Global warming is killing the stars

People send me things. Today it is a curious graph of the number of supernovae (dying stars) discovered versus the HadCRUT temperature data since 1960. There’s a good correlation. So at first glance you might conclude two things, 1) GCR’s, which are known to be the result of supernovae thanks to data gathered by the Chandra Space Telescope, are indeed influencing Earth’s temperature or 2) Earth’s AGW is killing stars, and aliens are correct to be concerned about Earth and may need to wipe us out to protect the Universe.

Our contributor at an observatory sheds more light on the subject. He writes:

Hi Anthony,

I am a senior research fellow at ICRAR (International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research) in Perth, Australia. I was studying the sample of supernovae (SNe) discovered in the last 50 years (source: Harvard-Smithsonian CfA List of SNe), and I discovered that the number of SNe discovered per year correlates pretty well with the temperature anomaly. I produced a plot, placed at the URL below. Clearly the temperature anomaly has a better correlation with the observed number of dead stars than with dead polar bears, tree rings, CO2 or number of pirates. This is proof that global warming is causing more stars to explode. It’s worse than we thought. We are killing the universe. We need more funding.

Best Regards–Rob

Dr Rob Soria
International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research

This person is all legit, he’s real and at ICRAR. The data appear so well correlated, it would seem to be a cinch to use this to apply for a research grant, no matter which premise you want to prove. The possibilities are tantalizing. But, let’s analyse the data first.

The first thing I asked for is the data source for Supernovae (I know where to get HadCRUT data), which he provided here:

http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.html

Sure enough, his work was replicable.

I spotted a couple of curious things though. Why the logarithmic graph on the right Y axis, and why only use data back to 1960, that favorite cutoff date for “hide the decline”?

Well there’s data, and then there’s data reporting bias. While it would be easy to conclude on this sample that there’s something worth further (funded) study, especially given the recent first results of the CERN CLOUD experiment, there’s a bit of a rub in the data. That rub has to do with the recent explosion of amateur astronomy and technology.

You see, around 1980 or so, affordable CCD detectors started to become available to the amateur astronomer, and in the decades that followed up to the present sensitivity increased 10x thanks to Peltier cooled CCD chips and other improvements in CCD imaging technology. Costs came down and you can now buy a good CCD detector for under $2000, often less than the cost of a good telescope.

So as a result, the number of detectors trained on the sky blossomed, and the number of supernovae detected by amateur astronomers soared. Hence the need for the logarithmic axis in the graph above. As for the cutoff date of 1960, well, um, the correlation doesn’t hold well before that. Thus, the decision was made to truncate the data prior to 1960. We figure if it was good enough for the hockey stick (which has been recently vindicated again) then it is good enough to do here to write a grant proposal.

Neither Rob nor I plan to write that proposal, but if any WUWT readers succeed in getting funded, I’ll happily publish a notice here.

So the moral of this story is: you can find short correlations in many things, such as correlating El Niño and Civil Wars, and truncating data is OK to make your point for the grant application and study, because you’ll be vindicated later if the study becomes popular and/or included in the IPCC AR5.

It also underscores the issue of reporting bias, which I’ve talked about again and again relating to the issue of bogus severe weather and AGW correlations, which simply don’t exist. They are a byproduct of improved radar systems, storm chasers, improved communications, and global 24/7 news gathering.

Caveat: For anyone reading with the composition of a neutron star, this essay is satirical, but with a real lesson: correlation is not causation.

About these ads

95 thoughts on “Global warming is killing the stars

  1. Yikes! Amateur astronomers are killing the stars!

    PS why the lull after 1998?

    REPLY: Good question. Technology maturation, CCD’s sensitivity has rather plateaued since the early advances – Anthony

  2. “Well there’s data, and then there’s data reporting bias. While it would be easy to conclude on this sample that there’s something worth further (funded) study, especially given the recent first results of the CERN CLOUD experiment, there’s a bit of a rub in the data.”

    Sceptic, DENIER!! We know how to deal with your type!! We know where you BLOG!!!!

  3. Drat! You have discovered my location! I figured the gravity well of a neutron star would be a great place to hide, then some guy with a camera spots me… Oh, the humanity!

    Thanks for that Sir A. I needed a good laugh.

  4. Sounds convincing to me, AGW clearly causes supernovae – well.it’s just as stupid as most of the other things it is supposed to cause.

    Pity the scales are logarithmic one side and linear the other – if they were the same, the IPCC might be tempted to use this chart..

