Climate Change Week 1

I have started an online course from FutureLearn - https://www.futurelearn.com.  The course is 'Climate change: challenges and solutions', led by the University of Exeter in the UK.  It is my first experience of an online course and I am thoroughly enjoying it.  The course lasts eight weeks and at the end of each week the students are required to reflect on what they have learned.  So for the next eight weeks, my blog posts will record my reflections.

The greenhouse effect is fundamental to understanding climate change but the greenhouse metaphor isn't a good one.  The heat in a greenhouse escapes through the glass but a small amount gets trapped.  The greenhouse actually warms up because of prevention of airflow, which stops the loss of heat by convection.  This is a similar effect to the heat in an unventilated car on a hot day, which is why it is a dangerous place to leave your pets.  This contrasts with the earth that is kept warm by a 'blanket' of gases.  The most significant gas is water vapour, but the others are carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide.  The earth reflects about 30% of the sunlight that it receives, which means it has an albedo of 0.3.  Ice and snow have high albedos, i.e. reflect a lot of the radiation, whereas the oceans have low albedo, i.e. absorb a lot of the radiation.  If there was no reflection, the earth's average temperature would be around -18 deg C, but the blanket of gases warms the earth's surface to an average of around +15 deg C.

Climate can be thought of as a highly complex system with feedback mechanisms that produce self-regulation.  The key system components are the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (oceans, rivers, lakes), the biosphere (living things), the cryosphere (ice and glaciers) and the lithosphere (surface of the earth's crust).  Heat from the sun causes water to evaporate from the hydrosphere and biosphere.  Clouds are formed, which precipitate (rain and snow) and water returns to the earth's surface.  Water then returns to the hydrosphere, or if it is frozen snow it can enter the cryosphere.  Sunlight on the cryosphere can transform it into vapour by a process called sublimation.  The water cycle can be affected by many factors involving human activity.

There are many feedbacks in the climate system - closed loops of cause and effect.  Some feedback loops have the mathematical terminology of positive, because they are reinforcing.  Some feedback loops are termed negative because they are balancing.  Here are three examples of feedback in action within the climate system:

The first example is when water evaporates in the atmosphere, the molecules of water vapour absorb radiation from the earth and vibrate.  They then re-emit heat radiation, resulting in further warming.  This is positive, reinforcing feedback.

Another example of positive feedback is when solar radiation hits sea ice, most is reflected because of the ice's high albedo.  The ocean's surface, on the other hand, has low albedo and absorbs most of the radiation.  So as the system warms up, the sea ice melts, which increases absorption by the oceans, warming the sea water, causing more ice to melt, and so on.

The final example is negative feedback.  All bodies give off radiation and the warmer the body the more radiation it gives off.  When it gives off more radiation, that cools it down.  This is known as the Stefan Boltzmann effect or the Planck feedback.

So this complex climate system has a multiplicity of positive and negative feedback loops that self-regulate.

That's my summary of the first week's theoretical aspects from the course.  But one other aspect that really registered with me was appreciating the difference between weather and climate.  Weather is really the day-to-day elements that we experience such as temperature, rain and wind.  Climate change on the other hand, looks at long-term (30 years+) changes in weather.  Where I live in Turkey, the climate is temperate Mediterranean, the characteristics being long hot and dry summers, cooler and wetter winters.  We have all been around long enough to experience all sorts of weather conditions but even in my advancing years, I don't think I could seriously make objective judgements on climate change like, for example, increases in average temperatures in some parts of the world.  So weather is all about short-term conditions that are easy to measure and evaluate.  Whereas climate variations are all about long-term changes, which are assessed by averaging and probabilities.  This really wasn't obvious to me until I started the course.

So it's been very informative and good fun so far.  My only mistake was that I rushed into the test for the week, which was foolish because I dropped a few points.  Next week I won't be so hasty!

Don't stop the flow

As the world thinks it is recovering from the financial crisis, which started in 2008, I can't help thinking about FLOW.  The financial crisis was, after all, a serious interruption of worldwide capital flow.  In the US, for example, there were surplus houses, offices, shops and production capacity, as well as surplus labour.  So surplus capital and labour co-existed but putting them back together was and continues to be, a torturous process involving immense human suffering.  If the world economy fully recovers, and in my mind that's a big 'if', then life will proceed at a pace and the 2008 crisis will soon be forgotten.  Uninterrupted capital flow will be the name of the game, economic growth will be the principal objective for countries and companies, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer - business as usual.  The joy of the return to 'normality' for those who benefit from it (i.e. all but the growing group of disadvantaged) will soon be forgotten and taken for granted.

Capital flow rules, OK?

