When we see something happening in the world we often make a note of it. One thing to remember is that observations are real. They are something that is happening. They may be inexplicable, but that is irrelevant to their actuality. However, they do often depend on the method of observation.
For example, I could observe that the sky is blue. Now, everyone who has eyes can make the same observation, and so most people will agree with it. There are, of course, people who cannot make the same observation: they are blind, or they live underground. These people rely on those of us with the ability to observe to tell them what we observe.
Another observation might be that all living things on this planet are related to each other, and they are all descended from one common ancestor. This is an observation that most people can make in a limited way. It is pretty easy to say that a rat is related to a mouse, but they are two distinct species. It is a bit harder to make a connection between a cat and a slug. But if one takes a knowledge of all living things, as Charles Darwin did, you can make connection in small areas and then find that all those small areas link up with each other. Today, we have a different ability to observe. Scientists who work in genetics can actually see, written in our genes, the connections between all the species. Most people don’t have this ability, but in a similar way to the blind person having to rely on the sighted person for the information that the sky is blue, those people who do not have the ability to observe genetic information must rely on the geneticist’s ability to observe.
So, observations are real. The sky is blue, at least to our eyes. The species on the planet are all connected by their genes. The sun comes up in the morning and sets at night. The moon has a 28 day cycle of appearing and disappearing in the night sky.
So much for observation. The next thing we try to do in science is explain. Science is not really interested in reality, but in explanations. It is not the job of science to say what is, but why it is. After all, you don’t have to be a scientist to say that the sky is blue. Science really begins with the next step. Why is the sky blue? Why are all species related? Why does the sun come up? Why does the moon do a 28-day thing in the night sky?
When we start asking these questions, we are on the first step of the scientific process. We begin with an idea as to why something might be happening, and we test it. That’s called hypothesis.
Introduction
The IPCC bases its entire argument for catastrophic global warming on the idea that CO2 increases, which have certainly been observed, have caused and are causing a significant human-induced warming of the planet via the greenhouse effect.
If this is true then we should see a significant increase in the greenhouse effect in situations where other warming influences are not present.
The greenhouse effect is what keeps our planet warm at night when the sun goes down. It stops all the heat rushing out into space and has other weird and wonderful radiative properties. Therefore we should look at a situation where there is as little influence as possible from other heating effects and then we can measure the greenhouse effect directly. We need to measure temperature, as much as possible, in the absence of solar heating, heat island effects of cities, and also in the absence of other greenhouse gases, principally water vapour.
These conditions occur at night, in the desert at in the coldest month of the year (which is, on average, July, in Australia.).
So if the greenhouse effect has changed significantly as a result of 20th century human produced CO2, we should be able to observe the effect in the desert. So we take the minimum July temperatures from a weather station located in a desert. The minimum temperature should occur on a cloudless night with no wind. Now we should factor this in, but I don’t have access to detailed enough weather charts. So I am assuming that there is at least one cloudless windless night in July every year, which will be the lowest record temperature for the month (and probably the year), but, to be on the safe side, I took ten year averages, based on calendar decade (i.e. 1951-1960). In this circumstance, CO2 is the major greenhouse gas present, and should therefore, if it does indeed have a significant effect on the greenhouse effect, be steadily raising these lowest temperatures. In effect, if CO2 influence is significant, then it should be observable.
Null Hypothesis (we test our theory by trying to disprove it): There is no increase in July minimum temperatures at the Alice Springs weather station over the course of the lifetime of the Alice Springs weather station.
If the null hypothesis is upheld, there is no effect of CO2 on the greenhouse effect.
If the null hypothesis is rejected, we can at least say that there is a real possibility that CO2 is causing a significant effect on the greenhouse effect.
Results
From my armchair I gathered some data from the Internet.
Here is the plot, I added a few other cities round Australia, since I was doing it. They add interesting results. The data were collected from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology public records.
