Killer comment

Seen in this Wattsupwiththat comment thread on the Courtillot presentation video currently doing the rounds:

RockyRoad says:
April 5, 2011 at 7:00 am
As far as climate goes, the sun is a leading indicator; carbon dioxide is a trailing indicator. It’s as simple as that, folks.

All the modelling and protestations to the contrary cannot make it otherwise. Even if there are powerful political and financial lobbies still pushing the 'it's all CO2' agenda. Said lobbies have got a lot of their capital (Fiscal and emotional) tied up in the related Carbon trading and similar schemes, and simply cannot allow it to fail or they'll have lost money and / or face, possibly both.

Expect more shouts of 'Denier' / 'Heretic' - Whatever.

Lets face it, if 'Carbon taxes' worked to improve the environment as posited, we'd already have seen more benefit from them by now; apart from the increases in the cost of living they have been responsible for.

Radiation poisoning

Locally, there have been items in the press about people rushing out to their local pharmacy for doses of Potassium Iodide, and getting very cross when told there isn't any.

Said persons would be well advised to examine this chart before going into headless chicken mode.

Latest on the stricken plant has issues with Fukushima's No4 reactor, which like 5 and 6 was supposed to have been shut down for maintenance and refuelling at the time the Tsunami hit. Containment 1 and 3 buildings have had the roofs blown off by Hydrogen gas build up and ignition, and there has been some radiation release. Although when you compare the doses recorded so far to the exposure from a single Computerised Tomography scan, I think those concerned about Radiation exposure over here in BC might justifiably be accused of over-reacting. What the hell, it's their money.

Warning: Large doses of Potassium Iodide during pregnancy can harm a developing foetus. Also acts as a skin and eye irritant.

Why Corbyn gets it right

One of the most risible suggestions from the pro-CAGW crowd is the assertion that changes in the weather, or rises in atmospheric CO2 are responsible for Earthquakes. In précis their explanation goes; More CO2 in Atmosphere - Atmosphere heats up - ice melts - more volcanoes and Earthquakes (You're alll doooooommed! - give us your money). Even under the scantiest of scrutiny this postulation falls down and bangs its head on a rock. Let me explain a few reasons why.

First; 'rebound' Quakes need to lose a lot of ice before they happen. Ice is a comparatively light material (919kg per Cubic metre) as opposed to water (Pure 1000kg per cubic metre). They also take a long time post de-glaciation to happen. In addition, unlike quakes in subduction and active fault zones they tend to be lower intensity. Also, ice loss is not thought to affect plate tectonics. Not that we're going to have a problem with less terrestrial ice if the current nascent (Early days at present) cooling trend continues for another few decades. Likewise the catastrophic claims of sea level rise don't (Ahem) hold water.

At the moment we are, despite claims of 'The hottest decade - ever' in the beginning of a cooling phase of the Earth's climate. The 'warmest decade ever' is a false claim. Historically it has been warmer - this is proven by clues scattered throughout historical records of the Medieval and Roman Warm periods, and that's just within recorded history. The extended Northern range of various settlements / cultivated crops like vineyards up near the Scottish border, and Medieval Norse settlements in Greenland. Other clues can be found within overlooked / ignored Chinese records still which range back up to 5000 years. No citations as my Mandarin extends to 'Good Morning' and 'Happy new year'. I'm as dependent on translations as the next Westerner. Mind you, Medieval Chinese records can be just as incomprehensible to the average Modern Chinese as Medieval Church Latin to the average current English speaker.

Piers makes the claim that the Earth is in the first stages of a cooling phase which will cover thirty years, and then stay cooler for around a century or so. He bases his claims on his understanding of the Lunar and Solar cycles. "Don't be silly!" The pro CAGW crowd scoff. "How can the Moon or the Sun affect the weather? What utter rot!" They tend to dismiss his work out of hand. To them he's a crazy old crank with untidy 'mad scientist' hair. How wrong they are. Which I will try, in my idiosyncratic laymans fashion, to explain.

Meteorology is a minor study of mine. Having been an outdoorsman most of my life, I like to know when to head for cover or leave the heavy raincoat at home. I've also worked with pilots, who have to make an in depth study of the weather, as their (and their passengers) safe passage depends upon their understanding of the weather. My understanding covers things like what a cold or occluded front is, and what it means. Why high pressure in certain areas means get out the sun tan lotion, and in others, put another log on the fire. Katabatic and Anabatic winds, all that sort of stuff. As for the Moon not affecting the Earth's weather? Erm, what about the Tides? Tidal changes are mostly lunar influenced and with variations due to various tricks of geography, circle the planet twice a day. Although the Sun is also well known to affect tides.

Now what many people don't seem to appreciate is that the figures given for the Earth / Moon's system orbit around the sun, which is a known variable star, fluctuate within a given range. Now here's a little thought experiment for you, a small demonstration of how heat diminishes rapidly as you move away from its source. Put your hand near a heat source, say an incandescent light bulb or fire. Move your hand away and notice how rapidly the sensed radiant heat diminishes. This is not a straight line relationship. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it's not that keen on straight lines, either.

