Cafe Scientific, Southampton, UK, past talks , late 2017

Latest update of this file 21 January , 2018

Some details on past SWA science cafe talks in 2010 , including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of later 2011
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2011
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2012
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of mid 2012
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of end 2012, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2013, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of mid 2013, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of late 2013, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2014, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of mid 2014, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of end 2014, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2015, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2015, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of end 2015, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2016, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of mid 2016, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of end 2016, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2017, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of mid 2017, including transcripts of talks and Q&A
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of end 2017, including transcripts of talks and Q&A

To return to the main "4mg" Soton Sci Cafe file
To return to the main "ad free" Soton Sci Cafe file
Some summaries etc of past talks held at the venue, The Southwestern Arms (upstairs room) , 36 Adelaide Rd, St Denys, SO17 2HW
Some hosts are not alowing remote linking now , so to view a "forbidden" picture you have to right click on the mouse and select "view". Not verbatim, and there will be homonyms, transcription, transliteration, typing and spelling errors and misattributions in the following write-ups. Q&A , grouped under one "Q" or ? terminator tend to be dialogue with / multiple questions from one enquirer. ? for unheard / masked words , ??? for phrases.

Monday 11 September 2017, Joy Richardson, Soton uni : The Future of Automated Driving There will be 3 of us speaking; I will do a brief introduction to our team and the research we are currently doing. Jed Clark will talk about trust in driving automation and James Brown will talk about the development of SUDS Southampton University Driving Simulator. We will aim for 15 minutes each. 44 people, 1.7 hours We're a mulyidisciplinary team within the transportation research group . We work under Prof Neville Scanton. We have a range of backgrounds including psychology , engineering, computer science, software , neuro science and design. Human Factors Design is to improve human performance and systems, especially with the introduction of new tech and automation. We also analyse accidents and make recomendations for accident reduction in the future. Our research encompasses aviation, defence , energy distribution , maritime, medical , nuclear , road and rail transportation and oil and gas production. Human interaction with tech , transect all these domains. Human Factors methods can be used to analyse and make predictions about the performance of individuals , teams and systems in any domain. The inputs gained from people interacting with tech , can be used to design better systems and ways of working in the future. Our research helps inform the human/ machine interfaces in things like cars planes, nelicopters, submarines , also the design of control-rooms such as production or military control rooms. The organisation of teams can be informed by our work. The information flow within teams can be informed by our work. The ultimate overall aim is to improve safety. We work with industry and other institutions. Our work has many practical applications, not just research , they do end up in cars or control rooms etc in the real world. One piece of kit in our dept is SUDS the Soton Uni driving Simulator. A high fidelity simulator, based around a LandRover Discovery. This simulator allows us to test new tech in vehicles , in a safe environment , rather than on real roads , which is dangerous. We can try it all out in the lab , where its very safe. The simulation software allows us to build different types of routes for different studies . We've recently developed a route that goes from Bolderwood (dept base) down the M27 , back on the A27 , to Mansbridge by the Fleming Arms. In a current project we are developing systems to reduce traffic accidents in the developing world. So we're mapping areas of Hannoi, Bangladesch to build into the simultor software . The hardware and the software around the driver allows us to collect loads of data. An eye-tracker which records the gaze of the driver. We can test response times , via a variety of cues . Standard vehicle telemetry , audio and video recording of the driver and driving. Another project is an eco-driving project , targetting significant reduction in fuel consumptoin and emissions in passenger and light road vehicles. So looking at interfaces that may encourage people to drive more efficently . Human behaviour during highly automated driving, human/machine interface, driver state monitoring in highly automated driving, predicting real world effects of such driving and looking at the legal and marketing perspectives. So myself and colleages here James Brown and Jeb Clarke we all work for a highways ? project. In colaboration with a team at Cambridge Uni and funded by Jaguar LandRover. So we are researching problems with interfacing drivers with automated vehicles, above level 3 automation. There are 7 levels of this automation. In level3 the car can drive itself a lot of the time and when it is doing so, the driver does not have to pay attention. The next stage , the driver can do something like read the newspaper , play games or watch a film. However the car will have some limitation situations and would require the driver to take control, at roundabouts or sharp turns, and it knows in advance that it will have to hand over to the driver. So we are developing soultions as to how the car gets the attention back to the driver, in a safe and timely manner, who is doing something immersive. Hopefully JLR will have a clear set of models , methods and guidelines, involving prototypes. We have a cycle of establishing the problem , designing a solution and testing. Currently we are using SUDS , 4 different ways for the automated vehicle to hand over to the driver. 58 participants seen at the moment, probably 75 in total. Testing out the different scenarios on them, seeing how they react and finding out what people think of them. The results will then be transfered to the JLR test track at Gaydon? leading to a test vehicle for testing on public roads. Hopefully progressing to JLR production vehicles. James Brown I'm a senior research assitant at the uni , my main role is running the driving simulator lab. The Discovery was lent to us by JLR, and we needed a high performance simulator for human factors research. It needs to be realistic, the testee needs to feel he is inside a real vehicle . It needs to be adaptable and configurable. We need to specify the kind of driving environment and be able to record a lot of information. So we record control useage , eye-tracking data, video footage. The software will output a lot of data. We log all the driver interactions , all the controls are logged, anything they do in the simulator. The software we use is called ?3 , it allows us to customise scenarios . We can design the roads that we are driving along. We can set up different things like somebody jumping out in front, different on-road scenarios all of