Posts Tagged ‘Science’
Chaos and Climate Change
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 28th, 2009
Like many lay-people I have long suspected that chaos theory is another of those scientific theories that tend through history, to emerge at the edges of understanding and which do not seek to understand. Instead they resort to giving things names and claiming that they cannot be resolved.
Irritable Bowel Syndrome is one of those. I am absolutely positive there is no such thing. Nor is there such a thing as Ulcerative Colitis. Don’t get me wrong, these symptoms are definitely real and destroy or seriously hamper people’s lives, but what I believe is that these ailments are actually descriptions of symptoms of an as-yet not understood illness or disease. I am sure, for example, that some people diagnosed as having IBS actually have Coeliac Disease, and others have other conditions.
Similarly, in physics and mathematics we are told that some systems are so complex that they cannot be modelled mathematically — the climate is one. To such an extent that a butterfly flapping its wing in Africa could make the difference between a hurricane developing or not in on the way to Florida. This, it seemed to me, was admitting defeat. We are, by calling a system chaotic, I thought, saying “That’s too hard.”
But it turns out, not for the first time, I was wrong. What chaos theory actually says is that for a sufficiently complex system minute changes to input can make no difference for a long time. Much later in time the difference in input can suddenly manifest itself in a different result. Far from saying “This is too hard” Chaos Theory says that we can expect different results but without knowing all the parameters, we cannot know the outcome due to the massive influence of minor changes to conditions. It is not defeatist, it just describes a counter-intuitive mathematical phenomenon.
But this blog is mostly about politics, why am I telling you this?
Actually, I am telling the lay-people in the hope of getting an answer from a non-lay person. Climate models that predict climate change (and, according to some, global warming) cannot have all the necessary inputs for obvious reasons: no climate model could monitor the flap of every butterfly’s wing, nor could any model monitor the location even of local gusts of wind. To try to get around this flaw, scientists have used models that accurately report the past from the early 1800s to today.
If a model successfully models temperatures for 200 years, they assert, then that model must be a reasonable approximation of actual events and so can be used to predict future events. If a model is ‘right’ in this sense, then if it says the climate will warm by a certain amount with a particular amount of carbon added to the atmosphere, that is what will happen.
I don’t know enough about the climate to know whether they will be right or wrong, and surely evidence to date does point towards an increase in global average temperatures but doesn’t chaos theory suggest that these climate models cannot possibly have a clue?
If the tiniest inputs to the climate models could have unexpected results at unpredictable times in the future, and if we are using approximations by necessity, doesn’t that mean that even the best model could spike wildly in one direction or another? And if the inputs are slightly (1 tenth of one percent even) different, doesn’t that throw into doubt any results that come out of those models?
Space on the cheap
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 22nd, 2009
Wouldn’t it be great for humanity if space was more accessible? A little time thinking about the possibilities should excite all but the least imaginative. Imagine the implications of being able to mine asteroids or deploy vast solar arrays in space, for example.
So with NASA’s US$17bn budget you’d think there would be some room to do some basic work in this area. And I’m sure there is.
Doesn’t it make you proud, though, that some seriously promising work is being done in Oxfordshire and that so far it has consumed just US$7m?
Read more on Scientific American magazine’s blog.
Belief is bad for the brain
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 20th, 2009
Well, who am I to argue? My brain’s not damaged in this way!
Seeing on Faith
Religion might literally influence how you view the world. Scientists in the Netherlands compared Dutch Calvinists with Dutch atheists, looking for any effects potentially imposed on thinking by the neo-Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty, which emphasizes that each sector of society has its own responsibilities and authorities. The researchers hypothesize that Calvinists might therefore not be as good as atheists at seeing the big picture. Participants were shown images of large rectangles or squares that each consisted of smaller rectangles or squares.
In some tests, volunteers had to quickly identify the shapes of the smaller parts; in others, the larger wholes. The Calvinists scored slightly but significantly lower than atheists did in correctly identifying whole images. The investigators plan to study other religions for similar influences. See more in the November 12 PLoS ONE.
—Charles Q. Choi
This from Scientific American‘s January 2009 issue.
Adverts
Offensive material: The site linked to below is definitely for mature people only.
Space science limitations
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 19th, 2009
Once again we learn that we are lucky to be where we are. The universe is sufficiently young that we can learn some of its history.
That will not always be the case, though. Let’s hope that before humanity is wiped out, it has escaped this planet and that whatever commands the Earth when that has happened, has not lost the information we have now; let us hope, then, that the legacy of humanity is to teach those that follow, whatever they may be!
What am I on about? Well, did you miss the link above? Read about the future cosmologists on Scientific American.
Beware history’s rose-tinted glasses
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on January 19th, 2009
I have recently finished Richard Dawkin’s masterpiece “The God Delusion”. I strongly commend it to anyone who… well, anyone. It reflects my opinions almost exactly.
One chapter of the book covered specifically the affect of society on the accepted morality of the time. One example he gave was a quote of Abraham Lincoln.
Before I share it with you though, I should point out the parallels that observers are making between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln (even before he takes office tomorrow!).
But if a parallel is to be drawn we should be careful of viewing historical figures through rose-tinted glasses:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Lincoln didn’t do some great things for the slaves of America, and I’m not suggesting he was anything but a moral man by his day’s standards, but we must know the person before we can claim to be following in his footsteps (not that Obama is).