When someone has a heart attack, there is a serious interruption to the blood flow within the body and all organs are under threat.  If a person is lucky enough to be treated and he or she recovers, healthy blood flow resumes and life proceeds as 'normal'.  The life-threatening crisis gradually becomes a distant memory.

Blood flow rules, OK?

If you are on the internet and start experiencing problems with access to websites or even complete dropouts, then the flow of data to and from your computer will have slowed down or maybe ceased completely.  That can be extremely frustrating, particularly if you are in the middle of doing something very important.  However, whilst you will be delighted when the 'normal' service resumes, the interruption will soon be forgotten as you carry on with your computing tasks, regarding an adequate internet service as a 'given'.

Data flow rules, OK?

Two weeks ago, the drain blocked to my septic tank, the initial symptoms being the water in the the toilets not returning to the expected level after flushing.  After the blockage was freed, the system worked normally and I was delighted, particularly as the remedial action took place one day before a friend was coming to stay for two weeks.  But again my delight was soon forgotten and it wasn't long before I took normal flushing toilets for granted.

Sewage flow rules, OK?

In the part of Turkey where I live, interruptions to electricity and water supplies are not unusual.  Life without electricity or water, even for a few hours, can be at least annoying and for some distressing.  I feel ecstatic when the water returns to flowing out of the tap or the lights come back on but as with the previous examples of 'flowing as usual', the joy is short-lived and water or electricity are taken for granted.

Water and electricity flows rule, OK?

There are plenty more examples of flows in our lives that we assume will always be around but when they are not, we miss them like crazy.  We can't spend our lives worrying and having contingency plans for every flow that might go.  But maybe instead of being blasé about the wonders of life, natural and man-made, we should be far more appreciative of all that we've got.  That way, we would be less fazed when we are deprived of the treasures that we regard as 'essentials' but are really life's bonuses.

So be joyous when things come

Don't be sad when they go

You're more fortunate than some

You should go with the flow!

Broken Resolutions

It's that time of year again.  No doubt there will be plenty of new year's resolutions in the offing.  If the statistics of recent research are to be repeated, the majority of those making resolutions will fail.  Now there are plenty of 'experts' offering reasons why resolutions fail and conversely, how to succeed.  I'm not an expert and I don't want this post to be a lecture or self-help programme, but merely food for thought.  It's just personal observations on what I see as the futility of rigid ambitious resolutions and maybe a more likely-to-succeed road to change.

Life is about evolution.

Evolution is the change in the inherent characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.  It is the continuous adaptation to the environment through successive very small changes over a long period of time.  So what relevance has evolution to resolutions?  Well let me be clear that this is 'Hayman's Theory' and is not based on any firm scientific foundation that I am aware of.  I believe the body and mind adapt to small and slow changes, 'evolution', rather than huge and rapid changes, 'revolution'.  So a resolution that involves a sudden change of lifestyle, for example a regular diet of burger and chips replaced by green succulent rabbit's food, is unlikely to succeed.  On the other hand, small incremental changes, starting by reducing the quantity and frequency of the burger and chips diet, are more likely to be sustainable.

The second analogy between successful resolutions and evolution, relates to the fact that evolution is all about genetic survival.  The catchphrase is: Survival of the fittest.  So changes are generally for the better, not for the worse.  That said, the evolution of humans from four-legged to two-legged is possibly a cause of widespread back problems.  But if we accept that change for the better is preferable to change for the worse, than maybe we should view resolutions in that light.  Yet most resolutions are 'negative', i.e. giving something up, like stopping smoking, reducing drinking, cutting out chocolates........you get the picture?!  Whereas each negative could be reframed as a positive.  So stopping smoking leads to longer life, more money in your pocket, better smelling breath and so on.

To conclude, small changes over long periods of time aimed at positive lifestyle changes are preferable to the misery of the rapid infliction of pain without any obvious gain.

Happy New Year!

So this is Christmas

So this is Christmas

And what have you done?

Another year over

And a new one just begun

Happy Christmas (War is Over) is a song written by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, released in 1977 as a single by John & Yoko/Plastic Ono Band with the Harlem Community Choir.  It was originally a protest song about the Vietnam war.

Thirty six years later, there is still armed conflict all over the world and anti-war protests continue but to no avail.  The problem as I see it, and I'm certainly no expert, is that efforts to prevent war or bring wars to an end, seem to focus on the symptoms (i.e. unnecessary bloodshed) rather than the underlying causes.  But that is probably due to the fact that it is usually extremely difficult to understand the underlying causes.  In my opinion, the big question is why are human beings intent on destroying themselves?  Is it all in the genes?  Is it learned behaviour?  Or is it a combination of those and other factors?

