Carbon emissions from homes - well we swapped out all the lightbulbs, put in double glazing - but then cavity wall insulation? Sounded like it was expensive for not a lot of return.
Well, - not so. A bit of investigation on the internet showed prices of only a few hundred pounds. So we called someone up and the salesman came around with a tape measure and grant application forms. £495 in total - but there is a £250 grant for everyone and a 100% grant for anyone claiming any sort of state benefits. So it only cost £245.
The guys turned up with a drill and a compressor thingy on their van. A couple of hours work and they were finished. The cavity walls are pumped full of this fluffy stuff and the house feels warmer already.
Job done.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Dead Biofuels
A recent press release from the Biofuels Corporation highlights the real difficulties that the biofuels sector is currently suffering. In the absence of assistance from the government the sector has been struggling in the face of low oil prices which has real implications when you consider the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation which obligates all EU member states to have a minimum proportion of biofuel as a total of road fuel.
The fact that nobody has been able to make any money at it does not bode well for the future, as the infrastructure investment - including the farming of fuel crops will not happen unless investors can see a real future.
Cutting carbon emissions is fine if all you want to do is make a lot of hot air - but to deliver results we need to see far stronger leadership from the government than we currently are.
The fact that nobody has been able to make any money at it does not bode well for the future, as the infrastructure investment - including the farming of fuel crops will not happen unless investors can see a real future.
Cutting carbon emissions is fine if all you want to do is make a lot of hot air - but to deliver results we need to see far stronger leadership from the government than we currently are.
Bio-Taxed
Gordon Brown's promise to increase still further the road tax on Chelsea Tractors is probably a good move - but it still misses the vital point. CO2 emissions are as a result of burning fossil fuel and surely the right thing to be doing is to encourage the use of biofuels.
At the moment a driver who uses biofuels currently pays the same road tax as does one who uses fossil fuels - and also has to contend with a punitive level of tax which generally makes biofuels more expensive than fossil fuels.
Cleaner vehicles attract lower levels of tax - which is fine, but we now have a situation where drivers producing CO2 using fossil fuels are paying less tax than ones who don't because they are using biofuels.
Where is the sense in that?
At the moment a driver who uses biofuels currently pays the same road tax as does one who uses fossil fuels - and also has to contend with a punitive level of tax which generally makes biofuels more expensive than fossil fuels.
Cleaner vehicles attract lower levels of tax - which is fine, but we now have a situation where drivers producing CO2 using fossil fuels are paying less tax than ones who don't because they are using biofuels.
Where is the sense in that?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Hard Blogging
Spent yestarday evening slaving over a hot keyboard. Apparently you can host your blog on your own domain and I was wanting to host on www.appraisal360.co.uk - my 360 degree feedback site.
Well, it works - kind of. I managed to get it to post in the right place but when I tried to edit the template to make it match the rest of the site, that's where the problems started. Have a look, it's at blog.appraisal360.co.uk and if anyone can give me any tips they'd be very welcome.
Well, it works - kind of. I managed to get it to post in the right place but when I tried to edit the template to make it match the rest of the site, that's where the problems started. Have a look, it's at blog.appraisal360.co.uk and if anyone can give me any tips they'd be very welcome.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Googleperplexed
Exactly what Google are doing right now is a mystery. Over the last couple of days Appraisal360 - my 360 degree feedback site has been shifting erratically between position 18 and position 189 on the listings for "360 degree feedback". I had been hoping that it was just a temporary blip - but it's still doing it today.
Ah well....
Ah well....
Thursday, March 15, 2007
More Swindle...
Channel 4 comes under fire again in an article in the Independent about The Great Global Warming Swindle. But this time it is from Carl Wunsch - one of the scientists interviewed in the programme.
Those who saw the programme will have noticed the extensive editing that took place when the interviews were shown. Only a few sentences were shown at a time and I for one was left wondering what it was that these people said either side of the bits that were shown.
Professor Wunsch complains that he was mislead about the nature of the programme when he was originally approached by Channel 4 - and that far from suggesting that global warming is driven by natural rather than man-made emissions he was trying to say that as the world warms, natural effects - such as the warming of the oceans - can kick in and release vaste amounts of stored CO2 which will dwarf man made emissions. This is quite different to saying that man made emssions are not causing the problem.
Professor Wunsch goes on to say: "In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening."