In a near vaccuum, such as our solar system, this radiant heat is, within an area often referred to as the 'Cinderella zone', sufficient to support life as we know it. This zone or orbital path is not all that wide, in astronomical terms. When you take into consideration the fact that the Moon does not only orbit the Earth, it influences the Earth's solar orbit. The laws of motion tell us it could not be any other way with two masses circling each other. The Earth does not follow a true smooth elliptical curve around the Sun, it wavers or oscillates in a pattern that can be plotted mathematically, a sort of elliptical shallow sine wave. Take into account the slight variability of the Sun's heat energy, and we can work out how much energy will be falling onto the Earth at any given time. With a little knowledge of Meteorology, any net variations can be plotted for to predict possible major events due to a greater of lesser amount of energy within the parameters of Earth's 'Cinderella zone'. Although compensations such as the known current weakening of the Earth's Magnetosphere will also need to be plotted.

Furthermore, a weakening of the Earth's Magnetospere, or magnetic shield may also allow more energy in, it also allows a greater influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Read up on the work of Henrik Svensmark, whose research has a known correlation with the well established cloud formation effect of 'cosmic rays' first observed by Wilson in the early 1900's. More cloud formation and cloud cover increase Earth's albedo, which reflects the sun's light away from the Earth, thus reducing the energy received at ground level. Doesn't have to be much, a tenth of a percentage point can affect weather / climatic patterns.

This is why any net effect of CO2 induced temperature variation will be lost. Whilst CO2, and more importantly methane and water vapour, form an insulating blanket as part of Earth's atmosphere. Major Climate variations also appear more influenced by orbital and until recently relatively overlooked Solar / Earth electromagnetic interaction. Which is another factor we don't understand the full climatic ramifications of.

Piers Corbyn so often gets his forecasts right because he understands the cycles of our planet as it wobbles and precesses around the solar system, and their net effect within the thin skin of Earth's biosphere.

Furthermore, the suggestions that there are positive climatic related feedbacks which mean a hundred or so parts per million of CO2 will turn the Earth's climate into a raging volcanic soup like Venus. These are demonstrably so far fetched they veer into serious tinfoil hat territory along with 'Chemtrails', crop circles, the Flat Earth society, 'born again' creationists and UFO's. There are few observable positive feedbacks in nature. Energy follows the laws of thermodynamics. The 'It's all CO2' assertions tapdance merrily all over established observable principles. The CO2 led models consistently fail to predict warming or cooling. Therefore I'm led to the conclusion that said postulation is too two dimensional an answer to a far more complex question.

In light of the above, I respectfully submit that the CO2 based hypothesis of Climatic variation is deader than a doornail that's just had the last rites following a surgical autopsy. I further submit that taxing 'Carbon' emissions is about as pointless as rearranging deckchairs on a sinking ship. For the sakes of the future economic well being of the world, we should stop. Now. Unless of course you're happy to see your great grandchildren growing up in a new self imposed medieval period. Although that might depend upon whether you see them as one of the Serfs or not.

* Please note that there are no references within this entry to either side of the 'Climate war' of words waged in Desmogblog, Wattsupwiththat, Realclimate or any affiliated web site. They were considered too partisan for the purposes of this blog. Wikipedia sources have likewise only been linked to if they were on non-partisan topics not directly related to climate, and therefore held as suspect.

'Flux ropes' and power generation

Two Russian researchers, Boyarchuk and Pulinets, posited back in 2004 that flares and associated Solar electromagnetic phenomena might induce Earth tremors and perhaps extra heat within the Earth’s nickel iron core. More recently, (2007) the NASA THEMIS experiment detected things dubbed 'flux ropes', or concentrations of electromagnetic force linking the Sun and the Earth. The net effect of these variations has, so I'm told, a minor effect on the inner Earth, and increasing convection of magma within the inner and outer mantle, rather like happens in boiling water. The extra energy venting itself via various volcanic outlets like ‘black smokers’ down in the various oceanic spreading zones, Volcanoes, and the melting of rock in subduction zones. At present there are no certain proofs in the public domain although such an induced heating effect is in line with electromagnetic theory, and can be observed under experimental conditions.

As an aside; this core heating effect is probably also why Venus has such a hellish corrosive soup for an atmosphere. Venus is, like Earth, thought to have a nickel iron core, and this is thought to be heated vigorously by its passage through the more tightly packed magnetic field closer to the Sun. As I've posted previously, volcanism is the culprit for Venus' atmosphere, definitely not CO2. For example if CO2 was the culprit, Mars would be a lot warmer than it is, having a similar concentration of atmospheric CO2 (About 95.32%) to Venus (96.5%).

To get to the crux of the matter; my friend Delcatto asked the question; “Could we harness the electromagnetic force from the Sun to provide power?”

My answer is ‘No’.

