January 29, 2010: More reality

Over the past few days, more has emerged about the University of East Anglia, the leaked emails and statements by Professor Phil Jones. The Times has been forthright in defending the University and on Thursday had an article by Dr Vicky Pope of the Meteorological Office in which she says ‘The key finding that “warming is unequivocal and very likely due to man’s activities” remains robust. The basic physics tells us that increasing greenhouse gases cause global warming, and we are likely to pay a heavy price if we keep emitting them.’

A lot of the discussion centres on the ‘Hockey-stick Graph’ which (according to the Times caption) shows that the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere has remained relatively flat for almost a thousand years and then sharply increases after 1900.

Let’s be clear about this. The Hockey-stick curve shows the departure from the 1961-1990 average temperature over the period AD 1000 to AD 2000. It does indeed show a sudden climb after 1900: it fluctuates year after year, but the mean value hovers about half a degree Celsius below that average until around 1900 after which it rises to about 0.8° C.

Think about that measurement accuracy. Imagine King Ethelred taking time off from his largely unsuccessful attempts to fight off the Viking invaders and saying to his chief scientist, ‘Just nip out and measure the air temperature, will you Master Tannequy?’ Can you picture it? And if the figures are obtained, not from actual measurements, but from inferences, think about how accurate you could expect them to be. Does that make you wonder about the significance of the rise? It doesn’t seem to worry Dr Pope, but I’m an engineer and I know how difficult it is to measure things with any degree of accuracy, and it worries me greatly.

OK, you may say, a rise is a rise is a rise. But then, I ask, what about the point I have often made: that mankind’s total contribution to annual global CO₂ production is around 7%. How can cutting back on this small contribution make any difference?

Another observation: the Met office is an offshoot of the Ministry of Defence. In other words it is a department of the Government, the same government that finds ‘Global Warming’ a convenient peg on which to hang its tax-rise hat.

It’s like appointing a double-glazing company to provide the weather forecasts.

By the way, a friend has pointed out that I blackened “RMS power” when I was talking about specifications the other day. The measurement that distorts things is “peak power” which is the amount of power that an amplifier or loudspeaker can handle for a limited time. RMS power is what can be handled for sustained periods. I apologise, but the point remains: if you are comparing the specification for product A against that of product B, you should be able to compare performance on a like-for-like basis. If A’s specification says it can handle 100 Watts RMS and B’s says it can handle 100 Watts peak, the latter has the lower power-handling capability.

That is, if anybody still provides written specifications.

January 28, 2010: Need or greed?

I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a good friend who raised the subject of “need”. You know the thing: kids say, ‘I need a scooter’; women convince themselves that they need a new outfit; men need a sports car; people who see the Apple iPad are convinced they need one.

Compare those needs with those of survivors of the Haiti earthquake, who do really need food, water, medical help, new homes. There is no doubt that those are genuine needs, and the distinction between need and greed clearly lies somewhere between these two extremes. Probably there is no clean dividing line, but it is important to clarify need when we come to considerations over whether we need to build a fleet of new nuclear power stations. Do we need them?

The simple fact is that, if we don’t press ahead with building nuclear power stations, we will be unable to keep everybody supplied with electricity, and if that happens we will begin to experience real need. A surgeon carrying out an operation does really need a reliable source of electricity; a water company needs electricity in order to keep pumping the stuff to our homes and ensuring that it is safe to drink – and we do really need water.

The argument against needing this nuclear programme is based on unrealistic premises: either that we can improve the insulation of our homes and cut back on demand, or that we can get enough power from renewables. If only we could test these premises! The people who promote them will quickly disappear into the jungle if they win their way and the lights start to go out.

And I venture to suggest that here’s a real need: the need to be realistic about electricity supply.

January 26, 2010: One rule for all?

Listening to the interview with Madam Fu Ying, the Chinese Ambassador to the UK, this morning on the BBC’s “Today” programme I was reminded of what I said in October. I referred to Star Trek’s Prime Directive: which was, basically, “Look at, but don’t try to alter the ways that other societies behave”.

Once again I was struck by the bland assumption by media people (who have little or no experience of living in foreign countries) that everybody in the whole world should live by our standards, our laws.

This is arrogant nonsense. When will these people realize that in some countries people are deeply offended by things that are widely accepted in ours? Is it right that ‘freedom’ should extend to allowing extreme pornography to be available at screens in our homes? Or that extreme political or religious views should be permitted?