  5. Why do I get the feeling your should have emboldened the word “Caveat”….. maybe increased the font size and put exclamation marks by it. Just a feeling…… :-)

  6. Oh, I dunno. GCRs need time to travel. Present observations may help hind cast supernovae events in the distant past to forecast present incoming GCRs but our own familiar sun is the final arbiter of how many GCRs enter our atmosphere.
    In the final analysis its the sun wot dunnit. (see, no funds required :-) )

  7. I lovei t!

    Every time I think it can’t get any better, it gets way better!

    Anthony’s army marches onward!

  8. I have always claimed that the hardness of the sidewalk in NY City caused global warming since they both went up together.

    Now I conclude that the hardness of the sidewalk in NY city also causes supernovae.

    The other blockbuster reason to believe in CAGW is “Our models don’t work without it.”

    Of course they work without simulating clouds, ocean currents, cosmic rays or hundreds of other things, but not without aerosols which can be adjusted up or down as required and which have no embarrassing historical record.

  9. Thanks for the report, I needed a good laugh. Maybe someone ca do a correlation between the number of stupid people or videos of stupid people and AGW.

  10. Are we sure that Nasa’s aliens don’t have something to do with this. Maybe they are shooting the Cosmic rays at us or causing the super novas.

  11. Well, given the already established relationship between Global Warming and number of pirates, does this mean that pirates are killing stars?

  12. To Richard111,
    GCRs do need time to travel but from what I know they travel at the speed of light. The light from the supernova that the astronomers are detecting also needs time to travel but travels at the speed of light. So while the supernova and the GCRs they trigger may have been released thousands of years ago, they both arrive at the Earth at the same time.

  13. What about a simpler explanation?

    Perhaps CAGW is in fact reducing cloud cover, so allowing more supernovae to be seen.

  14. Um, it looks like the temperature is leading the discovery curve. Since the discovery curve is actually based on improved technology, it follows that global warming causes technological growth. (Or did I miss something?) /sarc

  15. Theodore says:
    August 25, 2011 at 10:51 am

    To Richard111,
    GCRs do need time to travel but from what I know they travel at the speed of light. The light from the supernova that the astronomers are detecting also needs time to travel but travels at the speed of light. So while the supernova and the GCRs they trigger may have been released thousands of years ago, they both arrive at the Earth at the same time.

    No problem. Just ask our friend Mr. Shore. I’m sure he can come up with a statistical theory of time.

  16. May I offer a new title to this post:

    “Dying Stars Produce Global Warming”

    This is based on the theory that as dying stars reduce in number, so will cosmic rays, which reduces the amount of clouds which, without their shade, warms the earth. (Correlation may not be causation, but don’t throw anything out until it’s examined closely.)

    (And who was I arguing with yesterday on the CERN CLOUD experiment results about this very topic?)

  17. I have written on this site a number of times in order to try an assist humankind but to no avail. Therefore it is time I broke my cover – I am an alien (no not the cross border kind) sent to this planet in an effort to save you all from destroying our shared universe. As you can see from this article you are a destructive species now taken to destroying perfectly good stars in the universe against our wishes – therefore I have no choice but to recommend we terminate your primitive existence. Why couldn’t your people repair your Global Warming problem quietly?

  18. Would a suggested mechanism (with as much “common sense” scientific basis as certain others) help the grant proposal?

    Clearly, it’s not the supernovae but the amateur astromomers themselves that are warming the globe. Every boyscout knows that, if you take a lense and focus the sunshine, you make lots of heat. These astronomers are now using lots of telescopes to do exactly the same thing with starshine while, incidentally, discovering more supernovae. Thus, the increasing temperatures and the supernovae are actually effects of the increase in astronomers – which reinforces the direction of the causality.

    Before anyone pokes any of the very obvious holes in this theory, I’d just like to call them out as AstroDeniers, flat-universers and clearly funded by Big Lens – Carl Zeiss is the new Exxon!

  19. But but but isn’t temperature inverse propotional to GCR intensity? More supernovae mean more clouds. More clouds mean colder weather. One of the lines should be upside down. But that’s also settled practice.

  20. So what your trying to tell us Anthony is that because of the mass production of cheap CCD detectors supplying the demand of amateur astronomers, and all of the carbon intensive manufacturing involved is causing ‘catastrophic man made global warming’, the solution is clear! We need to put ban on amateur astronomy, close down all industry and cap ‘n trade Carbon Dioxide.
    /JK

  21. We already know from ice core records that future CO2 levels drive current temperatures. So why shouldn’t current Earth temperatures drive past supernovae explosions? Should be easy enough to model. You going to argue with computer modeling done by real bona fide scientists?

  22. I note that as of today (UK) that the GCSE results have continued their year on year rise do I sense a correlation between intelligence and global warming?

