Posts Tagged ‘science’

Today I got the opportunity to attend a great session, maybe I was even meeting a future Nobel Prize winner (it has happened before). Even more important than the prize is the discussion on putting a price to what we all value so much: Nature. It is far too often overlooked, but we have a special interest and know that what gets measured gets done.

Putting the right value to nature’s services. It is a quest and lots of bottom-up innovation is still needed to make it happen in everyday life. Top-down policy may do its part and judging on the new World Bank report it is a more hot topic than ever. -Will the COP18 deliver? Instead of waiting and keep asking we can all contribute and get on the right way.

Gretchen Daily (yes we have talked about her earlier) is certainly a positive person and this morning her speech was vibrant with energy and engagement. However, she does not neglect the challenges we face. As a professor at Stanford University she know what she is talking about and her pioneering work is quantifying and valuing natural capital. Have a look! InVEST is a policy and calculation tool that bring macro-level understanding to both global and local conditions and can comprehend both complex and simple factor analysis for valuation on nature capital.

It was great to meet today as well as to get encouraging support for Commute Greener!

Oxygen makes up about 21 %, nitrogen about 78% of the atmosphere. The last percentage consists of a whole range of trace gases such as argon and carbon dioxide. How can such a small amount, less then one % of the whole atmosphere, have such an impact on the climate? Beware people, I have some CO2 chemistry for you today!

CO2 structure. Picture from Wikipedia

CO2 is good at absorbing energy in the infrared and near infrared spectrum. It then releases some of that energy back down to earth, while some of it goes out in space again. All substances in the atmosphere behaves like this, but the problem is that it shouldn’t be so much absorption in the infrared part of the light spectra. That part should be more or less a hole. A hole which we are plugging with more and more CO2, methane, NOx and so on.

Well, that’s the very simplified version of the science anyway. But it is more difficult showing how this happens. Or how something so small can have so big impact. On my department at the university the professors explained it by using small balls with springs. Imagine the molecule on the right. The black one is carbon (C) and the red ones are oxygen (O). The sticks are electrons, two from each O connected to two from the C. This is called a double bond, which is quite inflexible and stable. If you build a model of this molecule with springs instead of sticks you will see that those springs can actually move a bit. And they do in the real molecule as well. The more energy you put in the more it moves, and the more energy it absorb for more movement the more it emit back in different frequencies later. Or something like that.

For those of you still that are awake, here comes the good part. As CO2 can absorb energy in a part of the spectrum where there used to be a lot less absorption, more will lead to energy, and in the end heat, being trapped here on earth instead of being directly reflected from the surface and out to space. Even a trace amount of this gas have such an impact. Well now we know that. Sweet! Now how do we show it so you can understand it without having studied at least high school chemistry?

Well, look at this; climateplace.org

and this Uppsalainitiativet.

The first link goes to a youtube video where a man is using ink to show how small amounts of a substance can block energy (in this case visual light). I recommend you to take a look at the video, it is rather neat. The second one is basically the same, but in a laboratory using CO2, a glass tube, an IR camera and a candle and showing how the CO2 in the tube absorbs the light. Both are excellent examples of how you can visualize CO2′s effects on the planet.

If one want to use another example of trace amounts effect on something, alcohol is an excellent example. When you have reached the legal alcohol level in the blood for driving it is actually just some ppm of ethanol in the blood stream. (DO NOT drive when you have been drinking by the way. It is dangerous for you as well for others) Arsenic is another good example, it can do a lot of damage at low levels too if it gets in the drinking water.

Right now CO2 levels are approximately 390 ppm. Compared to Oxygen or nitrogen that is a  very small amount, but with a huge impact. We don’t need it to reach over 500 ppm. Or even higher then that. Every small change we do to cut back on the emissions is one step in the right direction. Visualizing and finding ways to simplify the complex science is a very important step as well. Don’t buy the “but there is so little of it” argument. It doesn’t work. As shown here.

Fredrik

Hi!

It has been a while since last time, haven’t it? Summer is a beautiful season. Especially when you get some time off.

Simplifying and visualizing environmental impact is something Commute Greener! have been keen on from the start. It is difficult to understand what one kilogram of CO2 is after all, or how it affects the planet. And without incentive it is difficult to see the benefits of a greener commute.That is the practical and personal level. It is quite easy when you think about it, at least when you have the tools to show the amounts and effects of the commute.

