It seems unlikely that global warming will be limited to only 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels in the light of recent trends in temperature data [see ‘It was hot in June and its getting hotter’ on July 12th, 2023 ]. It is probable global warming will lead to average surface temperatures on the planet rising by 4 or 5 degrees, perhaps within a matter of decades. A global average temperature rise of only 2 degrees would make the Earth as warm as it was 3 million years ago when sea levels were 25 to 35 m (80 to 130 ft) high (Blockstein & Wiegman, 2010). While it is still important to aim for zero carbon emissions in order to limit global warming and avoid global temperatures reaching a tipping point, it seems improbable that politicians worldwide will be able to agree and implement effective actions to achieve the goal in part because of the massive, vested interests in industrialised economies based on fossil fuels [see ‘Are we all free-riders?’ On April 6th, 2016]. Hence, we need to start planning for potentially existential changes in the climate and environment that will force us to adapt the way we live and work. In addition to rises in sea levels, a world that is 4 degrees hotter is likely to have an equatorial belt with high humidity causing heat stress across tropical regions that make them uninhabitable for most of the year. To the north and south of this equatorial belt will be mid-latitude belts of inhospitable deserts extending as far north as a line through Liverpool, Manchester, Hamburg, the straits north of Sapporo in Japan, Prince Rupert in British Columbia and Waskaganish on the Hudson Bay. The habitable zones for humans are likely to be north of this line and in the south in Antarctica, Patagonia, Tasmania and the south island of New Zealand. Agriculture will probably be viable in these polar regions but will compete with a very dense population [see ‘Belts of habitability in a 4° world’ in Nomad Century by Gaia Vince]. In other words, there will likely be mass migrations that will force a re-organisation of society and a restructuring of our economies. Some estimates suggest that there could be as many as 1.2 billion environmental migrants by 2050 (Bellizzi et al, 2023). We need to start adapting now, the world around us is already adapting [see ‘Collaboration and competition’ on June 8th, 2022].
Author Archives: Eann Patterson
Napping, releasing the soul and brain maintenance
I read recently about the renovation of a small Parisian flat into a single office for the writer, Simon Kuper (How I made my perfect office). The furniture included a sofa by the window for his post-lunch 15-minute nap (20 minutes on a bad day). There was a brief period when I regularly had a nap in my office in the middle of day. Now, I regularly nap at the weekend in the afternoon, or a weekday in the early evening after dinner. Research has found short daytime naps improve cognitive performance (Lovato & Lin, 2010) and may help to preserve brain health by slowing the rate at which the brain shrinks with age (Paz et al, 2023). So, short naps are probably good for you, though longer naps have been associated with reductions in cognition, the ability to think and form memories (Li et al, 2016) as well as increased blood pressure (Vizmanos et al, 2023). In his outstanding novel, ‘The Salt of the Earth‘, Jozef Wittlin describes sleep as releasing or giving freedom to the soul. Perhaps it is the wandering of the soul that we sometime recall as dreams. On a more sinister note, sleep is described as practice for death by Ernesto Sabato in his novel, ‘On Heroes and Tombs‘, when presumably our soul is released forever to drift to Nirvana as in Giovanni Segantini’s painting ‘The punishment of lust’ in which the souls of neglectful mothers are shown floating towards the mountains representing Nirvana, a Buddhist heaven. In the light of the inevitability of death, I quite like the idea that we can practice for it; however, I prefer to think of naps preserving my aging brain and improving my cognition.
Image: photograph of ‘The punishment of lust’ by Giovanni Segantini in the Walker Gallery, Liverpool.
Entropy has taken its toll
I am on vacation so this is the third in a series of ‘reprints’ from my archive of more than 570 posts. It was published in July 2014 under title ‘Engineering archaeology‘. Entropy has done its bit and repainting of our railings is long overdue.