  23. The debate is over, we are changing the shape of the whole Universe through AGW which is exclusively caused by our irresponsible consumption. If we are not going to accept the new ‘enviro-elitism’, some draconian restrictions and additional taxes we will be unable to prevent the threat of an unprecedented Mass Intergalactic Extinction (MIE). /sarc

    By the way, CAGW now sells quite well at home thanks to a massive late summer heat wave. Daytime temps have been slightly above 100°F for days in most of the Hungarian lowlands, including the capital. Compared with historical events, this kind of heat is not exceptional but it is just enough for the local MSM and warmist activists to scare the public with climate model based projections, like ‘in 2070, these temperatures will be treated as average’…

  24. Sorry forgot the Shevva Hypothesis, speeding tickets and climate scientists, I have guesstimated that the more climate scientists that have appeared on Earth the more speeding tickets there have been, can I have my grant in Swiss Frances please.

  25. Detecting Supernova is facilitated by cloudless skies. Cloudless skies produce, on the whole, warmer temperatures. Makes perfect sense to me.

    Supernova detects are simply a proxy for cloudiness. And that one kid in Yamal is really good at finding Supernova…

  26. Let’s dig into this issue a little more.

    Given the inverse square relationship that will influence the GCR flux, it may be important to distinguish between numbers of distant supernovae and closer supernovae. It is doubtful we need to worry about GCRs from other galaxies. GCRs persist in our galaxy on the order of 10 million years or more.

    However, since charged particles are directed by magnetic field lines, and given that the galaxy has a turbulent magnetic field, it is reasonable to conclude the GCR flux is not constant. Although GCRs can come from any direction, there is anisotropy in the flux. We need to know how much the GCR flux vary. Could it become higher, and has it been, significantly higher than we currently observe? Yes.

    The Svensmark hypothesis seems quite plausible, and now we have additional evidence to support it from CERN. Solar variation may explain short term climate variation, but it does not seem to be sufficient to explain longer period climate variation. If the GCR flux increased by a factor of 10 or more, what would happen to clouds on Earth? Maunder mimimum-like events do not persist long enough to induce glaciation. What more can the Sun do alone? GCR flux variation through other mechanisms seems necessary and a reasonable mechanism for induction of glaciation either independently of the solar activity and Milankovitch cycles, or augmenting them.

    Cosmogenic isotope levels are a useful proxy for GCR flux, however, it can be difficult to distinguish between the GCR flux and deposition rate (e.g. snowfall on glaciers). There is independent measurement of GCR flux in meteroites, and correlation of GCR flux with climate on the geologic time scale. Deep ocean sediments can provide a better record of GCR variation because the levels of cosmogenic isotopes can be normalized to the deposition rate of a non-cosmogenic isotope.

    Although the final reference below suggests GCR flux variation could be “between -75% and +35% of present values”, the authors mention that nearby supernovae could GCRs above these limits. They suggest variations in geomagnetism is a much more significant factor modulating GCR flux. Also, they note the GCR flux in northern latitudes is higher by a factor of 4 than at the equator, and much more dependent on solar activity, whereas, geomagnetic field strength variations affect GCR flux at lower latitudes more.

    AGW by CO2 variation is obviously incredibly naive in this context.

    http://www.nmdb.eu/?q=node/149

    http://galprop.stanford.edu/elibrary/icrc/2003/proceedings/FILES/PDF/78.pdf

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/74495

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016112630.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

    http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0407/0407005v1.pdf

  27. There is another explanation. HadCRUT temperature data since 1960 has had the super nova numbers added to produce global warming.

  28. I think there is a correlation between better measurement and more consciousness of effects on knowledge. To whom do I apply for my research grant? I want to be sure this is as bad as I think it is.

  29. Hmmmmmm – I’m very worried. Very worried indeed, in fact.
    The temperature curve, and indeed, the number of supernovae discovered/stars killed, correlate very well with the time I came ashore from my time at sea [I’m still in shipping].
    Tipping point.
    I know my responsibilities to the planet [and the galaxy].
    Given a big enough grant, I’ll go back to sea (cruising looks pretty cushty today!) and save the world.
    A couple of billion [Sterling] a week will do it. Absurdly cheap at the price, compared with the bird choppers the UK is getting, and some of the more hysterical suggestions about little green men [saving the planet from t h e m has to be worth a crust] – never mind the threatened populations of stars.
    Worlds Wide Fund for Novae – help!

  30. I see only one small fly in the ointment, average temperature rise (since the 60s)
    the stars that have gone supernova , many millions of years ago ?
    I therefore assume that the dinosaurs were responsible.

  31. Paul Westhaver says:
    August 25, 2011 at 11:01 am
    I love examples of the abuse of reasoning like this.

    Here is one….

    Icecream causes Polio.

    In 1948 we were poor and could not afford ice cream. Around the corner and down the street there was a well-to-do family. They could afford ice cream. Their child, a girl my age, got a mild case of polio. Makes me wonder!