What about the science of climate change? Those who have followed this blog have probably noticed that simple information is something we have written about several times. The academic world seldom explains the science, and it end up being misrepresented in blogs and discussions. But once in a while you run into stuff like this graphic over how global warming works and why the scientific world has accepted it as true.

This picture is good. Really good. It takes science from several projects and weaves it together into one simple picture. The author tries to make it easy to understand. With that picture as a starting point he then goes on to explain how and why it is like this, and how we know. One has to admit that some basic knowledge of the global warming system probably is needed to get it all but as a whole it actually explains the issue pretty well.

Personally I wish this would be common knowledge so something really could be done about the problem. Te governments, the industry and the people of the world will need to change habits unless this rampaging monster that is climate change will get even worse then it is today. The signs are there. We see the effects on the climate in the form of storms, winters like those of a fairy tale and unusually warms summers. When the information is presented in this simplified form you don’t even have to be a scientist to understand it.

On the plus side, information and visualizations like this may spur many people to get interested and aware of their environmental impact. As they grow in number the demand for cleaner production may be higher. And industry IS doing a lot to work for cleaner production. Just look at Volvo’s Climate savers campaign with the WWF, or all those who joined the 10:10 campaign.

Private persons can do a lot to reduce their footprint as well and everybody should try to do their part. It doesn’t have to be difficult. Taking the bus a couple of times/week instead of driving, taking shorter showers, stop drinking bottled water, reducing the temperature at home and at the office is old news but a good start.

/

Fredrik

A team of U.S. researchers has developed a fuel cell operating without platinium which suggests fuel cell cars will be cheaper to produce.

The use of platinum, a metal more expensive than gold, remains one of the obstacles to the development of fuel cell. Automobile manufacturers are already working on this issue and plan to launch in the coming years, hydrogen cars using less platinum.

But the solution found by a team from Los Alamos National Laboratory, United States, solves this problem.

The team has managed to replace the precious metal by an alloy of carbon, iron and cobalt, which can perform the same functions. Less expensive, this device also reduces the production of hydrogen peroxide, a residue from the conversion of hydrogen gradually damaging the battery. Its lifetime is comparable to batteries using platinum, which has yet to improve as it is now below that of the vehicle.

The research team announced however that further work could extend its life.

There haven’t been enough (climate) science around here for a while now. We’ll have to do something about that…

Communication have been something that really caught my interest when I started working for Commute Greener!. I have argued for better scientific communication several times here on the blog, as well as at Gothenburg University (where I still study). Since communication is much about giving easy access and making information understandable  it is something really important, yet seems to be forgotten by the scientific community. Or at least by many of the participants in the community, there are of course outliers. There always are.

Science is guided by very strict rules. “Climate gate” was a kick in the groin for the trust of scientists. The risk increase that nobody believed in them anymore. Lots of deniers still roam around websites, posting links to various denial papers, mine papers for quotes to use and so on. But believe it or not, scientists like to play by the very strict rules set up for them. That is really good.

Let’s take an example. I don’t know if you read lots of scientific papers in whole. Let’s assume you haven’t. What you will see first is that the language is the same in almost every paper you pick up. Academic English may have overly complicated sentences everywhere. Unless you are very familiar with the field this may feel odd and is part of a dilemma for specific science and broader audiences. Not only does a text have a specific audience, there may be pictures that don’t mean squat to you but that others can read like a full length novel. The next thing is that it follows a pattern; intro/background, method, results, discussion, conclusion. Thanks to this pattern you know what you will find. Once you are into the style and lingo, it is quite easy to know what to search for. For conclusions, go to that part. Interested in how the experiment was done? Go to method etc. Nice and easy. For those who know this.

But when it comes to communicating these findings, everything seems to stop. Few are those who seem to be willing to take chances with the ways to communicate more widely. Pamphlets, maybe an article in a popular science paper or even a newspaper if the finding is big enough. Review articles and student literature. Sometimes even a 3 minutes report on TV. This should in my opinion be the most important part of science, communicating it to the masses. I get that it is difficult, but it should be doable.