Alice Springs, unsurprisingly, is the coldest of all these places, since it is in the desert. What we can see is that from the 1950s to the present day, there has been no observable increase in the temperature of the coldest nights in Alice Springs. The primary greenhouse factor of water vapour is absent, and the only thing driving the greenhouse effect is CO2. The observed increase in atmospheric CO2, which has been steadily increasing during the 20th century and beyond has no observable effect on the greenhouse effect.
Discussion
What this armchair experiment shows is that if you look at the greenhouse effect at a time when there are no other heating factors present, and when then primary greenhouse gas, water vapour, is absent, then you can look at CO2 by itself, which we assume is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. These data show no increase in the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 during the 20th century, which rejects the proposition put forward that CO2 is the cause of the current global warming trend. The earth is gradually warming, as it has been doing since the last glacial period, but there appears to be no additional effect of CO2.
We can see this gradual increase in temperature in these data by looking at the tracks for the longest records in the series. Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart all increase very gradually, but their weather stations are also in the centre of the cities, so even this increase might be caused by the city heat island effect. The weather station at Hobart Airport looks like it might be the only non-city major increase among these data, though being coastal it is less likely to have calm clear winter nights.
The obvious drawback in this experiment is that I wasn’t able to correlate the actual windless and cloud free data for each weather station with the July minimum. I am making the assumption that the July minimum does actually occur during such conditions. The experiment could be improved by properly correlating these different factors, however, the ten year mean should have smoothed out any inconsistencies. Certainly, from the results shown here, there doesn’t seem to be any requirement to do a further experiment. The null hypothesis was supported. The idea that CO2 causes a significant change in the greenhouse effect is firmly rejected. Another limitation of this experiment is that I have only used a set of weather stations randomly selected from the BOM‘s web site. I cannot confirm that each of these weather stations’ local conditions have not change in the period each has been recording. I also make the assumption that CO2 is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere.
If CO2 is not having any effect on the greenhouse effect then it cannot be the cause of global warming. Reduction of CO2 cannot therefore reduce the rate of global warming. On the other hand, CO2 in the atmosphere is a beneficial gas. It is the driving force behind the productivity of our planet. Without it the carbon cycle would collapse, and all life with it. The more of it we have the more likely we are to be able to feed the 10 billion people predicted to be on this planet by the end of this century. A warmer world with high levels of CO2 is capable of growing far more food than a colder world with low levels of CO2. Something, perhaps, that is worth thinking very carefully about.
Today, in the Telegraph, there’s a story about the effect of space on all those fit young people we send up there. Apparently, they spend six months in space and their bodies end up falling apart. They end up with the bodies of eighty year olds.
This, of course, puts any plans for a trip to Mars on hold, because it would take two or three years. One solution might be to send eighty year olds…
On the other hand, this research may indicate that an eighty year old’s physique is not such a handicap in space. Perhaps the super rich will be living out their retirement in orbiting space stations. Who knows? You heard it here first.
Today, in the Cairns Post, an article was presented on the risk of ocean acidification to the Great Barrier Reef. This was in response to a talk by a biologist at a local conference. The general tenet of the article was that we have twenty years to save the reef. Obviously this would be a bit of a worry for Cairns, since the city depends on the attraction of the Barrier Reef for much of its tourism dollar. So let us examine the major points of the article.
A clownfish on the Great Barrier Reef
Carbon Dioxide levels are rising in the atmosphere and some of that is being dissolved by the ocean. This dissolved gas is acidic, and it therefore pushes up the acidity of the ocean. This appears to be a simple relationship, and certainly, in the article, it is presented as such. Is there a direct relationship between ocean acidity and the amount of CO2 in the air?
When addressing this question we must first realise that our world is full of complex systems, not simple ones. When the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide many things happen. First of all, carbon dioxide doesn’t just sit around. Carbon is a highly prized resource in the ocean, and just as plants on the land turn carbon dioxide into sugars to build their structures, so plants, algae, in the ocean do the same thing. These algae proliferate and are consumed by the next levels of the food chain. Of course these levels of the food chain breathe as well as eat, and they take in oxygen and put out carbon dioxide. This is called the carbon cycle (something I really must do an article on).
Another thing that happens when water becomes more acidic is that things that are basic in nature (ie the opposite of acidic) become more soluble. Coral, coral sand, shells of shell fish and bones all dissolve in acid solutions. When they dissolve, however, they release salts into the water which act as buffers. Buffers are salts that, when dissolved, keep a solution’s pH very stable, the stronger the buffer, the more acid you have to put in to make the pH change. This means that there is a complex relationship between acids, bases and the actual pH of the sea water.
As carbon dioxide is dissolved in water it is used up by phytoplankton and neutralised by dissolved bases. In effect, the more acidic the water tries to become, the more bases are dissolved from the vast amount of calcium carbonate and other basic rocks in the ocean, and the pH of the water doesn’t change. It reaches what chemists call dynamic equilibrium.
So, does a drop in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 give us cause for alarm? Probably not. First of all, at a pH of 8.1 corals should still be perfectly capable of laying down calcium carbonate and building the coral skeleton. If we have observed that there has been slower growth of corals then we have to look for other causes. Corals cannot grow without algae, and the multiple bleaching events we’ve had recently may be responsible. But unless the pH drops to around 7.8 or less corals will be quite happy. Note that in order for the water to drop to a pH of 7.8 the acidity has to increase ten thousandfold, because the pH scale is logarithmic. That’s a lot of acid, and far more than can be produced by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef
The other thing we have to note is that the pH measurements have been taken in surface waters. This is indeed where the corals live, but mixing of the surface waters with deeper waters will remove a great deal of this carbon dioxide into the deep, and dilute it. What we are seeing is a temporary state until the next major mixing event occurs, a storm, a Tsunami or eventually when the water is moved to a zone where ocean mixing occurs.
Is the reef dying? Perhaps some corals on the reef are dying, perhaps not. One of the things we know in biology is that any change of conditions, no matter how small, changes the competitive field for different species. A small change in pH may mean that some corals compete more effectively than they once did, and corals are very aggressive territorially. You can see this in a fabulous piece of footage in Attenbrough’s Blue Planet reef episode. It is entirely possible that the corals that have been observed to be struggling may be being out-competed by another species. This happens al the time in the natural world and is nothing to worry about. Adaptability is the name of the game, not conservation.
Ocean chemistry is extremely complicated, but it has a very high buffering capacity. In fact the more acid there is, the greater the buffering capacity. If you are near a coral beach yourself you can try it. Get some coral gravel, put it in a bucket with some sea water. Get a pH test kit from a local aquarium shop. Add a bottle of vinegar and give it a good mix. Measure the pH.
Come back in a week and measure the pH again. You will find that eventually the pH of the water ends up around 8. And vinegar is much more acidic than carbon dioxide.
So why are these scientists telling us that the reef is dying? Well, perhaps they want more money to spend on their research projects, and the best way to get money is to scare the public into forcing the government to cough that cash up. They may have been misrepresented too. The press are more keen on headlines that say “Reef Dying”, than headlines that say, “Reef will be all right!”
It occured to me that if I don’t begin with an explanation of the scientific method, then there are a lot of things that I’ll have to explain again and again. There is a major difference between what is known in ordinary language as a ‘theory’ and what is known in the scientific world as a ‘theory’. These articles will attempt to explain the difference.
I’ll begin this series where scientists (and in fact everyone) begins: with Observation. We see things that are undeniably true, but they defy explanation. When we were primitive people without the means of keeping and communicating knowledge, we often decided that the explanation was that some form of super-human being was involved. So we invented gods, because humans, for some reason, hate wandering around in an unexplained world.
Dogs look like wolves, in fact they are very similar. You might say that they could be related. This is an observation.
As we became more sophisticated, and our numbers grew, and we invented the alphabet and writing, the different explanations that people had for observations were exposed to more and more other people. These explanations are called hypotheses. The god explanation is a hypothesis, for example.
The sun god Ra
The Ancient Egyptians believed that the God Ra was what made the sun rise every morning. This is a hypothesis.
As more people got to see hypotheses, they began to say to themselves: “Hang on a second, that’s not right. That’s not what I think is happening” (although no one said this in English until at least the late medieval period). And so they decided to try and prove the other chap’s hypothesis incorrect. They then said (in Greek or whatever): “I have proved your hypothesis incorrect, therefore mine is more valid.” And of course the other chap popped up and said (in Aramaic, perhaps): “Well I’ve proved yours incorrect too, so we’re back where we started, with no explanation.”
What’s going on here is that these early scientists were testing the hypothesis. And you’ll notice that instead of trying to prove themselves right, they try to prove others wrong (human nature, I suppose, we all like to be right). Eventually they realised that in order not to look a fool, they’d better do a bit of testing on their own hypothesis, before they tell anyone about it. So they try everything they can to prove their own hypothesis wrong. Then they say: “Ha, now I’ve got a hypothesis that you’ll find hard to prove wrong.”
What they have now is a theory. All the obvious tests have been done and it hasn’t been proved wrong. That doesn’t mean it’s right. It’s still a very young theory. Someone else might quickly come up with a new test that proves it wrong. As the years pass, however, and nobody is able to prove it wrong, it becomes an old theory. This is a term I’ve made up. In science we understand the difference between a young theory and an old theory, but it’s worth having extra terminology for everyone else who isn’t a trained scientist. Which is almost everybody.
Sir Isaac Newton came up with the idea that the sun came up in the morning due to gravity. This idea has been tested and is now a theory.
Obviously, from this we see that old theories are more likely to be right than young theories. But that still doesn’t mean they’re right. It’s just that there is no better explanation. I’ll expand on this, because it is complicated, in a later article in this section. Old theories have been tested more rigorously, and we therefore have more confidence in them.
Very, very occasionally, there is a theory that is so simple (this doesn’t mean it was easy to think of in the first place) that you can eventually do every single possible test to prove it wrong. Once all the tests have been done, these theories become laws. There aren’t many laws. And as we learn more about the world and the universe, which is a VERY complicated place, some old laws are being questioned again. Perhaps there are more tests. Perhaps the law should be demoted?
So in the series of articles entitled How Science Works I shall take every step in this process and expand on it with examples. But you should note from this introduction the following:
Scientists never try to prove they are right, they only try to prove they are wrong. The more they fail to prove that something is wrong, the more likely it is to be true. But there is always another test…
Do I think it’s necessary? No I don’t, but then I don’t think cars that travel faster than the speed limit are necessary. Is it cruel? Well that depends on your point of view. The only point of view that really matters is the fox, and it doesn’t know cruelty from a dead chicken in its mouth. Cruelty is a human thing. Is the whole sport abhorrent? No. Not to me, but then I don’t find it attractive either. Just a lot of rather dim people on horses. What was it Wilde said? The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable?
Our species has been on this planet for 200,000 years. For 180,000 of those years we’ve had to kill our own food. For 19,900 of those years we’ve had to protect our food resources from threats in whatever way we could. For 100 years we’ve been capable of some pretty nifty ways of killing things that don’t involve the personal experience of killing.
Who is more human? the person who does things the way we have done things for 99.99% of our time on this planet, or those who want to force everyone to live in a plastic box, buy food from a supermarket and pretend that nature doesn’t apply to us?
I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned humans are small beer compared to the history of our planet. In a million years there probably won’t be any humans left. I prefer to live my life doing what I want to do rather than trying to stop other people doing what they want to do. But that’s just me.
The latest court case in Australia against the Church of Scientology has come to an inconclusive end. The accusations are that the Church has abused and robbed members of its organisation. I’ve heard specific accusations that women have been pressured to have abortions by the church. No one seems concerned that Catholics pressure women not to have abortions…
Anyway, the point is they’re trying to remove Scientology from the list of religion which have tax free status in Australia. Tax free status? I’m in the wrong business. Anyone want to join my new church?
There’s a bloke who wanders around Far North Queensland, a Dr Hugh Spencer, who, according to the Cairns Post, is pulling up all the young coconut saplings he can find along the coast based on the argument that they are a non-native species and they are threatening the native flora of Australia’s coastline.
Coconuts are indigenous to the tropical oceans, not necessarily to any particular shoreline. Essentially, while many of the palms have been seeded by plants on far distant shores, they are a natural part of the Australian flora. In the same way, palms in Hawaii might well have been seeded by Australian coconuts. It really depends on how strict your definition of a “native” plant is.
There is a larger argument involved here in terms of the ecology of invasion. When two worlds collide there is a massive shift in the balance of the ecosystems in each of those worlds. This happened in the Americas when the two great continents collided. The marsupials of South America were unable to compete with the placental mammals of the north, for example. In many ways this is happening in Australia, as humans bring non-native plants and animals into the continent. The result is probably a foregone conclusion by now, Australia is far too large for any feral animal or plant to be controlled.
But coconuts are a natural invader, like the white-tailed rat and the bats (the only placental mammals who have got to Australia under their own steam). Is there not something comforting in the idea that humans are not the only way that invading species can arrive?
As for Dr Spencer, well, good luck to him. I’m fighting a losing battle against the weeds in my tropical garden and it’s only half an acre. How long is the Australian tropical coastline?
Here’s an interesting one. The Daily Telegraph in the UK is reporting that scientists have discovered that the gene P51 is the gene which blocks regeneration of our limbs and other appendages. Read the story here .
Apparently P51 has evolved to block the process which allows regeneration to take place. In effect, instead of forming a scar, mice with the P51 knock-out (ie the gene is no longer functional) begin the process of regeneration by forming a placode of embryonic (like) stem cells. From the regeneration aspect this is pretty interesting. You might be able to grow your arm back, but of course the start of the process isn’t necessarily the end of the process. Your cells need to know, for example, that you need an arm, and not a leg. And then once things start moving the whole business need to be co-ordinated.
One question we might want to ask before we go any further is: If our evolution has progressed after this gene evolved, there might be some serious consequences to switching it off again? For example, the regeneration process may cause the expression of many developmental genes, which in turn cause the expression of other genes, and these gene products might not be good to have running round the body of an adult human.
Still, it’s promising, and it may even turn out to be a useful method of generating stem cells, if nothing else. I wonder if these mice can regenerate their brains? I know a few people for whom this might be useful…
Apparently the Queensland government is looking at a reduction of the drink drive limit from 0.05% to 0.02%. While this may be a popular move amongst the do-gooders, there is no evidence at all that a blood alcohol level between 0.02 and 0.05 leads to any greater chance of someone causing a road accident compared to someone who has not been drinking at all. There’s probably a greater effect to be observed between people who are wearing sunglasses and those who are not.
Looks like blatant revenue raising to me. After all, the current drink drive limit hasn’t stopped people drinking and driving above it, nor has it saved any lives, particularly. In fact it may have made drunks on the road more dangerous, as they are more concerned with avoiding police check points than they are about avoiding accidents.
There must be a better solution. This law will stop sensible drivers from drinking and driving but it won’t stop the idiots. And the idiots are the ones who caused the accidents in the first place.
While we’re on the subject, I’ve noticed recently a few reports of cyclists being fined for drinking and riding. There has even been a horse rider fined. Now let’s be utterly blunt about this, who is a cyclist going to kill except himself? In almost any accident the cyclist will come off worst. Powerful incentive to ride carefully while under the influence. As for a horse. Obviously the horse isn’t going to crash into anything no matter how badly drunk his rider is.
What next? Limits for drinking and walking?
There has to be a better way. I might explore this in a future article. As it is, it is clear that the government isn’t interested in saving lives, it is only interested in collecting fines.