For the following reasons;

1. The concentration of electromagnetic force, even at the poles, does not appear strong enough. If it were, then our biosphere would not be habitable, at least to us.
2. Why? Because the Earth needs to have a molten core. Without it our fecund little world would be as dead as Mars. Life as we know it depends on a complex interplay of energies and forces requiring heat from both above (the Sun) and below (the Earth), which is what allows our fragile little 10 kilometer deep biosphere to exist, sandwiched between a figurative heaven and hell. Significantly reduce the heating effect of the Earth’s core, as would happen if enough of the electromagnetism at the poles were diverted for power generation, and, to put it bluntly, life on Earth would be (Eventually) buggered.
3. To get sufficient concentration of force lines for power generation, you have to divert them from somewhere else into some kind of collector ring. It would not be a good idea to stick such a device over the polar regions of Earth, see reason 2, but near Venus to power something like a wormhole portal for interstellar travel? There’s an intriguing thought. If such a device were possible, power transmission issues would render transfer to Earth less than useful (Until some clever dicky rewrites the physics of power transmission that is). Venus would ‘benefit’ from the reduction in volcanism due to a cooler core and perhaps eventually become borderline habitable, or at least not quite so hostile as at present. However, such a cooling process would require (at the very least) a couple of million years. So, no panic there, then.

Which just gave me an absolutely spiffing idea for another science fiction story. Ta muchly.

When is an eruption overdue?

A theme picked up from this post on Erik Klemetti's 'Eruptions' blog.

We keep on hearing in the media that this or that volcano is overdue, and that consequently "We're all doomed!". Yellowstone is 'overdue', Mt Baker, Mt Rainier, and just about every currently quiet volcano on the planet is 'overdue'.

The problem is that we still don't seem to understand more than the basics of what makes a volcano go 'foom!' We understand the what, but as to the underlying when and where, we're pretty much adrift, making half educated guesses. We are told that we're 'overdue' for a 'big one' (Earthquake) in this area, but the problem is that there is too little information available on the stresses building up in the crust below us. Ergo we get caught out when something like the Christchurch disaster hits. Millions, billions even are wasted on 'preventing' phantasms like (I really do get tired of the whole circus) man made global warming when there are far greater local risks from unmapped seismic activity. Then a cynical voice pops into my head saying "Ah, but you can't tax volcanoes and earthquakes, can you?"

A minor breakthrough in predicting volcanic activity has been published over at UBC Vancouver, where certain kinds of eruptions can be predicted by their sound signature. Specifically those with 'stiff' magma. Yet we're no closer to predicting when or if a Volcano will erupt, or a major earthquake will occur. Yes we can monitor swarm activity, but the information we get from that is currently very superficial.

The Earth under our feet talks, it resonates, it shouts. Humankind's problem is that we firstly have a poor understanding of what the earth's crust is trying to tell us, and secondly trying to listen is a little like having an in depth conversation in a Disco. There's a too much background noise, not just from human but from other activity. Isolating and eliminating various sound signatures is stuff that until recently was the purely the domain of military sonar specialists. Yet like trying to chat up an attractive person of gender choice (let's not be sexist here- meh), sound is only part of the communication. Relying on sound alone easily gets you into situations with metaphorical undergarments round knees and real red face. Depending upon the situation and whether you're having fun, or perhaps not.

Carrying on with the chatting up in Disco conceit, there's far more to detecting eruptions than simply sound. There's motion, expression, and perceived mood. Sometimes these moods are hard to divine, but they are there. So maybe sound detection alone is only a part of the answer.

It has been posited that changes in geomagnetism or even changes in the solar magnetosphere may have a subtle impact on volcanism, rather like Svensmark's cloud climate hypothesis; where increased particle bombardment from cosmic rays when the solar wind is low increases cloud formation, increasing albedo and thus reflecting sunlight away from the Earth's surface. Thus making the Earth cooler.

Study of other planets in the solar system tells us that volcanic activity can be driven by energy generated by a body moving through a magnetic field. Published work by Russian researchers Sergey Pulinets and Kirill Boyarchuk, amongst others, point in this direction. As Earth is known to have a nickel iron core, so it is suspected does Io, one of Jupiters Inner moons. Now Io, the moon in question, is a highly volcanically active place, and has a curious phenomenon suspected to be due to magnetic activity, a ‘flux tube’ of highly charged electrical activity connecting Io and Jupiter. It is thought that this produces an inductive heating effect in Io’s nickel iron core, driving the observed high level of volcanic activity. This is perfectly in line with accepted electromagnetic theory where a metallic body moving through a magnetic field will induce electromagnetic activity in said body.

It may interest anyone who gets this far in my often poorly structured posts, that similar 'flux ropes' between the Sun and Earth have been observed by NASA's THEMIS mission.