I am by no means an expert at environmental communication, but I think part of the problem is the fact that reporting science without “dumbing it down” for the masses takes time to learn. Time “better spent” on more research. I think it is a matter off saying “let’s skip the numbers, what have we really found out”. Humans are emotional beings. Why not use that? Show us how this is relevant to us. This is part of the reason I like Commute Greener! as a tool. It takes the complexities of everyday transportation into a movement that make lots of people actually change behaviors by setting a target, seeing the progress and sharing experiences. Instead of getting stuck and thereby risking that people see everything as too difficult or even totally missing the problem it is possible to encourage positive actions. Part of this is to share communication in a a number of ways. You see your emissions, and how you can affect them. It gives CO2 a face in fuel cost savings, a Health Index, a tree saving effect etc. Something that most of us can relate too. Suddenly something difficult become more simple. Do you really need all the knowledge of light spectra’s, wave lengths of the atoms, the complex wind and sea models and all the juicy science stuff to see how this relate to you and how you can affect it?

The point I am trying to make is that maybe it is worth taking the time to share the science through broader communication, make it emotional, simplify and even forget the statistics for a while. To simply focus on HOW the data should be presented as much as what it means. Randy Olson, a marine biologist turned film maker summarized what I am trying to say at his blog last week.

I think we’ll leave it at that. Have a nice easter everyone, and remember to Commute Greener!

Fredrik

btw, why not pipe in at facebook and give us a like! or try our Facebook app when you are at it.

Hi!

As followers of this blog may have noted, I am quite interested in science. Well, environmental science mostly, but most new findings are interesting. I know I have criticized the way those results are delivered to the common man, but it is still very interesting and exciting to read a report in one of my favorite subjects (yeah I know, I’m a nerd).

Because of that, I find it very interesting that Commute Greener! is involved in scientific projects. Although I have a very peripheral role (i.e. I have been to a couple of meetings), it is valuable to be part of progress. With the change towards a more IT based society with smartphones, hand held computers and many many new and interesting information paths, it is important to find out how public transportation and city planners will have  to adapt to this new technology. Real time information and bus tickets payed by SMS is one thing, but is it enough? How can IT solutions be used to attract and adapt to a new generation of travelers?

One project that aims to find and evaluate new ways of innovation for sustainable travel is ISET (Innovation for Sustainable Everyday Travel. It is a 4 year project involving the Viktoria Institute and many other actors (including Commute Greener!). The goal is quite simple; Find out how IT solutions could be used to expand and improve sustainable transportation. Or to quote ISET’s background information;

Guess what, it is air pollution/climate science time again!

A former classmate of mine, now a PhD at Gothemburg University, recently published a scientific paper on local air pollution in the Gothemburg area. A really interesting piece of work that showed the unsurprising result that the air became more polluted when the air pressure is high, the weather is clear and cold with next to no wind. Higher concentrations of NOx (NO+NO2) were found when the wind came from the north or east (ie from inland). No real surprise there. Neither was it a surprise that less air mixing could be tied together with higher concentrations of pollutants (negative NAOI, more on that later).

This study is based on the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), a measure of the strength of the zonal wind across the North Atlantic Ocean, and an index of this (NAOI) that can be either negative or positive. Negative basically mean less westerly wind for us in north Europe, positive more. Thus we get less air mixing in “negative” years, and therefore the air becomes bad. Apparently there have been more and more “negative” years in the last ten year period, making it difficult to fulfill the air quality norms set by EU. As you can see NAO is an extremely important phenomenon as it is tied to the climate of western northern Europe as well as North America, and changes of these patterns could be quite bad. I am simplifying a lot here by the way. This is not my best subject to say the least and I may very well have interpreted this wrong.

Anyway, what I find most interesting is the last sentence of the abstract, the conclusion; “The conclusion of this study is that a climate shift towards higher or lower NAOI has the potential to significantly influence urban air pollution in North-West Europe, and thus the possibility to reach air quality standards, even if emissions remain constant.”

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? This is partly why I dislike the term global warming. It focuses on a very small, but VERY important part of the issue. Climate change is a broader term that skips the whole “but warmer weather is nice” interpretation. CO2 emissions and increased temperatures isn’t everything we have to focus on to understand the problems of climate change. But it is a cornerstone in climate science. The processes of how climate change works are enormously complex and alterations in the systems may lead to far more problems then just warmer or wetter weather. Everything connects.