The programme he says was "one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them (Channel 4) at face value - a great error."
So there you have it.
Those who saw the programme will have noticed the extensive editing that took place when the interviews were shown. Only a few sentences were shown at a time and I for one was left wondering what it was that these people said either side of the bits that were shown.
Professor Wunsch complains that he was mislead about the nature of the programme when he was originally approached by Channel 4 - and that far from suggesting that global warming is driven by natural rather than man-made emissions he was trying to say that as the world warms, natural effects - such as the warming of the oceans - can kick in and release vaste amounts of stored CO2 which will dwarf man made emissions. This is quite different to saying that man made emssions are not causing the problem.
Professor Wunsch goes on to say: "In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening."
The programme he says was "one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them (Channel 4) at face value - a great error."
So there you have it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Selling with your mouth full
Conversations with dentists tend to be short and fragmented - if not painful. But today in between drilling the nerves in my teeth my dentist asked me what I did. So I told him about my 360 degree feedback site - or more accurately, I gave the nurse one of my cards.
He's a South African gentleman and he's a big believer in his staff being well trained and confident in what they do, so the (rather one sided) conversation turned to how my system might help.
By this time my mouth was sufficiently numb that I wasn't confident of making a lot of sense - but he picked up my card as I left and promised that he would look at my website before I return next week for more of the same.
So does selling to your dentist qualify you for any records? Well it will be a first for me.
He's a South African gentleman and he's a big believer in his staff being well trained and confident in what they do, so the (rather one sided) conversation turned to how my system might help.
By this time my mouth was sufficiently numb that I wasn't confident of making a lot of sense - but he picked up my card as I left and promised that he would look at my website before I return next week for more of the same.
So does selling to your dentist qualify you for any records? Well it will be a first for me.
The Swindle Exposed
An article in todays' Independent analysies the flaws in the Channel4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
As mentioned in some of my previous posts, much of the data presented was either out of date, misrepresented, invented or just plain wrong. Important and well known explanations for certain variations to the climate patterns were not mentioned because they would have destroyed the programme maker's case. And the programme maker himself has now admitted under questioning from The Independent that some of the graphs shown were 'modified' to support his case. Channel4 - according to the article - seem now to be wanting to distance themselves from the documentary.
The programme maker in question has been repremanded before by the ITC. Now it seems that a number of influential people are on his tail. And no doubt the ITC will soon be on the case yet again. Hopefully this time his credibility will be destroyed once and for all and his career as a documentary maker will be well and truly over.
It's a shame Channel4 didn't distance themselves before they broadcast such dangerous rubbish to a gullible public. But then this isn't the only major cockup Channel4 have made in recent weeks is it...?
As mentioned in some of my previous posts, much of the data presented was either out of date, misrepresented, invented or just plain wrong. Important and well known explanations for certain variations to the climate patterns were not mentioned because they would have destroyed the programme maker's case. And the programme maker himself has now admitted under questioning from The Independent that some of the graphs shown were 'modified' to support his case. Channel4 - according to the article - seem now to be wanting to distance themselves from the documentary.
The programme maker in question has been repremanded before by the ITC. Now it seems that a number of influential people are on his tail. And no doubt the ITC will soon be on the case yet again. Hopefully this time his credibility will be destroyed once and for all and his career as a documentary maker will be well and truly over.
It's a shame Channel4 didn't distance themselves before they broadcast such dangerous rubbish to a gullible public. But then this isn't the only major cockup Channel4 have made in recent weeks is it...?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
A load of hot air
Our friend Mr Milliband was on the Today programme this morning trying to defend the Government's record on carbon emissions. His first premise was that under Labour carbon emissions had decreased by 11% and that we were now well on the way to meeting our Kyoto targets.
Not according to a documentary I caught a couple of weeks ago - and which given this Government's record on spin I am inclined to believe - carbon emissions have actually increased under this government. A view supported by The Independent too.
In an earlier life I spent a lot of time campaigning against the Child Support Agency and I became well versed in some of the ways that the figures get manipulated. Carbon emissions it seems are no exception. For example: carbon emissions from international flights are excluded from the emissions that the Government owns up to. Did you know that?
The difficulty I have with all this is that this really isn't an issue that people should be spreading lies about. We are talking about the entire fossil fuel based energy industry being phased out over hte next 50 years. There are some people who aren't going to like it - get used to it.