which are customisable. The data is logged as CSV files, so can be inputted straight to spreadsheets and do calculations. The environment is augmented by creating 3D objects from the Southampton routes, to increase the realism effect. The parameters are set for the discovery model but we can simulate pretty much anything ouside of articulalted vehicles. We have the open module , a DLL dynamic link library in DB6 t o extend the functionality , by writing new code that can then be integrated with other software. Some of the customised 3D models, the City Gate building at Swaythling for instance. Starting in Linkscape? applied to a 3D model , Blended? software. We export those and place them whereever we want , scaling and position , so all very customisable. The car is a 2015 Discovery Sport, with 4 projectors in total 3 at the front gives a good wide-field view . Customisable LCD display rear-view mirrors . Also turntables under the wheels, as we don't have rollers as not actually moving. So when you steer it would otherwise wear the tyres and floor. We have apneumatic system for the brakes as the engine must not be run in the lab environment. The brake master-servo would not be running , as no suction from the manifold. Using the lab pneumatic system we run that through a venturi to provide the pressure. Q: Normally there ar ea lot of signals that would be flying around the car , not there as no running engine. How are you getting complete behaviour . You are refering to spoofing. The fact the engine is not running causes errors , a section later I'll cover on CanBus. We have some webcams recording video data, pedal actions and if the driver is doing deliberate secondary tasks , something other than driving . So we need to look at the driver while he's doing that , to give us more info. So CAN and CanBus, CAN stands for Control Area Network. This is the system that we plug into, to get the control data from the car. It was developed by Bosch in the 1980s and is now pretty well in all modern cars. Since 2008 it has been mandatory in the USA to have a CAN in their vehicles. It allows multiple electronic components to be connected together , in the same bus, so saving a lot of wiring in the wiring loom. Accessed by the OB2 ? socket , normally under the dashboard used for diagnostics and more, often seen in garages to plug into a laptop. CAN is fundamentally 2 wires , white and green as a twisted pair. Messages are sent by changes in voltage, 5V represents 1 and making a step change it transmits a 0. Combined in a frame which has 2 parts, the ID specifying the priority of the message and also the component involved. 8 bytes of data and can contain multiple pieces of data , maybe 8 pieces of info ,16 or 64 bits of information. This variability makes it a bit difficult to interpret. We raised some software to do this. With CAN all components can comunicate with all other. So why connect lots of different systems together, say, the ABS system to the AirCon system. THey don't need to talk to each other but as all are connected to the same bus , if they need to talk they will listen. A relevant message on the bu an individual component will respond , if not relevant it is ignored. High priority messages will over-ride any low priority messages. So if the wheel system is sending out to the ABS system , that is a high priority message. Something to the aircon would just be overwritten. How do we use this data feed. We use an Efad? to CAD interface, and Arduino microcontrollers, with appropriate shields that allows us to interpret the data. So 2 CAN nodes and a Windows interface allows us to test the sytem and software. The data comes out as Hexadecimal strings and input data in the same format. When we want to get the control data from the car , steering data, throttle , brakes, all that is on the CAN, but we need to know where that dat ais. If you plug into a car's AB2 to read CAN dat a there is a lot of HEX and you need to know where it is. So the CAN look-up database, that is usually proprietary information , not something car companies would release to the general public, we've been given it for research purposes. In amongst that data is the ID of the component node, the start bit , the number of bits , endianess which is the byte order for scaling in offsets. So from Hex convert to Binary start bit , count of fthe number of bits , taking the endianess into account an integre value , then scale it by a fine offset. Scaling is sometimes necessary if the value is slightly larger or smaller than it nedds to be. If something is not zero, then can apply that offset. I wrote some software that does all this, data in from the arduinos or from the ?? , interprets it and gives an integre value for steering ,throttle and brake and any other relevant controls in the car. We send that to as an open source and we have essentially a 2 ton , 40,000GBP joystick. The software reads the output from that joystick. Spoofing. If you have a car thats not running, it will be throwing out a lot of errors, even the instrument cluster saying the ABS is not working, tyre pressures are wrong. Because it defaults to thinking everything is disconnected, which of course it is. I thought about sending individual bits of data saying everything is fine. But a colleague suggested why not record data from a normal car, with its engine running, and send that in . So we save it as a CSV and stream it in and it works brilliantly. Its all now fully functional and being used for research. Jed Clark A post-grad researcher looking at how we interact with automated tech. At the end of the day , when we create these systems , we're the ones using it and find the weak areas of our systems. Joy touched on levels of automation . So bare-bones vehicle lvel 00, with no automation at all. level1 is where 1 thing is functioning , that could be automatic breaking or cruise control. level2 is where there is more than 1 system that can work together and work for you . Our interest is level3 and 4, when a car can drive itself , but in the near future we still need a human in that system, to take over if the situation goes outside its comfort zone and we have to take back control. An incredibly difficult problem to solve . How close to actuality it all is. A couple of strategies that manufacturers are taking currently. Skipping this human control element completely and going straight for full automation . Because a human having to drive with a robot is very difficult. Google and Tesla are doing this. We and JLR are interested in level 3 and 4. Self driving on the highway 2020 in the UK, one company looking at 2018 for automated on the roadway. It is legislation that stops us , the Vienna Convention allows us test the tech 2014 onwards. I don't know how this represents us as consumers at the moment. Volvo is about 1 year behind or so. Renault Nissan looking at 2020 for urban conditions. Highway is quite simple , lateral positioning, longitudinal posiitioning , braking and overtaking. But urban environments there are pedestrians, crossings and junctions, 2010 I'm not convinced. When we talk of humans working with tech , how much do we trust this tech and how much can we work as a team with our driverless vehicles . [Audience participation / group discussion section, involving 5 sorts of tech and our trust of it] return comments GPS crossings change to roundabouts or vice versa or something is not right. Isn't it unreasonable to expect 100% accuracy. If i go on a 100 mile drive and 1 of the junctions it gets wrong. I'm not going to say its unreliable based on just 1 error. If a system is designed to avoid pedestrians and only hit one of them on the way, then that might not be aceptable. I will assume it is 100% reliable , for this philosophical discussion. You are in