This is an interesting turn of affairs. Today Ofgem stated it is investigating Scottish Power and 3 other energy companies for allegations of mis-selling their products at peoples door steps.
In March I posted a warning about this exact issue in the Waterlooville area regarding Scottish Power:
Warning about Scottish Power (March 16, 2010)
Thursday, September 2
Wednesday, September 1
Climategate and the ghost train!
Wha??? You are thinking. I'll explain the train thing later.
I took the opportunity to go along to the public discussion at Highfield Campus, University of Southampton called 'The Climategate emails: controversy and consequences'. The event was part of the annual Tyndall Centre get together and most of the people attending were academics. I think there were probably just 4 members of the public in the audience, although there were quite a few academics in the audience that were not from a environmental/climate science background.
The panel was made up of Fred Pearce a popular science journalist, Professor Alan Thorpe Chief Executive of Natural Environment Research Council, Professor Mike Hulme from University of East Anglia and Nick Pigeon from University of Cardiff.
Fred Pearce writes for New Scientist, The Guardian and The Independent, he has also written a book about the Climategate issue. The discussion was chaired by Professor John Shepherd - National Oceanography Centre.
Alan Thorpe was the first to speak and generally felt that the outcomes of the climategate affair were positive with many professional bodies who advise big corporations (in the UK) wanting to be updated on the latest science. Quite the opposite reaction, I think, that some skeptics would hope for. He also raised the issue of intellectual property for code, data etc.
Next came Mike Hulme who has worked with Phil Jones, the professor whose emails were at the centre of the controversy. Mike suggested he was aware that something serious might happen before the emails were released on the internet, he had got an email from an American suggesting that CRU data might become publicly available if it didn't release the data the bloggers (McIntyre and others) wanted. Mike also pointed out that the CRU had now received a grant to handle data curation, something that was missing before the climategate issue.
Fred Pearce unfortunately didn't IMO add much to the discussion and advertised his book at the end!
To be honest, I have heard all the stuff Fred talked about before.
Nick Pigeon gave an interesting account of a survey that had been conducted, suggesting an increase in disbelief in anthropogenic climate change from 4% to 10%, but pointed out that the trend seemed to be reversing and looked like it would be going down again. One interesting thing he quoted (he quoted another academic whose name I don't remember) was the idea of limits to the number of things a person could worry about at the same time, termed 'A finite pool of worry'!
The best bit was when the audience asked questions. There was a lot of discussion about freedom of information and it's relation to the field of science. One person in the audience was from the medical/pharmaceutical area of academia and pointed out that climate science could learn a lot from their way of handling FOI requests. The medical science sector appears to have been dealing with FOI requests for a long time and have systems in place to deal with it.
One oceanographer in the audience pointed out that the vast majority of funding was for basic climate science intending to improve knowledge and wasn't directly related to climate change, this was confirmed by Alan Thorpe (I think) and Fred Pearce seemed to be surprised by this revelation, despite apparently being a journalist with expertise in the subject. The point made was that the research didn't have a goal to prove climate change was happening, the main goal was to improve the science and fill the gaps in our knowledge.
A retired statistician in the audience suggested climate scientists might gain from working with statisticians, this was generally accepted.
But what about the ghost train??
Well after the discussion I took the university bus back to Southampton Central station and while I was waiting for my train home, I heard a public announcement which sounded like "stim Dorset shttle passing thru... London , mind platform" or words to that effect. I thought, 'did she say steam'??
Nah, that would be ridiculous.
Then I looked along the rails and in the distance this steam passenger train was coming full pelt towards the station. It was a weekly steam engined passenger service running from Dorset to London called the Dorset Coast Express.
It shot through the station and I have to say I was gob smacked. Not sure what engine was at the front but it was streamlined, I think it was one of those that set a speed record in the 1930s or 1940s.
It was quite strange standing on a modern train station, then for a few seconds, momentarily transported back to the 1950s and the end of the steam era (in the UK). When it had passed, everyone on the station was returned to 2010.
I took the opportunity to go along to the public discussion at Highfield Campus, University of Southampton called 'The Climategate emails: controversy and consequences'. The event was part of the annual Tyndall Centre get together and most of the people attending were academics. I think there were probably just 4 members of the public in the audience, although there were quite a few academics in the audience that were not from a environmental/climate science background.