Ergo, it may be argued that observed changes in the interaction between the Sun and the Earth’s magnetic fields may have some effect upon the heating effect of the Earth’s core, thus providing a driver of volcanic activity. Local changes can be measured with magnetometers. Whilst this type of measurement alone may not be sufficient to act as a volcano / earthquake early warning device, in combination with stress meters, additional observations should be sufficient to build up a better picture of what the Earth is telling us, deep down.

Going back to the chatting up in the disco conceit, thus may we be able to see what the object of our intentions (Seismic activity) is going to do by joining up the dots of sound, electromagnetism and observed local physical changes. Thus easing the task of knowing what 'mood' our potential date is in. Then we may have a better idea of what any given volcano or earthquake fault is liable to do, and perhaps get the hell out of Dodge before a Pompeii happens.

Fruit Warning

Saw this article about radiation and food over at Wattsupwiththat and fell about laughing. The article points out that the levels of background radiation in naturally grown foodstuffs, like bananas, are higher than we think. For example;

Relative food radiation levels;
Beer= 390 pCi/liter
Tap Water= 20 pCi/liter
Milk= 1,400 pCi/liter
Salad Oil= 4,900 pCi/liter
Whiskey= 1,200 pCi/liter
Brazil Nuts= 14,000 pCi/kg
Bananas= 3000 pCi/kg
Flour= 140 pCi/kg
Peanuts 8,000 pCi/kg
Peanut Butter= 120 pCi/kg
Tea= 400 pCi/kg

In fact most foods contain some form of radioactivity. This is perfectly natural. The world is filled with various kinds of radioactivity. It occurs regardless of human activity.

One of the figures quoted is our total exposure to radiation in a year is in the region of 360 millirems a year. Before you go running off to berate others about atom bomb tests, remember that a single transatlantic flight can expose you to about 4 extra millirems a year, whereas dosage from atmospheric pre ban treaty nuclear tests has been calculated overall at 1 millirem a year. Moving to a location 1000 feet above sea level exposes you to an extra 5 millirems a year. That's not including radiation from the soil and rock underneath your feet. Like granite? High natural background radiation just from that fancy counter top in your kitchen.

Figures culled from here. Please go and read.

Next time some anxiety prone goes off at me about the wickedness of nuclear power stations, food residues and sterilising with Gamma radiation, I think I'll just ask them about how many bananas they eat.

A worthy tome

Seen at Wattsupwiththat.com, this book especially the first paragraph found, I am told, on page 9;

“Because of the critical importance of methods, scientific papers must include a description of the procedures used to produce the data, sufficient to permit reviewers and readers of a scientific paper to evaluate not only the validity of the data but also the reliability of the methods used to derive those data. If this information is not available, other researchers may be less likely to accept the data and the conclusions drawn from them. They also may be unable to reproduce accurately the conditions under which the data were derived.

The best methods will count for little if data are recorded incorrectly or haphazardly. The requirements for data collection differ among disciplines and research groups, but researchers have a fundamental obligation to create and maintain an accurate, accessible, and permanent record of what they have done in sufficient detail for others to check and replicate their work. …”

From the book description;

On Being a Scientist is aimed primarily at graduate students and beginning researchers, but its lessons apply to all scientists at all stages of their scientific careers.

Something which certain 'climate scientists' should take to heart I think. Although there have always been researchers prepared to cheat or ignore significant anomalies to get the results they want, rather than the real data. Not that a single book on the subject of scientific clarity will ever stop them.

Available from Amazon.

The thought does occur that a whole heap of trouble and wasted taxpayer dollar might have been avoided had these principles been more closely adhered to.

New link

For those of you who share my interest in matters volcanic, I've added this link from NASA's Earth observatory to the sidebar under Some Climate and Volcano Links.

While everything seems relatively quiet on the Icelandic front, there's still a number of active eruptions going on at any given time. I find it fascinating, and for those that don't; this ain't your blog chummy.

Katla seismic activity

A number of small tremors at the 1km depth near Katla's western lava plug in the past 24 hours. Usual caveats about tremors and eruptive behaviour apply. The old saying "A watched pot never boils." has a certain synergy.

Have cropped and annotated the original Katla vent system diagram to give an idea of what features exist under the glacial cap and the approximate location of the current activity.

Real life and learning

Eldest on Skype this morning was tearful because she'd performed poorly (For her) in a test. She's passed, but she wanted to do better, and being who she is was getting pretty wound up. Mrs S began the talkdown, and I pitched in with some helpful hints upon how to address the issue. Go talk to lecturers and markers, we advised. Find out exactly what they want, not do the 100 metres conclusion jump and end up stuck in some emotional slough of despond. Eldest calmed down a little and we talked her through the process.

This triggered a number of memories about my own college studies and mentoring Mrs S through the last two years of her degree course. Now I went to Technical college and night school, not University, to get my inch thick stack of work related certificates. I'm a working stiff who expects to pay his own way, but I digress.

