Every polling station should have this sign

September 18, 2014

Polling station, in unnamed location in Scotland, for the referendum on Scotland independence.  From @standrewsradio

Polling station, in unnamed location in Scotland (?) posted on Twitter during the referendum on Scotland independence, but around since at least April 2014. From @standrewsradio

“Please do not sit on the fence.”

It would work in Texas elections this year, too.  97% of eligible Scot voters registered to vote; as I write this, it looks like about 90% of those people voted in the election.

Ain’t democracy grand?

“Vote: It’s what citizens do.”

Update:  Seems to be at the Plaistow Youth Center, in England.

From BBC:

BBC caption:  After four weeks of campaigning the polls are closed, we now await the result of the general election. Quentin Gadd spotted these signs at a polling station, he says,

BBC caption: After four weeks of campaigning the polls are closed, we now await the result of the general election. Quentin Gadd spotted these signs at a polling station, he says, “Is this proof positive that the organisers of the Plaistow Youth Centre are taking a stand against those who choose to abstain?”

The photo may be from 2010, from this site, which identifies the photo location further, with a different photo:  “Sign at the polling station in Plaistow, West Sussex, on Local Council Polling Day.”

This guy is really lit! So are his bagpipes!

September 18, 2014

From the voting festivities in Scotland today, a very graphic demonstration of why one should never, never, never drink and play bagpipes.

From Twitter, Wall Street Journal's account:  Photos: Scotland votes in independence referendum | http://on.wsj.com/1ubZMTH

From Twitter, Wall Street Journal’s account: Photos: Scotland votes in independence referendum | http://on.wsj.com/1ubZMTH

In every other way, this vote should be closely watched.  Two nations pushed together by force of arms hundreds of years ago, discussing whether and how to split up.  No guns.  No tanks.  Lots of discussion, lots of fun, lots of ballots.  97% of eligible voters registered to vote, and indications are at least 90% of them turned out.

Can you imagine what would happen in U.S. elections if 90% of registered voters showed up at the polls, instead of 40%, or 30%?  Can you imagine if 97% of U.S. eligible voters bothered to register, instead of the less-than-50% we have now?

You bagpipes would flame, too.

Scotland in time-lapse

August 30, 2014

Neat views of Scotland, as the nation steams toward a vote on independence from the United Kingdom.

A still capture from the film, Dynamic Scotland.

A still capture from the film, Dynamic Scotland.

Roger Jackaman created it:  Dynamic Scotland

Jackaman said:

Please subscribe to the channel for future films and follow me on facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/Dy…

I took more than 10,000 photos during the making of this of which 6-7000 made the final cut. Itwas filmed mainly in and around Edinburgh but also includes some scenes from the Glencoe area.Music licensed by: “Moonlight Reprise” by Kai Engel (http://kaiengelmusic.wix.co…)

Tip of the old scrub brush to CBS News Twitter feed.  Thanks to Mr. Jackaman for putting it up on YouTube, also. It deserves more than 3,196 views.

Is Texas the state most vulnerable to global climate change?

June 6, 2009

John Mashey occasionally graces these pages with his comments — a cool, reasoned head on hot issues like global warming/global climate change, despite his history in computers or maybe because of it (which would put the lie to the idea that computer programming explains why so many computer programmers are wacky intelligent design advocates).

Mashey offered a comment over at RealClimate on a post about hoaxer and science parodist Christopher Monckton — a comment you ought to read if  you think about Texas ever, and especially if you like the place.  It’s comment #413 on that Gigantor blog.

Monckton wrote a letter to the New York Times and attached to it a graph.  The graph, it turns out, probably would need to be classified in the fiction section of a library or book store, were it a book.  Much discussion occurs, absent any appearance by Monckton himself who does not defend his graphs by pointing to sources that might back what his graphs say, usually.

In short, the post and the extensive comments shed light on the problems of veracity which plague so many who deny either that warming is occurring, or that air pollution from humans might have anything to do with it, or that humans might actually be able to do anything to mitigate the changes or the damage, or that humans ought to act on the topic at all.

