The Sun Did It

This is a spectacular demonstration of how Science ought to be done.

Start with the data. Examine it from many sides. See what it says to you. Then formulate questions and eventually a hypothesis. Finally, look for ways to test and enhance the understandings found.

This video was in a posting at WUWT, but as things can move fast there, I’m reproducing it here. (Which will also make it easier for me to find later for reference purposes…)

The WUWT Posting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/

Of particular interest to me is the discussion in the last half about UV and electric charge variation with solar cycling. Variations on the order of 10% are sufficient to account for a lot of weather variation and those variations are not accounted for in the computer models used by folks such as the IPCC in promoting their Climate Hysteria. That you can get that 10% percent scale variation while total solar output changes on the order of 1/10 of one percent is a very big clue as to mechanism.

That video, though, several times makes reference to “what we saw” in the presentation by Nir Shaviv. I think I’ve found that presentation so I’m including that video first for ‘context’. It, too, is quite good. I’m especially fond of the (roughly 16 minute point) clouds caused by ships at sea.

Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv video:

The Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtilllot video:

There are a couple of other videos in that series that I’m watching and will likely put up in added postings. At about 1/2 hour each, though, I’m not going to put a dozen of them in one posting!

I do have to say, though, that it’s really nice to see quality science being done from first principles. Data first, then calculate, then validate. Not a computer video game in sight ;-)

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to The Sun Did It

  1. Level_Head says:

    The tremendous variation in UV has been downplayed for a long time, to a ridiculous extent.

    Some time back, I was discussing the variation during the Maunder Minimum — and a catastrophist friend noted that a number of more recent studies suggests that the variation was less than what I’d described.

    Interestingly, those studies created a near-linear trend: the more the Global Warming hype had taken hold, the less the Maunder Minimum was caused by the Sun. The values dropped steadily from about 1% to less than 0.25%.

    You could plot this forward and predict that by ten years into the future, the Maunder Minimum would be reported as a time of excess solar irradiance.

    ===|==============/ Level Head

  2. Thank you, thank you for sharing the few remaining flowers of true science in a field that has become a weed patch of useless speculation and less-than-useless output from computer models!

    You are right. Professors Nir Shaviv and Vincent Courtilllot are real scientists, speaking on a subject where propaganda has taken control over science. On many occasions I have cited and directed others to Nir Shaviv concise description of the very questionable assumptions of the “Standard Solar Model.”

    Right now I am struggling to find a way to promote paradigm change in solar science without promoting more conflicts, hostility and resentments.

    Is there a way to write and promote a book on “My Journey to the Core of the Sun” — an autobiographical account of research since 1960 that will communicate overwhelming experimental evidence that the Sun’s core is a neutron star — without increasing hostility and resentments in the community of astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and solar scientists?

    The conclusions are summarized in a paper in press [“Neutron Repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal (2011) 10 pages]

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

    Again, thanks for recognizing and pointing out the difference between science and propaganda.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  3. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Is UV down this century? Since the ancient Egyptians didn’t have much cancer. While today there is lots of cancer. ie people are not getting enough Vitamin D. Part of the reason is that we are spending too much inside, the other is there is this stupid message that the sun’s UV is bad for you. But you need Vitamin D. If you don’t have enough a whole hosts of illnesses occurs, and also cancer increases. The link between UV and melanoma is very small in fact, it’s been argued by some that actually not having enough UV can cause it! Maybe only 8% of them are caused by UV. But they can occur internally, eg in the brain or intestine so there clearly something else going on.

  4. R. de Haan says:

    At the opening of his presentation Courtillot made a most important point stating that too much weight was given to numerical analysis (models) as real science was based on a balance of observation, theory and models.

    UN IPCC AR4 belongs in the dust bin.

  5. R. de Haan says:

    Our nobel prized fanatics of course want to stick to the models even encouraging the climate scientists to build in more tipping points, to make them look scary

    Steven Chu: climate modelers should fabricate lots of tipping points
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/04/steven-chu-climate-modelers-should.html

  6. tckev says:

    Thank-you so much for some great examples of how proper science is done. It puts hope in my heart that we might not have a future driven by egotistical computer modelers, justifying any darn thing that big greedy government tells them to.

    Just a little thought –
    The population is continuously rising, and everyone breaths. So exactly how much CO2 have the global population added to the global atmosphere in say the last 30 years? I wonder if the rise in atmospheric CO2 tracks the rise in population?
    Maybe we should have a global “Stop Exhaling and Save the World” day for all AGW believers.

  7. E.M.Smith says:

    @R. de Haan:

    I like the “foxtrot oscar” advice… it will be interesting to see how many doctors understand the code… ;-)

    And per Chu (as in Chu Chu? Or like Choo Choo the Indian train engineer?… wonder if climate fanatics have a thing for trains… ): Well, the more they break the models with insane tipping the more rapidly we can toss them in the trash can; so maybe he’s got a good point after all ;-)

    @tckev:

    Since the CO2 they emit comes from food, the production of which entails even more CO2 production, might I suggest an enhancment? Simply stop their consumption of food. It’s a “two fer”.

    “Win-win!” 8-0

    @all:

    Glad you enjoyed the breath of fresh air of real Science. It does live, in some few places…

    @Scarlet Pumpernickel:

    My spouse get her Vit D measured on a regular basis. It’s often low. Doctor prescribed pills. Only modest benefit. However, a “lizard lamp” from the pet store for 20 minutes a day (mid winter) at about 3 feet does wonders… (Much over that, or closer than a foot, and sunburn risks, at least for “us of no melanin”… )

    So we’re in the “need some sun time” group, for sure. Summers work well, though, as it’s sunny here. FWIW, I suspect that low Vit D causes a ‘prepare to hybernate’ metabolic set with lethargy and slower fuel burn. Lots of sun and thus high Vit D levels and I’m running all over and up all hours doing things…

    We are much more tied to the sun than folks think…

    Speaking of which, it was sunny today and I got some “quality time” in pulling weeds in the sun. Felt a ‘bit of tingle’ that is the warning of some UV to watch for… so my “skin UV-o-Meter” is saying the sun activity is picking up a little… Yet I was out ‘near noon’ for about an hour. That’s about 2 x the “old limit” and I’m still not showing any “bad things”. I’m of the opinion that the “burn” part of the UV has dropped more than the “good” part. Probably ought to hit up SORCE and see what the measurments say… but I’ve so much other stuff to do…

    At any rate, we need more than a “one size” metric for UV. It needs an exposure curve with “bad” on each end and it needs a “depth” axis for low vs high energy with the “bad” changing apace…

  8. R. de Haan says:

    This is an interesting observation as well:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    @R. de Haan:

    Do you know what is the “driver” the graphs reference?

  10. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Yeah I take 2000 IU Vit D for about 1 year now, I don’t get any colds anymore (or the flu). I don’t get any running injuries anymore, I used to get all types of things, stress fractures, torn muscles. I just feel generally better as well. I mean we go straight from the house into a car, into indoor work all day. In the days the environmentalists want us to go back to, you’d spend most of the day outside doing field work and other mundane tasks. Interesting, I went to a reptile show a few weeks ago, and you need to put a UV lamp in the enclosure, otherwise the snake/lizard will get sick lol. But there are lot of studies linking increased intestinal cancer and other forms to low vit D levels. And it’s a major epidemic now, low vitamin D. It could also be the reason for the massive amount of osteoporosis occurring, as this disease is not seen in the developing world (though maybe they don’t live long enough lol). But having too much Calcium (breast milk only has say 20-30% the amount of calcium in it compared to cow milk), so why do we have to drink so much calcium too? If you think about it, if you ingest too much calcium, you will activate hormones to remove it from your body, what this does is also wash the calcium out of the bone deposits as well. If you want to increase calcium levels it might be better to increase your Vit D levels to good levels rather then worry about the calcium. But I’m not a Dr so don’t take this as any advice :P

    But during the Egyptian times and bond periods, was the UV higher or lower? Maybe that’s why the mummies are pretty much cancer free (though maybe they just didn’t live long enough) and had not discovered processed sugar and HFCS :P

  11. George says:

    We don’t know that mummies were cancer free. None of them have their internal organs intact. We just know they didn’t have bone and skin cancer. But waterborne illness was the greatest killer back then and you were much more likely to die of cholera than cancer. People didn’t get cancer because something else killed them first.

