One of the worrying aspects about climate change is the melting ice in the Arctic, but not because all that melted ice would cause a rise in sea levels.

In fact, about 90% of the ice is below sea level, and as water expands when frozen, by around 9%, it is quite possible that the Arctic melting would have zero impact on sea levels.

However, ice is also very reflective and a lot of solar energy hitting the earth is reflected back into space by the Arctic ice. No ice, and all that heat gets absorbed by the sea, warming it – and in turn causing sea volumes to expand and sea levels to rise.

So, how about increasing the amount of the earth’s surface that reflects the solar radiation? It’s something I have occasionally pondered about, but lacked the resources/skills to work out the maths.

Some boffins have also thought about similar ideas – such as seeding clouds over oceans or even more brazenly, putting mirrors in space.

Now another report appears on my mailing list – where some boffins have actually looked at what would happen if you liberally splashed white paint on the roofs of city buildings.

Asphalt roads, tar roofs, and other artificial surfaces absorb heat from the Sun, creating an urban heat island effect that can raise temperatures on average by 2-5 degrees Fahrenheit (about 1-3 degrees Celsius) or more compared to rural areas. White roofs would reflect some of that heat back into space and cool temperatures, much as wearing a white shirt on a sunny day can be cooler than wearing a dark shirt.

Their simulations, based on an idealized view of different types of cities around the world, indicate that, if every roof were entirely painted white, the urban heat island effect could be reduced by 33 percent.

I was reminded of the issue today though, as someone has had an accident outside the flat and most of the road is now covered in whitewash. I wonder what the impact would be if every road was also covered in whitewash – presuming one can be developed that lasts more than a few days.

I am as it happens, quite a fan of green roofs, where the tops of buildings are given over to garden spaces for the residents or shrub-land for the local wildlife and it is a pity that so few new buildings in London are thus designed.

Obviously, the Gherkin might have a bit of a problem!

A slightly introspective posting – but as a fairly avid user of Twitter, I have been following the account being managed by the people at the particle physics lab at CERN.

A fairly quiet account, things livened up considerably on Friday as the place started testing the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and the person behind the CERN twitter account provided a live commentary of the evening’s events.

The excitement of the event could be very clearly felt through the stream of tiny comments that flowed out of Geneva that evening.

However, what was interesting for me to see was how much interest it was generating on Twitter, and at one point the LHC was in the top-10 of most talked about topics on Twitter. Even accepting that the average user of Twitter is reported to be older and more (ahem) intelligent than the average MySpace user, it was still surprising to see a rather obscure aspect of particle physics being of so much interest to so many people.

Or maybe it is just the “big machine” thing?

Also noticeable though was how many people started “following” CERN on Twitter on Friday and Saturday so that they could also follow the live feed of information. They went from 17,400 to 33,000 followers in just two days.

As I have commented in the past about how science on TV is increasingly dumbed down, it was refreshing to see how many people were demonstrating a clear interest in physics, even on a Friday evening.

A note for BBC2’s Horizon – go back to the glory days and start producing decent science programmes again. There is an audience out there!

On a personal note, a few years ago I was able to join a small group for a guided tour of CERN a few years ago and saw the ATLAS detector when it was still in pieces above ground. It was a visit I am unlikely to forget. Below is a picture I took (with icky camera) of one of the huge magnetic rings that run around the detector – and a diagram showing what a tiny component they are within the whole machine. Humbling.

Oh, CERN is also where the origins of what we today call the World Wide Web started, and in their rather good museum is the original document submitted by Tim Berners-Lee, with the famous scribble, “vague, but interesting” from his boss.

Possibly one of the greatest understatements of all time?

Just had an email from the nuclear fusion research centre just outside Reading with the dates for their 2010 open evenings.

The dates are: 19th May, 13th July, 15th September, 20th October, 24th November.

All are on Wednesday evenings and start at 7pm. To reserve places, call 01235 466608 or email deniese.willis@ccfe.ac.uk stating how many tickets and the date you want.

The tours start are free – and is a really fascinating view of a potential replacement energy supply for, well – almost everything – gas, coal, oil – and it could get rid of the ugly side of nuclear power – nuclear fission.

My previous visit can be read about here.

I would strongly advise booking asap, as places tend to “sell out” fairly quickly.

An interesting report has wafted my way on the topic of science and interacting with the general public, although the report was actually more about scientists talking to journalists who then write stuff that the general public read.

It was contradicting a widely held view that scientists are loathe to speak to “the public”, either directly or via the medium of journalism and it has resurrected some thoughts of mine about the issue.

To a degree we are moving increasingly into a world dominated by specialists, and the old order of the gentleman scientist is passing away as topics become so incredibly arcane that it takes the specialist to firstly understand what is already known, then to be able to expand on that. Which I feel is a bit of a shame, as the old generalists were often able to leap between different fields and hence bring wider insights into science. Obviously, that is offset by the huge leaps forward made in the past 50 years by the specialists.

Anyhow, getting back on topic… I was reminded of a blog posting over on the Nature website by the Londonist’s M@, which certainly resonated with me at the time I read it. The comment dealt with the disconnect between how scientists try to explain what they do, and how artists often seem to live in a rarified atmosphere where words that look like English are uttered, but comprehension is denied to the layperson.

A scientist will expect a modicum of intelligence when explaining an issue, but will try to avoid too much jargon, and I can cope with their lectures. Indeed it is one of the key reasons I expanded my own diary into the events guide on this website – to share the wide range of interesting lectures that are available (often free) around London most weeks.

When I am compiling the listings, there seems to be three types of source I use.

1. Detailed and useful
2. Detailed and incomprehensible to the layman
3. A headline and nothing else

Unsurprisingly, the first option is the one that gets written up on my events guide as I can be reasonably sure what it is about and that the language used probably won’t scare people. The second option sounds too technical and I won’t list them as I doubt that they would work for the average Joe with a casual interest in the topic. These are for students of the subject who have a detailed understanding of the issues, and as a layperson, I can’t always be that sure what they are about!

Option three is actually the most depressing one, as it usually applies to the smaller local community groups and makes it very difficult for me to promote their activities. Even when I contact some of them for more information, I rarely get anything usable. Which is a shame as there are some lectures that sound like they might be interesting, but I am just not sure.

However, if I try to read up art listings, I am totally baffled by the language used. They just don’t seem to want to appeal to the layperson with a casual interest in a subject who could be lured into learning more. Not to mention the very arty way that many art groups present their listings (single image in an email?), which makes converting them into something more usable a torturous process.

In conclusion, while I do despair at times of the dumbing down of science shows on television (glares at BBC2’s Horizon), the range of lectures around London are a wondrous resource that more than make up for the loss of decent TV programming. After a quiet summer, I am looking forward to a busy few months ahead listening to scientists who genuinely want to explain what they do, and explain it in a language that we curious lay people can understand.

Not to mention that lectures at a few places (Linnaean Society & Grant Museum) tend to finish off with glasses of wine in their museums and libraries.

Science and wine, what a perfect combination!

Just received an update that an additional date has been added to the public tours of the JET fusion reactor near Oxford – for the evening of 17th June 2009.

The tours start at 6:30pm and are free – and is a really facinating view of a potential replacement energy supply for, well – almost everything – gas, coal, oil – and it could get rid of the ugly side of nuclear power, fision.

My previous visit can be read about here.

To request tickets – go to the JET website and fill in the form.