drawn attention to the thread, because it makes entertaining reading for anyone with some understanding of the subject matter. Readers can enjoy you pontificating about a fictitious neutrino shield which you imagine experimenters use (no such thing exists). They can see you opining about the effects of gravity on high energy protons (almost non-existent, yet you manage to completely miss the real reason why determining the origin of cosmic rays is so hard).
And of course you omitted a link to the post in which I made the correction (which has no bearing on your bogus claims) because you don't want people to read it in its entirety. So I'll just quote it here, in full:
"Eel science for beginners
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! "
Nothing you cited had any bearing on my correction, and nothing you cited offered any support for your erroneous claims. As usual, mainstream science never supports anything you say.
My reference to his religious beliefs came later, after you criticised my sources, and I then pointed out that the only person with any scientific qualifications at all who you routinely cite is also a creationist who claims to have rejected evolution after studying the evidence, and who is on record as stating that global warming can't be a problem because God won't allow it to be a problem, what with the Earth having been created specifically for us so we can bathe in His reflected glory. Or something.
Ridiculing creationists is an offence now? When did that happen?
But where's your proof.
Without Watts calculation we can't know if you're just making that up or not.
So on the one hand you claim that the only effect on the generartor due to the extra current drawn by the 0.5PF load is to increase I^2R losses in the generator.
Whilst on the other you accept that the full load current flows through the generator in acordance with Kirchhoffs Current Law.
I think we can all accurately say where your level of expertise on this subject is.
Perhaps you could expand on that.
Blogs don't count as evidence.
Sorry NJ, you set the standard so you've got to stick to it.
Yup
Nope. Again this is you seeing conspiracies where none exist. You provided the link, I suggested anyone interested skips to the next page.. Or skips back where you'll find an nlp emboldend demand a few times..
And eventually you twigged this is possible. Which is probably good news for all the scientists camped out in some fairly harsh environments tracking particles..
Mostly right. See the wiki article on CR's and their reference-
http://www.auger.org/observatory/outreach/on_the_trail.pdf
Rather than coming from points scattered across the sky, the tracks of most of these rays led straight back to nearby regions in space that are home to active galactic nuclei—supermassive black holes at the centers of some galaxies, such as Centaurus A.
Clever stuff huh?
I guess the Auger team have enough of a map for a route to Centaurus A. Plus this is semi-relevant to the eternal climate 'science' debate.
Uhuh. So you're saying the Auger team were wrong? Centaurus A is not the grassy knoll? Why haven't you updated the wiki page.. Something is wrong on the Internet!
I suspect andykins would try..
And as is often the case, it started with a simple question-
Suprise me further by explaining this, if you can-
Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV
Context is determining GCR flux
which I don't think you ever answered. But it's still relevant as a possible explanation for 'The Pause', eg Svensmark's theory, or Evan's 'X-factor' in his notch model.
It doesn't particularly matter whether Watts calculation is correct or not, what matters is his implicit admission himself of statistically significant warming.
There's plenty of other scientific evidence around but that's not the issue.
Then why are you asking for proof for refutation of one?
Not really, no, it's plain English, if you don't understand it there's not many other ways I can put it.
The science was a simple plot of CMIP-5 model runs comparing it to reality.
And pretty irrelevant other than for showing a pattern of behaviour. Can't attack the science so attack the man instead.
Generally a long time ago. See religious discrimination or hate speech laws, possibly even good'ol fashioned heresy. Luckily I think climate science has some exemptions, even though they're trying to recreate the world in their own image. Kinda silicon creationists I suppose.
So.. Back to reality. Do you believe in the 17yr pause that man's created? I say this is anthropogenic as cAGW dogma says no natural (or divine) power is sufficient to overcome anthropogenic effects on temperatures.
Yey, another not-Peak Gas! Another reason to rejoice as the Big-6 energy companies reduce our bills! But do you know this is fraccing?
http://www.saudiaramco.com/content/dam/Publications/Journal%20of%20Technology/Spring2013/Assessment_Multistage.pdf
More evidence of this is available on the thread where I am revisiting the Eel's peculiar beliefs about particle physics. Your fellow theorist, bmillam, makes an appearance, and continues to defend his earlier claim that Watts and Joules are the same thing. And you can't resist joining in to repeat your peculiar metaphysical ideas on the subject.