Air pollution is a big issue. Many people get sick from it and especially the young and old are sensitive. Could climate change lead to worse air quality and thereby increasing an already big health issue? These health issues are already a hot topic with the US EPA clean air act discussion, congestion discussions and growing cities all around the world.

Granted, air quality have gotten better with better vehicles and cleaner fuels, but on a cold day in Gothemburg you can almost TASTE the pollutants along the highest trafficked roads. I am sure it can get even worse in bigger cities.  Do we really need to add more air pollution to that through changes in the climate?

/

Fredrik

The scientific world is a strange one. It has its own language (several in fact), a lively debate can rise from a new paper getting printed just to die out or lead to a number of similar studies aimed at testing if what was said was true. As a scientist, you are always on the ropes, someone in that private little world will always disagree with your methods, finds, conclusions or basic hypothesis. It is really a dramatic scene, if not a glamorous one. Taking down equipment in the rain and mud, taking water samples in the middle of winter and so on is NOT glamorous. I’m not a scientist, and thank the heaven for that.

That small world does prove to be a problem though. At least at times. Have you seen a scientist try to get his message across to a reporter or journalist? It is not an easy task. I have written about science and information before (1,2,3,4) and while I haven’t studied the subject of communication of scientific findings, I have spent 4,5 years  in the University world. And I am in good company. Nowhere in my education were we thought how to relay information to the masses. Or even how to talk to “normal” people about the environment. That is something you got to learn for yourselves today.

I came across this article from the climateprogress.org today. I found it very interesting. It is about a seminar on the subject of how to properly relay scientific information to the public. I don’t know about you, but I found it interesting.

It should be easy to tell people about new findings. Climate Change/Global Warming/Armageddon/whatever you call it shouldn’t be so difficult to understand. Adapting to the audience should be the natural thing to do when presenting. That in itself is an art which require training. But if done correctly and if the “story” is told with pride and passion, people will have an easier time getting it.

Funny enough, this is something the commercial world has gotten a long time ago. You can’t sell a product if it isn’t at least moderately user friendly. As soon as it get to complex people will stop using it. User friendliness is vital for the acceptance of the message/product. One example is our baseline wizard which was made to make setting up Commute Greener! easier for our users. How come user friendliness isn’t an issue in the scientific community?

I believe (and this is a personal opinion) that part of the problem is the language. It is very easy to fall into jargon, especially when nervous. Another part of the problem is that science in many cases is adapted towards an audience with education in the subject. Cancun nearly failed, just like Copenhagen, because economy and politics were the language of the negotiators. Science need to step out from that bauble it is hiding in and start showing of in an easy to understand manner. Visualization, connection, that kind of things.

To round up this rant, let’s just say that if science was easier to understand and spoke the common mans language, we would probably have fewer misunderstandings over methods and linguistic turns. Al Gore did something right with that oh so famous powerpoint presentation; he spoke the language of the people. And look were that got us. The wow factor was enormous. People got interested in the environment. And remembered. That is what we need, but with real scientists and new fresh data. Perhaps an utopia, but a nice one to dream about.

/

Fredrik

Our way of life is not sustainable. The carbon dioxide footprints of the industrialized countries are way to high, often around ten metric ton per capita, and up to twice that in some cases. Come on, go check wikipedia. It is some scary reading. I’ll wait.

….

….

Your back? Looks scary, right?  Why does it look like that? Are we really too blind to see the catastrophe looming over us?

I want to believe that the average person in the developed world is aware that something is happening to the climate, or at least the weather. While weather is no good indicate of a changing climate, as climate works over large time scales, it most certainly has the wow factor. Everyone and their mother seems interested in the weather.

At the same time, it is all to easy to say “I can’t change anything, I’m just one man/woman, and the scientists aren’t sure either”. This statement is wrong. First of all, the scientists agree on the fundamentals, even if most of them have their own theories on everything. They are scientists; part of the job is to dissect and criticize each others findings. We know the problem. We know the mechanisms. So let’s get to work.