  12. R. de Haan says:

    @E.M. Smith,

    You mean the PDO driver y=0.0214x -41.287?

    I will ask him.

    I just finished browsing through all the postings at WUWT and stumbled on several posts from Vukcevic in response to both of the presentations.

    vukcevic says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:43 am
    Dr. Courtillot has one big problem common to all ‘sun devotees’. Between 1940-1960 there was unprecedented high solar activity ( presumably high UV too) and the global temperatures turned down (no global warming but global cooling !), one might say a case s . d’s law. If you have hypothesis, let alone theory, then you need to explain that global temperature downturn.
The CO2 proponents have dismally failed.
Only credible explanations is in the oceans’ currents, and it is perfectly simple explanation, if one cares to understand how and where ocean circulation and currents are subject to well known physical processes, and how they interact with climate.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm

    vukcevic says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:42 am
    Having listened to the Shaviv’s presentation too, I noticed no comparison graphs of solar cycles SC18 and SC19, 1945-1970 the highest ever solar activity, with then contemporary temperature downturn. Only hypothesis correctly predicting 1948 to 1982 cooling is one based on the North Atlantic’s currents:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
Time for scientists to wake up, either from the excessive CO2 or sunshine induced snooze, to the bitterly cold waters of the sub-polar Atlantic.
Suggested reading the web-pages of:
Alfred Wegener Institute http://www.awi.de/en/
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://www.whoi.edu/

    What matters for the northern hemisphere’s climate are the excursions of the jet-stream; I think these are directly affected by the high latitude currents in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. This is borne out by correlations as shown in:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
World-wide SST due to the oceans thermal capacity and volume is a bit less volatile than the land ST.

    a. Occasionally I refer to ‘global temperature (it doesn’t exist), since that is current ‘in thing’, however all my graphs (except for one) are referenced to CETs as the longest and the most reliable temperature record available.
b. Here I am going to consider a specific case of the summer’s versus winter’s CETs for ~ 300 years (1700-1990) period.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
What do we see?
- Summer temperatures are relatively constant within range of + – 0. 5 degree C. No temperature rise!
- Winter temperatures vary a bit more – 0.5 to +1 degree C, but with a gradient of ~ ¼ degree per century, but again the winters around 1725 were just as warm as those of 1990.
What do I conclude?
Summer temperature is mainly controlled by amount of sunshine, with a bit of a stretch one might find some correlation to the solar activity, but ~300 year result is nill.
Winters depend on the wind direction, south-westerly warm, any of the north directions cold, and these are directly controlled by the jet stream.
Spring and autumn are a bit in between two. From this graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1.gif
I can see that most of warming happened from 1680-1725 with a second bit 1985- 2010. CETs show that all assumptions about both CO2 and solar activity as driving factors appear to be misplaced.

    vukcevic says:
    April 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    May I add this to the post above: Jet stream is formed in higher latitudes, where winter insolation is low (at the most only few hours a day), so it is unlikely that it is controlled by solar output. Polar vortex is actually result of the low insolation factor.
However, the North Atlantic Ocean’s currents (subpolar gyre) with great conflict between the warm waters of the North Atlantic drift current and the cold East Greenland currents. This is place where warm waters surface, releasing accumulated thermal energy into air 24h a day, and in my view the primary cause of jet stream deviations.
http://www.tsc.upc.edu/rs/images/PRS/world-ocean-thermohaline-circulation.jpg
There is a similar location in the Antarctica, controlling the southern polar vortex.

    Let’s make it clear, I only look at CETs. Solar cycle influence is not excluded, sometimes is very obvious, particularly in the summer months, but then makes no or very little difference in the winters when insolation is low, and winters are the ones that defined rising trend.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
So solar cycle is noticeable but it long term (beyond cycle max-cycle min period) I think it is not significant factor.
Set of data (NAP) I am using
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.gif
is only one I know that accurately picks out some of the main points:
distinct down-up-down 1650-1750 period
flat-lines next 100 years
accurately tracks 1900-2010 including contentious 1950-1985 period and possible forthcoming downturn.
One major exception is 1880-1900 where it goes in the opposite direction. It is not a predictor, since there is no way of knowing or extrapolating the movement further ahead. It also should not be assumed that it accurately reflects any short period of years, but since it is totally solar or climate independent set of data, considering its trend it has to be an important if not a major forcing factor.
Further more AMO, ENSO and PDO, the major climatic indicators, have no obvious solar component, but they fairly accurately reflect the rate of change (first derivative) in the sets of data (solar independent) either related to the N. Atlantic and N. Pacific, where the jet stream (I think) is directly affected by the oceans’ currents events .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm

  13. R. de Haan says:

    Not entirely off topic as the title states “The sun did it”

    Piers Corbyn comes with a trial forecast predicting severe quakes for the period 6 – 9 April including the US West Coast
    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=333&c=5

  14. George says:

    What does he consider a “severe quake”?

    There are 15 M7-M7.9 quakes per year on average globally. That is roughly one every 24 days. Any random 4 day period gives you a 1 in 8 chance of being correct. In other words, random chance has a 12.5% accuracy rate over any 4 day period.

    If you include M6+ as “major” there are 149 of those per year, or one every 2.5 days or so. You have a pretty good chance of nailing a M6+ in any given four day period.

  15. On Piers Corbyn’s site there is a link to a video from St. Louis MO:

    http://bit.ly/dNbjgG

    The video that suggests earthquakes have been detected in the midwest and are being ignored by the USGS.

    I would appreciate comment from someone able to verify their validity.

    Thanks,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    100 miles South of St Louis
    Closer to the New Madrid Fault

  16. George says:

    Because it is in the interest of USGS to pay very close to earthquakes except in the New Madrid fault zone … why?

    In other words, USGS doesn’t get paid for ignoring quakes. The more quakes they find, the bigger the budget they get.

  17. Scarlet pumpernickel says:

    @George one day they’ll get a 8 in LA will that be big enough LOL

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    @Scarlet Pumpernickel:

    As UV drops when the sun goes quite, just look at any solar proxy and you can see the relative UV (thus relative Vit D) levels of that era.

    is likely also a decent guide longer term (hot times being higher solar output).

    gives a more precise level for the last 400 years.

    I know of no direct UV record prior to modern times.

    Per calcium:

    Consumption of excess calcium often reduces the phosphorus in your body (you need them in balance) and so can reduce effective bone mass. Most diets have plenty of calcium, but need some Vit D. Drinking sodas with phosporic acid in it just leaches calcium out of everywhere (not just your teeth).

    Best is to avoid phosporic acid, get your Vit-D (via sun, pills, fish oil, whatever) and eat a normal and balanced diet.

    (Yes, we’ve ‘had issues’ in various family members… and yes, you need a “Lizard Lamp” or the poor dears get sick and die from lack of UV. Thus my buying a “Lizard Lamp” for the spouse and no end of humor and mirth ;-) but for unknown reasons the oral Vit-D doesn’t cut it for her and the UV induced “cures all ills”…)

    The mummies were likely cancer free as there were so many non-cancer things to kill you before you had time to get cancer… Royalty often liked their wars and palace intrigues so many of them are fairly young… They also did not work in professions with a lot of toxics exposure…

    Sitting in the palace eating grapes and dates is not known as a carcinogen rich lifestyle…

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

    has a list of bond events and a 10,000 ish scale temp chart that can be your guide to UV longer term…

    @George:

    And don’t forget aligator attack, malaria, various other tropical fevers, influenza, plague, (and not just the plague of toads kind…), and a thousand and one “minor” infections that would have been fatal. Remember that in battle it was often the subsequent infection that killed, not the whack with a sword.

    Good point about the “missing innards”… and blood cancers would not show up either.

    @R. de Haan:

    Verity beat you to it under the “tips” tab up top ;-)

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/tips/#comment-15946

    @Oliver K. Manuel:

    The USGS are reporting the New Madrid quakes just like all the others. On the last “quake thread” (see the “earth sciences” category at the right side…)

    There is new red 5.x near Christchurch, but also this New Madrid listing from the N.America map:

    Magnitude 3.6 – ARKANSAS
    2011 April 07 02:34:50 UTC

    This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.Magnitude 3.6
    Date-Time Thursday, April 07, 2011 at 02:34:50 UTC
    Wednesday, April 06, 2011 at 09:34:50 PM at epicenter
    Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
    Location 35.239°N, 92.366°W
    Depth 3.8 km (2.4 miles)
    Region ARKANSAS
    Distances 2 km (2 miles) ENE (63°) from Greenbrier, AR
    9 km (6 miles) ENE (62°) from Wooster, AR
    10 km (6 miles) SSE (148°) from Twin Groves, AR
    56 km (35 miles) N (357°) from Little Rock, AR
    421 km (262 miles) SSW (207°) from St. Louis, MO
    Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.7 km (0.4 miles); depth +/- 0.8 km (0.5 miles)
    Parameters NST= 14, Nph= 23, Dmin=3 km, Rmss=0.27 sec, Gp= 94°,
    M-type=”Nuttli” surface wave magnitude (mbLg), Version=B
    Source Cooperative New Madrid Seismic Network
    Event ID nm040711a

    I’ve seen a couple of other “dinky” ones reported too. It’s just not enough and not large enough to really be anything of interest. It’s always creaking a little bit…

    There were also a couple of bigger ones up by Yellowstone recorded.

    IMHO, any data dropouts were likey some kind of maintenance glitch.

    For the individual siesmographs wiggles, I have no idea what the scale is on those. Each graph has a size threshold (so the global, for example, only shows 5+ sized). If these are dinky they will likely only be on some kind of closeup graph.

    So do any other nations have a live quake map to cross check the USGS?

    Here’s the last quake posting:

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/quakes-quieting-post-supermoon/

    I’d also point out that individual instruments can get a load of noise from trucks to folks blasting holes in the ground with dynomite to jackhammers next door. I think there is a ‘cross check QA’ process so an “event” must be on more than one to count. So some guy seeing individual wiggles of unknown size on some machine might just be picking up the new soda machine being installed in the cafeteria… it would pay to look up what the QA process is before getting all excited about it.

  19. oldtimer says:

    The euroreferendum link to the proselyting doctors and admirals is, I suspect, part of a deliberate UK government sponsored campaign. Recently it published a document called Carbon Plan, signed by Cameron, Clegg and Huhne (respectively Prime Minister, Deputy PM and Sec of State for Climate Change and Energy). This is their plan to implement the Climate Change Act (passed by the previous Labour government when its current Leader (E Miliband) was Sec of state for Climate Change and Energy. They all regard the UN IPCC reports as gospel and that their mission in life is to prevent global temperature rising more than 2 degrees C.

    Among other statements it says “Our efforts to cut greenhouse gases should not be forced through top down by Government. We should make this change by enthusing our whole society, in line with out commitment to localism.” Dr Goebbels would be proud of this latest attempt to propagate a Big Lie.

    They make other untrue comments such as that it will enable “households and businesses to save money” while littering the document with subsidies to invest in wind and solar, acknowledging they must duplicate such sources with duplicate capacity provided by fossil fuels and nuclear, and introducing the novel concept of “negawatts”. These, it appears, are payment to persuade businesses not to use the enrgy needed to run their operations during periods of high demand.

    This document is a national suicide note. You will probably find it if you search “Carbon Plan”. But be warned; it is c80 pages long and, if you live in the UK, it will ruin your weekend and much more besides.

  20. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Check this out, amazing hey, the sun affects Saturn, but hey, it doesn’t effect earth ;)

  21. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Another cool video

  22. Adam Gallon says:

    Cancers are predominantly a disease of the old, few of our forebearers in the pre-antibiotic era got to live long enough to reach what we’d now call “middle aged”. Many failed to even reach 5 years of age.
    Disease, infection and starvation killed them long before any malignancies got the chance.
    Plus there is the theory that they were rarer in pre-industrial era, due to fewer carcinogens in the environment.

  23. R. de Haan says:

    Magnitude 8 – 9.9
    2011 Earthquakes (1)
    annual average (1)
    100% of 20yr. YTD avg. until day #96

    Magnitude 7 – 7.9
    2011 Earthquakes (7)
    annual average (14)
    186% of 20yr. YTD avg. until day #96

    Magnitude 6 – 6.9
    2011 Earthquakes (99)
    annual average (134)
    281% of 20yr. YTD avg. until day #96

    Magnitude 5 – 5.9
    2011 Earthquakes (845)
    annual average (1,319)
    244% of 20yr. YTD avg. until day #96

  24. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    The clouds caused by ships, this is why lol

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

    16 ships make more pollution then all the cars in the world

  25. @E.M.Smith 7 April 2011 at 7:57 am

    The above earthquake warning was apparently unfounded.