One of the first modules Mrs S got bogged down on was on system security. On the first test in the module, she scored a disappointing fifty six percent, and just like Eldest, got all emotional and tearful about it. She knew she had all her facts right, she could backtrack to the source information, and yes, it said exactly what she wrote down in the essay. The facts were definitely there. In our estimation the test mark should have been far higher. It was down to me to give her a hug and do the 'there, there' thing even when I should have been doing my own stuff. I pointed out that maybe it wasn't the core information, it was her presentation that was at fault. "But that way it doesn't make sense!" Mrs S protested. "I've tried that in my job and it doesn't work!"
To which I replied; "Yes dear, but perhaps that's the way they want your information presented."
"We did that two years ago. It's crap!" She said angrily.
"You know it doesn't work. I know it won't work, but this is University, not real life." I responded, wondering idly if the off licence was still open so I could buy more Whiskey. What with the emotional fallout from the course and teenage stepdaughters I tended to need the odd large drink during those years.

After a great deal of grumbling, I got her to ask her course advisers a number of pointed questions specific to the text in the low mark essay, and together we formulated a strategy. Mrs S restructured her subsequent submitted pieces of work to the required format and guess what? After a couple of tries her marks shot up to eighty six percent. A clear thirty percent increase, all because she asked the Lecturers how they wanted the essay submissions structured. Her marks throughout the next two years never dipped below seventy nine percent per essay (Including finals), for which she got a respectable 2:1.

After that, Mrs S went back to her job and carried on as she had before. The degree certificate is mounted in a nice frame, but the learning it took to get is hardly used. Mainly because the gulf between academia and real life is often quite a broad one.

As an apprentice, I recall working alongside those more academically gifted and looking at the work they turned out. Oft was heard the plaintive cry of; "Yeah, but that's what the textbook said!" When flinty-eyed Managers asked why this or that had gone pear shaped. As a lowly apprentice, I hid my smirk and learned to trust the input of my senses, developing my 'Engineers feel' of metals and measuring tools. Happy to be a lowly Technician and not a high flyer. We used to reckon it took a good three to five years at least to get an Engineering graduate to a reasonable standard of competence, such were some of the howlers our graduates designed. A 12ft long, unsupported lateral shaft was one such classic (Massive vibration due to microscopic changes in material density would have shaken it apart), critically overloading phases in electrical plant another. Mostly these were fundamental errors we Technicians had learned about in our first year. You could almost hear our eyes rolling up into heads sometimes. However, as lowly spanner and screwdriver wielders, our opinions were not required because we weren't educated enough. Indeed.

This of course was in the days pre Blair's 'Ejucashun, educayson, edcashun' when academic rigour was more, well, rigorous. This is not to disparage Degree courses, but my point is that academic excellence does not always equip one for the outside world, which has let's say, broader boundaries. The world is a far more complex place than University alone can prepare you for. Rather like not every member of MENSA being a millionaire.

Ergo, it is my contention that not everything that emerges from say purely academic 'peer review' should be taken as gospel. Particularly studies based upon pure statistics. Interesting? Yes. Worth discussion and evaluation? Of course. Implementation without testing? Definitely not. That is what 'Science' is for, a process of weeding out the unworkable and just plain impossible to produce something that works. Axioms must be tested, dogmas challenged. All else is Alchemy, which produces nothing but some odd smells, lost fortunes, and perhaps some heavy metal poisoning.

Yet every day the media leaps on some published academic 'study', which should be no more than the starting point for discussion and testing, and posits that this is the answer to life, the Universe and everything. From medicine and disease to mass extinctions and our ever changing climate. No matter how many times cataclysmic predictions fail, like a legion of zombies they are dusted off, stood up again, and sent lurching back into the public domain. A whole stage of the scientific method is bypassed by scientifically semi literate campaigners, a sensationalising media and grant-hungry researchers. Guess who our politicians react to in their ignorance? Got it in one.

It's probably why the UK has a plague of near-useless Wind Turbines, why unvaccinated children die of otherwise preventable diseases, basic liberties have been eroded, and people take pills that may be doing more harm than good.

Katla grumbling

Steady low level grumbling at less than 1km depth. Small tremors. Not sure what it means, but am maintaining a watching brief.

Piers Corbyn predicts cooling

Cooling to 2035 followed by a century of cooler weather globally speaking sounds realistic to me.

The only problem here is that Piers' appearance and manner militates against him in the churches of spin and obfuscation surrounding the politics of climate. I think if he got some presentation classes and became better groomed and dressed, the warmist cause would be dead and buried within a week. On the other hand, maybe what Piers needs is a front man with those attributes. Said front man doesn't need to be a hot shot scientist, just know enough about the weather not to get flustered under pressure, and have wits sharp enough to fight the verbal battles, and reflexes fast enough to dodge the inevitable punches from outraged loser warmists. Oh, and a little personal charm.

Just a thought.

Katla activity

First visit to the Icelandic Met offices Earthquake data site this morning evinced a 'Wow!' from my lips for the Mýrdalsjökull glacial area around Katla. However, the depths indicate that the rather diffuse swarm like activity is, with the few red underlined exceptions, mostly quite deep, and therefore not indicative of any possible eruption.