Not according to a documentary I caught a couple of weeks ago - and which given this Government's record on spin I am inclined to believe - carbon emissions have actually increased under this government. A view supported by The Independent too.
In an earlier life I spent a lot of time campaigning against the Child Support Agency and I became well versed in some of the ways that the figures get manipulated. Carbon emissions it seems are no exception. For example: carbon emissions from international flights are excluded from the emissions that the Government owns up to. Did you know that?
The difficulty I have with all this is that this really isn't an issue that people should be spreading lies about. We are talking about the entire fossil fuel based energy industry being phased out over hte next 50 years. There are some people who aren't going to like it - get used to it.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Self help
Remember yesterdays when I was feeling fed up because my ranking on Google for my 360 degree feedback site had taken a nosedive? Well - I'd been madly trying to find some places where I could get some decent links from and yesterday I found that I'd got a link from selfhelp.com which has a PageRank of 6.
My listing is still looking bad this morning - but Matt at XSEO put me in 50 links last week so hopefully in a few days things will start to look better.
My listing is still looking bad this morning - but Matt at XSEO put me in 50 links last week so hopefully in a few days things will start to look better.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Googleplexed
Chasing search engine rankings can be a frustrating business. Having achieved some decent rankings for my 360 degree feedback site I decided to cancel my Pay Per Click campaign which was running away with some serious cash.
But part of the campaign was content adverts where your advert appears on other people's sites - you've probably seen "Ads by Goooogle" on some sites. Problem: as soon as those ads disappear then a lot of your inbound links also disappear and your google ranking starts to nosedive.
And thus it was - so the content network ads have been restarted and hopefully in a little while things will recover.
But part of the campaign was content adverts where your advert appears on other people's sites - you've probably seen "Ads by Goooogle" on some sites. Problem: as soon as those ads disappear then a lot of your inbound links also disappear and your google ranking starts to nosedive.
And thus it was - so the content network ads have been restarted and hopefully in a little while things will recover.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Seeing the Light
The announcement by the EU summit that incandescent bulbs will be phased out by 2009 is an interesting development. Just a few weeks ago David Milliband was asked if he would be banning the sale of incandescent bulbs. "Impractical" he replied - only to be upstaged within days by the Australian government who announced that the sale of incandescent bulbs will be banned by 2010.
Now more humiliation for Mr Milliband as the EU leaders under the presidency of the Germans announced that they would be pushing through proposals to phase out incandescent bulbs for domestic use by 2009 and new regulations for office and street lighting by 2008.
Poor Mr Milliband it seems had been left in the dark.
Now more humiliation for Mr Milliband as the EU leaders under the presidency of the Germans announced that they would be pushing through proposals to phase out incandescent bulbs for domestic use by 2009 and new regulations for office and street lighting by 2008.
Poor Mr Milliband it seems had been left in the dark.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Swindled Again....
It was profoundly depressing to read some of the commentary about last night's Channel4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle. Most people - it seems - are happy to accept anything they are told without question. Until you read Reasic's excellent blog where he not only points out that most of the evidence presented in the programme was faulty, but that the programme maker - Martin Durkin - himself has a bad history of misrepresenting evidence and inventing conspiracies:-
"Mr Durkin has often been accused of taking liberties with the facts. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis, conspiring against the world’s poor. No one would suggest that green claims should not be subjected to critical examination, but the people he interviewed were lied to about the contents of the programmes and given no chance to respond to the accusations the series made.
"The Independent Television Commission handed down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers “distorted by selective editing” the views of the interviewees and “misled” them about the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.” Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology. After the series was broadcast, I discovered that the assistant producer and several of its interviewees worked for the right-wing libertarian magazine masquerading as “Living Marxism”, which has just been successfully sued by ITN. All the arguments Against Nature made had been rehearsed in LM."
So there you have it - the great swindle was the programme itself .
"Mr Durkin has often been accused of taking liberties with the facts. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis, conspiring against the world’s poor. No one would suggest that green claims should not be subjected to critical examination, but the people he interviewed were lied to about the contents of the programmes and given no chance to respond to the accusations the series made.
"The Independent Television Commission handed down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers “distorted by selective editing” the views of the interviewees and “misled” them about the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.” Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology. After the series was broadcast, I discovered that the assistant producer and several of its interviewees worked for the right-wing libertarian magazine masquerading as “Living Marxism”, which has just been successfully sued by ITN. All the arguments Against Nature made had been rehearsed in LM."
