Sea level rise – it just goes on and on…

New Scientist, Issue 2715 [04 July 2009] contains a substantial article on sea level rise which sets out the latest findings on rates of sea level rise and puts these into the context of past changes in sea level. It seems that a rise of 80cm by 2100 is a pretty standard projection, a rise of ~2m by 2100 is within the realms of possibility and even bigger rises cannot be discounted. An important point to bear in mind is that when projections are given for 2100 it is important not to forget that this isn’t the end of the story and that sea levels will continue to rise after this point and also that although much greater changes have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history we need to remember that humans weren’t around then…

A tale of two gases (and the Southern Ocean)

It’s reasonably well known (!) that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing… it’s also reasonably well known that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are leading to increased carbon dioxide levels in the oceans (leading to ocean acidification). However, new research reported in New Scientist, Issue 2715 [04 July 2009] suggests that in the Southern Ocean, the picture isn’t quite that simple. Measurements from the Southern Ocean show that carbon dioxide levels have flattened off in recent decades (having previously increased) and a new modelling study points the finger of “blame” for this at the hole in the ozone layer in this region. Lower levels of atmospheric ozone (at high levels) and increased levels of carbon dioxide (at lower levels) have changed the energy balance in the atmosphere, generating stronger westerly winds, enhancing ocean circulation and encouraging carbon-rich water to rise up from the deep (a process known as upwelling). The result is surface water that is less able to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This is a great example of an unexpected feedback effect of one part of the Earth-atmosphere system with another and just goes to show how complex and inter-connected all of these processes really are.

Better – A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance

A couple of years ago I heard an interview with Atul Gawande, a US surgeon/professor/writer about his book “Better – A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance” as part of a Scientific American podcast. Several aspects of this interview stayed with me and I made a mental note that I should read his book. Then a few weeks ago this interview was repeated and it spurred me on to finally get a copy which I have now finished reading. “Better” sets out to discuss how it is possible to improve the success rate of medical care in a number of settings from hospital hygiene, to battlefield injuries to “routine” treatment of medical conditions. It is a brilliant book, even for someone who, like me, has no particular interest in medicine (and who struggled somewhat to read a detailed description of the process of completing a Caesarean Section…). Gawande, tries to identify the factors that turn “good” into “better”. One simple example, which was used in the original interview I heard, is of improving hygiene in hospitals to limit spread of infectious diseases – the answer is not to search for some fancy new procedure; it’s something much more basic, namely to ensure that everyone properly washes their hands every single time that they should do. Simple.

There are two particular quotations that I liked. The first is this:

“When you make an effort, you find sometimes you are not the only one willing to do so.”

and the second comes towards the end of the book and is a kind of summary of the whole book:

“Arriving at meaningful solutions is an inevitably slow and difficult process. Nonetheless, what I saw is: better is possible. It does not take genius. It takes diligence. It takes Moral clarity. It takes ingenuity. And above all, it takes a willingness to try.”
[this one is SO good I’m going to add it to the bottom of my work email signature I think]

The final chapter of the book looks at what it takes to become what Gawande calls a “positive deviant”. This is someone who stands out from the crowd and makes a difference, who naturally makes things better and who continually raises the bar. He comes up with five suggestions for how one might make a “worthy difference” and become a positive deviant. Whether he is right or not, I think they make a great list and what particularly pleased me as I read them each in turn is that it turns out that I already do most of them…

  1. Ask an unscripted question: i.e. talk to people; find things out about them; make human connections
  2. Don’t complain: “it’s boring, it doesn’t solve anything, and will get you down”
  3. Count something: gather data on something, anything; look for the patterns; learn something interesting about something that interests you
  4. Write something: “by offering your reflections to an audience, even a small one, you make yourself part of a larger world”
  5. Change: “it often seems safest to do what everyone else is doing – to be just another … cog in the machine”

What a great list – I’m going to work harder on number 2 and, to a lesser extent, number 5, and with a bit of luck, I’ll get better.

Noctilucent clouds

Noctilucent clouds are a rare type of cloud that comprise ice crystals so high up in the atmosphere that they reflect sunlight to the surface of the Earth long after sunset. It seems that noctilucent-like clouds are sometimes observed a few days after space shuttle launches – the shuttle launch creates eddies that carry water into the thermosphere (90-500km altitude). Similar clouds were also recorded as being observed in the days following the Tunguska blast (in Siberia) in 1908. The similarity between the two sets of observations has led to a suggestion that the Tunguska blast was caused by a wet, icy comet crashing to Earth rather than a dry, stone asteroid as had previously been thought. The story is described in New Scientist, Issue 2715 [04 July 2009]

A Spot of Bother

I’ve just finished reading Mark Haddon’s second novel “A Spot of Bother”. Mark Haddon (he’s got a fairly odd website here) came to prominence a few years ago when his book “The Curious Incident of The Dog in The Night-Time” which, if my memory serves me right is about a boy with Asperger’s Syndrome who wakes up to find a (dead) dog in his garden pinned to the ground with a garden fork. It was a much lauded book because of the nature of its central character and the way that it was written to capture his thoughts. It was a children’s book – but only sort of. Anyway, “A Spot of Bother” is about the mental breakdown of a retired man (George) who finds some eczema on his leg, thinks it is cancer and proceeds to enter a downward spiral of panic, and irrationality. His situation is not helped by the fact that his daughter is getting married for a second time to a man who everyone thinks is unsuitable and his son has broken up with his boyfriend but the final straw occurs when he returns home unexpectedly to find… well, I won’t tell you what he comes home to find because that might spoil the story.

