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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would be wary of this Harvard-trained analyst:
Increased Harvard lawyer representation on the Supreme Court shows an amazing relation with global temps…
http://thelastdemocrat.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/harvard-law-causes-global-warming/
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?
So those spiral arms in galaxies are the result of a death spiral?
Bet that was a fun post to write.
And it’d be the Soria Hypothesis?
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’…
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.
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…
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
This reminds me of a real sci fi novel in which humans actually do make distant stars explode (through teleportation experiments, not global warming):
http://www.amazon.com/Space-Eater-David-Langford/dp/1930997795/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314299539&sr=1-1
There is another explanation. HadCRUT temperature data since 1960 has had the super nova numbers added to produce global warming.
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.
Or the lack of pirates is killing stars.
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!
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.
ROBUST
Great work! Will be fast tracked in Nature… LOL
Where there’s data, there’s interpretations waiting to be wrong.
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.
Re J fisk
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.
Aliens are attacking us. They are blowing up stars so that the cosmic rays will cause Global Warming on Earth.
We’re doomed.
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…
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
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.
Al – i – e – ns, dammit.
Even more doomed.
‘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.