Monday, 29 November 2021

The North Wind doeth blow


View from my bedroom window
Storm Arwen tore through my wood on Friday night, and caused very significant damage.

There is no significant damage to the house; certainly nothing which compromises its integrity. The wind turbine is still standing and still working. The cattle shed is also undamaged.

A strip about 15 to 20 metres wide through the wood from the Summer Palace glade to the blow from three years ago has lost substantially all its trees: it is just utter chaos. This is about quarter to a third of the whole area in the wood, and includes some of the largest trees. The summer palace is entirely gone. The wreck is immediately behind the house and three trees fell on the house.

Around the area where the trees are all fallen, there are further trees which are still standing but unstable. What remains of the wood that's largely unaffected are

* A strip around five metres wide along the east side of the wood;
* A strip of at least 15 metres wide along the south edge of the wood;
* A more substantial area of at least thirty metres wide along the west edge, although this is affected by a much smaller blow in the south-west corner which happened five years ago.

The fallen trees are going to have to be hauled/winched out into Commons Meadow, which means I'm going to need a new 12 foot gate. But actually that fence is going to need work anyway, because one of the strainer posts was braced back to a tree in the wood, and consequently part of the fence is demolished.

There are more pictures here.

Tuesday, 16 November 2021

Open Source Climate Models: initial review


Climate models are normally built to do real science; that is not my aim. Rather, I want something which will form a component of an educational game which allows players to make policy decisions to attempt to maintain the climate within ‘safe’ limits, given constraints of population, consumption, demand for strategic materials and so on.

Consequently, I need the model to run on ordinary PCs that people may be expected to have, or even perhaps on something like an X Box. It also needs to be able to simulate a year in at most about twenty minutes, with enough processor cycles free to run user interface code.

It’s quite likely that no existing climate model will work under these constraints.

Systems considered

Name Language Licence Status Documentation Builds?
ClimateMachine Julia Apache License v2.0 Released Present Failing, probably fixable.
Community Earth System Model Fortran, C, Python, Perl BSD-style Released Present Failing
Hector C++, R GPL v3 Released Present Apparently successful
E3SM Fortran, C BSD Style Not suitable for consumer-grade machines Present Not attempted
atlas C, Fortran Apache License v2.0 Probably too low level Minimal Not attempted
Isca Fortran, Python GPL v3 Released Present Apparently successful, documentation slightly wrong

Climate Machine

Build failed with the following output:

ERROR: LoadError: UndefVarError: LLVMPtr not defined
 [1] include(::Module, ::String) at ./Base.jl:377
 [2] top-level scope at none:2
 [3] eval at ./boot.jl:331 [inlined]
 [4] eval(::Expr) at ./client.jl:449
 [5] top-level scope at ./none:3
in expression starting at /home/simon/.julia/packages/CUDA/wTQsK/src/CUDA.jl:9
ERROR: LoadError: LoadError: Failed to precompile CUDA [052768ef-5323-5732-b1bb-66c8b64840ba] to /home/simon/.julia/compiled/v1.4/CUDA/oWw5k_BxRo2.ji.
 [1] error(::String) at ./error.jl:33
 [2] compilecache(::Base.PkgId, ::String) at ./loading.jl:1272
 [3] _require(::Base.PkgId) at ./loading.jl:1029
 [4] require(::Base.PkgId) at ./loading.jl:927
 [5] require(::Module, ::Symbol) at ./loading.jl:922
 [6] include(::Module, ::String) at ./Base.jl:377
 [7] include(::String) at /home/simon/tmp/climate/ClimateMachine.jl/src/ClimateMachine.jl:1
 [8] top-level scope at /home/simon/tmp/climate/ClimateMachine.jl/src/ClimateMachine.jl:12
 [9] include(::Module, ::String) at ./Base.jl:377
 [10] top-level scope at none:2
 [11] eval at ./boot.jl:331 [inlined]
 [12] eval(::Expr) at ./client.jl:449
 [13] top-level scope at ./none:3
in expression starting at /home/simon/tmp/climate/ClimateMachine.jl/src/Arrays/MPIStateArrays.jl:3
in expression starting at /home/simon/tmp/climate/ClimateMachine.jl/src/ClimateMachine.jl:12

The error appears to be caused by a problem in Julia’s CUDA library, which should hand off computation to my graphics processor (which would be a good thing as this has some serious compute power).

All tests also fail, but that is almost certainly because the build failed.

This is probably fixable without a huge amount of effort.

Overall, although I have no experience with Julia, the codebase looks very clean and well designed. The installation process was big and complex, but ran commendably cleanly, with no installation problems.

Community Earth System Model

The build instructions appear to be incomplete. Nothing compiles. There is no executable product. I don’t even know where to start with attempting to investigate further.


Pure R build appeared to work cleanly, but I didn’t understand what I’d got sufficiently to carry out any meaningful tests. I think it worked.

Makefile (standalone) build also appeared to build satisfactory, produced an executable, and I was able to use this to do a test run, but again I don’t understand what I’m doing sufficiently to understand what I got. Still, this is promising.


From the documentation it appeared exceedingly unlikely that E3SM would run satisfactorily on the hardware available to me, so I didn’t attempt this


I think Atlas is probably a useful library for people who know how to build climate models, but I think it’s too low level for what I want to do. Build was not attempted.


Installation/build appeared to work correctly, but there was a slight error with the build documentation.

Where the documentation says to run

(isca_env)$ pip install -e .

I got the following error:

(isca_env) simon@mason:~/tmp/climate/Isca$ pip install -e .
Obtaining file:///home/simon/tmp/climate/Isca
ERROR: file:///home/simon/tmp/climate/Isca does not appear to be a Python project: neither '' nor 'pyproject.toml' found.

I found a file under src/extra/python/, so I ran

pip install -e src/extra/python/

This gave the following output:

Obtaining file:///home/simon/tmp/climate/Isca/src/extra/python
  Preparing metadata ( ... done
Requirement already satisfied: sh in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from Isca==0.2) (1.13.1)
Requirement already satisfied: jinja2 in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from Isca==0.2) (3.0.3)
Requirement already satisfied: f90nml in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from Isca==0.2) (1.3.1)
Requirement already satisfied: numpy in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from Isca==0.2) (1.21.4)
Requirement already satisfied: pandas in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from Isca==0.2) (1.3.4)
Requirement already satisfied: xarray in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from Isca==0.2) (0.20.1)
Requirement already satisfied: MarkupSafe>=2.0 in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from jinja2->Isca==0.2) (2.0.1)
Requirement already satisfied: python-dateutil>=2.7.3 in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from pandas->Isca==0.2) (2.8.2)
Requirement already satisfied: pytz>=2017.3 in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from pandas->Isca==0.2) (2021.3)
Requirement already satisfied: six>=1.5 in /home/simon/bin/miniforge3/envs/isca_env/lib/python3.9/site-packages (from python-dateutil>=2.7.3->pandas->Isca==0.2) (1.16.0)
Installing collected packages: Isca
  Running develop for Isca
Successfully installed Isca-0.2

So I think that worked satisfactorily. To test it I then attempted to run a test case, and this failed complaining about missing environment variables. So I think this is working and I just need to read the documentation better to get it running.

It needs to be said this was also a very big, complex installation process and the fact that it all ran cleanly is very commendable: this isn’t easy.


All climate models are complex bits of software, and, being mathematically intensive, tend to be written in relatively special purpose languages (R, Julia, Fortran) with which I’m not familiar. I’m also intensely prejudiced against Python, because I hate significant white space, so again where systems use Python as a front end scripting language, this isn’t familiar to me.

Hector and Isca built satisfactorily without much difficulty. Hector successfully ran test cases (and commendably quickly), although it didn’t produce output I am able to interpret at this stage. **Climate Machine** didn't build, but I think this is fixable with a little more work.

All three of these systems are promising and worthy of further investigation. Whether any will do what I need I am not yet certain.

Monday, 15 November 2021

The Everyone Dies Event Class

Lytton burns
The climate, globally, is warming. Everyone acknowledges that. It’s not warming equally, or consistently, or evenly; I think everyone acknowledges that as well. Rather, the atmosphere is a heat engine: as you put more energy into it in the form of heat, you get more work out of it, in the form of turbulence. Winds get stronger, precipitation more intense, and heat waves hotter.

Human beings function in a fairly constrained temperature band. The healthy body temperature is 37° Celsius, plus or minus about one degree. The human body cools itself by evaporation. If water can’t evaporate from your skin, you can no longer cool yourself. Rather, you take on heat from the environment. Body temperature above 40° Celsius is a life threatening emergency, and above 42.3° denaturing of proteins, especially in the brain, may occur rapidly. This is not survivable.