I hope Obama lives up to America’s, and the world’s, hopes. But I hope he is a moral man by today’s judgement, and not moral as Lincoln would be judged by today’s standards!
RFID
Posted by: Gav in Uncategorized on September 4th, 2008
I went to London today and on the way I read my favourite magazine, Scientific American. The issue I was reading was a special issue focussing on privacy in the modern world (September 2008).
I have a profile on Facebook and, heck, a website here where I occasionally say something that I feel needs saying (less frequently recently). I also use Google to search and only rarely delete anything from my search history. But the article I was reading that triggered the ‘must write’ response was one on RFID tags.
When I first decided to get an Oyster card it was after a long period of thinking about it. To me having the Mayor of London able to see where I’m going seemed like a bit of an imposition. Why should he need to know where I’m going? And can I trust a man who leaves the Congestion Charge cameras on on Sundays? Eventually I decided that as it was voluntary it wasn’t unreasonable to help them manage the network and, anyway, it’s cheaper for the right reasons.
But as I read the RFID article I realised how many things I was carrying had an RFID tag in them. I was going to an examination so I had my new-style passport with me as ID. This contains a passive chip that is encrypted (I believe) using my passport number as a key. But also on my person I had said Oyster card and also my new Barclaycard that has PayPass.
If I wander into a shopping centre, the article explained, an array of RFID tag readers in appropriate places may just be able to read my RFID tags and find out where I go, where I stop or dally and where I don’t go. While, at the moment, this would not necessarily identify me as me, it wouldn’t be too hard for that to happen and it would be much easier to integrate that data into a useful database than are images on CCTV.
I have to admit, despite my concerns about freedom I am not worried about the implementation of RFID in the West yet (China’s another matter: China to issue RFID ID cards) but it is an area we need to keep an eye on.
Green questions unanswered
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on July 9th, 2008
I thank readers for commenting on my last green question post but I think I didn’t make myself clear. Perhaps it is obvious that I was right that the kettle uses more fossil fuels than a kettle, but there are many other questions we don’t know the answer to.
For example, is it better to drive at 45mph in fifth gear or 39mph in fourth gear if both make the engine do 2000rpm? Is it better to go slowly, change gear less but stay in a low gear or go slightly faster (where the engine is more efficient) but need to change up and down gears regularly? Is it better to keep an old inefficient, working boiler or waste the manufacturing effort of making a new efficient boiler (without mentioning the associated waste costs)? Is it better to throw out a massive, old cathode ray television and replace it with an LCD TV, or keep using it until it dies? Or should you replace your TV with an LCD one at all because of the metals used in their manufacture (even though they’re massively more efficient)? Should I use my unused energy-wasting lightbulbs or skip them for the energy saving ones I have in the drawer and throw the old-style ones away?
Now some of those questions are obvious, and I do know the answer) but some are not and there’s no single place where I (Joe Public) can find the answer easily. Those thousands of volunteers that Rob is hoping for need this information.
Green taxes re-thought
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on July 9th, 2008
George Osborne was on Radio 4 this morning making a very clear and intelligent argument in favour of the principle of green taxes.
I think most people these days are a little cynical about green taxes. Isn’t it true, they say, that green taxes are about revenue rather than behaviour? Isn’t it true that outside of London there is no viable alternative to private transport? And isn’t it true that a tax meant to disincentivise a behaviour, in the absence of an alternative, serves only to hurt the lower and middle earners?
Well Osborne’s solution is to create price stability — ensure the effective price of oil maintains a certain level and there will be a realistic chance of people investing in alternatives. Make long-term guarantees about the minimum level of landfill tax and then companies can be sure that it is worth investing in making money out of the situation.
While we would all like to believe that people and companies do the right thing because it’s the right thing, there’s absolutely no harm in allowing companies to profit from environmentally friendly practices. Even though there are arguments about the ‘green-ness’ of the Toyota Prius, no-one can claim it has been bad for the Toyota company.
Our current government announces things at pre-budget report stage and if they’re unpopular, changes its mind on the day of the budget. Osborne and co. have promised that there won’t be a raft of surprise new measures on the day of the budget which will allow companies and early-adopter consumers to know that their purchases and money-making exercises are going to have a sound-business case in five years time.
Like social welfare and the NHS, the Conservatives have taken the lead on another policy area — environmental realism.
Green questions
Posted by: Gav in Uncategorized on June 10th, 2008
Everyone who cares about the environment (which I do despite my disagreements with left-wing environmentalists) must ask questions like this, but does anyone really know the answer?
The other day I was filling the kettle and accidentally overfilled it. So in an effort not to waste electricity I emptied the kettle down to the level where it contained enough water for the two cups I was making. My girlfriend asked whether I had done the right thing: Had I wasted more energy in wasting cleaned water than I had saved in not causing the kettle to stay on longer?
The question is a reasonable one. And it is a similar question to many others we all must ask as we go about our daily lives. So if human-caused climate change is such a big issue, why isn’t the results of research into these things being made available?
One final comment: I would like to apologise; my stats tell me that a small number of you have visited here almost every day since my last post — thank you and sorry for the delay in resuming service. Oh, and if you saw the Netherlands, Italy game last night, lucky you. Wasn’t it great?!