So I’ve stolen Mashey’s comment lock, stock and barrel, to give it a little more needed highlight.

If you follow environmental issues much, you probably know Count Christopher Monckton as a man full of braggadocio and bad information on climate.  He is known to have worked hard to hoodwink the U.S. Congress with his claims of expertise and policy legitimacy, claiming to be a member of the House of Lords though he is not (some climate change deniers in Congress appear to have fallen for the tale).  He pops up at denialist conferences, accuses scientists of peddling false information, and he is a shameless self-promoter.

After much discussion, Mashey turned his attention to claims that Texans don’t know better than Monckton, and other things; Mashey notes that denialists cite Monckton’s performance at a conservative political show in Texas, instead having paid attention to real climate scientists who were meeting just up the road, for free:

AGW’s impact depends on where you live
Texas is Not Scotland, even when a Scottish peer visits

Viscount Monckton lives in the highlands of Scotland (Carie, Rannoch, 57degN, about the same as Juneau, AK, but warmer from Gulf Stream.)

Most of Scotland (esp the highlands) is well above sea level, and in any case, from Post-Glacial Rebound, it’s going up. [Not true of Southern England.]

Scotland gets lots of regular precipitation. From that, he likely gets ~1690mm or more rainfall/year, noticeably more than Seattle or Vancouver.

Scotland has complex, variable weather systems, with more rain in West than in East, but has frequent precipitation all year.

Scotland’s climate would likely be better with substantial warming. See UK Met Office on Scotland, which one might compare with NASA GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change. Scotland average maximum temperatures are 18-19C in the summer, i.e., in most places it might occasionally get up to 70F, although of course it varies by geography. +3C is no big deal. The record maximum was 32.9C (91F), set in 2003. Maybe there is yet a good future for air-conditioning/cooling vendors.

If one does a simple linear regression on both sets of annual data, one finds that SLOPE(Scotland) = .0071C/year, SLOPE(world) = .0057C/year, i.e., Scotland is warming slightly faster than the world as a whole.

The combination of b) and c) is, most likely *good* for agriculture in Scotland. There is plenty of rain, and higher temperatures mean less snow and a longer growing season. Great!

In addition, the British geoscientist/vineyard archaeologist Richard Selley thinks that while it may be too hot for good vineyards in Southern England by 2080, it will be fine for some areas of Scotland.
Future Loch Ness Vineyard: great!

Fossil fuel production (North Sea oil&gas) is very important to the Scotland economy. Wikipedia claims oil-related employment is 100,000 (out of total population of about 5M).

Scotland has not always been ecstatic to be part of the UK.

The Viscount Monckton spoke for Young Conservatives of Texas, April 28 @ Texas A&M, which of course has a credible Atmospheric Sciences Department. Of course, many of them were unable to hear the Viscount because they were in Austin at CLIMATE CHANGE Impacts on TEXAS WATER, whose proceedings are online. See especially Gerald North on Global Warming and TX Water.

Monckton delivered his message: “no worries, no problems” which might well fit Scotland just fine, at least through his normal life expectancy.

The message was delivered to Texans typically in their 20s, many of whom would expect to see 2060 or 2070, and whose future children, and certainly grandchildren, might well see 2100.

Texas is rather different from Scotland, although with one similarity (oil+gas).


Texas has a long, low coastline in major hurricane territory.
Brownsville, TX to Port Arthur is a 450-mile drive, with coastal towns like Corpus Christi, Galveston, and Port Arthur listed at 7 feet elevations. The center of Houston is higher, but some the TX coast has subsidence issues, not PGR helping it rise. The Houston Ship Canal and massive amounts of infrastructure are very near sea level. More people live in the Houston metropolitan area + rest of the TX coast than in all of Scotland.

Of course, while North Sea storms can be serious, they are not hurricanes. IF it turns out that the intensity distribution of hurricanes shifts higher, it’s not good, since in the short term (but likely not the long term), storm surge is worse than sea level rise.