    I posted the following message to Piers Corbyn this morning:

    This is to express my concern that a fellow scientist, Piers Corbyn, would distribute a video containing apparent misinformation about ongoing earthquakes in this area:

    VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO http://bit.ly/dNbjgG

    An explanation would be appreciated.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    This fiasco illustrates a weakness of the blogosphere: Ability to rapidly transmit misinformation too.

  26. E.M.Smith says:

    @Scarlet Pumpernickel:

    I also think it is misleading how they do the measuring. We are now mandated near zero sulpher fuel in cars, so they measure the pollution in sulpher compared to cars… Total sulpher would be a better metric.

    But yes, giant ships with engines as big as small mansions do use a lot of fuel… but don’t worry, I’m sure they will find a way to run them on electricity, they just need a barge to hold the batteries ;-)

    @R. de Haan:

    Interesting numbers. From where did you get them?

    I’d noticed the ‘ramp up’ in the spots / picture but seeing it as statistical values is even more impressive.

    @oldtimer:

    It’s also the case that the constant stress to the immune system from various infections meant that those “with issues” tended to die off early from something else long before they would get old enough to have the defect let a cancer cell survive and grow to a tumor. Basically, nature was weeding out all but the most durable. Some did live to old age (a pharoe or 2, for example) but there were hundreds who died very young for each one of those longer lived.

    So take 100 born today, about 90 of them (my guess) will make it to an old enough age to die from cancer. There will be a couple like George Burns who live to 100 despite smoking and drinking. There will also be 40 or 50 who are not so gifted and have mediocre immune response to things like cancer cells. They would have been killed off by minor cuts becoming infected with gangreen, or by malaria, typhus, dissentery, cholera, dengue, yellow fever, … and never have been around long enough to show a cancer. But the ones with the exceptional immune response would have better survived those onslaughts… and been preferentially selected in the “old population” in ancient Egypt.

    (Note that this is different from Darwininan Selection. I’m not talking about a genetic improvement of the herd thing. That must happen prior to child bearing years ending. So someone subject to death from cholera is just as “fit” in a Dawinian sense if they have the average number of kids before they die from it at, oh 25. Their neighbor with better immunity who dies at 70 from a cancer, but had the same number of kids, is not more “fit” in a Darwinian sense. But does survive to old age and thus skews the statistics on a ‘population basis’ as they are more ‘fit’ to survive diseases.)

    Oh, and we probably ought to note that women dying in childbirth is fairly rare today. It wasn’t always that way… so the number of women living to very old age is quite high now. Well, “you gotta die of something” and very few 80 year old women are going to be dying in childbirth or from an infected battle wound…

    Basically, cancer is the “Else Clause” of death’s choices and we are increasingly saying “no” to all the others…

    @Oliver K. Manuel:

    No worries. Lots of folks spot “odd things” and post their video before thinking it through. I accept that. Handing on a link from a ‘usually trusted place’ is no reflection on you (nor, much, on them). Sometimes they DO have something of importance in them, and I’d rather have “fast but dirty” and I’ll appy my own “cleaning filter” than have the good stuff filtered out and / or things delayed so much it’s useless.

    Basically, I’m OK with the “rumor over the fence” aspect of the internet. I grew up in a small farm town and I’m used to having my ‘rumor filter’ running ;-)

    Besides, we just had a 7.1 in Japan… so what’s up for New Madrid?…

  27. R. de Haan says:

    @E. M. Smith
    The quake statistics come from http://modernsurvivalblog.com

    If you open the website you and scroll down you will find the numbers in the left column.

    The guy, his name is Ken, who runs the blog is focused on quake statistics for some time now.