But the operation of the human body generates heat continually. The beating of the heart generates heat. The movement of the chest cavity in breathing generates heat. Even brain activity – thinking – generates heat.

So in order to survive we need to be able to dump a small amount of heat into our environment continually. If the air is humid enough that sweat can’t evaporate, we need a small heat gradient to make that possible. So we need it to be actually cooler than 37°, and the survivable number generally quoted is a “wet bulb temperature” of 35°.

What does ‘wet bulb temperature’ mean? It’s the temperature at which water (and sweat) evaporates, and that’s a function of the absolute temperature of the air, and of the humidity: the saturation of water vapour in the air. As the air becomes increasingly humid, so the wet bulb temperature falls. In very dry atmospheric conditions, you can easily survive air temperatures well above 35° Celsius, provided you can drink enough fluids to enable you to sweat.

So: there is a temperature and humidity at which everyone exposed to the air just dies, and just dies pretty quickly. How close are we to hitting those temperature and humidity conditions?

The answer, of course, is that there are places on Earth which regularly exceeded those limits even before the days of significant anthropogenic warming, but that people don’t live in those places. Examples include Death Valley in California, parts of the Arabian Peninsula and of the Sahara, and Pakistan’s northern Sindh province, in which a Victorian British Brigadeer had the bright idea of building a city. What’s interesting is that these are not generally humid places; on the contrary, they’re exceptionally dry.

But the consequence of anthropogenic heating is that we’re seeing both higher average temperatures and higher variations in temperature. Which means we’ve been seeing a lot more exceptional heat events than we’ve been used to.

Over the past decade, ten places on Earth have recorded wet bulb temperatures at or above the theoretical ‘everybody dies’ limit. So far, we haven’t had an event in which very large proportions of the population have died suddenly of heat stroke, despite the fact that three of the places which have seen the highest wet-bulb temperatures, Ras Al Khaimah, Jacobabad and Mecca have significant populations.

But we cannot be very far away from an ‘everybody dies’ event, and the first probably won’t be somewhere that’s accustomed to very high temperatures.

Lytton, in British Columbia, Canada, wasn’t, until this year, accustomed to exceptionally high temperatures. Yes, it had frequently been the hottest place in Canada, but Canada is not on the whole a very hot place. The extreme heat event that hit Lytton in June 2021 – 49.6° Celsius – was fully 5° Celsius warmer than had ever been recorded there before. This is, as I’ve said before, because having more heat in the atmosphere makes it more turbulent and thus more heterogenous.

Lytton is 50°13’52" North. For comparison, that’s about eleven miles south of Plymouth in Devon, England, or about six miles north of Prague, in the Czech Republic.

Lytton didn’t quite exceed the ‘everybody dies’ limit, although it came very close. But it did exceed the ‘everything burns’ limit, which is what it isn’t there any more. And what Lytton proves is that, in an era of increasingly unstable weather, extreme heat events do not only happen in the tropics.


  1. We’re currently on 1.19° Celsius of anthropogenic warming over pre-industrial levels;
  2. At 1.19°, we’re seeing local temperature records being exceeded by 5° not only in the tropics but even in temperate zones;
  3. At 1.19°, our margin of safety for ‘everyone dies’ events in previously habitable zones appears to be completely exhausted;
  4. If capitalism continues (SSP4), we’re heading for 3.2° Celsius of warming; even on the much more optimistic SSP2 track, we’re now heading for 2.7°.

So: if at 1.19° average warming, we’re seeing local records broken by 5°, by what amount will we see them broken at 3.2° average? This isn’t going to be a simple linear curve; it seems to me that it must be at least to some degree exponential, because there are clearly accelerating effects and feedback loops in there.

But let’s assume that it’s simply linear. Then we would be looking at current local records being exceeded by fifteen degrees, more or less anywhere in tropical or temperate zones. Indeed, given what we saw in Siberia in 2020, we could easily see ‘everyone dies’ events happening as far north as the Arctic Circle. Obviously, they will be more common in the tropics. But no currently populous place on Earth will be immune.

So, just sit for a moment, and imagine. It’s 2035. It’s June. You’ve seen ‘everyone dies’ events, covering thousands of square kilometres, happening in other parts of the world already. Now the weather forecast tells you that there’s a 30% probability of an ‘everyone dies’ event in the area where you live in the next ten days.

What do you do?