control of a runaway train, lets say. It is definitely going to hit 5 people, if I don't do anything. But if I pull a lever , it will hit 1 person, what do you do. By extension, lets get to the stage where all cars communicate with each other. And they can perform a desent simulation of what is going to hsppen. Lets say that your car knows that by ploughing into the truck ahead , it will save the lives of 5 people , but sacrifice you. You will want the tech that you've bought to look after you , but these decisions are made so quickly , that there is a n element of philosophy behind the point. With anything that gives prediction rather than certainties, you will always have philosophy involved. The lesser of 2 evils , there wil lalways be this question. For science it is hard to give clear cut answeres on that. Does my automated car need a morality dial . The Smart Phone, we trust that it works but its loaded with apps. How much do you trust them. Loads of different systems in one piece, not necessarily of known and trusted provenance. A lot to do with the reputation of the supplier of apps , not just the tech itself. A lot of the behaviour of any software system is intangible. So more generally, how do you trust something , whose operation you cannot sense or see. Cars are a bit like that. Airline pilots. Well trained, using proven concepts . They are already assisted by computers, but still a hman element. Airlines had automation trialled in the 1970s at the forefront of automation , it is still integrated with a human. Still big problems , when handing over from the automation back to the pilot , lots of accidents happen at that point. With aviation studies, as you have to sense everything , through something else, you cant just look out the cockpit window to determine height over ground say. You always have an instrument to go through. Autonomous cars are a bit easier on that front, but it is something that has been bugging us for decades. The pilots are not continually monitoring the automation and when the automation kicks out, and hands over to the pilot, he has to gather all that data quickly, and not always quick enough. Exactly this with driverless vehicles and hand over. We learn a lot from aviation studies , a lot of my work is how to apply such principles from other sectors, to autonomous drivers. Smart toaster. Do you trust your toaster. How does it know about different types of bread. No one who has had a toaster catch fire, will ever trust a toaster again. Driverless vehicles. I'd trust it on the motorway as not too many variables. Tricky in the urban environment. Its very true as to where the tech is at the moment. Loads of reasons why you trust and don't trust various tech. Trust , in terms of technology, we talk about it in a specific way. You and the tech achieving a common goal. Trust is whether you think that common goal wil be achieved within the constraints of uncertainty and vulnerability. Taking the airline pilot, we have a lot of empathy , we know exactly how humans work. Even if our trust shouldn't be placed i na human , per se, because they do make errors, if not more than autonomous systems. (why we are pushing forward this tech). But we find it so easy to trust humans. That is characterised by being certain about his/its actions and whether he/it will take care of us . We are more likely to trust things that are less likely to harm us. So the toaster. I trust my toaster to do its job , because not many varialbles involved , and its unlikely to kill me unless I'm stupid, it could only burn your bread. But autonomous vehicles could kill other people . That is the bare bones arguments around trust. Trust via the following factors. Previous experiences Natural tendency to trust or mistrust tech or even other humans Its something that integrates with tech and its about you as an individual. Then organistional trust. Built around reputation of a product, like the apps on the smart phone. Fears concerning data, are brought about in a very organisational sense , or social sense. We fear tech, based on the reputation its getting and gossip. The culture we live in has a massive impact on this trust . The norms and expectations. eg as scientists we are certain autonomous vehicles will eleminate the human error elemt of road-traffic collisions. At the moment that is 95% of RTA is down to the human driver. If we can eliminate 95% ,that will be great . So if we want to push this tech into the future our expections eventually will be if we don't use AVs , you are unethical. Society as a whole will make you want to trust it, even automatically trust it. A strange collection of all these things come together to give a level of trust in AV tech. A model comes in on the trust element, whether you intervene or you trust it to go its own way. Leave it to do its job, there is a chance an error will emerge in the system and you are over-trusting it. Conversely if you dont use AV when you really should, again , you as the human user, may bring about an RTA yourself. On x axis , how much you SHOULD trust your tech, on the y axis how much you ACTUALLY trust it. We expect AVs to equal the other amount, on the diagonal line, that is called Calibration of Trust. Tht is the ultimate sweet spot that we wnt as then you are working as a team with the automation , intervening when you think it will crash, leaving it do its job when yopu should. Q: Your definition oif trust includes vulnerability, you don't have a value in there that concerns hackers and the converse , I don't want to run over too many people. A terrorist hacke rwants to run over as many people as possible.? The way I'm discussing trust at the moment is , how we use it, as we're driving. This is personal trust in its capabilities. The trust you are referring to is, how much would we trust it as a whole. They are both interlinked , unfortunately this model excludes that. It does get more complicated getting out to that level. Q: Are you concerned about someone who behaves as if he trusts it , they are coerced into that behaviour , in that they would be penalised otherwise, and actual trust , their inner conviction? We are very different in our trusts. You are worried about the expectations . Q: You talked earlier of the modalities that society would become to have. None-the -less as a n individual I might be behaving as though I trusted it, but its a grudging attitude? One of those things that us as designers , especially human factors researchers, we have to consider people like that. We all have these deep concerns and they're all valid and I feel as though , if we can create a system in our lives that has the right level of trust and also where your level of tust should be accommodated for . How we design that in , I think we could design it to factor in all our levels of trust. Q: My take on what you have said is, you are assuming you could persuade me ? Yes, as an engineer I like to think I can create something that is suitable to the masses and beneficial to society atr the same time. Its my goal to at least persude you . Q: Almost 50 years ago I was doing a motorcycling course , half the course is about what you should be doing bu tit was instilled into us, how vulnerable we were as road users. So approaching any situation you have to almost forget what the driver ought to be doing and reflect on what they might do. In any transistion situation where you both computer and human driven cars on the road. The computer has no way of telling whether the car approaching you at a junction is driven by a human who might come straight out without looking or a computer that will automatically stop. Is that one of the problems of the interface between .? This opens up a massive can of worms. Different categories of automation having to react to