There are many psychoanalytical views on the causes of war, too many to review in this post.  But one theory held by E. F. M. Durban and John Bowlby is that human beings are inherently violent and their natural aggression is sustained by for ever wanting to convert their grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies.  If this is true then there surely can't be any hope for sustained world peace in the future.  Indeed it does appear that when conflicts are supposedly resolved, later, more horrific consequences raise their ugly heads.  I suppose the adage: Today's problems come from yesterday's 'solutions', holds true.  Conflict resolution will inevitably be based on short-term 'solutions', because extrapolating the long-term effects of resolutions is usually impossible.  There are just too many unknowns.  It's easier to look back and suggest what should have been done, than to look forward and establish what has to be done.  It's called being wise with the benefit of hindsight.

So is the future really so gloomy?  Maybe, but perhaps we should see if there are any common threads within the hindsights of past conflicts.  One of the lessons that I think we can all learn from looking back at the life of Nelson Mandela, is that good leadership is a very important ingredient of peaceful solutions to conflicts.  Leaders, such as Hitler, can incite hatred and extreme forms of racism.  Conversely, leaders like Mandela inspired his followers to strive for peaceful and democratic roads to justice built on a vision of equality and not dwelling on the inequalities of the past.

The last verse of John and Yoko's song is poignant.

War is over

If you want it

War is over

Now

On that note, a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Peaceful New Year.

What really counts?

Two events in the news recently, inspired me to write this post.  Firstly, the report that the UK's economic growth rate was the highest for seven years.  Secondly, the fact that Ireland was exiting from its financial bailout.  These two items ought to be good news for the citizens of the UK and Ireland, but is that the case?  My guess is that the politicians will be rejoicing whereas the majority of the two country's populations will have noticed no change.  Both cases are examples of a classic political ruse, which is to pick a measure, or measures, for which there is no argument as to the absolute values and then construct a good news story.  One favourite measure of a nation's economic success or failure is Gross Domestic Product, GDP.  This is the monetary value of all the financial goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis.  It is calculated as follows:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where:

C = consumer spending

G = government spending

I = business spending on capital

NX is the value of Exports - Imports

So what's wrong with that?  Well, I will summarise my concern with the old adage: "It's easier to count the bottles than describe the quality of the wine".

In other words some things are easy to measure (like numbers of bottles) but within the entities that are being counted are intangibles (like wine quality), which bear little or no relationship to the number of entities.  So given the UK's growth in GDP, which is actually very small but nevertheless greater than it has been for seven years, is the population feeling better off financially and generally happier?  I doubt it.  A 'healthy' GDP growth statistic is meaningless if you are a young person who hasn't found employment since leaving school or university, a family struggling to pay the rent and feed themselves whilst their income has decreased in real terms in recent years, or an elderly person who can't afford to keep warm through the long winter months because of rising fuel bills.  I know, you've heard it all before and it's always possible for any disadvantaged person or society to find less fortunate cases in other parts of the world.  But my point is that it is demeaning and patronising to celebrate success on statistics that bear little relationship to personal well-being and happiness.

OK, so I've got that off my chest but what's the solution?  Do we not measure anything?  Or do we try to measure the intangibles, like happiness?  Well, if you can measure some of the right things then it is possible to conclude whether things are really improving or not.  The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, introduced a Happiness Index for the UK as an alternative to GDP and the first results, published in July 2012, showed the average adult rated 7.4 out of 10 for life satisfaction.  Oh and by the way, the first national survey concluded that those who have jobs and own their homes are most likely to be satisfied with their lives.  Well there's a surprise!  The Prime Minister described the survey as crucial to finding out what the government can do to "really improve lives", but the Labour opposition party described the outcome of the survey as a "statement of the bleeding obvious".

It's easy to rubbish any initiative but on the other hand subjective 'measurements' will always be open to interpretation and criticism.  Conversely, objective measurements, such as GDP, have their own shortcomings as I hope I have illustrated.  So what really counts?  In my opinion, honesty and transparency are essential.  The world is going through some difficult times with no short-term fixes.  So let's face the big challenges, like a growing population consuming too much of the world's finite resources and don't fool ourselves that the 'live today, pay later' policies of the past will work in the future.  As Gandhi put it so succinctly:

"There's enough for everyone's need [in the world], but not enough for everyone's greed."

Why break the habit of a lifetime?