We need to understand that other rules apply in other cultures. We can comment on them but we should be extremely wary of forcing them to be changed.

Of course it’s difficult. My own father was in the Indian Army during the last decades of the British Raj. He had to deal with the practice of suttee (or Su-thi) in India: the practice of encouraging or forcing widows to throw themselves on their late husbands’ funeral pyres. Like all Westerners, he found it totally abhorrent and stopped it whenever he could. But he recognised he was interfering in an ages-old tradition, and I know that it worried him.

Whether it is the execution of a British citizen who broke the very strict drug laws in China, or the curtailment of Google’s operations, the decisions are not to be taken by us.

January 21, 2010: The truth about wind turbines (or some of it)

The Royal Academy of Engineering has now referred to domestic wind turbines and solar panels as “eco-bling”, pointing out that they contribute very little to Britain’s carbon-reduction targets. Dr Doug King, Professor of Building Engineering at the University of Bath, says they are about saying to the public “I’m being good, I’m helping the environment”. He adds that the things that save the money are “not sexy”.

It’s not just home-owners who fall for the lies and flaunt useless eco-bling. Last July I commented on a local supermarket that had two wind turbines flanking the entrance to its car park. I said how they were cosmetic: when they work they generate just about enough for the lights in the car park, but on windless days they are kept turning by electric motors! That is done to save people thinking they aren’t working. Just how blingy is that?

A friend has directed me to Christopher Booker’s book, “The Real Global Warming Disaster"  - subtitled "Is the obsession with ‘Climate Change’ turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?" I’ll get the book, but I can say right now that I don’t think about this sorry saga as a scientific blunder, more deliberate perversion of science.

(By the way, apologies for the late appearance of this blog today. After damaging my back while clearing snow from the pavement outside my house after Christmas, the pain has been getting progressively worse – I hardly got any sleep last night, and was in no mood or shape to sit down and compile this note. But I’ve done it now!)

January 20, 2010: Cream Eggs and Generators

The news that Kraft is taking over Cadburys is being greeted with wails of despair and shouts of disapproval. Perhaps time dims memories, but I just don’t think that there was such an outcry when our major power companies were being sold off to foreign organizations.

Just as the penny was beginning to drop, that we would have to build new nuclear power stations, we sold off our only nuclear capability to the Japanese. Then we sold off great chunks of the supply industry to French and German conglomerates (EDF and RWE). We also let the Americans in, though they skulked off home again when things went very wrong (AES and Enron).

Let’s all be clear on this. These are not benign offers of generous help: ‘Let us give you loads of money so that you can go on running without fear’. Companies buy other companies only to benefit themselves. Even if they don’t strip assets or close down the competition, they reap the benefits that should have been plugged back into our economy. The benefits go straight into their own coffers.

So why are we so exercised over Cadburys while we seemed not to care about the loss of Westinghouse or Npower? I suspect it is because the public takes their electricity supply for granted; they give scarcely a thought to it when they switch on a kettle, not even to wonder how it is that there’s always enough electricity to handle it.

The harsh realities will come home when the power cuts come! 

January 19, 2010: Sports

I had a go at cookery books a while ago, pointing out how even those aimed at novices failed to address the problems of people who know nothing at all about cooking. Now let’s look at sport.

I don’t believe that I’m the only person in the country who knows nothing at all about sport. I’ve always been that way, and I’ve often been made to feel like a social outcast because of that ignorance. I’ve sat in pubs trying desperately to join in conversations about cricket or football, and failing miserably. At one time, when I was about 19 years old, I even decided that I should become an expert in a sport about which my companions knew nothing, so that I could seem to be an expert in something. So I went out and bought a book about baseball. Result? Abject failure. Every time I tried to deflect the pub conversation to my subject I just got strange looks and after an awkward silence, the talk soon reverted to football or cricket.

I do try. Honestly I do. But what I need is an idiot’s guide, something like “Bluff your way in sport”.

All of this came back to me yesterday when I read about the latest Test Match in South Africa (it was there, wasn’t it?). Once upon a time you could get a clue from the names: you knew that people with names like Grace or Smith played for England. But as our country absorbed more and more immigrants, this became increasingly difficult. You can’t even tell by the colour of the player.

It’s even worse in football, where everybody from player to manager seems to have a foreign name.