human or a robot. There is modelling that says that it doesn't work. it makes things a lot worse. You want an idea where you have full automation or full human control. All very difficult , in between. What we are trying to do is creating an interconnection of all AVs so they can talk to each other and to road signals, that is the idea. So theoretically we should know whethe rthe approaching is an AV. Whether that will go ahead, I'm not sure, in a research perspective. The cross-over will be very difficult. We're not certain how it will be done yet, an area we are definitely looking into. Loads of ethical questions come in there. Q: Assuming everyone does trust , and reduce the 95% of RTA. I had one of my lodgers check some site management systems and found 1291 errors in it. How much are we likely to have AV accidents due to software errors? I read a handy paper about the errors that happen at ech stage of design. From a design perspective a hell of a lot of errors does go on, so you have to factor in this. So you are saying, we may eliminate 95% but we will add on others. The way I've delivered this, yes it sounds great, but you are right a valid concern. Our AV guys are looking at the learning sofware, treating it as a system that can learn , DeepMind/ heuristic maybe the terms , I think that wil lbe the solution. You need to allow it to learn . Q: With cameras involved on AVs and you have severe weather , such as slush and ice , what happens? The tech we have now, we have poblems with the weather and is one of the biggest factors that we can't overcome yet. We have researchers looking at different ways of sensing the environment. All these things are difficult to solve. I cannot stand here and say the answers are there or even we can do things in the near future . If we have AVs cming out in 2018 or 2010 I'd want the technology to be above that. We as a research group are not concentrating on the physical aspects of AV driving. Q: The legal system might put limits on the driver, such as you're responsible no matter whether you ar eusing a robot system or not and these are the consequences if you are not responsible.? Many manufacturers of above level3 have said that the technology will be their fault if there is a crash and they will tae liability. With level3 , I really should find out about that one as it is part of my research compass. Q: There are 2 modes posible in urban AV driving. The car decided its senses ar ecompromised , it cant make safe predictions and so the user musrt assume control. And also the user may independently drive , because they wish to assume control, because they don't trust it in some particular circumstance. So juggling those 2 different modes. ? The calibration of trust essentially. With 2 humans working you can share responsibility, taking the blame for things, but can tech take the blame for things, based on the interaction you've got with it, much more complicated. A couple of examples where our trust falls out of line with automation. Most automation failures come from aviation , just becauyse they've been there longer. The automated throttle from the San Fransisco landing- they came over a mountain, not taking into account how much their velocity would change coming in to landing. The auto throttle did what it was supposed to do but a human did not understand it, but also you trust it too much. Anothe r sector, railway - speed restrictions and drivers like to think they can push speed limits based on their own experiences. But automation does know better in this scenario, and many railway accidents have occured due to over-riding of warnings of sppeed. In the 80s it got to the point where operators would tape over buzzers , just because it was annoying , and not having enough trust in the system even though it was preventing them creating errors. Q: The pilot error example , was it genuinly the error of that particular pilot or would all other pilots validly say , that could just as easily have been us? was it really error in the sense of someone doing something they should not? There were 2 pilots in this event. Humans however they come to their error , it should be ,as designers, our responsibility letting that happen. Q: Pilots doing thier training should have a thorough understanding of the tech in front of them. Its not the designers fault if the pilot has not read your instructions? Not per se, but can we do something better, is the way I'd approach that. Q: The point of this event was that in different modes the system behaved differently. Sometimes the auto-throttles did maintain speed but in the one mode they unfortunately selected, didn't and doesn't. They asked Boing to change it. So another misunderstanding about its capabality and a training issue. Not recognising that they picked the one mode where the auto-throttle stopped working. How does this relate to driverless vehicles. We must calibrate our trust when we are in level3. It will happen in hte next few years and w eneed to get ready for this. An example of how our designs can work with humans. A study done on how we can better relations between autonomous systems and humans. 2 groups, one would have an automated system that would go as normal, the other group a symbol would flash up on the dash when the autonomous system wasn't shure about what was going to happen. It could not precisely predict what would happen in the future. This mediated the way that us as humans interact with tech . You found that,task performance, reacting to a future incident, got better when this was presented. Also the levels of trust were rated as better. I think if we can create a system that is honest with the human and then back again . It is a 2way process, its not the AV talking to you , you can also interact with it. It wants to learn from you. We have face recognition tech , to figure out whether you are aware of your surroundings and we have step by step processes , how the AV can decide whether it wants to interact with you or how it should interact with you. THere is anew model of Audi being released , that if it noticed you were not aware, for taking over control , it would start to give you loads of cues, audio, visual and then it would tighten the seatbelt a bit and perhaps tapped the brakes, if it should become a dire situation. But its learning from you as well. The designs , in the future , i'd like to look at , from your perspective, what you want the automation to get and to do in these scenarios. Q: If the vehicle is learning from you, what happens when someone else drives it? I'd like to think there were settings to either learn your face or voice, so it can treat different humans . Personalisation is a big thing for us at the moment. If we use automation too much , we have areduced situation awareness , so when you take back control , you have no idea of what has been going on in the environment. In a problematic scenario , if you take control , you don't know how to react to it. That is what my thesis is on, how can we interact with the human to solve that problem, the environmental awareness to take over. Another biggy is skills degradations. How will we teach 16yearolds to drive eg when automated parking is the norm . Over reliance on automation can lead to these things. We must work together with robots , the message I'm here to tell and I'm here trying to figure out how we can work better with robots, systems design to treat you as a human but also the autonomous system as the same system. Trying to solve as a common goal, we are all in this together and we must design for that. Q&A Very thought provoking on elements of trust. There is something about our driving and trust. We all trust our washing machines , we trust taxis driven by other humans, but we are suspect about cars programmed to drive by other humans. When cars are fully AV, you will be including old people , young people, who cant take over control. They will be far more in favour of AVs I'm sure. ? That is the goal. Level3 at the moment is more of a trialling stage. We cant just unveil this tech on its own , we must think about society , build the trust very slowly. We've been automating things for a very long time. Is there something unique about driving, in having to trust others, yes. This is the first time we've seen something so complicated being automated. The driving task, in our research , shows something like 2000 things you have to monitor at one time. Some are things that have happened in the past you need to remember or things you need to project into the future, its incredibly complex. Q: Will w etrust AVs only when they become moral agents. Essentially we have to believe that they have our best interests at heart, before we trust them. In consequence there is this moral agent where w ethink the car is going to act on our behalf. Do robots have to be moral agents before we can interact with them.? We may have morality as humans . If you have a scenario of potentially running over someone, your instinct will be to swerve. I would liken a morality in vehicles to a risk analysis, something that a human cannot do himself. The response an automation would take is not necessarily what I would think as being the rational one. Whereas I'd argue the human would not be that rational in that scenario. Q: As a human who is not entirely rational, am I not always going to be wary of something that is purely rational and does not behave in the way that I would behave. There is also the element of selfishness, in that if you have an ethical decision that needs to be made , say children in the car, you could make AI algorithms that would give an ethical decision but would be selfish. A certain proportion of people in the population who are psycopaths , their view of everyone else is they are just objects. Would you want control of a vehicle to a completely moral-less individual? To AI, everything is just data. You have to tell it what to do with that data. Perhaps the driverless car will forbid you to err. Are these AVs using the same systems as our Sat-Navs to navigate? and what happens when it drops out. Present level3 reponses are based on known hand-overs, but we are also loking at unknown handovers. So if atrocious weather and the car could not see the road as in fog, or the system/s went down , it would hand back to the driver, in a safe way Q:There is an argument put forward that humans have made a really bad job of driving cars ,so automating the process can't be any worse. I know its a limited number of AVs allowed on the roads currently in Germany and the USA, bu tthere has been a fatality. Where the system mistook the blank white side of a lorry , as sky, and killed the driver plus a few roll-overs etc. What is the statistics so far of AV compared to human accidents ? How many accidents per million miles sort of statistic. They do skew that somewhat as highway only. Q: I think that statistic would be the best proof of security v insecurity of AVs. When you cannot prove mathematically that a robot beats a smart toaster . Q;There is allied proof in terms of policy making, and insurance , and when you are trying to sell the car to someone. Statistical measures are surprisingly difficult for people to get their heads around and motivate. I think you will find that car manufacturers won't be jumping to thrust stats in front of you as a potential buyer, as stats don't sell cars to people. Stats can inform policy makers and inform the engineering community but its not the thing that will sell cars. Q : A bet, in 10 years time , half of the cars sold in the UK will have a self-driving capacity , for this instance defined as legally take you home from the pub? My friend who works for Google thinks it will , but I think the l;aw will not have caught up. ? Its because you've added the half element to it, sold not exist in that year. I would say yes. The targets at the moment are 2030 for fully AVs on the road. To get there you have to do it when peoplke want to get rid of their cars. So in 2026 ,if you are still selling unautomated cars , then that car will be on the road for say another 10 years. I think legislation will take a long time. Also people do like driving and the automated element of driving is going to be top-end only to start with , as all new innovations are. People drive MG midgets or clapped out camper vans because they like driving. Q: I've read that a lot of people in driving , like to retain some control. ? If you're doing long , regular car journeys and you would like to get some work done, along the way and cannot go by train, it will be used first in that sort of situation. I think it will be work-driven rather than leisure-driven. Answering a "break" question. Why do we want AVs in the first place. One is emissions, if you can produce the perfect way of moving cars. Eg moving away from a junction, the staggering effect, one person moves away , then another and all the way back. That is a massive emissions contributor. Imagine eliminating traffic . Imagine a system where AVs drop you off in a city centre , then drive home or find a parking space itself perhaps outside the city. You open up a city with no parking, opening up the spaces otherwise wasted on car parking. The centre of towns essentially is not there fro parking , shops, leisure etc. perhaps 1/3 of city spaces could be so opened up. Q: So lets consider out-of-town supermarkets. Consider a future where only 1/10 of the earlier car parking space would be required. This cuts 2 ways , often car parking raises revenue for the municipality,taxes associated with offering the public free-carparping. Therre is a loose there as well as a win. There is the concept of shared vehicles, mobility of service? ,due to this change to parking requirements, and lower number of vehicles on the road. These carriers will become , not what we know them currently. They will be a space or even a booth . Q: The taxi conundrum . If you are at home and want to go to the supermarket , do you rely on an empty vehicle , coming to you, it is a negative , having to trverse the road network, using resources just to get to you, to provide this mobility. Factor that sort of thing in, how much benefit is there overall? Would half the vehicles on the roads be empty? At the moment while those cars are in transit, someone will be in them. But with a sharing policy, any given vehicle would have greater occupance, assuming an inteligent notification system for nearest pick-up distances. Q : A point I heard recently . In the half way stage wher esome of the vehicles on the roads are AVs and some are continuous human controlled. Situations say at a roundabout , where you are driving as a human onto the roundabout, you recognise an AV already on the roundabout. You just pull out in front of them , knowing that the AV will stop. And a great number of people will start doing that, until the leagle eagles can come down on it . Same with a pedestrian deliberately crossing in front of any AV. Q: In the interim situation , with some people just like driving ancient vehicles etc, how do you see it working? Probably end up with 2 road systems. Maybe you will not be allowed to take a manual car onto the motorway, and perhaps unable to take AVs into some urban areas. Governments will have to come to agreements concerning AVs moving from left-hand drive countries , to right and vice versa. Q: I'm a software systems architect and I've worked with JLR , not on AVs . Future feature guys are working 5 years ahead, tha tis the product lifecycle. You don't get a vehicle onto the road without 5 years of work. So they are engaging with hte likes of insurance companies via appropriate official bodies. The auto makers know that what they will be producing in 7 or 8 years time , their ability to sell that , very much depends on legal and insurance frameworks and what their stances will be on novel technology. So a lot of backchat around these sort of challenges. Certainly there is a task force within the insurance industry has been working on this. They have a stance on this, how fast it gets into government policy and law , is an open question. Q: Thinking of Stuxnet and if a bad-guy gets in control of a distributed AV system Q: my belief Autonomous trucks wil lhappen first , because the payback mechanisms are easier to see. We're currently discussing automatic platooning in a group, vehicles so close together they are in each other's slipstream. Human users trying to exit at a junction , while there is a massive platoon of lorries, how large can they become. Q:I had a go on your SUDS AV and I'm not sure if I commented in the process and running audio record. I could see myself in a level3 structure , I'd absent mindedly forget which mode I and the car was in. I could see myself thinking the car was in AV mode and its not. I do a lot of research on that area. Looking at ambient systems , so lights up the whole space in automated mode. Q: I was reading that if you have a vehicle that is in autonomous mode and it wants to hand over, it can take 15 seconds for the user to understand the situation that is happening, until they are in a postion where they can actually take over. In 15 seconds you've travelled a long way. Or multiple occupants in an AV, chattering away , could easily be 15 seconds. In our research , 47 seconds . Normal scientists track the mean , but in engineering , if you have that person who takes 47 seconds to react to the system, that is a problem. We cant solve that. There are systems in place that would stop them, whether an emergency or a routine hand-over , 2 differnt types of hand-over. We're approaching those 2 prongs at the moment. The maximum you are allowed in emergency hand over is 5 seconds. 15 seconds is too much. Q: surely in that situation an AV could mitigate , like reduce its speed , ie it has general knowledge about things that are dangerous and things that are not. Slowing down is always a good thing in an emergency. So not quite ablack and white issue. You may want the user to take control , because it is aware of an emergency, but none-the-less there are some mitigational processes before. Q: On the integrity of GPS etc. There have been instances in the shipping industry, in piracy situations, the GPS structure is hacked/over-ridden so the ships think they are in a differnt position. Q: Could there be anti-terrorism measures built in,? I'm thinking of the vehicles driven down pedestrian routes, for multiple murder? There are systems in place for identifying objects . THe way systems work out what is in the environment are worked out from general concepts and teaching computers to recognise . They are becoming very good at object recognition, eg Google DeepMind learning whether something is a dog or not. So moving on to whether a human or not is there. Q: A company in Leicester, that ARM has taken over, makes incredibly smart cameras. It can look at a crowd, identify individuals and produce a metric of the interelatedness of differnt people , dependendent on the direction they are looking, whether inside personal comfort zones etc. In built processing of this, no cloud computing required for it. ? If there is a computer vision question, then it will happen.

Monday 9 October 2017 , Dr Brian King, National Oceanography Centre: Argo: a fleet of unattended instruments that measure global warming. Since the year 2000, a coordinated international effort has deployed more than 10,000 automatic instruments to measure the rate of the earth's warming, 95% of which occurs in the oceans. The talk will describe how the system works, discuss the engineering and scientific challenges, and what the measurements have revealed so far. 2 hours, 25 people In my early career we were starting to deploy these yellow tubes, floats in the Argo programme. The name came from a means of measring the ocean that corresponded to a satellite measurement system that was called Jason. So Argo a fleet of unattended instruments to measure global warming. We are interested in global change and measuring global change. For the measurements we want, we can't have the right number of people in the right places all the time. We have to do it with instruments when we are not there. A pic of a Spitzbergen glacier , in the Arctic, as it was in 1906 , the same view in 2005 , lake the same, mountains the same, the glacier is completely gone. Even if you said it was a bit of a cycle when it didn't snow very much, the original glacier thickness would take several thousand years to build up again, even if it started tomorrow. We think things are changing because of the greenhouse effect. Its always been ewith us , an important role in making this planet habitable. Without it, we'd be a frozen waste with no people. Sunlight comes into the atmosphere, and passes through quite easily , when it gets mixed up and reabsorbed as heat, the heat does not get out as easily as the sunlight comes in. So because of the atmos ,the Earth is a lot warmer than if there was no atmos. Go to the Moon, with no atmos, then at nightime its about -70 or thereabouts. As more CO2 has been put into the atmos , its made that GE a bit more effective, that is hat is causing the warming. The GE effect was well understood the first half of C19, light passed thru gas , more or less easily . By 1859 John Tyndal , interested in climate, had measured the properties of specific Greenhouse gases, CO2, methane. It was known then , that these were important for maintaining the planet at a habitable temp. The first realisation that industrialisation, the burning to CO2 , might start causing problems was the Swede Arhenius , gaining the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1903. In 1896 he considered, if you doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmos, in 100 years he figured mankind could do that, he predicted a 4 degree rise. It was just a theoretical suggestion at that stage. One of those occasions where the theory preceeded the ability to measure it. When you add CO2 to the atmos , a lot of things change. There are changes in hte cryosphere , the ice-system such as snow, frozen ground, sea-ice, ice-sheets all those start changing. Changes in the oceans, in its currents, the sealevel, the plants and animals living there, changes i nthe atmos and changes in the hydrological cycle the process of water evaporating from the sea and falls back over land. Where it falls, how fast it cycles through is the hydrological cycle. Clouds will change, lots of changes in complex ways, as we start tinkering with the planet. The famous plot of CO2 in the atmos, measured at the top of Mauna Lowr mountain in Hawaii. It started in about 1960, by someone who wanted to know how it varied over the course of 1 year. He measured each day for ayear , and it went up and down over that year, as the temp changed, the amount of CO2 went up anddown. He repeated for another year, but he could tell it had gone up over those 2 years. He decided to stay and the funders provided for him staying for 5 years. The series has now gone on for 60 years. There is a seasonal cycle each year but for each month on the next year the CO2 level has gone up from before. Its recently passed the 400 number. Keep burning coal and oil and the number keeps going up. So is 400 a high number. A series estimated from about the last 10,000 years. Ice-ages have come and gone, CO2 has come