    Seriously, I’ve not run across this idea before.

    http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

    Go to the above link. Do a find for the word ‘cream’ – read the three paragraphs centered on the first instance of the word.

    I learn something new every time I read WUWT.

  32. Re J fisk

    I see only one small fly in the ointment, average temperature rise (since the 60s)
    the stars that have gone supernova , many millions of years ago ?
    I therefore assume that the dinosaurs were responsible.

    No, aliens were still responsible. As the aliens were sophisticated enough to create supernovae to induce global warming, they would also be in possession of sophisticated models that predicted we would become a threat. This is simply their precautionary principle being applied on a much longer timescale than we are used to. Everything can be explained with enough beer.

  33. Aliens are attacking us. They are blowing up stars so that the cosmic rays will cause Global Warming on Earth.

    We’re doomed.

  34. Al Gore: “We are … altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe.”

    FOOLS!!! you laughed at him and now you see the proof…

  35. Oh Darn It! I thought this post was about the deaths of some of the many dukes and duchesses of Hollywood (I guess they are all dukes now). I thought you had a knock down argument for intensifying CAGW and I was ready to support it. My guess was that you had discovered that global warming destroys marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and the indefinitely large number of other illegal drugs. /sarc off

  36. Incidentally, I used to regularly give my Critical Thinking students the task of explaining the close correlation between hemlines and economic activity during the twentieth century. Has anyone tried a correlation between hemlines and Global Warming? That would surely be easier to explain.

  37. Robert Clemenzi says:
    August 25, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Um, it looks like the temperature is leading the discovery curve. Since the discovery curve is actually based on improved technology, it follows that global warming causes technological growth. (Or did I miss something?) /sarc

    ‘sarc’ unnecessary, I think. Warming accelerates civilization and technology. QED. :)

    About those light-speed GCRs: not quite. They are generally “relativistic”, meaning a high enough fraction of C to experience time dilation, but come in a wide range of energies and hence speed. To clarify, any particle with measurable rest mass would require infinite acceleration/energy to reach exactly C, and would acquire infinite mass equivalence.

  38. Surely this can also be linked to Svensmark –

    less cloud = more looking at the stars!

  39. Theodore (August 25, 2011 at 10:51 am):

    Not necessarily so…

    GCR’s are primarily high-speed charged particles (i.e. material objects, not light waves) and as such are subject to relativistic time dilation and length contraction. If they’re moving at close to the speed of light (which isn’t uncommon), they could get here way AHEAD of the light waves from the same events that sent them on their way (because of the length contraction, you can, in a sense, “cheat” the speed of light).

    On the other hand, these things bounce all over the cosmos on their way here, so they could also arrive way LATER than the light waves.

    /dr.bill

  40. Climatology is a plot created by computers to force humans to make more supercomputers.
    They are silently dumbing us down before taking control.

  41. Supernova positive feedback – Ominous. OMG! We’re headed for the tipping point. What’s next? Cats with dogs, dogs with cats…..

  42. PS why the lull after 1998?

    REPLY: Good question. Technology maturation, CCD’s sensitivity has rather plateaued since the early advances – Anthony

    Why o why is there a rise in the detection of Supernovae (all types) from around 1988 and wich really took off in 1992 and then level off around, just after 2000?

    Because we then started actively looking for them, especially for the Type Ia to measure the expansion rate of the universe and to see if the theory was right and the expansion was slowing down. The results where downright spectacular, the expansion is not slowing down at all, it looks like it started to speed up at around 4.5 billion years ago, something that was not predicted by the theory and the models. And this was confirmed by two 2 teams working independently from each other in late 1998.

    We found more because we where looking for them in the first place.

  43. dr.bill says:
    August 25, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    The effects of general relativity are outside my experience, but with respect to special relavity I disagree with Dr. Bill. Length contraction and time dilation describe how two observers in different inertial reference frames in motion with respect to one another would describe “events”, where an “event” is a four-element characterization (three orthogonal position coordinates and a time coordinate) of a phenomenon. One of the postulates of special relativity is that in all inertial reference frames the speed of light is the same. A “mechanics” consequence of the special relativity postulates is that in all inertial reference frames it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a partical of nonzero rest mass to the speed of light. Thus, in an inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the earth (which I note is a logical contradiction because among other things the earth accelerates as it orbits the sun and hence a reference frame at rest with respect to the earth is NOT an inertial reference frame, but which for the purposes of this discussion I assume is a good approximation), in any inertial reference frame a photon will always travel faster than a nonzero rest mass particle. As such, if in an inertial reference frame (a) a nonzero rest mass particle and a photon share a common “event” (common position/time coordinates) not shared by the earth, and (b) both the photon and the particle at later times share common “events” with the earth, the time coordinate of the common earth/photon “event” will be less than the time coordinate of the common earth/particle “event”–i.e., the photon will arrive at the earth before the nonzero rest mass particle.