The panel was made up of Fred Pearce a popular science journalist, Professor Alan Thorpe Chief Executive of Natural Environment Research Council, Professor Mike Hulme from University of East Anglia and Nick Pigeon from University of Cardiff.
Fred Pearce writes for New Scientist, The Guardian and The Independent, he has also written a book about the Climategate issue. The discussion was chaired by Professor John Shepherd - National Oceanography Centre.
Alan Thorpe was the first to speak and generally felt that the outcomes of the climategate affair were positive with many professional bodies who advise big corporations (in the UK) wanting to be updated on the latest science. Quite the opposite reaction, I think, that some skeptics would hope for. He also raised the issue of intellectual property for code, data etc.
Next came Mike Hulme who has worked with Phil Jones, the professor whose emails were at the centre of the controversy. Mike suggested he was aware that something serious might happen before the emails were released on the internet, he had got an email from an American suggesting that CRU data might become publicly available if it didn't release the data the bloggers (McIntyre and others) wanted. Mike also pointed out that the CRU had now received a grant to handle data curation, something that was missing before the climategate issue.
Fred Pearce unfortunately didn't IMO add much to the discussion and advertised his book at the end!
To be honest, I have heard all the stuff Fred talked about before.
Nick Pigeon gave an interesting account of a survey that had been conducted, suggesting an increase in disbelief in anthropogenic climate change from 4% to 10%, but pointed out that the trend seemed to be reversing and looked like it would be going down again. One interesting thing he quoted (he quoted another academic whose name I don't remember) was the idea of limits to the number of things a person could worry about at the same time, termed 'A finite pool of worry'!
The best bit was when the audience asked questions. There was a lot of discussion about freedom of information and it's relation to the field of science. One person in the audience was from the medical/pharmaceutical area of academia and pointed out that climate science could learn a lot from their way of handling FOI requests. The medical science sector appears to have been dealing with FOI requests for a long time and have systems in place to deal with it.
One oceanographer in the audience pointed out that the vast majority of funding was for basic climate science intending to improve knowledge and wasn't directly related to climate change, this was confirmed by Alan Thorpe (I think) and Fred Pearce seemed to be surprised by this revelation, despite apparently being a journalist with expertise in the subject. The point made was that the research didn't have a goal to prove climate change was happening, the main goal was to improve the science and fill the gaps in our knowledge.
A retired statistician in the audience suggested climate scientists might gain from working with statisticians, this was generally accepted.
But what about the ghost train??
Well after the discussion I took the university bus back to Southampton Central station and while I was waiting for my train home, I heard a public announcement which sounded like "stim Dorset shttle passing thru... London , mind platform" or words to that effect. I thought, 'did she say steam'??
Nah, that would be ridiculous.
Then I looked along the rails and in the distance this steam passenger train was coming full pelt towards the station. It was a weekly steam engined passenger service running from Dorset to London called the Dorset Coast Express.
It shot through the station and I have to say I was gob smacked. Not sure what engine was at the front but it was streamlined, I think it was one of those that set a speed record in the 1930s or 1940s.
It was quite strange standing on a modern train station, then for a few seconds, momentarily transported back to the 1950s and the end of the steam era (in the UK). When it had passed, everyone on the station was returned to 2010.
Wednesday, August 18
What's the problem with Water?
Previously, I pointed out that Carbon Dioxide and water vapour are greenhouse gases. So lets look at water vapours roll in the climate equation.
First of all lets consider water in general. The Water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen (H2O). It can change between solid, liquid and gas within a narrow range of temperatures, the sort of conditions found on Earth. So we find H2O exists in the form of gas (water vapour), liquid (water, clouds, mist) and solid (ice, snow). The state that H2O appears in our eco-system depends on the amount of thermal energy that is present in the system.
So if there isn't a lot of thermal energy, water will become a solid because the water molecules aren't excited (vibrating and moving around). If you add more thermal energy, then the water molecules in the solid (ice) get excited and turn to liquid. If you add even more thermal energy then the liquid water becomes a gas (water vapour) as the molecules fly about individually. Of course the opposite happens when you take the thermal energy away, which is why you get condensation on windows in the morning. The gas (water vapour) in the air condenses on the cold glass of the window, producing liquid (water droplets).
Simples.
Previously I showed that water vapour is the most abundant green house gas (GHG) in the Earths atmosphere with Carbon Dioxide coming second. So how do the two interact and create the problem of Climate Change?