So there you have it - the great swindle was the programme itself .
Frequently Googled
Can you imagine writing a document called 360 degree feedback Frequently Asked Questions? Well I can because I've just spent the last two days doing it - and now my brain hurts. Now I've just got to wait for the Googlebot to come round and spider it - the suspense is killing me...
The Great Channel 4 Swindle
Channel 4's so called documentary last night "The Great Global Warming Swindle" will hopefully come to be seen as another big mistake by the broadcaster. The programme was big on vox-pops from people with no credibility, short on evidence and big on conspiracy theories.
One of their keystone arguements was to point to the fact that the different levels of the atmosphere are not warming evenly - as the climate models suggest that they should - as an indicator that the current global warming is not due to greenhouse effects.
But spend a few minutes searching on the web and the original scientific data is readily available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The real difficulty apparently was a discrepancy between data gathered by satelites and that gathered by weather balloons. The discrepancy has now been resolved and the layers of the atmosphere have been shown to be warming evenly and consistent with the climate models. This report was published in April 2006 - so exactly how the programme makers missed it when I found it within a few minutes is beyond belief.
Similarly they argued that changes in cloud formation were as a result of changes in cosmic radiation as the cloud droplets in the upper atmosphere are precipitated by cosmic rays. Problem: the cosmic radiation data is also readily available on the internet and it shows no increase during the period in question.
The assertion that Al Gore's data in "An Inconvenient Truth" showing the correlation between CO2 and global temperature was flawed because CO2 levels lag global temperature was also incorrect. This time lag is well known as the Milankovitch cycle and is indicative of a positive feedback effect whereby as the oceans warm they release CO2 thereby accelerating the warming. The reverse also happens as the climate cools.
The most objectionable assertion in the programme was that measures intended to reduce carbon emissions will have a deleterious effect on the world's poor by forcing them to rely on 'flakey' sources of electricity such as solar. Far from it - anybody interested in plans to build massive solar infrastructure in Northern Africa should check out www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm. There is every reason to hope that the tropical deserts of North Africa will become one of the world's powerhouses - with the capacity to supply the world with electricity many times over.
Of course - most people won't bother checking the scientific data - or even know where to look. Channel 4 certainly didn't.
I'm not against people having different views and having intelligent debate. But there are are a dangerous number of people out there happy to sieze on programmes like the Channel 4 offering as an excuse for inaction and ammunition for creating doubt. What I am against is people blatently lying and producing false evidence - and a broadcaster who gives air time to such rubbish in the pursuit of ratings and dramatic programme billing.
One of their keystone arguements was to point to the fact that the different levels of the atmosphere are not warming evenly - as the climate models suggest that they should - as an indicator that the current global warming is not due to greenhouse effects.
But spend a few minutes searching on the web and the original scientific data is readily available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The real difficulty apparently was a discrepancy between data gathered by satelites and that gathered by weather balloons. The discrepancy has now been resolved and the layers of the atmosphere have been shown to be warming evenly and consistent with the climate models. This report was published in April 2006 - so exactly how the programme makers missed it when I found it within a few minutes is beyond belief.
Similarly they argued that changes in cloud formation were as a result of changes in cosmic radiation as the cloud droplets in the upper atmosphere are precipitated by cosmic rays. Problem: the cosmic radiation data is also readily available on the internet and it shows no increase during the period in question.
The assertion that Al Gore's data in "An Inconvenient Truth" showing the correlation between CO2 and global temperature was flawed because CO2 levels lag global temperature was also incorrect. This time lag is well known as the Milankovitch cycle and is indicative of a positive feedback effect whereby as the oceans warm they release CO2 thereby accelerating the warming. The reverse also happens as the climate cools.
The most objectionable assertion in the programme was that measures intended to reduce carbon emissions will have a deleterious effect on the world's poor by forcing them to rely on 'flakey' sources of electricity such as solar. Far from it - anybody interested in plans to build massive solar infrastructure in Northern Africa should check out www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm. There is every reason to hope that the tropical deserts of North Africa will become one of the world's powerhouses - with the capacity to supply the world with electricity many times over.
Of course - most people won't bother checking the scientific data - or even know where to look. Channel 4 certainly didn't.
