Another little mystery solved...

The Alarmists tie themselves in knots trying to explain why more CO2 = cooler stratosphere. I've tried understanding the explanation in that post. It's all highly circular and it's impossible to say whether it's correct or incorrect. Here's the chart from that post. Let's take it at face value (those are The Rules):
To cut a long story short, a pressure of 200 hPa is approx. equal to the height of the troposphere, the bit we are interested in. Below that it has warmed a bit (mainly pale green) and above that (the stratosphere) it has cooled a lot (mainly dark blue).

The ever reliable (as in 'reliably wrong') Skeptical Science explains Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming by saying that CO2 'traps' low-energy infra red radiation emitted by the Earth's surface/oceans/clouds. The stratosphere is warmed by radiation emitted from below by the troposphere. If more infrared is 'trapped' in the troposphere, it can't warm the stratosphere.
---------------------------------------
This of course contradicts the sophisticated 'top of troposphere' theory of Global Warming (from Science of Doom, skip down to sections 5 and 6). The TOT theory says that radiation emitted by and hence temperature at the top of the troposphere (the tropopause) are a constant. More CO2 pushes up the altitude of the tropopause.

This means that surface temperature goes up because surface temperature EQUALS temperature at the tropopause PLUS the gravity-induced lapse rate (it is nice to see an Alarmist accept that this exists and has nothing to do with Greenhouse Gases) MULTIPLIED BY the altitude of the tropopause. If that is true (I like to use their own arguments against them), then the amount of infrared reaching - and warming - the stratosphere from below is unchanged!
---------------------------------------
So far, so bad. What is the more likely explanation?

The ozone depletion theory starts on the basis that ozone in the stratosphere converts high-energy solar ultraviolet radiation from above to thermal energy. This effect appears to be undisputed. (Even the hard core Alarmists at Science of Doom accept this, while simultaneously claiming that the stratosphere is warmed from below).

When ozone is depleted in the stratosphere (mainly because of CFC gases, which break down into Cl and Br gas, which in turn act as catalysts to break down O3 into O2; partly because of volcanic eruptions) it soaks up less of the ultraviolet energy and so doesn't warm up so much, and more ultraviolet energy gets down into the troposphere and heats up the ozone (and oxygen) there instead.

Game, set and match to the ozone depletion theory, methinks! A back of the envelope approximation says that a 4% fall in stratospheric ozone levels will increase tropospheric temperatures by about 1 degree, with a larger fall in stratospheric temperatures. This matches real life results since the 1970s and ties in with the above chart.

"Global Warming is Caused by Ozone Depletion, Not Greenhouse Gases"

At last, a theory that stacks up!

See ozonedepletiontheory.info by Peter Ward for detailed explanations (and also very conscientious debunking of CO2-related theories as a bonus).

A lot of it is beyond my understanding, but on the whole it seems internally and externally consistent - temperature increases match CFC emissions much better than they match CO2 levels (that was the only thing that bothered me. Shouldn't you compare temperature increases with ozone levels?) - and very plausible. If we have to make do without spray cans and use different coolants in our fridges etc, I'm sure we can manage.

If reading is not your thing, his summary video (one hour long!) is here:

"The Alternative to Dark Matter May be General Relativity Itself"

From Astrobites. Here are the highlights:

For most astronomers, it is just common sense that dark matter accounts for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe. However, as long as the constituents of dark matter remain a mystery, some astronomers remain skeptical about our conventional understanding of dark matter. Recently, astronomer Alexandre Deur suggested that the theory of relativity itself may explain a phenomenon widely regarded as evidence for dark matter...

Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, for example, is the most discussed out of all the gravitation corrections to explain the missing mass problem (see this astrobite for further discussion of MOND vs. dark matter). It modifies the Newtonian gravitation law at low accelerations to enhance the effective gravitational attraction. Similarly, most of the other corrections require new descriptions of gravitation. But recently, as Deur proposes in this work, the effect of general relativity may account for the missing mass, without introducing any new corrections.

Yes, MOND is a bit of a fudge and an approximation, but the general approach is correct. It's a lot less of a fudge than inventing Dark Matter.

