Clouds and cosmic rays

One of my favorite grocery stores has open top, chest freezers and often we can see a layer of condensing fog 6-12 inches thick over the frozen foods. These 'clouds' look similar to real cloud chambers as shown below:

I've never seen a 'trace' in the grocery store ice chest suggesting a cosmic ray reached the local cloud layer but I keep looking.

So based upon this study, does this mean we've failed to observe these radiation induced, cloud formations growing from high altitudes and headed down?

Bob Wilson

 

Bob,
When I took neurology in college, we had a number of examples given of false causation due to poor experimental design.

In the first case researchers took worms that solved a maze, ground them up and fed them to other worms. These worms were able to learn the maze faster than worms that fed a normal lab worm diet.

In the second the case researchers interviewed homosexuals in prison. From these interviews they determined that homosexuals were more likely to have sociopathic tendencies.

Conclusions that were taken as true by research for years were that there are molecular changes with learning that can be passed on to worms by eating those learning molecules. Homosexuals are sociopaths.

By 2013 it should be easy to tell what is wrong about these experiments.
In the worm study the worms themselves were found to be more nutritious than the worm food they had been given. Better nutrition helps at least worms learn. We haven't found any of those maze solving molecules, what we have learned is that learned behavior is encoded by synapses between neurons. This pattern is destroyed in the process of eating a smart mans brain. They failed to control the structure of the food. Grinding up stupid worms would have given the same benefit. The homosexual studies are part of the bad part of non-blind experimental design. It is likely the researchers already had a prejudice of homosexuals, and subconsciously chose a prison population where sociopaths were more likely. It simply is a very poor experimental, you could decide christens or atheists are sociopaths by the same design.

You are as unlikely to see radiation formed cloud interaction as ghg based global warming in your local supermarket.

 

Oh for a radium clock!

Science, both good and bad, are not a place or people but a process . . . a way to enlightenment . . . before we die. In life we often meet science 'posers' who like 'cargo cults', worship the shape, the illusion, not the spirit of science. But sometimes, you read interesting science reports and wonder,'Should we see it in some ordinary aspect of life?'

Now my interest in seeing comic ray tracks in an open top freezer, is it any stranger than those bubble chambers around a particle accelerator? Could the same principle be observed in a beaker of super-heated water? Or perhaps in a massive neutrino detector built by drilling holes and freezing strings of sensitive photo detectors?


So one might as well ask,'Should we see cosmic ray traces in fog?'

I appreciate the hypothesis but the radiation flux, even in the upper atmosphere is so low . . . Radiation tracks exist in many places but often hard to find:


So I'm calm about the study, not that it can not be demonstrated in a lab model, but rather we need field observations of the postulated effect, the hypothesis . . . independent confirmation. So if I look up and see clouds growing from high altitudes down, it works for me. But let's see something in the field.

Bob Wilson

 

The big risk is biological concentration of radioactive isotopes. But I'm also remembering in the 1950s there were a lot of nuclear weapons tests. It might be interesting to survey some of the long-term studies.

Bob Wilson

 

Im getting a laugh about how people here react to an outcome of real science experimentation.
AGW believers think that computer models are reliable, when actually they are fantasy.


Heres someone who shares my point of view.
The most brilliant scientist alive.
Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor | NJ.com
"I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists."
"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."

 

No trend in cosmic rays. Yes trend in temperature. Not much more to say on "do cosmic rays explain global warming." That is the story; the rest is commentary.

 

Actually I wasnt referring to you.Sorry for the clumsy response.
BTW Im on the fence here.
Cosmic ray levels may only be a proxy for weakening/strengthening solar magnetism .
But contrary to Chogans post, there is a clear correlation to sun spot # and climate .
Whether its Cosmic rays, or Solar effect on the Earths magnetic field ,(or whatever mechanism) is unknown.
Whats obvious from historical sunspot counts and Earths temperature, is that its some Solar mechanism which controls climate.

 

I'm not mojo, but here is the theory

solarRadiation(t) = f(sunspotPattern(t))

Solar radiation of course is related to air temperature in the models. Since sun spots go in an 11 year half cycle, it takes lots of data to determine the function What we need is a very low number of sun spots in a solar cycle as well as the satellites up there looking at the radiation to figure out the function. Some where hoping this cycle would be small enough to get good data.

The Radiation theory is of course more complicated. Certain radiation patterns yield differences in the jet stream which cause changes to ocean oscillations, which combined change cloud patterns and precipitation (floods/droughts/etc). It seems that many of those that prescribe to these theory don't want to be published, piers corbyn etc. The idea is out there and being tested though.

 

Its probably cloud cover .But why and how clouds are formed is a mystery.
Thats why climatology as a science is a joke .
Its all unknown, especially to climate models.
Climatology is at the level of medicine when they believed that bloodletting was the cure.
At the same time period society believed witches controlled climate and were the cause of COLD climate causing crop losses,famine ,plagues related to cold climate.
CO2 is the modern day witch.

 

I thought the sunspot numbers for a cycle were a proxy for the solar radiation. That means we need various cycles with different number to determine the function based on what the satelites pick up for radiation. What other mechanism do you need?

Since we have satelites now we no longer need sun spots, but they may give valuable historic information.

 

Your twisting my post.
Cosmic ray levels are a proxy for Sunspots levels=climate temps
But its unknown how sunspots control climate.