Why break the habit of a lifetime?  I picked up this definition of the idiom: "Something that you say which means that you do not believe that someone will stop doing something bad that they have done all their lives".  Interesting that this particular definition refers to "something bad".  So for example, "Uncle Tom always gets pissed out of his mind at Christmas, so he's unlikely to break the habit of a lifetime".  If the definition is valid, then the inference in this example is that Uncle Tom's behaviour at Christmas is viewed as a bad habit.  But is habitual drinking bad?  Well it's certainly not bad for the drinks industry that employs many workers.  Nor is it bad for the state coffers from the taxes that are collected.  So if Uncle Tom breaks his habit of a lifetime, it might be good for his health and he might not be a pain in the arse for those who have to tolerate his company, but breaking his habit could contribute to a negative impact on the economy.

Now here's a definition of 'habit': "A recurrent, often subconscious pattern of behaviour that is acquired through frequent repetition".  We all have those and they are not always bad.  For example, good driving habits should reduce accidents and good or bad driving becomes habitual.  Most of the time we don't have to think about how we drive, the subconscious will take over.  So when the traffic light is red, a good driver will automatically stop.  It's interesting to consider habits in the context of business organisations.  Why am I using the example of businesses?  Well, they've featured prominently throughout my life, so why break the habit of a lifetime?!  It doesn't matter whether you are one of six people working in an office or an employee of a corporation employing 60,000, you will have experienced organisational CULTURE - "that's not the way we do things around here".  Culture is the cultivation of individual habits and collective traditions to create a unique working environment.  A business leader who tries to change culture by producing vision statements, mission statements and business plans, no matter how well communicated, will fail.  How do I know?  Because I've been there, done that and got the tee shirt!  Where there is a match between the organisational culture and the individual's habits, the two will co-exist comfortably.  Where there is a mismatch, the individual will be the loser.  So a risk-taking entrepreneur will not survive in a risk-averse, conservative organisation.  But we are all creatures of habit.  Most of the time we do what we do most of the time!  So how do individuals and organisations, which are collections of individuals, set about changing direction?  That's a big question and I don't profess to know the answer.  But I do know what has worked for me when I have attempted to change my attitudes and behaviours.

I find it useful on occasions to assess my habits, of which I have plenty.  If I can spot a really bad habit, I like to analyse it and see if I can change it.  I've had some successes but many failures because "old habits die hard"!  But if it was easy to change individual behaviours, the world would probably not have all the problems we have today.  Returning to the title of this post, why break the habit of a lifetime?  Because if you wish to change the world, start with yourself.

Liquid Sunshine

It's raining today.  Fortunately, on Turkey's Mediterranean coast weather like today's is the exception rather than the rule, but I still hate it!  I like to think I have a rational mind and of course, rain is essential for all living organisms.  Without it, I wouldn't be here to complain about it.  I suppose after many years of living in the UK, my weather tastes have been influenced by an unpredictable climate where long spells of sunshine were definitely an exception.  The 1976 UK heat wave is still a topic for discussion, 37 years later!  I guess this year's hotter than usual summer in the UK will likewise be remembered for many years to come.

In hotter countries, rain in moderation is welcomed and some use the term 'liquid sunshine' - not to be confused, of course, with a brand of tanning lotion!  I think liquid sunshine is an excellent term.  Think about it.  Something that brings the happiness of sunshine in a liquid form.  Rain brings fresh water to the earth, provides the energy source for hydroelectric power, water for crop irrigation as well as, of course, providing suitable conditions for the ecosystem - wonderful!  So I guess my hatred of rain is very selfish.  I am viewing it from the perspective of what it is preventing me from doing.  I have enjoyed a few weeks of physical activity, including chopping down and pruning trees, mowing, strimming, etc and to be stopped from continuing my outdoor pursuits comes as a shock to the system.  Even though, if the forecast is correct, we could be back to 'normal' tomorrow!  If I had grown up in the part of the world where I now live, I might not have the same obsession with the weather.  And a danger of obsession is that it can lead to superstition, even for apparently rational-thinking individuals.

Superstition about the weather is hardly surprising, given some of the horrendous events that we have witnessed in recent times.  Superstition is, after all, rooted in fear and provides a means of linking unwanted climatic conditions with controllable human behaviour.  It's only a few centuries ago that superstion over the climate led to witch hunts and executions for witchcraft.  Now, as I have stated in previous blog posts, I am no longer skeptical on the issue of global warming.  I do believe there is a causal link between the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change.  I do not believe, however, that global warming should become the scapegoat for all weather extremes.  Apparently, a check of weather records for the 1930s or the 1950s, when the CO2 level was much higher than it is today, shows that extreme weather events are nothing new.

What I am witnessing today is steady heavy rainfall but hardly a weather extreme.  It's doing lots of good things to the agricultural environment around me and I should be thankful for it.  But I can assure you, if the sun shines tomorrow, I will be out enjoying the real thing and as for liquid sunshine, you can stick it up your arse!