Lets look at a few scenarios:
1. The amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere remains stable.
In this scenario, unless some other input source of energy - such as the Suns output changes or there is an alteration to the tilt of the earths axis - changes the amount of thermal energy present in the Earths eco-system, then the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere is unlikely to change much over periods of decades or centuries, because there isn't a suitable increase of thermal energy to generate more vapour/gas. The amount of water vapour will of course fluctuate regionally and on a daily basis as the Earths rotation and the Suns energy output cause the day/night cycle and weather patterns. Seasonal cycles will also occur as the Earth orbits the Sun and the Earths tilt induces the seasons (Summer, Winter etc.).
In this scenario the climate trajectory remains relatively flat.
2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces.
Under this condition, the amount of thermal energy retained by the earth would drop. Although water vapours roll as a green house gas would continue, as CO2 in the atmosphere depletes over decades or centuries, some water vapour would return to the liquid state and some liquid water would become solid (ice). This in turn would reduce energy levels, because there would be less water vapour in the atmosphere acting as a greenhouse gas and more ice would reflect sunlight back into space (the polar albedo's will increase). Since water vapour has an impact on thermal energy levels in the system and in this case would help to reduce the levels. It creates a feedback mechanism whereby the cooling reduces the amount of water vapour and produces more ice, which in turn causes more cooling etc. until a new cooler steady state is achieved on Earth.
With all this going on, there would also be weather, day/night cycles and seasonal cycles as in scenario. However the trajectory of the climate would be one of cooling.
3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.
This is effectively the exact opposite of scenario 2. Under this condition CO2 causes some warming, which in turn causes more water vapour to be generated and the amount of ice cover is reduced, this in turn generates more heat in the system. Less ice means less sunlight is reflected back into space and instead sunlight warms the ground and oceans. So here we have a positive feedback mechanism, the opposite to scenario 2 where negative feedback was engaging in the system.
Again with this scenario there would also be changing weather, day/night cycles and seasonal cycles as in scenario. However in this case the trajectory of the climate would be a warming one.
So from this we have learnt that water is potentially a powerful feedback mechanism that enhances the impact of other green house gases that we generate, principally CO2, but also methane and other more complex gases used in industrial processes such as electronics.
But what about clouds?
Yes indeed, in the middle of this process are clouds, which aren't generally gas or solid yet can influence climate. Clouds are made of droplets of water, although obviously some contain ice as well.
Clouds have different influences depending on the height they are in the atmosphere, as well as shape or type. At some heights they reflect some light away from the earth, at other heights they help keep heat energy in (a cloudy evening is usually warmer than an evening with a clear sky).
Some useful links to info about clouds and climate:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/clouds.html
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/clouds/
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
More Climate Science
First of all lets consider water in general. The Water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen (H2O). It can change between solid, liquid and gas within a narrow range of temperatures, the sort of conditions found on Earth. So we find H2O exists in the form of gas (water vapour), liquid (water, clouds, mist) and solid (ice, snow). The state that H2O appears in our eco-system depends on the amount of thermal energy that is present in the system.
So if there isn't a lot of thermal energy, water will become a solid because the water molecules aren't excited (vibrating and moving around). If you add more thermal energy, then the water molecules in the solid (ice) get excited and turn to liquid. If you add even more thermal energy then the liquid water becomes a gas (water vapour) as the molecules fly about individually. Of course the opposite happens when you take the thermal energy away, which is why you get condensation on windows in the morning. The gas (water vapour) in the air condenses on the cold glass of the window, producing liquid (water droplets).
Simples.
Previously I showed that water vapour is the most abundant green house gas (GHG) in the Earths atmosphere with Carbon Dioxide coming second. So how do the two interact and create the problem of Climate Change?
Lets look at a few scenarios:
1. The amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere remains stable.
In this scenario, unless some other input source of energy - such as the Suns output changes or there is an alteration to the tilt of the earths axis - changes the amount of thermal energy present in the Earths eco-system, then the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere is unlikely to change much over periods of decades or centuries, because there isn't a suitable increase of thermal energy to generate more vapour/gas. The amount of water vapour will of course fluctuate regionally and on a daily basis as the Earths rotation and the Suns energy output cause the day/night cycle and weather patterns. Seasonal cycles will also occur as the Earth orbits the Sun and the Earths tilt induces the seasons (Summer, Winter etc.).
In this scenario the climate trajectory remains relatively flat.
2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces.