I did enjoy reading this book, but I also didn’t enjoy it. George’s descent does not make pleasant reading – it’s just too plausible in some ways and whilst the book is funny in places it is also rather dark in places. One thing is for sure though, DO NOT do what I did. DO NOT read the section just about halfway through (leading up to page 250) just before you go to sleep. That section is NOT for the faint-hearted.

New Moon?

There was a peculiar letter in the local paper (The Herald – The Voice of Plymouth) last night. If I could provide a link to it I would do, but it’s not online so I’m going to be cheeky and quote it here in full:

“Lately, as there is a renewed interest in the Moon, may I suggest that next time the astronauts pack their picnic in preparation to jet off to the moon, to also pack some tins of silver paint and paint the damn thing”

That’s it – word for word. It’s a worry to think that not only did someone have that idea but that they actually bothered to send it in to the paper. Mind you, it’s even more worrying to think that the newspaper published it (but now I am wondering where that leaves me for quoting it here…)

Cricket, Lovely Cricket?

Having found myself needing to start reading a new book a few days before the start of the first Ashes Test Match, it seemed appropriate to pick up Lawrence Booth’s “Cricket, Lovely Cricket?”. Booth is a cricket write for The Guardian newspaper and Wisden Cricket Monthly and so well placed to write a series of chapters exploring various aspects of the game of cricket, including the personalities of the different cricket nations, the role of fans in the game, the England v Australia rivalry. I enjoyed the book – it satisfied the requirement of getting me into a cricket mood for the summer without being too obsessive and it left me intrigued about some of the stories told. It’s just a pity that as I write this, on the last day of the First Test, Australia are pummelling England towards defeat as usual…

From World War II to surf forecasts

My favourite reference in my PhD thesis (1992) was to a paper from the 1940s which was titled “On determining the gradient of enemy held beaches”. I liked the way that the title gives an explicit description of what the paper is about and I also liked the way that it seemed so far removed from the time and purpose of my own study.

In reality though, a great deal of the modern-day research done on waves and beach processes has its roots in the work of scientists in the 1940s associated with predicting wave and beach conditions for Allied Forces landings in north Africa and Normandy. One such piece of work that anyone who studies waves to a reasonable level will come across is the SMB-method for predicting waves. The abbreviation SMB represents the names of the three protaganists in the development of the method – Sverdrup, Munk and Bretschneider – and the method uses a knowledge of three parameters, wind speed, duration for which the wind has been blowing and the fetch (distance) over which the waves are being built up by the wind to predict the significant wave height and peak wave period. It is based on a special diagram which cleverly combines all of the variables and presents the outputs in a graphical form called a nonogram.

So, given my own use of research originating from the World War II era, it was interesting to read an historical piece in New Scientist, No 2714 [27 June 2009] about how Walter Munk (now aged 91) became involved in wave prediction in relation to Allied Forces landings and how this work subsequently spawned the surf prediction industry. It’s a good example of how widely applicable research can be triggered by a specific requirement and how it is not always possible to spot the full value of research (Munk missed out on making money from surf prediction).

Bad Science

Time for another book-related entry (I seem to be on a good run with my reading at the moment). I’ve just finished reading Ben Goldacre’s book “Bad Science”. Goldacre is a medical doctor and writer/journalist who has written the “Bad Science” column in The Guardian newspaper for several years (and also maintains the Bad Science blog where you can find out more about Goldacre and the book). I first became aware of his work a few months ago when a fellow user of a Plymouth Argyle (football club) fans website drew my attention to his writing (yes, football fans come in all shapes and sizes and, on PASOTI, the discussions can roam towards absolutely any topic you could think of from time to time). Intrigued by what I had heard, I bought “Bad Science” (the book) and so had a thoroughly enjoyable week’s worth of reading about how the media often twist scientific studies and findings when they report them (usually because of ignorance) and, more importantly, how this scientific naivity is utilised by unscrupulous pseudo-scientific practitioners to promote personal agendas and, ultimately, sell products (pills, diets, alternative therapies etc). The book does a brilliant job of dissecting lots of examples, in some cases revealing that what most of us take to be the case is actually more likely to be the reverse. One example of this is that most people think that increased intake of antioxidants provides some measure of protection against various forms of cancer; in fact, the scientific evidence suggests that the opposite might be true. Goldacre doesn’t simply rant though, he carefully explains the importance and uncertainties associated with various types of clinical trial, statistical procedure and outlines at some length the placebo effect such that the reader is left able to make up their own mind about the arguments he presents. However, it must also be said that if it’s a good rant that you want then Goldacre does do good rant…

In my opinion, anyone who is interested in science in general and health, nutrition and alternative therapies in particular, should read “Bad Science”.