Last week I spent a relaxing day painting the old railings in front of our house. Since I am not a painter and decorator by trade the end result is not perfect but they look much better in shiny black than two-tone rust and matt black. One of the fleurs de lis on our railings had been knocked off when either we moved in or the previous occupiers moved out. It’s a way of life being an engineer, so the shape of the failure surface on the broken railing was bugging me while I was painting the rest. You would expect wrought iron railings to be ductile, i.e. to deform significantly prior to fracture, and to have a high tensile strength. Wrought iron’s properties are derived from its very low carbon content (less than 0.25%) and the presence of fibrous slag impurities (typically about 2%), which almost make it a composite material. It was historically used for railings and gates. However, my broken railing had exhibited almost no deformation prior to fracture, i.e. it was a brittle failure, and the fleur de lis had broken in half on impact with the stone flags. So on one of the rainy days last week, when I couldn’t paint outside, I did a little bit of historical research and discovered that in the late 1790s and early 1800s, which is when our house was built, cast iron started to be used for railings. Cast iron has a high carbon content, typically 2 to 4%, and also contains silicon at between 1 and 3% by weight. Cast iron is brittle, i.e. it shows almost no deformation prior to fracture, so the failure surface tends be to flat and smooth just like in my fleur de lis.
This seems like a nice interdisciplinary, if not everyday, engineering example. It would be vandalism to go around breaking iron railings in front of old buildings. So, if you want Everyday Engineering Examples of ductile and brittle behaviour, then visit a junk shop and buy an old china dinner plate and a set of cutlery. The ceramic of the china plate is brittle and will fracture without deformation – have some fun and break one! The stainless steel of the fork and spoon is ductile and can be easily bent, i.e. it is easy to introduce large deformation, in this case permanent or plastic deformation, prior to failure. In fact you will probably have to bend the fork back and forth repeatedly before it will snap with each bending action introducing additional damage.
The more curious will be wondering why some materials are ductile and others brittle. The answer is associated with their microstructures, which in turn is dependent on their constituents, as hinted above. However, I am not going to venture into material science to explain the details. I have probably already given materials scientists enough to complain about because my Everyday Engineering Examples are not directly analogous at the microstructural level to wrought iron and cast iron but they are more fun.
Immeasurable productivity?
This is the second in a series of ‘reprints’ from my archive of posts. I will be back with new posts in a few weeks refreshed after my vacation. This post was first published in November 2013 under the title ‘Productive cheating‘.
I cut out a Dilbert cartoon from the New York Times a few weeks ago that I found amusing and shared it with my new Head of School. Dilbert informs his boss that he will be taking advantage of the new unlimited vacation policy by being away for 200 days in the coming year but will still double his productivity. His boss replies that there is no way to measure productivity for engineers.
Of course, bosses are very interested in measuring productivity and marketing executives like to brag about the productivity or efficiency of whatever it is they are selling. Engineers know that it is easy to cheat on measures of productivity and efficiency, for instance, by carefully drawing the boundaries of the system to exclude some inputs or some wasteful outputs [see my post on ‘Drawing Boundaries’ on December 19th, 2012 ]. So claims of productivity or efficiency that sound too good to be true probably aren’t what they seem.
Also in the New York Times [on October 15th, 2013] Mark Bittman discussed the productivity of the two food production systems found in the world, i.e. industrial agriculture and one based on small landholders, what the ETC group refers to as peasant food webs. He reports that the industrial food chain uses 70% of agricultural resources to provide 30% of the world’s food while peasant farming produces the remaining 70% with 30% of the resources. The issue is not that industrial agriculture’s claims for productivity in terms of yields per acre are wrong but that the industry measures the wrong quantity. Efficiency is defined as desired output divided by required input [see my post entitled ‘National efficiency‘ on May 29th, 2013]. In this case the required output is people fed not crop yield and a huge percentage of the yield from industrial agriculture never makes to people’s mouths [see my post entitled ‘Food waste’ on January 23rd, 2013].
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/how-to-feed-the-world.html?ref=markbittman&_r=0
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/poster-who-will-feed-us-industrial-food-chain-or-peasant-food-webs