Hurricane Rita (2005) and Hurricane Ike (2008) both did serious damage, but in some sense, both “missed” Houston. (Rita turned North, and hit as a Category 3; Ike was down to Category 2 before hitting Galveston).

Scotland: no problem
TX: problems already

Texas is very complex meteorologically, and of course, it’s big, but as seen in the conference mentioned above (start with North’s presentation), one might say:

– The Western and Southern parts may well share in the Hadley-Expansion-induced loss of rain, i.e., longer and stronger droughts, in common with NM, AZ, and Southern CA. Many towns are dependent on water in rivers that come from the center of the state, like the Brazos.

– The NorthEast part will likely get more rain. [North’s comment about I35 versus I45 indicates uncertainty in the models.]

– Rain is likely to be more intense when it happens, but droughts will be more difficult.

Extreme weather in TX already causes high insurance costs, here, or here.

Scotland: no problem
Texas: problems.


Texas A&M is ~31degN, rather nearer the Equator than 57degN.
Wikipedia has a temperature chart. It is rather warmer in TX, but is also more given to extremes.

Scotland: +3C would be dandy,
Texas: +3C not so dandy.

Between b) and c), less water in dry places, more water in wet places, more variations in water, and higher temperatures (hence worse evaporation/precipitation difference) are not good news for TX agriculture, or so says Bruce McCarl, Professor of Agricultural Economics at TAMU.

For audiences unfamiliar with Texas A&M, the “A” originally stood for Agriculture, and people are called Aggies. One might assume that agricultural research is valued.
Politically, “Aggie-land” would not be considered a hotspot of hyper-liberal folks prone to becoming climate “alarmists”.

Scotland: warmer, great! Wine!
Texas: serious stress.

Here, there is more similarity: fossil fuels are economically important.

On the other hand, Scotland was settled long before the use of petroleum, and while places like the highlands are very sparse, cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow are relatively dense, and many villages are quite walkable. Warmer temperatures mean *lower* heating costs.

Texas has naturally developed in a very different style, and with forthcoming Peak Oil, this may be relevant. In 2006, according to EIA, Texas was #1 in energy consumption, 5th per-capita (after AK, WY, LA, ND) and uses 2X/capita of states like NY or CA. Some of that is inherent in different climate and industry.

Sprawling development in a state with water problems, subject to dangerous weather extremes, and already seriously-dependent on air-conditioning, may end being expensive for the residents.

Scotland: makes money from fossil energy, but it was mostly built without it. Warmer temperatures reduce energy use.
Texas: already uses ~2.5-3X higher energy/capita, compared to Scotland. Warmer temperatures likely raise energy use.


Gerald North’s talk ended by asking:
“Is Texas the most vulnerable state?”

That sounds like an expert on trains, hearing one coming in the distance, standing on the tracks amidst a bunch of kids, trying to get them off the tracks before there’s blood everywhere.

On the other side, someone safely away from tracks keeps telling the kids that experts are wrong, there is no danger, so they can play there as long as they like.

You will be well informed if you also read Mashey’s comments at #120 and #132.

Ian Hamilton’s blog is back; “Stone of Destiny” is on the screen

October 15, 2008

We need good news from any quarter:  Ian Hamilton’s blog is back in action.  You remember Hamilton, one of the more recent heroes in the saga of the Stone of Destiny.

Maybe just in time, too.  Charles Martin Smith’s movie of Ian Hamilton’s story, “Stone of Destiny,” is just recently released, with dates booked in the UK and Canada.  You may have to call your local theatre in the U.S. to ask that they book the film.

Poster for Charles Martin Smiths Stone of Destiny, based on Ian Hamiltons story.

Poster for Charles Martin Smith's "Stone of Destiny," based on Ian Hamilton's story.

Hamilton captured the Stone of Destiny, the Stone of Scone, from Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day, 1950.  The Stone is the traditional seat of power for the throne of Scotland, and its presence in London was a source of irritation to Scot nationalists.

The Stone of Scone is reputed to be the stone upon which Jacob slept when he dreamed of ladders to heaven (see Genesis 28).

You cannot make this stuff up.  This is great history.


%d bloggers like this: