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.
Surely this can also be linked to Svensmark –
less cloud = more looking at the stars!
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
Climatology is a plot created by computers to force humans to make more supercomputers.
They are silently dumbing us down before taking control.
Supernova positive feedback – Ominous. OMG! We’re headed for the tipping point. What’s next? Cats with dogs, dogs with cats…..
Here’s a star bound to be producing GW. Been in the news in Australia today.
Imagine the taxes our PM could extract from this? Diamonds are a girls best friend.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-26/astronomers-discover-planet-made-of-diamond/2856364
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.
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.
That is absolute gold! Makes me want to go back to Curtin (where Dr Soria is located), finish my degree and join the program.
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.
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
”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.
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.
Seriously, one of your best posts ever. The Solar/Climate train is off the rails taking dirt roads.
dr.bill says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Ah, yes, “Tau Zero”… one of my all-time favourites.
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?
Berfel, don’t be silly. Adulation will be spontaneous, as always.☺
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
One correlation well worth observing is that between HadCRU temperature data and US government debt:
http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/natdebt.gif
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!
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….;-)
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.