and gone. The estimates for back 5 or 10,000 years ago, from drilling ice-cores. In Greenland and Antartica, the ice has bubbles of air trapped it, extract air from the tiny bubbles and measure the amount of CO2 there used to be. It used to be about 250 to 270 , going up and down, but get to about 1800 it strarts going up seriously. The last 50 years the increase is really seriously. There have been ice-ages every million years or so. Main CO2 contribution is the burning of oil,wood and coal, an increasing proportion comes from deforestation. In terms of global warming, an about equal contribution comes from methane, less in proportion but its much more effective at trapping heat. There is nitrous oxides and othe rgases. In different countries the energy use is different. Across the world, about 1/4 is energy supply to homes, the second is to industry, then to agriculture, forestry etc. In different countries those proportions would be different. In Australia 90% of the CO2 is related to stationary power, a lot of industry , a lot of air conditioning but not many vehicles. Solving transport in Oz is not that big a deal . A graph of global mean temp , usually meaning average air temp. Everyone measures air temp where they are and then average it all together. This is not a very good way to measure global warming , but for 200 years thats the best we had. Look over different periods and the trend lines are different. The rate at which warming is happening is getting faster and faster. The first 100 years of industrialisation was slow. Now much faster, about 1 degree every 6 decades or so. From IPCC, what s happening to the climate, the best evidence. Then the best theoreticians to say wha tis going to happen. 3 possible scenarios for how emissions of CO2 might change. If we carry on emitting at the rate we are, in 100 years time it will be a couple of degrees warmer than now. The other is vcurb our emissions and the atmos stays about where it is now . What if you stopped emitting altogether, we all go clean power tomorrow. Curiously there is a sharp increase in that scenario, to begin with and then over 200 years it recovers. The initial anomaly is because if you have chimneys burning coal, not only do you put CO2 into the air which traps the heat, it also puts a lot of soot into the high atmos , that acts as a biot of a shield, it stops some of the heat getting through. Go to zero emissions the first thing you'd see would be some warming then it would tail off. Continue as we are then we'll damage the climate very profoundly. does 2 degrees in 100 years matter much. That is a glovbal average, but the computer simulation and prediction people can say where that warming will happen. Nearly all the warming will happen over the continents. The oceans will keep themselves relatively cool. The continents might have 4 or 5 deg of warming as there is nothing there t keep them cool. THe oceans have absorbed about 25% of all the anthropogenic CO2 released to the atmos is already in hte oceans. If we didn't have that then we'd really have runaway warming. So we study C in hte oceans, that is anpther of research. 90% of the heat trapped by atmos CO2 is also in the oceans. The oceans are incredibly important for capturing that CO2 and heat and burying it away. The Argo project is measuring things in the ocean and trying to account for that 90% of heat in the oceans. Oceanography started in about 1870 . To measure the ocean you have to be there on a ship. The first seriously planned and organised expedition was on HMS Challenger a 60m vessel , adapted naval ship, about 2300 ton ship, about 200 crew of which 5 were researchers , the rest were naval crew. They were at sea for 2.5 years and they collected 263 measurements of temp . About every 3 days they'd stop the ship and lower , with steam driven winches, instrumentation. In the 1990 we had the World's Oceans Circulation Experiment, we had purpose built research vessels, typically 3500 tons , 25 crew and 25 scientists and over 10 years we got 10,000 profiles of temp. The Argo prgramme since 2004 , its length is 2metres its weight is about 0.03 tons and zero crew and we've collected 1.3 million measurements in about 12 million days of operation. With these measurements we can do what was simply impossible with ships. I hoped to bring along a float but they are all packed up and deployed at sea. Its a 2m long tube that drifts around taking measurements. Such floats were developed mid1950s by a US oceanographer. He could park it at a particular depth , what was otherwise understood to be impossible , the engineering of the time did not permit it. A Michael Conswallow? a British marine scientist , came in from othe r fields of engineering . He'd not heard that it could not be done, so he did it. His first was in the earlier labs, in Surrey, the pressure cases were aluminium scaffolding tubes , 3.5m long. Bunged up the ends, put in some batteries and some sensors. They contained a sound source , so it could be tracked. No satellite tracking then. A matter of sailing out and listening for the homing signal, and triangulating in. The argo network ,at any one time is about 4000 of these floats , deployed since 2000 . By 2004 we had some everywhere on the globe. By 2007 we'd reached our initial target of 3000 floats operating worldwide. Each one stands alone, measures ocaen temp , salinity which is important for ocean density and the current, the ocean circulation. About 30 contributing countries UK,France and Germany, Canada, USA, Japan , Oz, Korea India and about 25 other country small contributors. These floats by having a small bladder at the bottom . Anyone familiar with Scuba, you have a bouyancy jacket, pump air in and the diver comes up, let the air out and the diver sinks. There is a rubber bladder, we use hydraulic oil, rather than air as it must work at very high pressures. When it is 2km down in hte ocean , 200 atmos pressure and air won't do it. A long lead screw as an hydraulic pump , pumps oil out into the bladder. There are batteries sandwiched around the side and instrument payload at the top. Out the top is a satellite antena, using satellite coms to get our data back. The float weighs about 30 Kg with about 280gm of reserve bouyancy, to move between surface and 2Km depth. Quite some engineering, the batteries must give 5 to 8 years life, for bouyancy change, payload instrument running and comms. About 30 D cells for that energy. At the moment, argos are measuring temp and salinity. In the future dissolved oxygen, nutrients, ocean acifdification , biological parameters . Each dot on the shown plot represents as of yesterday, an operational float around the globe, taking and reporting data. Every 10 days the float , starting at the surface for reporting, will sink to pre-determined depth usually 1km. It will drift for 9 days, dive to 2km then rise to the surface and send its data. Repeating the process each 10 days. Each one of the dots , a float was built and someone had to take it on a ship to deploy it. 3,787 active floats as of yesterday. Its been as high as 4,000. The instruments have about a 5 year lifetime. Thy die off and we keep replenishing them as fast as they are dying to keep the numbers up. There are different designs but all are rather similar. All the 2km floats are tubes, with antennas at the top. The differnt engineering companies have solver problems in slightly different ways. But all have the bouyancy control at the bottom and sensors at the top. Up to 2007 we were deploying them faster than they were dying. Its tailed off to a certain extent since then. In the movie of dots around the globe, each new dot is a deployment, and a row of dots is a ship deploying numbers of them perhaps once a day. The tails indicate where the float is going. The