  44. Most supernovae are now discovered by automated scanning installations. It’s hard to beat them, so CCD imagers (amateur astronomer with equipment) drifted away to better targets.
    Tracking and target aquisition systems progressed, as did the the detector arrays and adaptive optics, so the peak of detection has been reached. SN events should now stay about constant, until as such time when they can be detected regularly in more distant galaxy clusters, with better technology. Getting off the planet would be such a leap forward, with installations on places like the poles of the moon, where there is no atmosphere to deal with.

  45. Reed Coray, August 25, 2011 at 7:37 pm :

    Hi Reed,

    I don’t quarrel with what you wrote, but a couple of things should be noted:

    (1) I didn’t say that the GCR’s travel AT the speed of light, just very close to it.
    (2) This issue isn’t about simultaneity, which you are inherently referring to.

    I’ll give an example:

    Consider a supernova that takes place (say) 700 light-years from Earth, and produces GCR’s that travel directly to Earth a speed of 0.995c. That gives a relativistic gamma-factor of 10.0. Thus the distance travelled, as “seen” by the GCR’s is only 70 light-years, and because they are travelling at almost the speed of light, it just takes them a touch over 70 years to get here. Light emitted at the same time won’t arrive for another 630 years.

    /dr.bill

    PS: There’s a good (old) novel about this effect: Tau Zero, by Poul Anderson

  46. ”correlation is not causation.”

    …But apparently models based on patently untenable assumptions are accepted by the mainstream as “physical proof”.

    …So for the “show me the mechanism”-slurring crowd:

    Please be more careful what you wish for.
    (At least explore the data properly before attempting conceptualization [counter to standard mainstream (mal)practice].)

    Best Regards.

  47. Thanks Anthony for the post and all the amusing comments. Of course it was all meant to be a Friday Funny (it was Friday already in Australia), but unfortunately here at Curtin there are heaps of academics feeding off the AGW trough. Like this guy, Professor Bob Pokrant, who is giving his Professorial Lecture next week to warn us against climate change, earthquakes and tsunamis, all mixed together (he forgot the alien invasion). Read the invitation & abstract below, and weep for the state of Australian education….

    ——————
    Join the Faculty of Humanities for the next in the series of Inaugural Humanities Professorial Lectures: next Tuesday 30 August in the Bank West Lecture Theatre [Curtin University, Perth].

    “From climatocracy to community-based adaptation to climate change: the view from below” will be presented by Professor Bob Pokrant, from the School of Social Sciences.

    Join Professor Pokrant as he explores people’s understandings of climate change and how we are accommodating to the impacts of such change to achieve positive social and ecological outcomes. Professor Pokrant will also pay critical attention to community based approaches (CBA) to climate change, focusing primarily on South Asia, India and Bangladesh.

    This year has seen the world face unforseen [sic, RS] weather extremities including flash flooding, uncontrollable fires, unforgivable earthquakes and a devastating tsunami that resulted in the death of thousands of people. Now more than ever, climate change is having a significant impact on our society. Despite its devastating effects and greater occurrence, climate change is still not considered a great concern by many people.

    Professor Bob Pokrant is currently working on the adaptation of coastal communities in Bangladesh and India to human-induced and natural hazards including climate change.

  48. Seriously, one of your best posts ever. The Solar/Climate train is off the rails taking dirt roads.

  49. Can we bring community-based Jaffas, popcorn and peanuts to the Pokrant performance?

    Does the lecture theatre sport APPLAUSE and LAUGHTER lights or will somebody be standing at the side holding up cards?

  50. I honestly think that some bozo warmist will actually believe this, after all that have been making headlines for years with the most tenuous of connections with unrelated events. Common sense has never been a feature of AGW and it never will. Hysteria on the other hand is, and has been.

  51. @Rob Soria says:
    August 25, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    An academic with a sense of humour? bet your the black sheep at the Christmas party.

    and ‘Inaugural Humanities Professorial Lectures’, I learnt to sow and cook in my Humanities lessons at school.

  52. The threat to the well being of our sanity and economies by the alarmist agenda is now in inverse proportion to the amount of frivolity we can now poke at them. Remembering, they have no sense of humour, and no shame.
    The angrier they get, the more fun we can have.

  53. That makes my day. This line is the one that got me laughing out loud:

    Clearly the temperature anomaly has a better correlation with the observed number of dead stars than with dead polar bears, tree rings, CO2 or number of pirates.