That weather forecast is going to trigger everyone who can move, to move. It will cause gridlock on every means of transport. It will cause mass civil unrest. A fortnight later we’ll see news reports of ‘rescue’ workers – probably troops – going into the places people have gathered in their last desperate attempts to survive, have died in heaps. Those places may be subway stations, or underground vaults; they may be public buildings where there had been some hope the air conditioning system would not fail.

And each such event will leave a dead zone behind it to which – although we’ll know that these events will happen more or less randomly, like lightning strikes – few people will want to return.

Let’s be clear about this. 3.2° of warming isn’t ‘survivable’. 2.7° of warming isn’t survivable. We’re on the very edge of seeing ‘everyone dies’ events, covering areas the size of small European countries, now, at 1.19°. We cannot afford any more warming.

Yet already we’re hitting cascade effects. As the Arctic warms, so methane frozen in permafrost or beneath the sea thaws and is released into the atmosphere, ratcheting up warming. As ice melts, new, darker sea and land surfaces are exposed, ratcheting up warming. As ocean circulation systems are disrupted, their moderating effects break down, ratcheting up warming. Even if we all stop burning fossil fuels today, the temperature will still rise to about 1.6° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

We are already in the disaster zone. Every barrel of oil we pump makes it worse. We have to just stop.

Monday, 1 November 2021

Owning Scotland's Land

Scotland's land. 
OK, yes, it is my croft.
The white saviours, led by Benedict Macdonald, are again taking up the white man's burden to save Scotland's 'Wild Land' from the wild Scots. His business model is essentially to rent-seek off subsidies provided by the Scottish government intended to support rural communities and rural development, and divert the money, instead, to his friends in the City of London. Yes, this is just the latest cover of a very old tune, but it's long past time we said 'enough'.

The Right Solution

It remains my view that the right solution to Scotland's land problem is to apply a single, universal, highly progressive land tax to every square metre of Scotland, with the proceeds going to local government at a layer far closer to our current community councils than to our present regional councils. This taxation should be so progressive that it would essentially bankrupt all large estates immediately, causing them to surrender the vast majority of their land to those same councils, which would hold it as common.

These councils would be empowered to let parts of their common land to individuals on a non-heritable liferent basis, and to let parts to corporate entities on a maximum term of fifty years, but they would not be empowered to sell common land. At all. Ever.

However, for this solution to be implemented, we'd need a bold, far-sighted and progressive Scottish government, and there is at present no prospect of our ever having one. So we need to look for other solutions.

The Co-operative solution

So, let us suppose we set up a co-operative fund, called for the remainder of this document 'The Co-op Land Fund'. This fund would sell shareholdings to members of the public, who could put in any amount (over a set minimum of perhaps £100); but each member would get only one vote, irrespective of the amount of money they had put in.

This fund would buy parcels of land, normally in blocks of over 100 hectares, and would lease those parcels of land on long leases to further co-operatives ('management co-ops') which would manage and/or occupy that land (ideally, both).

There are two potential models for this:

  1. The Co-op Land Fund could speculatively buy a parcel of land and invite proposals from people interested in forming management co-ops to manage/occupy it;

  2. A nascent management co-op could approach the Co-op Land Fund and say 'there is this particular parcel of land which is now on the market, which we would like to manage/occupy, will you buy it and lease it to us.'

Obviously, the Co-op Land Fund could, and I hope would, operate both these models.

The idea here is that the management co-ops would either represent existing communities of place - a village would set up its own co-op to bid for land in its locality - or intentional communities which had the intention of becoming communities of place, by co-residing on the parcel of land which they leased.

Ideally, the management co-ops would hold the land more or less in perpetuity. They would pay a rental to the Co-op Land Fund, which could provide, in addition to finance for land, also finance for buildings and capital plant, and could also provide land management and ecological advice services.

Management co-ops should be essentially local, holding one parcel of land or at most a few parcels of land within easy cycling distance of one another. Everyone living on, or working on, the land held by a management co-op should be entitled to membership of that co-op.

In short, I view these management co-ops as being essentially something like Standingstone.

The Co-op Land Fund should set broad guidance for activities and developments which should be encouraged, should be discouraged, and should be disallowed, on these parcels of land; this guidance should generally be designed:

  1. To maintain the land in good long-term ecological health;

  2. As part of that, to sequester carbon;

  3. To produce strategic goods including food, natural fibres, timber and electrical power;

  4. To foster community and repopulation.


Creative Commons Licence
The fool on the hill by Simon Brooke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License