As any self-respecting blogger with an O-level in physics knows, those clever chaps over at CERN are running experiments (rather wittily, called CLOUD) to see whether the following theory stacks up:
Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest they may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover.
As an aside, we also vaguely remember that there is another theory/observation that the weather is cooler/cloudier when there are fewer sun spots. The two theories are linked by the third theory that when there are more sun spots, the sun's magnetic field is stronger and this diverts cosmic rays away from the solar system (and Earth), so there's less cloud and hence it's warmer.
Some bright spark has now pointed out that there is another possible explanation for variations in the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and that is simply that there are, er, variations in the number of cosmic rays being generated in the first place*. Damn, I wish I'd thought of that.
But he appears to assume that the first theory, that more cosmic rays = cooler weather (and vice versa) stacks up, and this is something which they can observe in real life.
* Instinctively, this looks like nonsense to me, because there are [lots of] stars in our galaxy; and [lots of] galaxies around our galaxy, with [lots of ^ 2 ÷ large number] stars exploding at random intervals all around us which must surely average out at a fairly even number of cosmic rays reaching us from all directions each month or year or decade, but he's the expert.
Labour news: Sue Gray and budget update
1 hour ago
20 comments:
XX with stars exploding at random intervals all around us XX
Now THAT would certainly make the "X factor" worth watching.
FT, yeah, but they don't have stars on X Factor. Just unknowns and celeb's.
Same as the "Oscars" then.
If the positted particle is named after its proponent, it's unfortunate that he is Dr Wang.
Some bright spark has now pointed out that there is another possible explanation for variations in the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and that is simply that there are, er, variations in the number of cosmic rays being generated in the first place*.
The simple genius in it - I'm flabbergasted.
So Cosmic Ray says we can't alter the weather via tax policies?
VFTS, it's no worse than calling a planet Uranus.
JH, good, innit?
AKH, whether cosmic rays have an impact on weather is yet to be 100% established (altho' I'll go with the majority and accept that it is) and secondly, how much of an impact it has is unknown. If it's only +/- 0.1 degrees either way, that's of little practical relevance. or maybe it makes +/- 3 degrees and all this green tomfoolery is pointless, who knows?
Yup, the scientists are as corrupt as the high priests as are the politicians.
We all serve one of them. Your point is?
Also its a bit like saying its daft to believe that you can predict the stock market by astrology cos there is no causality. Wot, you mean like natures laws?
Ye of little faith.
"all this green tomfoolery is pointless, who knows"
Well ever since NASA announced that Mars has been warming up at the same rate as Earth, which they can tell by watching the Martian polar ice-caps, I've been convinced that it is the sun that's doing all the warming and, indeed, all this green tomfoolery is pointless.
B, well that assumes that the Earth is catastrophically warming in the first place, of which I am yet to be convinced. And if the Sun is warming both planets, then wouldn't the effect be a lot* weaker on Mars, it being 1.5 times as far away from the Sun? That ought to give those clever scientists a bit of a clue.
* 1/1.5^2 = 44%.
"That ought to give those clever scientists a bit of a clue."
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".(Upton Sinclair)
No, I don't think the Earth is catastophically warming. I think that the historical evidence is that the earth has been a lot hotter than now in the past and we have survived, even flourished. In itself, that is another argument against this man-made warming bollox. How did the Romans generate all that CO2? Was it all their slaves, breathing hard? Or were they incredibly flatulent and it was the methane that was to blame?
B: "How did the Romans generate all that CO2?"
It was a by-product of their little known plastic bag industry. The last Roman plastic bags did not finish decaying until AD 1400 or thereabouts.
My astronomical observations (with £50 Lidl telescope) would lead me to believe that its not the exploding stars you have to watch out for but the Sun heating up or down.Herschel said way back that, since the Sun is a star ,it must fluctuate in brightness like all the other stars do.Then there are the sunspots ,the case in point being the Carrington event of 1859 when this Carrington geezer noticed major sunspot activity followed by a massive solar flare that caused the Aurora Borealis to show in Mexico.If we were to get another one of these, it would burn out all the electrical generators worldwide. It would mean the end of life on Earth.
And you would not be able to watch Dallas.
XX DBC Reed said...
the Carrington event of 1859 when this Carrington geezer noticed major sunspot activity followed by a massive solar flare.......If we were to get another one of these, it would burn out all the electrical generators worldwide. It would mean the end of life on Earth.
6 September 2012 18:51
"Na BASTARDS! I must have been in the bog and missed the last total extinction event!"
(Quote from FTs Great great Grandfather.)
@FT
My exaggeration control must have slipped: I meant the end of modern civilisation.Which, since I am not bothered by the birds and the fishes,(though they're nice to have around)could amount to some human extinction,so they say.
Your great grand father must have stayed in the bog for some time as the Carrington event lasted a couple of days and he should have noticed it was very bright at nighttime through the bog window or under the door if the bog was at the end of the garden.Anyway he would have had to be over a hundred and twenty years old to relay this info .And you accuse me of exaggeration or imply it.( I take back the admission of exaggeration I made earlier therefore.)
If you stay in the bog for any length of time in the next Carrington event ,you won't be able to flush it because the generator failure will stop water being pumped into the cistern.Thought I'd tell you.
(Mind you, this is all the tittle tattle of solar physicists and what not who disagree with each other worse than economists.)
DBC, seemed clear enough to me, you mean 'intelligent life' would end (i.e. people messing about on the internet) and not 'life' in general.
Clearly, most people survived the 1859 Apocalypse, as it's not mentioned in most history books. Bloody telegraphs were down though, that's the closest we had to the internet in them days.
XX DBC Reed said...
@FT
Your great grand father must have stayed in the bog for some time XX
If my Great Grandfather,* and Grandfather were anything to go by.... There was a REASON for the family always insisting on TWO bogs in the house. :-))
("quote" was from Great great.... :-) The other two I actualy experienced, and believe me, it WAS.)
FT, what? They needed two toilets so that both of them had somewhere to shelter during a Carrington Event? Is that the only safe place?
No. But it was always nice not to have to go to the neighbours for a crap whilst Granpappy was reading the print of the news paper. :-)
"Clearly, most people survived the 1859 Apocalypse, as it's not mentioned in most history books"
In those days, the telegraph was about the only thing people used electricity for. Today practically everything runs on it. I doubt the generators will be affected, they are adequately protected by fuses, but electronics and anything to do with radio waves? They'd be toast. We'd be back in 1859 without the telegraph.
Post a Comment