    I have checked several reports and postings with USGS data and his data I.M.O is correct

    Here is his latest posting about the Mexico Quake today.
    http://modernsurvivalblog.com/earthquakes/magnitude-6-5-earthquake-deep-in-mexico/

  28. R. de Haan says:

    @E. M. Smith
    In regard to your question what Vuk meant with PDO driver in his graph I received the following answer:

    vukcevic says:
    April 7, 2011 at 12:36 am
    R. de Haan says: April 6, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    @vukcevic says: April 5, 2011 at 8:43 am
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm
    Vukcevic, may I ask what is the PDO driver in your graph
    y=0.0214x -41.287?

    Yes, but I am going to disappoint you. PDO driver and the N. Atlantic Precursor (http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm) are based on assembly of real data (no proxies) and are closely related. I think that both indices could be of a fundamental importance to understanding of natural climate change, but they have no predictability value. Shouldn’t particularly be concerned about trend line y=0.0214x -41.287, it may turn down at any time, for which there is an example in the Pacific area ( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SOI.htm )
    I suppose I am not being very helpful, but even if someone in charge of a research department ask for more info, they would get a bit further only if they offered some help with research, not financial, but data verification, methodology of interpretation and presentation. In meantime I am doing a bit of writing, occasionally pop-up here with the graphs, just in case someone out there sees some value in it.
    My thanks go to WUWT for hospitality and tolerance.

    End of posting.

    I can’t make peanut butter from such an answer so I will leave it for what it is.

    What I still had filed was this publication from John Daly and Landscheidt about the solar PDO connection
    http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm

  29. R. de Haan says:

    By the way, this is how far the scientific AGW doctrine is prepared to go their mad scientists are not put on a leash
    http://notrickszone.com/2011/04/07/german-elitists-unveil-master-plan-for-the-great-transformation-of-global-society-calls-for-bonus-malus-solutions/

  30. E.M.Smith says:

    @R. de Haan:

    Please pick one thread for the New Madrid stuff. Splattering it over two of them just invites confusion.

    OK, the guy looks at quakes. Yes, the Mexico quake was a big one and we don’t have a lot of those recorded there. As it’s a thousands year scale process and we’ve only recorded for what, dozens? (Hundreds if you allow non-scientific history) we have no idea what is “normal” there.

    The most interesting thing to me was the ‘no aftershocks yet’. While not scientific, I think I’ve noticed that a moderately large quake with no or very tiny aftershocks is often a ‘foreshock’ of something yet to come…

    The general theme of the guys place is “disaster soon!!! buy stuff for the coming disaster!!!”. While I’m in favor of diaster preparedness, just a little over the line you get the folks who go all hot and bothered because it’s the “once a year change the paper roll” date… and sometimes telling one from the other can be a bit of a challenge.

    OK, so maybe there was some kind of glitch at New Madrid. We’ll need some 4’s and 5’s before I’d be worried in any case, and those are going to be in the news from folks in a panic no matter what USGS does.

    So I’m just not seeing a whole lot of “there there” at the moment.

    The guy from Germany is certainly a loon. And in power… Wonder if I ought to point out that “bundle” in Itlalian is fascio as in ‘fascio di idee’ …

    Nice to see that the USA Loons are in a race for 2nd place with the British and Australians ;-)

    Per Vukcevic:

    To me it says, pretty clearly “Work In Progress, not ready for public. Someone wants details then they can help make sure it’s not a broken idea first.” I’m fine with that.

  31. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/apr/HQ_11-103_Gamma_Rays.html

    NASA’s Sony PlayStation “Discovered” something again without actually seeing it

  32. R. de Haan says:

    @E.M.Smith
    WILCO

  33. R. de Haan says:

    House votes to kill EPA climate regulations
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52759.html

  34. @R. de Haan 8 April 2011 at 12:15 am

    Thank you, thank you for the great news!

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52759.html

    “House lawmakers . . . want to obliterate the Obama administration’s climate rules.”

    “The chamber voted 255-172 . .. to nullify the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations and the scientific finding they’re based on. No Republicans opposed the bill, but 19 Democrats broke ranks with their party to support the measure.”

    Leaders of NAS, federal funding agencies, and major research journals will “see the handwriting on the wall.”

    All fields of science will benefit from this action.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  35. R. de Haan says:

    @ Oliver K. Manuel
    You’re most welcome.

Comments are closed.