As I said:
And then you go on to tell us how mainstream science was wrong about gyroscopes, and Eric Laithwaite was right!
It's a denier tour-de-farce.
Oh, the irony.
He's pointing out that my post says the exact opposite of what you claim it says. As usual, you have applied your unique interpretive skills to arrive at the wrong answer.
Really? So why do you persist in citing them?
Where did I set a "standard" that nobody can refer to blogs? Why is it OK for you or the Eel to cite a blog promoting some lie or other, but not OK for me to cite a blog pointing out why your blog is lying?
"They looked at the 27 most energetic cosmic rays, those with energies of more than 57 billion billion electron volts [...] Most cosmic rays travel in gently curving, unpredictable lines, deflected by magnetic fields as they make their way through the universe. They also lose energy as they interact with the ever-present bath of the cosmic microwave background - the afterglow of the big bang. But rays that travel at very high energy are barely deflected. Even after traveling a few hundred million light years - a relatively short distance, on a cosmic scale - they still point back within a few degrees of their sources"
No, what they have is a few cosmic rays that are so powerful that they are barely affected by magnetic fields over the distances of interest. And of course they are of no relevance at all to climate science.
No, as usual the only thing that is wrong is your understanding of science. Of course, I explained all this to you back in 2011:
Yes, you kept waffling on about that, and I explained it to you several times.
Needless to say, you never did understand what it meant or why it didn't help any of your preferred crackpot theories.
So basically previously when you said-
You were wrong, weren't you?
Feel free to cite your what you think was your best explanation.
That is again thanks to your usual debating style. There are a few hypotheses that CRs have some effect on the atmosphere and climate, and certainly have an effect on climate proxies. Most famous (or infamous) is Svensmark. Naturally the vapid rebuttal squad moved swiftly to deny this claiming 'no trends'. Naturally trends are everywhere, and those pesky CERN people (et al) showed CCN (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) effects with particle energy levels.. of what value?
Feel free to look for it yourself. No doubt you still think "cutoff rigidity" is some sort of control knob the conspirators use to conceal the truth, by setting the cosmic ray detection threshold!
The idea that GCRs might affect cloudiness isn't Svensmark's. It predates him by many years. His "contribution" was to invent some spurious correlations in an attempt to explain away recent warming. You yourself invented some new theories in the other thread, in which you suggest that very energetic cosmic rays - ones not subject to heliosphere modulation - might also be affecting the climate. Not to mention neutrinos, which you also thought might be implicated!
Well, that's because there aren't any trends. But I'm glad you've lumped Leif Svalgaard in with the "vapid rebuttal squad". I'd hate to think you might agree with him about something!
Trends are everywhere in your head, unless they are real trends that you are denying. Even if there was a trend in GCR (which there isn't), the experiments at CERN have not shown that it would influence cloud formation.
Goodbye all.
You are not amused by the clumsy libels from the resident crank?
Maybe he's not amused by you promoting BP propaganda and lying about having studied the evidence when all you're doing is pushing US Republican lies.
Yep, it's what the dynamic duo do. When they can't answer a question, drag up something old and irrelevant. You may or may not have noticed nlp's avoiding The Pause. It's a tad inconvenient.
Not so much inconvenient, as a persistent denier myth.
I knew that 3+ years ago when you asked-
Eventually you twigged that's what they do.
Once again you imagine conspiracies where none exist. Easiest way to think of it is as a threshold level. Energy levels below that level can't (or won't) be detected/recorded.
Hence why I said "There are a few hypotheses that CRs have some effect on the atmosphere" but once again you distort what I said and jump into denial mode
You were struggling to understand air showers, now you're denying they have any impact on the atmosphere. Their effect on the climate is perhaps most noticeable via isotope proxies. But you're also overlooking a few other modulation possibilities, like our magnetosphere. Some of the neutrino stuff was simply for amusement where you denied interaction and didn't understand detection.
Why do you say this when there are trends? Trends can be found everywhere!
He's not a member of the goon squad, he's a scientist. Being so, he tends to be cautious with his language. You, being.. well, whatever are not. So confuse correlation with causation. But in climate scientology it was ever thus.
Except by generating proto-CCNs using particles lower than are typically measured for your 'trends'.