Carry on and stay calm. Nothing to see here. Move along. I think.

Iceland volcanic update

Usual visit to the Icelandic Met Office Website turned up these New Year tremblings. Katla has the odd small tremor back at the 1km depth range, whilst Bárdarbunga had a brief, deep swarm (See screengrabbed tables). Perhaps it was simply some of the locals participating in their favourite sport of driving a truck into a crater very fast, to try and slingshot over the opposite lip of the caldera. Although what they were doing several kilometres down is nobody's business but theirs.


Usual caveats apply about one tremor swarm doth not an eruption make.

Katla update 30th December

Daily visit to the Icelandic Met Office website earthquake page. Just observed this change in tremors from the subsurface burbling that has set in under the much vaunted Icelandic Volcano Katla over the past few months. From having settled into a routine of small scale tremors between 100m to 1Km below the surface, the tremor activity sank to 5km down. Does this mean the magma chamber is filling, draining, or in the fashion of a large coffee percolator, mean there is a surge of magma coming from below? Anyone got any ideas?

As usual, caveats about 'tremors on their own mean little' apply.

Katla at Christmas

Seen Christmas day on the Icelandic Met office web site.
Now this post comes with the usual disclaimer about tremors alone do not an eruption signify, but there's been steady low level tremors under Katla for some time now. Just little stuff but, and here's the kicker; look at the depth. All about a hundred metres down. All low level. Nothing big, but enough to indicate something is going on down there. What is is however, is something for the vulcanologists to determine. That or the volcano.

Katla 2nd November 2010

Just when we thought it was safe to take your eye off the volcano; a quickie on the latest status of Katla in Iceland. Over the past 24 hours there's been an increase in tremors less than a kilometre down. The usual cautionary note about tremors on their own meaning little without additional data applies. I'm waiting to hear what the real volcanologists are saying.

Will be watching this space, amongst others. Also the Katla Webcam.

Sunday interweb wandering thoughts

I always make time on a Sunday to pop over to the Tellytubbygraph's James Delingpole Blog. Not so much for the quality of the 'debate' as the hilarity of the troll control tactics employed by the various posters. I generally lurk without commenting, and don't generally get drawn into those tedious online bouts of protracted name calling which some find so engrossing. Occasionally, if I have something to say I'll make a post and then move on. If that is construed as 'drive by posting' then so be it. I have a life.

The one thing I will take issue with is the claims that those who don't unthinkingly ascribe to the view that mankind is responsible for the changes in the weather / climate are 'anti-science'. Now this assertion is complete nonsense and a very poor rhetorical argument. It's lazy soundbite driven thinking which bypasses all centres of significant neural activity. It's also one of those 'drawing a line in the sand' gestures of pointless witlessness which can only devalue an argument. Just because you disagree on one point doesn't necessarily mean you're a gun totin' - git orf mah land - anti abortion - redneck - Palin loving - creationist - God fearing Republican wingnut. Neither does the converse hold true, that just because you agree with a given proposition doesn't automatically make you a tofu eating - metrosexual - jazz lovin' - Darwinist - Obama worshipping - Atheistic Democrat Progressive. That's just ludicrous. It's also stereotyping, which is a crime against the intellect and one of the classic indicators of Persistent Waking Vegetative state. People of that mindset don't think, they don't examine before rejecting, they just have prejudices.

Take my own world view; I do not believe in man made climate change / Warble Gloaming / Buzzword of the moment. My own training in Engineering sciences (Ones proven in fact not theory) tells me the CO2 meme has serious holes in it, and having looked at the basics and tried to find a connection simply cannot accept the "We can't think of what else it can be" justification. That isn't science, that's reductio ad absurdum not sufficiently reductio'd. To compare; I am of the opinion that Darwin and Wallace were onto something regarding evolution back in the mid 1800's, although the tenets of their work have been horribly abused by some people. Yet there are things we don't understand about how evolution works. By the same token, Einstein did not have the last word on physics, and we don't know everything about gravity and space / time, not by a long chalk. Some have even contended that the age of scientific discovery is 'past' but there you would also find me in disagreement; there is always something new and fascinating. In short; the science is never 'settled'. New stuff comes along all the time. If it didn't, there would be no new toys in the store to keep the money going round. No improvements, just an endless round of drudgery reinforcing the status quo. A quasi-medieval mindset where heretics are burned in case all those uppity peasants get the idea that Mother Church doesn't really know much at all.

The only people who are truly 'anti-science' are those who, when confronted with dissension do not at least riffle through the pages of a theses and go; "Yup, that's fine... oh, hang on a moment, oops. My bad." Science is about enquiry, of re-examination and winnowing grains of truth from the chaff. It is not about 'consensus'. That is purely a political idea, which has nothing to do with the classical scientific method. The only thing you can say for certain about a 'scientific consensus' is that it is riding for a fall. Sooner or later some clever so-and-so will come along and the rule book will need another rewrite.

In terms of climate McKittrick and McIntyre have repeatedly demonstrated that one of the 'proofs' of man made climate change is based on nothing more than flawed models and statistics. Even the Bilderberg group, that invited clique of the not so great and good, once so enamoured of the CAGW postulate, are reputedly discussing the possibility of 'Global cooling'.

People are waking up. You've been had, and by proxy, so have I, and I'm not very pleased about it. All the tax money that has been thrown at a non-problem really scrolls my knurd. All the resources flushed down the fiscal toilet after phantasms when the real answers to energy, food, and water poverty have available solutions.

Think GM food is 'bad'? Well, everything in this life comes with a price tag; and ripping up field trials of GM crops with better yields and disease resistance just because some big corporate owns the technology is half witted. In an age when the cure for hunger is within our grasp, that's like putting your children at risk by not getting them properly vaccinated on the basis of one over-hyped study. Sheesh.

Don't want third world countries to make nuclear weapons? Don't sell them Uranium / Plutonium based reactor technology (How about Thorium? Can't make weapons from that). Although the news that Iran has got the Stuxnet virus in it's Nuclear programmes computer systems is not unamusing. That Ahvegottadinnerjacket character in Iran who so loves to parade things like 'Ambassadors of Death' and other assorted diplomatic willy waving must be looking for someone to blame. He'll probably claim it was the Israelis anyway.

Think there are too many people? Well you're a person aren't you? Do the decent thing and make room for someone who really wants a life. Seriously, you'll be doing the world a favour. As for those proposing others be sacrificed on the altar of future humanity. No, please. You first. Please, I insist. After you. No, no, I'll be along sometime after my 90th birthday, maybe. If I remember.

Regardless of the aforementioned; for a so-called 'denier' I'm very pro human progress. Despite a certain air of misanthropy in my posting, I have great faith in humanity. We have a habit of muddling through as a species, and when properly motivated can work wonders and shit miracles with or without divine intervention. We didn't become the worlds most successful tribal predator species by accident you know. What's that you say? You're not a tribal predator? You obviously haven't looked very carefully at your fellow humans.

Katla latest

I'm no expert on Volcanoes, simply an interested observer with an agenda of not getting stuck in any airports during a forthcoming transatlantic trip, but from the little knowledge I have, the tremors registered near Katla in Iceland recently may, and I say this guardedly, may have some significance. The tremors registered on the graphic screengrabbed and annotated by me from the Icelandic Met Offices web site, specifically A, B, & C within the last 24-36 hours have shallowed from recent activity 10+km under the earth to less than 100 metres down in less than thirty days in a fashion rather like an old fashioned coffee percolator.

With no other available information, what this means is debatable; and if a real expert on volcanoes can explain what's going on in terms of magma flows within the Katla vent system, I'll be more than happy to listen. So, I suspect, will a great many others. In the meantime I will be watching and reporting upon events in that area as they come to my attention.

Atmospherically speaking

Was chatting to a warmist chum the other day in the coffee shop who thinks I'm a very ignorant person for not believing in the 'CO2 drives the climate' meme. He treats me with the same attentive fanaticism an ardent missionary gives a pagan native. I for my part, treat him with an amused tolerance like that reserved for next doors precocious children.