    Don’t knock the Flying Spaghetti Monster! It’s been a constant source of amusement to me that the increase in Somali pirates has matched the lack of warming in the last decade. One theory derived prediction that’s actaully stood up!

    Similarly:
    Earth’s AGW is killing stars, and aliens are correct to be concerned about Earth and may need to wipe us out to protect the Universe.

    I believe there was a SF story back in the 30s or 40s that explained the Red Shift as the visible effect from all the other galaxies fleeing in horror from ours….

    Though It’s worrying that you need the caveat at the end of this piece.

  54. Bill Marsh says:
    August 25, 2011 at 10:39 am
    Well, given the already established relationship between Global Warming and number of pirates, does this mean that pirates are killing stars

    I think it’s more likely that piracy is an attempt by the powerless to protest at the scandal of the star death spiral caused by global warming and should therefore be eligible for some grant funding.

  55. Oh, do stop all this chortling, people, anybody would think you’re not taking this seriously. You really shouldn’t be surprised that global warming is killing the stars – it’s obviously got fed up with just warming all the other planets of the Solar System and is moving outwards to conquer the rest of the Universe.

    Do I need (/sarc)?

  56. One correlation well worth observing is that between HadCRU temperature data and US government debt:

    I submit that this graph confirms that Global Warming causes US government debt and conclude that it is only by tackling global warming that the US debt crisis can be resolved.

    Discuss!

  57. It’s definately worse than we thought….. Man’s CO2 is stuffin’ up the Universe….. Quick, gimme all yer taxes an’ I’ll fix it for free….;-)

  58. What ever you guys and gals are smoking up there, it has to be cheap considering the amount of utter moonshine that this post has generated. The laughter tears rarely stopped right through the comments.
    Thanks Anthony and guys and gals.

  59. j fisk says:
    August 25, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    I note that as of today (UK) that the GCSE results have continued their year on year rise do I sense a correlation between intelligence and global warming?

    That means that my son (who passed all of his GCSE’s) who we are very proud of must forfeit the £150 I promised him if he achieved a 100% pass. Instead I will give this money to Al Gore (in fact I will give Uncle Al a bit more because Adam(my son) wants to be an airline pilot)also he currently is having flying lessons. We all know that paying more in taxes reduces carbon emissions as does lining the pockets of charlatans. So my conscience is now clear, except for the fact that these charlatans say that carbon emissions are still rising, the science IS settled and the world is getting warmer. So I will just give the money to Adam as promised.
    Isn’t life confusing?

  60. This Theory is wrong. :-)
    Given a constant lightspeed, we now are seeing SN explosion of stars that exploded many millions of years ago in galaxies other than the Milky Way.
    Consequently, if a relation exists, is that SN exploded millions years ago (and millions of light years away) are now producing here some GW, not viceversa.
    Sorry, no more funding. Hihihihihihi
    M.

  61. dr.bill says:
    August 25, 2011 at 8:45 pm
    Reed Coray, August 25, 2011 at 7:37 pm :

    Consider a supernova that takes place (say) 700 light-years from Earth, and produces GCR’s that travel directly to Earth a speed of 0.995c. That gives a relativistic gamma-factor of 10.0. Thus the distance travelled, as “seen” by the GCR’s is only 70 light-years, and because they are travelling at almost the speed of light, it just takes them a touch over 70 years to get here. Light emitted at the same time won’t arrive for another 630 years.

    Thank you for responding to my comment. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in technical discussions that this blog provides.

    When I was in school (many many years ago), I told myself that there were two subjects where intuition should never be used: probability and special relativity. You may be correct, but I still disagree. I believe you are mixing “inertial reference frames”; and that if you analyze the problem in either (a) an inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the earth or (b) an inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the GCRs, the conclusion will be that the light will collide with the earth before the GCRs collide the earth.

    When you say “Consider a supernova that takes place (say) 700 light-years from Earth”, I assume the distance of 700 light-years is in the inertial reference frame of the earth in which the earth is at rest. In that reference frame GCRs and light are simultaneously emitted from a point 700 light-years distant from the earth. In that reference frame light traveling at the speed c will take 700 years to reach the earth. Because the GCRs are traveling at 0.995c, it will take the GCRs slightly more than 700 years to reach the earth. Thus, in the inertial reference frame in which the earth is at rest, the light arrives at the earth before the GCRs.

    In the inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the GCRs, the GCRs are stationary *by definition( and the earth is traveling towards the GCR at a speed of 0.995c. At the time of light emission the distance between the GCRs and the earth is approximately 70 light years. However, in the inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the GCRs, light still travels towards the rapidly approaching earth at speed c. As such, in the GCR-at-rest inertial reference frame, the light will arrive at the earth before the earth crashes into the GCRs–i.e., the light arrives at the earth before the earth collides with the GCRs.