Under this condition, the amount of thermal energy retained by the earth would drop. Although water vapours roll as a green house gas would continue, as CO2 in the atmosphere depletes over decades or centuries, some water vapour would return to the liquid state and some liquid water would become solid (ice). This in turn would reduce energy levels, because there would be less water vapour in the atmosphere acting as a greenhouse gas and more ice would reflect sunlight back into space (the polar albedo's will increase). Since water vapour has an impact on thermal energy levels in the system and in this case would help to reduce the levels. It creates a feedback mechanism whereby the cooling reduces the amount of water vapour and produces more ice, which in turn causes more cooling etc. until a new cooler steady state is achieved on Earth.
With all this going on, there would also be weather, day/night cycles and seasonal cycles as in scenario. However the trajectory of the climate would be one of cooling.
3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.
This is effectively the exact opposite of scenario 2. Under this condition CO2 causes some warming, which in turn causes more water vapour to be generated and the amount of ice cover is reduced, this in turn generates more heat in the system. Less ice means less sunlight is reflected back into space and instead sunlight warms the ground and oceans. So here we have a positive feedback mechanism, the opposite to scenario 2 where negative feedback was engaging in the system.
Again with this scenario there would also be changing weather, day/night cycles and seasonal cycles as in scenario. However in this case the trajectory of the climate would be a warming one.
So from this we have learnt that water is potentially a powerful feedback mechanism that enhances the impact of other green house gases that we generate, principally CO2, but also methane and other more complex gases used in industrial processes such as electronics.
But what about clouds?
Yes indeed, in the middle of this process are clouds, which aren't generally gas or solid yet can influence climate. Clouds are made of droplets of water, although obviously some contain ice as well.
Clouds have different influences depending on the height they are in the atmosphere, as well as shape or type. At some heights they reflect some light away from the earth, at other heights they help keep heat energy in (a cloudy evening is usually warmer than an evening with a clear sky).
Some useful links to info about clouds and climate:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/clouds.html
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/clouds/
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
More Climate Science
Thursday, August 12
Southseasaurus
Took a series of ten photos of the southseasaurus and then used Hugin to glue them together, Unfortunately I didn't get quite enough photos and I had to crop the resulting image that Hugin produced. However it is still impressive considering no special lens was used. The result was this:
I can't spell??
How embarrassing. After over 3 years of blogging, I have just realised that Waterlooville was spelt incorrectly in this blogs URL!
So I have decided to correct it, despite the implications for search engines and links to the blog. I am hoping that if you are a regular reader that you will wonder where the blog has gone and will find it again later.
The original URL was lovelywaterloovlille.blogspot.com, I assume that I missed the mistake because it was only a subtle difference in shape and form. Eventually the correction should filter through search engines and result in improved ratings. I think the spelling mistake was probably why the blog didn't get onto the first or second pages of Google search results.
Wednesday, August 11
Spam
The comments feature on this blog is being attacked by spammers trying to place dubious adverts on a number of posts, so I have had to disable anonymous commenting. This has been necessary because the Blogger word verification and the moderation features are not currently working on my blog. If I can get the word verification or moderation working I will re-enable anonymous commenting.
Update 12/08/10: word verification is now enabled and anonymous commenting re-established. However, it is possible that word verification may not work on some browsers, if this happens try an alternative to your favourite browser.
Monday, August 9
Cowplain WWII bombing
Had a look in the Ratepayer magazine this week, probably the first time I have done that for years. It usually goes straight into the recycling bin.
What attracted my attention was the picture of the Hawker Hurricane on the front page and inside the magazine is an article by Don Foyle about life in Cowplain during WWII. I thought it was an interesting accurate account until I got to the bit about a bomber dropping bombs on Park Lane in Cowplain. The account states that 'enemy agents' were using lights in the woods to guide a single bomber to bomb a torpedo depot located where Lidl is now situated today.
The bit about enemy agents sounds a bit unlikely to me. Far more rumour and speculation than reality. The article states that German bombers passed over Cowplain on the way to London. What is more likely is that a stray German bomber came back from London on the way back to France and seeing the Channel coming up, decided to drop its load on Cowplain before crossing the stretch of water.
I know that a German fighter took pot shots at houses along the Hambledon road in another separate incident. A lot of these types of attack were not planned, they were just opportunistic. Bomber crews would not want to carry bombs back to their bases.
The allies did the same thing towards the end of the war once they had air superiority over Europe. If after the main attack, they had ammunition left over, they would seek out secondary targets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)