I'm not against people having different views and having intelligent debate. But there are are a dangerous number of people out there happy to sieze on programmes like the Channel 4 offering as an excuse for inaction and ammunition for creating doubt. What I am against is people blatently lying and producing false evidence - and a broadcaster who gives air time to such rubbish in the pursuit of ratings and dramatic programme billing.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Random thoughts
I woke up in some distress this morning: feelings of despair, heart beating, slight body quivering. I knew what it was of course - I tested my blood sugar and it was 2.3 mmol/l. Far too low. I'd been exhausted when I went to bed last night - totally wasted in fact and I can hardly remember crawling into bed.
I had been writing an FAQ for my 360 Degree Feedback site - partly because it seemed like a useful thing to do and partly because I'm still trying to improve my ranking on the Google search listings. I've been doing OK on google.co.uk but on google.com I'm struggling to get onto the first page. So I had a word with a friend of mine - Matt Paines of XSEO who is a high flying Search Engine Optimiser. He reckoned he could get me a few more links in that might do the trick and consolidate my position on the first page. I do hope so because most of my business comes in through Google and it could make a real difference to the number of hits I get.
I did wonder if it was worth trying to get a link from my Insulin Pumpers biography page - but in my distressed state all I could think of was the reasons why not. I'm feeling a bit better now and I think I'll drop an email to John - the webmaster and see if he'll put me a link in.
Random thoughts this morning I know - but doesn't it just get you that way sometimes?
R.x
I had been writing an FAQ for my 360 Degree Feedback site - partly because it seemed like a useful thing to do and partly because I'm still trying to improve my ranking on the Google search listings. I've been doing OK on google.co.uk but on google.com I'm struggling to get onto the first page. So I had a word with a friend of mine - Matt Paines of XSEO who is a high flying Search Engine Optimiser. He reckoned he could get me a few more links in that might do the trick and consolidate my position on the first page. I do hope so because most of my business comes in through Google and it could make a real difference to the number of hits I get.
I did wonder if it was worth trying to get a link from my Insulin Pumpers biography page - but in my distressed state all I could think of was the reasons why not. I'm feeling a bit better now and I think I'll drop an email to John - the webmaster and see if he'll put me a link in.
Random thoughts this morning I know - but doesn't it just get you that way sometimes?
R.x
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Wikipedia struggles too
Wikipedia defines 360 degree feedback as follows:-
In human resources, 360-degree feedback is employee development feedback that comes from all around the employee. The feedback would come from subordinates, peers and managers in the organizational hierarchy, as well as a self-assessment, and in some cases external sources such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. ("360" refers to the 360 degrees in a circle.)
Also known as multi-rater feedback', 'multisource feedback', 'multisource assessment'.
Compare to upward feedback where managers are given feedback by their direct reports, or a traditional performance appraisal where the employees are most often reviewed only by their manager.
The truth is that it's a difficult concept to explain in a few short sentences and it's something that I struggle with when trying to explain my 360 degree feedback site to people I've just met.
It then goes on to say:-
The results from 360-degree feedback are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan their training and development. The results are also used by some organizations for making promotional or pay decisions, which is sometimes called 360-degree review.
Hmmm..... their reasons for doing it seem about right. But I'm still trying to find ways of getting more people to understand - and more importantly - buy it off my site. Some people seem to understand it without further explanation, others don't seem to get it no matter how hard you try.
Any ideas anyone?
In human resources, 360-degree feedback is employee development feedback that comes from all around the employee. The feedback would come from subordinates, peers and managers in the organizational hierarchy, as well as a self-assessment, and in some cases external sources such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. ("360" refers to the 360 degrees in a circle.)
Also known as multi-rater feedback', 'multisource feedback', 'multisource assessment'.
Compare to upward feedback where managers are given feedback by their direct reports, or a traditional performance appraisal where the employees are most often reviewed only by their manager.
The truth is that it's a difficult concept to explain in a few short sentences and it's something that I struggle with when trying to explain my 360 degree feedback site to people I've just met.
It then goes on to say:-
The results from 360-degree feedback are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan their training and development. The results are also used by some organizations for making promotional or pay decisions, which is sometimes called 360-degree review.
Hmmm..... their reasons for doing it seem about right. But I'm still trying to find ways of getting more people to understand - and more importantly - buy it off my site. Some people seem to understand it without further explanation, others don't seem to get it no matter how hard you try.
Any ideas anyone?
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Chasing the moon
There's something magical about an eclipse. It kind of makes the world stop while you watch disc of the sun or the moon hanging in the sky.
Our first attempts at eclipse chasing were a bit of a disaster. In 1999 we trekked over to France to see the solar eclipse only to spend the morning in a field full of noisy frenchmen and an overcast sky. As if to add insult to injury it cleared up shortly afterwards to a perfect sunny afternoon.
Then there was a lunar eclipse at about 2:30am. Patrick and I piled into the car with some duvets, hot drinks and sandwiches and went out of town to find some clear skies. But could we find a break in the clouds? We raced down the M42 towards Oxford looking for a break and eventually pulled into a country lane and wrapped up in our duvets waiting to see what happened. Nothing! So at about 5am we gave it up as a bad job and came home.
So determined not to be beaten we piled off to Zimbabwe in 2001 to chase the solar eclipse. The sky was perfect, the location was incredible, the people were fantastic. And the sight of the black circle of the eclipsed sun hanging in the twilight sky was one of those images that stay with you forever.
The next lunar eclipse made up for it all. The skies were clear, we drove out of town to find a dark place and sat in the car watching the moon like a brown plastic ball hanging in the sky.
Last night was much the same - I got cold standing outside in my dressing gown so I found a place I could watch it out the window. Captain Cook was once saved by an eclipse:- he told some natives who were giving him a hard time that the gods were going to come and eat up the moon that night to show that they had to be nice to him. It worked!
He had to work it out for himself - if you want to know when the next eclipse is going to be then check out the Goddard Space Flight Centre website.
Our first attempts at eclipse chasing were a bit of a disaster. In 1999 we trekked over to France to see the solar eclipse only to spend the morning in a field full of noisy frenchmen and an overcast sky. As if to add insult to injury it cleared up shortly afterwards to a perfect sunny afternoon.
Then there was a lunar eclipse at about 2:30am. Patrick and I piled into the car with some duvets, hot drinks and sandwiches and went out of town to find some clear skies. But could we find a break in the clouds? We raced down the M42 towards Oxford looking for a break and eventually pulled into a country lane and wrapped up in our duvets waiting to see what happened. Nothing! So at about 5am we gave it up as a bad job and came home.
So determined not to be beaten we piled off to Zimbabwe in 2001 to chase the solar eclipse. The sky was perfect, the location was incredible, the people were fantastic. And the sight of the black circle of the eclipsed sun hanging in the twilight sky was one of those images that stay with you forever.
The next lunar eclipse made up for it all. The skies were clear, we drove out of town to find a dark place and sat in the car watching the moon like a brown plastic ball hanging in the sky.
Last night was much the same - I got cold standing outside in my dressing gown so I found a place I could watch it out the window. Captain Cook was once saved by an eclipse:- he told some natives who were giving him a hard time that the gods were going to come and eat up the moon that night to show that they had to be nice to him. It worked!
He had to work it out for himself - if you want to know when the next eclipse is going to be then check out the Goddard Space Flight Centre website.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Glacial Outburst
Browsing around the web this morning I was thinking about a comment in Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" about the number of people dependent for fresh water on meltwater from the Himalayas. I came across this report into the Himalaya Glaciers which suggested that around a half of humanity is dependent on freshwater which comes from mountains. I'm still looking for some better figures, but at the moment I'm under the impression that about 25% of humanity depends on meltwater from the Himalayan icefields which are expected to disappear by 2100.
But there's another problem: ever heard of a GLOF? Glacial Lake Outburst Flood. Apparently as the glaciers melt they form lakes of fresh water which are held back by dams of ice. Eventually the ice melts and the lake bursts out with the inevitable consequences for anybody or anything in its path. Apparently in 2005 26 glacial lakes were identified as being in a dangerous state in the Himalayan region out of 226 known glacial lakes.
Anybody who thinks that a bit of freshwater isn't a problem - think again. Around 70% of the world's freshwater is currently locked up as ice somewhere or other. If it melts then it end up in the sea and reduces its density. That affects the ocean currents and hence the way heat is distributed around the globe. The last ice age in Europe occured when the meltwater in Hudson Bay was released into the North Atlantic stopping the Gulf Stream.
We are looking, as Al Gore puts it, at a canary in a coalmine....