    Thus, in both inertial reference frames, the light and the earth come together (occupy a common spatial point) before the GCRs and the earth come together.

  62. In my immediately preceding post, I fat-fingered the expression “*by definition(” that should have been “(by definition)”. Sorry for the error.

  63. >Light emitted at the same time won’t arrive for another 630 years

    The light is traveling at 1.0c which means it has a gamma of infinity, which means that from the photon’s point of view, the supernova and the Earth are at the same location and the photon immediately arrives at Earth. In other words the interval x^2-c^2t^2 is zero; it is a light-like event.

    None of this matter to an Earth-based observer. They have to wait 700+ years for either light or cosmic rays to arrive.

  64. You guys are all missing the obvious lag shift. Stars dying lags HADCRUT by about 10 years by my eye. Clearly means that it IS global warming killing stars and not the other way around!

  65. At last someone has dared to speak the truth to power. The FACTS show a clear correlation with the number of capital letters. Were the aliens trying to get Rumsfeld before he got them? This is a known unknown. I think it’s all due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – if you were Mr Spock would you want mad Zionists taking over your planet? And covering it up … what do you mean, evidence? The lack of evidence PROVES a coverup!!! I expect to be silenced at any mom

  66. Reed Coray, August 26, 2011 at 10:54 am :

    Hi Again Reed,

    Please don’t take this as disrespect, but you appear to be the exact complement to many of my students. All that stuff you’ve gone through, and correctly, are the “complications” that they often have trouble with. However, these are just small complications to the main effect, which you appear to be overlooking. Essentially, I think you’re paying too much attention to the fairly small (in relative terms, no pun intended) lateral or orbital kinds of motion that take place on either end while the light or GCR’s are in transit. These local movements are at much smaller speeds than the main effect, and cause only small variations in the outcome. So let’s take it closer to home so that relative movements during the transit time aren’t such a distraction.

    Example 2:

    The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.24 light-years away from us. With that kind of “longitudinal” distance, it really doesn’t matter if it or Earth might be moving around a bit in our local areas. Those motions are very slow in comparison to the speed of light or anything close to it. We don’t really move very far compared to 4 light-years. Now let “someone” on Proxima Centauri send something, anything, as long as it has mass, towards us at 0.995c, and at the same time send an electromagnetic signal. They’re smart enough to send each of them in the right direction(s) so that when they get to our neck of the woods, Earth is in the right place(s) to intercept them.

    As in my earlier example, the gamma-factor is 10.0, so the distance (for the travelling mass) gets contracted to 0.424 light-years, which they can cover in about 5.06 months (0.995×0.424×12). The EM signal sent at the beginning, of course still take 4.24 years or 50.9 months, since it can only travel one light-year per year, so it arrives about 46 months later than the material object.

    Example 3:

    If Proxima Centauri is still too far away for your liking, the exact same thing happens right here on our own planet with unstable particles called muons that are created during collision events in our upper atmosphere. These strike the surface (ground or sea level) in large numbers all the time, travelling thousands of meters downward when they “should” only be able to travel hundreds, given their very short lifetime. They manage this, not by going faster than light, but by moving fast enough that the thousands of meters get contracted down to hundreds, which they then have enough lifetime to cover, even if they’re only moving at 0.9c or something. We’re talking times in the microsecond range here, so issues of lateral motion don’t really have any consequences (nor do they to any great extent in the other examples).

    Hope some of that helps.

    /dr.bill

  67. The 5.06 should also be 5.11 months (divide by 0.995, not multiply).
    Time to go have that Scotch! :-)
    /dr.bill

  68. dr.bill says:
    August 26, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Example 2:

    The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.24 light-years away from us. With that kind of “longitudinal” distance, it really doesn’t matter if it or Earth might be moving around a bit in our local areas. Those motions are very slow in comparison to the speed of light or anything close to it. We don’t really move very far compared to 4 light-years. Now let “someone” on Proxima Centauri send something, anything, as long as it has mass, towards us at 0.995c, and at the same time send an electromagnetic signal. They’re smart enough to send each of them in the right direction(s) so that when they get to our neck of the woods, Earth is in the right place(s) to intercept them.

    As in my earlier example, the gamma-factor is 10.0, so the distance (for the travelling mass) gets contracted to 0.424 light-years, which they can cover in about 5.06 months (0.995×0.424×12). The EM signal sent at the beginning, of course still take 4.24 years or 50.9 months, since it can only travel one light-year per year, so it arrives about 46 months later than the material object..

    First, no disrepect taken. And I hope you feel the same way about my comments. First, I am glad you too treat the earth’s motion about the son as being an insignificant effect. I only mentioned it because it has relevance to the fact that a coordinate system at rest with respect to the earth is not an inertial reference frame. For this discussion, let’s treat the earth as being stationary in an inertial reference frame.