Generally, the predicted rotation of galaxies, as shown in Figure 1, is modelled by Newtonian dynamics. The rotation velocity is much smaller than the speed of light, especially at the outer part of the galaxy (typically v/c ≈ 0.1 % , where v is the velocity and c is the speed of light). Therefore, it is believed that a non-relativistic treatment is reasonable. However, this assumption could be challenged due to the effect of field self-interaction in general relativity. This effect depends on the mass only, and is independent of the rotation velocity, thus making a difference regardless of how fast the stars move in the galaxy. Deur shows that field self-interaction, which reveals the non-linear nature of general relativity, is in fact not negligible in the missing mass problem.

To demonstrate this, Deur uses the gravitational lensing formalism. While light travels in straight lines in flat space, it can be deflected in the presence of a gravitational field. In exactly the same way, the gravitational field lines connecting two parts of the galaxy are distorted by the background field. That is to say, the gravitational field is deformed by the total galactic mass. With the field lines distorted, the strength of the gravitation consequently changes.

Yup, gravity lenses itself, i.e. it focuses itself on the mass that created the gravity in the first place. You can guess this for yourself. Once they have worked out how and to what degree, they'll hopefully show that there was no need to invent Dark Matter, and the concept will be quietly shelved.

"There are only 10 kinds of people in this world...

... those who understand binary and those who don't."

Pinched from here

BBC is doing it again

From the BBC:

Will food be more expensive after 1 January?

Under WTO rules, supermarkets and other importers would have to pay substantial tariffs on many foods they bring in from the EU. Meat and dairy products face particularly high tariffs, but many other areas including fruit and vegetables would be also affected.

The BBC can't even be bothered to read its own summary of what the WTO is about:

The WTO was established in 1995, when it took over essentially the same functions from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt), which came into force in 1948.

One of the motivations for creating the Gatt was a wish to dismantle the barriers to trade that had been erected between the two world wars. Most economists regard the establishment of these interwar trade barriers as misguided and say they probably aggravated the Great Depression of the 1930s...

A series of eight "rounds" of negotiations under the Gatt led to the progressive reduction in trade tariffs - taxes which are imposed only on imported products.

The minimum - and indeed the recommended - tariff imposed under WTO "rules" is precisely zero. Given how useless the UK government is, they might well impose tariffs on imported food, but this will be entirely self-inflicted. This will be the UK government waging economic warfare against its own people, and if the EU imposes tariffs on imports from businesses in the UK, that is them waging economic warfare against citizens of EU Member States.

£77.40 well spent

The garage ironed out the little niggles - which they should have fixed when they had it in last week, but hey - and it now drives cheerful and chirpy again, just like an MX-5 should :-)

I also managed to get rid some of the rattling noises by going through the glove boxes and door pockets and removing all the biros and pencils the previous owner had left in it.

Songs on my Xmas playlist by release date

To summarise: the Golden Age of cheesy Xmas songs was from the 1940s to the 1960s, bang them out and hope for the best. The period 2007-2012 is skewed on my list because that's when Bob Dylan and Michael Bublé released their Xmas albums (both of them timeless classics). Apart from that, it's more evenly spread than you'd expect.

MX5 - rear bumper repairs

Before: After: Some arsehole who was probably on his mobile decided to smash into my MX5 recently, and drove off without stopping. The damage was far worse than it looks in the 'before' picture.

Repair process as follows:

1. I bought all the replacement parts online for £1,500.

2. Luckily they were already assembled and attached to a very good condition* MX5 with the 1.8 engine and only half the mileage of my old one.

3. The local garage shifted across some good bits from the old one to the new one, did a bit of welding, new MOT etc; Suffolk Mazda came to collect the old one, paid me a very fair £350, bringing the net cost of the exercise down to £450, and that was the end of that.

* There are various niggles still to be sorted out. When I drove round for half an hour just now to keep the battery charged, the bloody handbrake light stayed on. I don't think the handbrake was actually on, because it drove OK and the brake disks weren't overly hot when I got back home, but it still doesn't 'feel' right somehow. It's not as lively as the old one with the 1.6 engine, which had 109 bhp ex-factory twenty years ago and was probably down to about 90 bhp when I bought it. Ah well, back to the menders it is, then.

More fun with 'missing radiation'

From Science of Doom, which is like Skeptical Science but hard core:
---------------------
Upwards Longwave Radiation

So let’s try and look at it again and see if starts to make sense. Here is the earth’s longwave energy budget – considering first the energy radiated up:
Of course, the earth’s radiation from the surface depends on the actual temperature. This is the average upwards flux. And it also depends slightly on the factor called “emissivity” but that doesn’t have a big effect.

The value at the top of atmosphere (TOA) is what we measure by satellite – again that is the average for a clear sky. Cloudy skies produce a different (lower) number.

These values alone should be enough to tell us that something significant is happening to the longwave radiation. Where is it going? It is being absorbed and re-radiated. Some upwards – so it continues on its journey to the top of the atmosphere and out into space – and some back downwards to the earth’s surface. This downwards component adds to the shortwave radiation from the sun and helps to increase the surface temperature.

As a result the longwave radiation upwards from the earth’s surface is higher than the upwards value at the top of the atmosphere.
---------------------
To make this easy for beginners, I have put their sleight of hand in bold.

1. We are agreed that overall average emissions from Earth out to space ≈ 239 W/m2.

2. For sake of argument, I accept their readings of 390 W/m2 and 265 W/m2 for clear skies, which are assumed to be one-third of the surface.

3. Therefore, emissions to space from clouds (two-thirds of the surface) ≈ 226 W/m2 to get the overall 239 W/m2 average (3 x 239 ≈ 265 + 226 + 226).

4. Clouds are high up and cold. Let's say 6 km up, where it's 249 K. If clouds were perfect blackbodies (100% emissivity) they would be emitting 217 W/m2 (248^4/10^8 x 5.67), so more gets to space than they actually emit. Nobody's sure what their overall average emissivity is, let's call it 75% (middle of various estimates of ranges). So actually, they are emitting 163 W/m2, and a lot more gets to space that they actually emit.

OK, this does not make sense any more, but that's what happens when you follow their logic. If the TOA effect is to block one-third of emitted radiation (265 ÷ 390 = 2/3) and net emissions to space from clouds ≈ 226 W/m2, then clouds themselves would have to be emitting 339 W/m2 (339 x 2/3 = 226). Assuming clouds were perfect black bodies (which they aren't), this implies a cloud temperature of 278K (5C), which in turn implies an average altitude of less than 1 km above the surface. So to make their logic and maths stand up, you have to make totally implausible real world assumptions.

5. So sure, there is 125 W/m2 'missing' with clear skies (390 minus 265). But for cloudy areas, there is 63 W/m2 more going to space than clouds actually emit in the first place (226 minus 163), and there is twice as much cloud as clear sky. How do they explain the 'extra' radiation? They don't of course, because that would give the game away*.

6. Now go back and read the bits in bold!

* The actual maths is much simpler. The surface not covered by clouds emits 390 W/m2 and that goes to space. The clouds, temp. approx 250K with 75% emissivity emit 165 W/m2, and that goes to space. Clouds cover two-thirds of the surface and so the weighted average emissions to space ≈ 240 W/m2. There is nothing obviously missing or being blocked.

Alternatively, the reason for the apparent discrepancy can be explained as follows: the atmosphere is warmer at sea level than at the tropopause because of the gravito-thermal effect. All warm atoms and molecules emit radiation, be they N2, O2, land, ocean, water vapour, water droplets, CO2, whatever. So there is more being emitted at sea level than from higher up. If you measure from space, you are (indirectly) just measuring the temperature higher up and not the temperature at ground level/cloud level.

Or maybe you are measuring some mix of the temperature at low and high altitudes - if you light a camp fire in the Arctic at night and measure it from a distance with an IR thermometer, you get a lower reading than if you light a campfire in the Sahara desert by day and measure it from the same distance.

Simples!

This year's Xmas CD cover

We brainstormed over dinner and I ended up using Her Indoors' suggestion.