At the beginning of every sports page I’d like to see a summary that says – in very simple terms – which side is winning (or has won) the game they’re talking about. Also, the first time a player is mentioned in an article an indication of which side they play for (for example “E” or “SA”).

Yesterday’s miles of news about the Test was almost incomprehensible to me, and I’m fed up about feeling left out.

I’ve even thought of adding a page to this Website, designed specifically for people like me. This would provide the gems of news that we need, in order to make small talk. Trouble is, by definition I couldn’t write it! Any offers? 

January 18, 2010: Visible tributes to engineers

The Brunel Statue Group has proposed a monument to that great engineer. It’s a horrible stick-insect, skeletal monstrosity. Today’s Times prints a quote from Hugh Merrell (publisher of “Statues of London 2009”): “It’s like some joke sculpture you see outside the Frankfurt Trade Fair. We’re talking about Brunel, for God’s sake!”

Perhaps. But it’s got the media’s attention, so there may be merit in it – as inappropriate as it may seem to be.

Engineers, as you will know from this site, get scant attention from the media. The profession that gave this country its wealth is disregarded at best, reviled at worst, and it’s generally only engineering failures that make it onto the news.

There was a local plan to erect a really wonderful statue to an engineering achievement. It showed a Hawker fighter soaring skywards, supported on a plue of exhaust. This was to be erected in Kingston upon Thames, which was once the home of the Hawker Aircraft factory. Here they designed and built wonderful aircraft, including the Hurricane which has been eclipsed by the Supermarine Spitfire as the preeminent fighter of World War II. In fact, while the Spitfire was faster, the Hurricane was a better fighter and provided a more stable gun platform.

Anyway, the site where this magnificent fighter was created is now a housing estate, and few people know that Kingston was its birthplace. The idea of a stunning memorial was great but nothing has become of it so far.

Perhaps I’ll get hold of some coat hangers, twist them together and offer them to the Philistines on the Royal Bough’s Council. 

January 15, 2010: British attitudes to technology – and sex

I am not at all surprised that a survey involving 1,000 British people has found that 20% had never heard of Apple chief executive Steve Jobs and, while a further 10% had heard of him, they thought he was a trade union official! Neither do I find it strange that 15% believed that Sir Tim Berners-Lee was either head of MI5 or an Arctic explorer! (Bill Gates was the most well-known but 5% of the group thought he was a comedian or a famous thief .. mmmmm?)

Britain has a society that is continually bombarded by media hype consistently doing its best to ignore technology, and the press finds interest only in technology’s failures. That’s part of the reason that I set out to write novels featuring an engineer-hero.

Interesting tale here. When I wrote my first book I sent it to an agent, who promptly took an interest in it. She encouraged me to sharpen it up and add more colour and – after I was on version five, I think – she said, “That’s good as far as it goes …. but it needs to be, well, spiced up a bit”.

“Oh,” I thought, cottoning on quickly, and set about tentatively adding a bit more “spice”. When I submitted the new version to her she replied that this was better, but added that it needed a bit more.

As a result, when the book was finally published a magazine headed their review of it with the single word “Sex!”. Of course, the more lurid passages were quickly picked up by all my friends and I got several knowing looks – as if the hero’s exploits were my own.

It became even more difficult when our sons read the books. “Dad!” they chorused in surprise and disapproval, firmly convinced that they had all been the products of Virgin Birth.

January 14, 2010: Disaster in Haiti

I am a member of that little-understood organization, Rotary, and am very proud of its achievements.

It was a Rotarian, Tom Henderson who dreamt up the wonderful concept of a ShelterBox, a simple plastic box containing essential supplies such as tents, cooking equipment, tools, medical supplies and water-treatment tablets, which could be sent out to disaster areas whenever the need arose. Since then the organization has grown, with branches all over the world. Money sent to them is used to acquire and provision these boxes, which are held in reserve at various strategic locations worldwide, ready to be sent out at a moment’s notice.

When the Asian Tsunami hit in December 2004, almost ten thousand of these boxes were sent to the region, providing life-saving shelter for around 100,000 survivors. The first boxes were deployed in the area within a couple of days and my own club, located near Heathrow Airport played a major part in arranging transportation facilities. A local school raised £6,000 and gave it to Rotary as being the most effective way of ensuring that help was delivered right to the spot where it was needed.

Today, I appeal to all of you to visit the ShelterBox Website (http://www.shelterbox.org), to see what a wonderful organization it is, and how you can help it.

January 13, 2010: What's a power cut like?