You are probably as tired as I am of the phrase “every little thing helps”. But it is true. We have so many bad environmental habits today, from our transportation habits to the food we eat, the clothes we were and the electricity we depend on. Switching to greener alternatives in some of these areas can make a big difference. The problem is, there is no sense of accomplishment in switching from a regular to a low power lightbulb. It is much sexier to discuss the new EV, or talk about that Chinese…. monster bus…over twitter.

What I’m trying to get to is that we tend to disregard the simpler changes with potentially big rewards. For example, switching from an oil to pellets heater in the villa can save money AND CO2. Buying local apples instead of “ecological”, transported to you from across the world saves heaps of greenhouse gases. Taking the bus instead of the car to work saves CO2 and gets another vehicle of the road. It all comes down to habits. And habits are hard to break, right? But not impossible.

You can often make green by being green to. The commute is the obvious example. Ride the bike to work twice a week, and you don’t have to pay for gas those days. Not only that, you get in shape and can skip on that expensive gym card if the commute is long enough. Taking the bus, or rail if available is often cheaper then driving if you count all the hidden costs of having a car.

And so on. Making these changes has to be attractive. Not just as in popular or trendy. Attractive to the wallet. Alternatively, it has to be fun. It is not surprising that commute challenges are going well, or recycling challenges, or the 10:10 campaign for that matter. As soon as it get engaging and seems like a fun thing to do, people get interested. Once they have tried, they may get used to it and continue. For example, try this; set up a challenge at work, school or in the neighborhood. Each person signing on will commit to saving zero emission kilometers, ride the bus to work, carpool etc. for three months. The winner gets a prize of some sort. Make the prize big enough to be attractive. I bet you will get many people who think it is silly in the beginning, but then continue out of sheer competitive spirit, going green without even knowing it.

You can do stuff like this with any part of our lives. Food, power, lifestyle etc. It is easier to break a habit if you have help. So try it out. And remember to Commute Greener! and to give us a like on facebook

Fredrik

You know what, lets continue on yesterdays topic… Bad communications about scientific results and conclusions.

A study at Yale shows that many americans don’t get climate change. While over 60 % believe that it is happening, many apparently think baning areosols and toxic waste, and stop “punching holes in the ozone layer with rockets” would stop it.

This has nothing to do with being stupid. It can be due to poor communications and lack of interest from many people. Many newspapers and television are bad at reporting scientific finds. Politicians have their own agendas, and some politicians have close ties to the industry, be it fossil fuel, steel or something else, they won’t make a clear stand for climate change. We have already seen that.

Whose responsibility is it to explain and simplify the complex scientific results so you and I can read it. I will admit, I have a masters decree in environmental science, but can still have problem following the models. And if I, with a specialised education in the issue don’t get it all, how much do the people without such education really get? (Did I sound arrogant there? If so, that is not my intention at all). In my opinion, it is the government in conjunction with the scientists themselves that should have that responsibility. But I am used to a different political system then the North American.

In Sweden, our version of the EPA have that responsibility, along with the county and city officials. And it works quite ok, if you are interested there are vast amount of stuff to read on their home pages. But here, there is no political debate about weather climate change exist or not.

We also see scientists on the news when something big has happened. Take the toxic clay in eastern Europe. There were experts on the news talking about that and explaining the possible effects. Of course, the environmental  news are still not all that common. But it shows up now and then.

I can understand that Climate change, carbon dioxide, weather patterns and effects that you don’t see for yourself, added to the fact that experts seems to argue with each others, can be confusing.  But they are not arguing about weather global warming exist or not, but tiny differences in point of view. Something IPCC more or less said, but then got shot down for in the Climategate “scandal”… What we need is less of those arguments and more scientists that bother to get down to us mortals levels and simply explain what is happening, in simple words.

By the way, have you noticed that many of the “scientists” that argue AGAINST climate change and CO2 s effects on the climate aren’t climate scientists. They are doctors, physics, economists and so on. The quotation marks between scientists is there as I was asked to sign up on such a list…  A Bachelor decree was the minimum you needed to sign the list  and you are no scientist with just that…

Well, that’s it for today. Have a nice weekend everybody, and be sure to give us a like on facebook! and to try our new version of Commute Greener!