He's always trying to 'convince' me (the poor fool) about Carbon Dioxides deleterious effects on the atmosphere and temperature. Take for example yesterday when he trotted out the old 'but look at Venus' argument with me.
"You know Bill, all this Carbon Dioxide we're putting out. Some day soon we're gonna end up like Venus. I mean, really."
"Really?" Quoth I.
"Yeah, it's a classic demonstration of the runaway greenhouse effect."
"Is it? I thought it was because Venus is much closer to the sun and has a thick atmosphere that boils landing craft." I replied.
"No, hey. Look at how much CO2 there is in Venus atmosphere, yeah?" Here he paused for dramatic effect. "Ninety five point six percent! No wonder it's so hot."
"And..." I said, with a rising inflection.
"Jeez Bill! You been taking the stupid pills, or what?"
"No."
"All that Carbon Dioxide has doomed Venus to be a hell planet!" He declaimed.
"What about Mars?" I cocked an eyebrow.
"What about it?"
"Ninety five point three two percent Carbon Dioxide." I countered with an amused smile.
"Yeah but the atmospheric pressure is way lower!" He protested.
"Why do you think that is?" I asked carefully. I like the guy, but he's not that savvy when it comes to the solar system.
"Well it's further away from the sun!"
"Yes. And your point is?" I said, pausing to take a sip of coffee and wait for his latest declaration of faith. I was greeted with silence. "Look." I said, trying not to sound unkind. "Venus, Mars and Earth are three totally different planets in different orbits. You can't expect to compare one with the other."
"Yeah, but Earth could end up like Venus!" He persisted.
"Only if you shifted Earth forty odd million kilometres towards the sun. Besides, Venus is a younger planet, at least as far as the surface is concerned."
"Hey, what happened to its oceans then?" He rejoindered, still determined to defend the Carbon meme by all means possible.
"What oceans?"
"The ones it used to have."
"Says who?"
"Scientists. You know."
"Really? Which ones?"
"You're asking for evidence again, aren't you?" He said a little sheepishly. "I don't know which ones."
"I think the study you were referring to was published in the late eighties." I remarked, trying not to sound unkind. "To the best of my recollection it only said there might have been oceans on Venus, not that there ever really were. Although if water formed that close to the sun, well, wouldn't it have been too hot to form oceans of liquid water?"
"Well, Bill. How come Earth's oceans haven't done the same?" He challenged with that slightly smug air of one about to strike a winning blow.
"Let me see now; where do you want me to start?" I was desperately trying not to yawn. Why are so many otherwise intelligent people convinced of this dumb idea? "Earth is over forty million kilometres further out from the sun than Venus."
"So what?" He challenged.
"Ever hear of the inverse square law applied to solar radiation?"
"What's that?"
"Simply put, the closer you are, the hotter it gets, and it isn't a straight line relationship, it's a curve." I saw the bemused look on his face. "Say the sun is here." I put my empty coffee cup on the table. "Venus is here, and Earth is here." I shoved a couple of cookie crumbs roughly into position. "How much more energy does Venus get from the sun than Earth?"
"About half as much again?" He hazarded.
"Wrong. Around one hundred and ninety percent more. Add to that Venus has no real magnetosphere to deflect the solar wind. Therefore it cops the lot. Solar flares, everything. The only shield it has against solar radiation are high level cloud layers."
"Huh?"
"All the clouds of Sulphuric acid etcetera, etcetera." I did the Yul Brynner wave from the King and I. It was wasted. Heavy sigh. "In addition, Venus has no solid nickel iron core like Earth and no plate tectonics. No nickel iron core means no protective magnetic field. No plate tectonics mean no effective heat circulation within the core. This means all the energy from the core goes into keeping the crust red hot. Venus' hot crust superheats its lower atmosphere, and the thick upper clouds prevent a heat loss rapid enough for Venus to cool. It's catching it from both directions. That's why Venus is so hot."
"Say again?"
"Venus has no real magnetic field, yes?" I ticked it off on my finger.
"If you say so."
"Check it out for yourself. Google Venus magnetic field."
"Okay."
"Earth has a magnetic field." I ticked off another point.
"For sure, everyone knows that."
"Right. Earth's magnetic field acts as a partial shield against the worst of solar radiation. Got that?" And another.
"I'm good with that."
"Venus is almost a third closer to the sun than Earth without Earth's magnetic shielding." This is getting hard work, I can see his eyes glazing over, and I can feel mine glazing over as well.
"Hey, how come if Venus has no magnetic field that it has a thicker atmosphere?" He smirks, thinking he's caught me out. "Wouldn't a thicker atmosphere be to do with the Carbon Dioxide? Hey, and if there's no magnetic field, what keeps the atmosphere in place?" He concludes with an air of triumph.
"Magnetism and gravity aren't the same thing. Look it up." Was that a sigh creeping into my voice? I knew I was fighting a losing battle with his attention span, but I ploughed on regardless. I was also straining my memory to come up with this stuff. What I really needed at this point was a decent text book. "It's not so much the Carbon Dioxide it's more the clouds keeping the heat from the crust in."
"So, nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide then?"
"Not so much." I conceded.
"Not so much? Are we backtracking a little here, Bill?"
"The point I'm trying to make is that CO2 is a very small part of the picture." I said (Slightly heavily at this point). "All the scare stories you read in the media about Earth turning into Venus are just that; scary stories to frighten the kiddies."
"Oh." His eyes went blank for a moment.
"I don't believe them any more."
"So you're still a denier then?" He teased.
"There's nothing to deny." I chuckled. He's a trier. Sometimes very trying.
"So all these people saying CO2 causes global warming don't know anything about it?"
"They're mainly media types and politicians. What do you think?" I said.
"How come they say so?"
"Because they probably don't know any better."
"How come you know?"
"Because I actually do research for my Science Fiction writing." I said with lead in my speech. This was getting really hard work. No one pays me for this, so why do I bother?
"And they don't?"
"Doesn't look like it. They just don't have the time for proper research I guess." I shrugged. "It's kind of like the Piltdown Man hoax. Someone plants fake fossils to prove a fake theory of racial superiority. All the vested interests agree because it suits their agenda, a lot of ordinary people get taken in because they want to believe, the news media don't care so long as they sell copies, and by the time the truth leaks out forty years later, everyone is too damn embarrassed to acknowledge they were wrong. Fancy another coffee?"
"No; gotta go. See ya Bill." And he left, leaving me feeling oddly tired. Not that he'll believe a word I say. Hell, if I pointed out a nice sunset he'd check the TV news to see if it was really happening.

And people ask me why I'm so cynical sometimes.