News that Venezuela is going to suffer rolling 4-hour weekly power cuts should make us think about our own situation. The supply industry of the South American country has one feature that we thankfully don’t share – 70% of its electricity comes from a single hydro-electric plant. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket!

Luckily we have a divergent supply structure, with fossil-burning plants (burning coal, gas and oil), plus nuclear and hydro-electric. (Oh and we mustn’t forget wind which, for all the hype, contributed a magnificent four tenths of one percent to our supplies last year.) But we shouldn’t be smug. For some time, engineers have been warning about looming cuts in the UK.

I suspect that many people in the UK haven’t experienced prolonged power outages. I’ve heard people say things like “our computers are all backed up with battery-powered systems”. As I frequently say, those people should ask themselves when those back-up systems were last tested in anger.

Our modern society is far more dependent on computers than it was when we last suffered routine power cuts and we are very, very vulnerable. 

Think how your home or business would cope. Plan before it's too late. Think how shops will work without tills and escalators. It might be an idea to make it a habit to ensure your bladder is empty before you get in a lift.

If you want to see what Venezuela is suffering, visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8455592.stm.

January 11, 2010: Migrating turtles, global warming and the BBC

My hopes that the BBC may be shifting its stance on global warming may have been premature.

Whenever evidence emerges that could add to the Green’s views it is promptly wheeled out by the Corporation, put under a bright spotlight and trumpeted as further proof that global warming is a fact and that it’s all mankind’s fault. Yet when evidence is found that may be contrary to this view we are lucky if it gets a mention, and there is certainly no extensive follow-up and discussion highlighting the issue.

On Saturday we were told that some turtles in California were migrating to warmer seas because the waters where they normally congregated had become too cold. Yes, the BBC told us that – but there was no extensive follow up, no cries of “See, we told you so!”.

Can’t you just imagine the whoops of joy if it had been the other way round? Instead, those in the global-warming camp mutter that one isolated incident doesn’t prove anything; that this is merely a blip on the statistical rise of sea temperatures. They ignore all the evidence to the contrary, and if the sceptics try to claim that these blips do occur and that they should be seen as just that and that we should look at the long-term trend, they are shouted down.

No, I fear that the leopard hasn’t changed its spots.

January 8, 2010: The BBC’s stance on global warming

There are four camps involved in the global-warming debate: those who are fully committed to the idea that it is happening and that man is the cause of it; those who believe that it is happening but man is not a major contributor; those who think that any detectable warming is transient and part of an ages-old process of planetary change; and finally, those who believe that global warming is not happening at all. (I suppose there is a fifth group – the “don’t know and don’t care” brigade, but I’ll leave them out of this discussion.)

The last three camps tend to be lumped together as “sceptics”, although the things about which they are sceptical are very different from each other. Whatever, the sceptics have up to now been treated as social pariahs by the media – and that’s something I’ve complained about many times before. It’s as if the sceptics were “flat earthers”, flying in the face of proven facts, which they are definitely not. In fact a very large number of scientists and engineers would class themselves as sceptics in this context, but whenever they dare to speak they are howled down.

Now, at last, there’s a glimmer of light dawning. It was announced yesterday that “the BBC Trust is to review the corporation’s science coverage after complaints that it does not give enough weight to climate-change sceptics”.

Hoo-bloody-ray! At last! It’s a small beginning, but a beginning at least.

January 6, 2010: Low-energy bulbs again

The news that E-on had sent out, free of charge, millions of those pesky low-energy bulbs to their customers made me want to scream. Put under pressure to meet ludicrous energy-saving targets, the company hit on the idea that the simplest way was to send the bulbs to their customers. They could then claim the energy savings made by the sum total of all their customers switching from tungsten to low-energy bulbs.

Just like that! Va-voom!

The claim was based on everybody dutifully plugging the new bulbs in and using them as soon as they were received. Only a madman would believe that this would happen, yet the green statisticians were happy. Job done and dusted.

Never mind the cost of this nonsense. Never mind the waste of resources. It sounds green and therefore must be good.

Are there no limits to this madness? As it is, are you happy when you go into a room, switch on the new low-energy bulbs and stumble around in the gloom for several seconds while they warm up? I’m not. Neither am I happy with the steady fall in light output as the bulbs age.

Yet we carry on, marching to the beat of bemused drummers following the crazed antics of nincompoop leaders. Watch out lemmings, here we come!