    Second, In your 2nd example, I’m going to assume (a) that Proxima Centauri and the earth are at rest in “a common” inertial reference frame and (b) in that inertial reference frame the distance between the earth and Proxima Centauri is exactly 4.24 light-years. In that reference frame it will take light 4.24 years to travel from Proxima Centauri to the earth. In that reference frame, a particle traveling at 0.995c that leaves Proxima Centauri in the direction of the earth will take 4.24/0.995 (which is approximately 4.261 years) to reach the earth. If in that reference frame the light and the particle leave Proxima Centauri at the same time, the light will arrive at the earth approximately 0,021 years before the particle arrives at the eart–i.e., the light arrives at the earth before the particle.

    In an inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the particle, when the particle leaves Proxima Centauri (a) the distance from Proxima Centauri to the earth is approximately 0.42347 light-years, (b) the earth is approaching the GCR at speed 0.995c, and (c) the GCR is stationary. In that reference frame light will be traveling at speed c. If the light leaves Proxima Centauri at the instant the distance (in that frame) between Proxima Centauri is 0.42347 light years, in that frame it will take the light 0.42347/(1.995) years to reach the earth. The numerator is the distance between Proxima Centauri and the earth at the time of light emission from Proxima Centauri. The denominator is the “closing speed” (in the inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the particle) between the earth and the light that left Proxima Centauri. Thus, in the inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the particle, it will take 0.212266 years for the light to reach the earth and 0.42347/1 = 0.42347 years for the earth to arrive at the particle. It’s true that in the inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the particle, the travel time is less than 4.24 years, but in both reference frames the light and the earth come together before the particle and the earth come together.

    The next level of analysis would be for either (or both of us) to (a) set of two inertial reference frames where one frame is at rest with respect to the earth and Proxima Centauri and the other reference frame is moving along the line that joins Proxima Centauri and the earth at the speed 0.995c, (b) define time zero in both frames to be the time light and the particle traveling at 0.995c leaves Proxima Centauri, (c) at time zero locate the origins of both inertial reference frames at Proxima Centauri, (d) compute in the reference frame at rest with respect to the earth (i) the event parameters (position/time of light particle emission from Proxima Centauri, (ii) the event parameters of light arrival at the earth, and (iii) the event parameters of particle arrival at the earth, and (e) use the Lorentz transformation to compute these three event parameters in the reference frame at rest with respect to the particle. I bet that when you perform these calculations you will find that in the reference frame at rest with respect to the particle, the time of light arrival at the earth will be less than the time of particle arrival at the earth–i.e., in the reference frame with respect to the particle, both event times will be less than 4.24 years, but the light arrival time iwll be less than the particle arrival time.

    In your third example, I agree that if the “decay time” of a particle in an inertial reference frame at rest with respect to the particle is “Tatrest” and the decay time in an inertial reference frame in motion with respect to the particle is “Tinmotion”, then “Tinmotion” > “Tatrest”. But this observation doesn’t affect the event parameters for a particle and light traveling between two locations.

    Again, thanks for the discussion,

    Reed Coray

  69. Pardon me, I can’t get a handle on html mark up. I’ll have that scotch with you. In my preceding post, all text before the paragraph that starts with: “First, no disrespect taken……” should have been in italics as that text was what you said not what I said.

  70. Second correction. I said it will take 0.212266 years for the light to reach the earth and 0.42347/1 = 0.42347 years for the earth to arrive at the particle. That should have been: “It will take 0.212266 years for the light to reach the earth and 0.42347/0.995 = 0.42556 years for the earth to arrive at the particle.

  71. In case anyone hasn’t mentioned it, the conclusion is obvious.

    God is very angry with us for global warming, and every time He gets mad, he blows something up.

  72. The Galaxy is screaming. In a few short years the nights will be starless. In fact, during times of increased precipitation some areas of the Earth already regularly experience star-free nights. This is predicted to follow the normal exponential growth curve of all climate related science based non-denier science from scientists who do real science.

  73. Perhaps we really are killing the stars. There could be a quantum mechanics observer effect at work here. When global temperatures are lower there is more cloud (or perhaps the other way round) – anyway with more cloud, less people see the stars. Observing of the stars might resolve quantum dualities or cause separated entangled particle states to coalesce to a single state, and this could somehow nucleate or trigger supernova explosions.

    So how were there supernovas before there were any people to observe them?

  74. To paraphrase, I think there is a correlation between clear scientific reasoning using validated, peer reviewed empirical climate data and a huge reduction in the imminent threat of Global Warming in this millenium!!!!! Methinks…….

Comments are closed.