But there's another problem: ever heard of a GLOF? Glacial Lake Outburst Flood. Apparently as the glaciers melt they form lakes of fresh water which are held back by dams of ice. Eventually the ice melts and the lake bursts out with the inevitable consequences for anybody or anything in its path. Apparently in 2005 26 glacial lakes were identified as being in a dangerous state in the Himalayan region out of 226 known glacial lakes.
Anybody who thinks that a bit of freshwater isn't a problem - think again. Around 70% of the world's freshwater is currently locked up as ice somewhere or other. If it melts then it end up in the sea and reduces its density. That affects the ocean currents and hence the way heat is distributed around the globe. The last ice age in Europe occured when the meltwater in Hudson Bay was released into the North Atlantic stopping the Gulf Stream.
We are looking, as Al Gore puts it, at a canary in a coalmine....
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Time to grow up
I was reading an article today which discussed whether people using 360 degree feedback should be given their report alone or they needed to have someone to hold their hand when given the results of their survey.
Most readers will know that 360 degree feedback - sometimes called multi-rater feedback is a technique whereby a person's work performance is assessed by a group of people who knw that person and something of their work. It tends to be very effective because can you imagine ignoring what people say about you if everybody is saying the same thing? Yeah - OK, well there's the Whitehouse Muppet of course but we know about him.
I was once at an HR trade show where I got talking to a lady who said that most people who work in small companies aren't grown up enough to handle feedback. I always thought that adults were big enough to handle what people think of them. Maybe I was wrong...
Most readers will know that 360 degree feedback - sometimes called multi-rater feedback is a technique whereby a person's work performance is assessed by a group of people who knw that person and something of their work. It tends to be very effective because can you imagine ignoring what people say about you if everybody is saying the same thing? Yeah - OK, well there's the Whitehouse Muppet of course but we know about him.
I was once at an HR trade show where I got talking to a lady who said that most people who work in small companies aren't grown up enough to handle feedback. I always thought that adults were big enough to handle what people think of them. Maybe I was wrong...
Green with rage!
Yesterday's events where motorists complained that their cars had malfunctioned when they had filled up with petrol at Tesco or Morrisons is unfortunate for a number of reasons.
Greenergy who supplied their fuel is one of a new breed of biofuel manufacturers. Morrisons and Tesco have been blending bioethanol with their petrol for some time now as part of their commitment to greener fuels and carbon reductions. Indeed - the blending of biofuels into the mix is an EC commitment set to increase over the next few years.
It is highly unlikely that these fuels would cause engine damage, but it seems that the vehicles affected are ones fitted with Lambda sensors which measure the oxygen content of the exhaust. Ethanol molecules do contain a certain amount of oxygen and so the fuel/air ratio when using ethanol from any source will be slightly different.
What is more likely in my view is that the ethanol in the fuel has dissolved some pre-existing contamination from the fuel system which the petrol on its own would not remove. For example gum deposits which can build up over a period of time - they won't dissolve in petrol, but are loosened by the ethanol and then cause a blockage somewhere else in the fuel system.
The worrying aspect of all this is the number of motorists who take their vehicles to independent garages who will see the opportunity to make a quick buck by changing a perfectly good Lambda sensor and then encourag the hapless motorist to make a claim. Their claims are unlikely to be successful and the risk is that the episode will get biofuels a bad name that they do not deserve.
Greenergy who supplied their fuel is one of a new breed of biofuel manufacturers. Morrisons and Tesco have been blending bioethanol with their petrol for some time now as part of their commitment to greener fuels and carbon reductions. Indeed - the blending of biofuels into the mix is an EC commitment set to increase over the next few years.
It is highly unlikely that these fuels would cause engine damage, but it seems that the vehicles affected are ones fitted with Lambda sensors which measure the oxygen content of the exhaust. Ethanol molecules do contain a certain amount of oxygen and so the fuel/air ratio when using ethanol from any source will be slightly different.
What is more likely in my view is that the ethanol in the fuel has dissolved some pre-existing contamination from the fuel system which the petrol on its own would not remove. For example gum deposits which can build up over a period of time - they won't dissolve in petrol, but are loosened by the ethanol and then cause a blockage somewhere else in the fuel system.
The worrying aspect of all this is the number of motorists who take their vehicles to independent garages who will see the opportunity to make a quick buck by changing a perfectly good Lambda sensor and then encourag the hapless motorist to make a claim. Their claims are unlikely to be successful and the risk is that the episode will get biofuels a bad name that they do not deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