clock time is per year. 2002 a row of dots in the Indian Ocean for the early ones. 2003 there were floats all over the Pacific. Starting to get a global temp profile. By 2007 the array was up to strength, consistent global measurements and could make serious statements as to global ocean temps. All the dots near Antartica are going to the right, as that is the prevailing currents. At the eqator ,currents going back and forth, mainly east-ewest. Doing things autonomously allowed us to do things previously impossible. Each profile costs about 7000 GBP taking the cost of ship and divide by the measurements. In one month of our float program we've collected 10,000 more measurements at a cost of about 200 GBP each, as no research ship costs. As the costs have come crashing down it makes it possible to do this every month rather than every 10 years as before. A plot of the whole ocean observing up to about 2010. Each 1 degree square box of the globe, counting how many observations there were in that box, and a coloured dot for each obs. AQ white square means that for all time up to 2010 there was never an obs there. so majority had less than 5 observations in the first 150 years, not bvery good for determining how the planet is changing. North Atlantic numbers good, north Pacific not bad certainly near land. The southern hemisphere , huge gaps. For the first 10 years of the float program , except for ice covered high latitudes where our instruments don't go, a large number per square almost everywhere. So now we can see what is going on. Our floats don't mind bad weather . The ships we operate out of the NOC, are tremendously expensive and so are only sent where there is a good chance of doing any work, so never the southern hemisphere in winter, as likely to do 2 days work in a month , sitting out a storm otherwise. A plot of 50 years of August measurements in hte southern hemisphere and almost no dots. Compared to 5 years of August measurements with the floats and now plenty of obs. We can address these critical scientific questions of how the planet is changing. Its not just evolution but a revolutuon in our capability. There is free exchange of data within the research community. Taking of measurements and publishing them , was not commonly done before Argo came along. Researchers previously made measurements and they'd sit there in filing cabinets or laptops and simply not be instantly available. Maybe 6 months or a year later, previously. All our data becomes freely available within 24 hours. Comes in by satellite and goes out on the internet within 24 hours. We're making salinity measurements. The argo structure agreed to access to 200-mile exclusive economic zones, thru international brokering. A lot of important ocean is within 200 miles of countries. Argo got permission for measurements to be made unless a country opted out. This was absolutely revolutionary. The engineering issues. Anyone could design a float that would work once and it migh tcost 1million GBP. The challenge is designing a robst one that could be mass-produced for about 15,000 GBP . They have to operate about 4 to 8 years without maintainence. There is no getting them back, its hard enough getting the ships to plavce them in the water and no chance of ships going to retrieve them , if its faulty. The mechanics and sensor payload has to work for 4-8years without maintenence. You have to decide what sort of batteries, lithium or alkaline. These days usually lithium, they are more expensive and harder to work with but they extend float lifetime a lot. So lithium primary batteries as higher energy density , more MJ on board per battery Kg. The energy budget has to be split between bouynacy changes , data telemetry and running the sensor payload. The sensors have to be low power, you cant just take laboratory kit , that can wastefully use the mains. You can't really use acoustics, barely use optics because they both use too much energy. So lots of passive sensor payloads. The sensors have to remain operational thru the float life, place them in the factory and remain in-spec , in-calibration working for 5 to 8 years. The data telemetry must be capable in all-weather and all latitudes, so ordinary mobile phone is out. These days we usually use Iridium phones , but you have to be able to do that from about one foot above sea level in a force 8 and all times of the year. Take readings at 10 to 15m spacings down to the pressure at 2000 metres is about 200 times atmos pressure. People say outer space isa harsh environment. Outer space has cosmic rays and it is difficult to get there but once you're there, its a relitively benign environment. The deep ocean is hundreds of atmos pressure in a highly corrossive liquid , a tough environment to place your kit. Our floats are typicaly about 300 km apart, around the planet. They operate on about a 10 day cycle. Measuring temp, salinity, sometimes oxygen , other payloads are possible but very constrained by the energy budget and engineering constraints and no control over their location. They just go where the currents take them , some are displaced by hundreds or even thousands of km. Systematic global coverage means global problems can be studied, a high data volume, downloaded 1.3 million profiles. Deeper penetration than previous measurements. Before floats came along the options were temp only for 750m , no seasonal bias ie not biased by being taken in winter or summer. We can get there year round, so measure monthly , seasonal annual or even longer. The CO2 graph, the corresponding pic of increasing planetary heat . From 1970 to the present, the increase in heat, measured in ZetaJoules. ie times 10 to the 21. The heat absorbed into the planetary system , the atmos component is barely visible. In terms of the physics of the Earth's energy system, the atmos is irrelevant almost. For us and agriculture etc, we feel that heat and it is critical to us and have to understand the atmos. But as a physics problem of energy in and out and where it is stored, its all in the oceans. There was a big uncertainty back in the 1970s because the data was very sparse. From about 2000 the uncertainty band is much narrower. Because we've been measuring the ocean temp directly. In earlier times to the question about whether or not there was global warming , we could not be sure. About 50ZJ but it could be anything from -20 to +100ZJ. Now, there is no doubt , absolutely unequivicable, that the Earth is warming up and we know at exactly what rate. The remaining uncertainty, most of that comes from the deep ocean that we are not measuing very well as yet. We're expanding our tech, to measure the deep oceans. I refereed to 1.3 million measurements. A pic of one Surfece and 2km down , temp and salinity profile. Quite a lot of variability at the surface and a slow trend as descending. So low down we don't have to measure too often but towards the top , then a lot of measurements. One measurement , made once, of the 1,3 million. Build together perhaps a hundred profiles and colour it according to temp or salinity. Build up from those collections, then complete maps eg one from the UK Met office using data from the floats, of the southern Hemisphere, the temp at 1km depth. So possible to build up pics of very remote places, from such data assemblages. Operational uses for such data, in Oz, France , Japan , UK etc assemble these data to assist forecasting. They are beginning to use it for trying seasonal forecasting. Like how good will the coming monsoon be. Using it for the research into climate change, global sea heat content, sea level rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans etc. 90% of global warming takes place in the oceans. The air does not weigh much, so it cant take up much heat, land is very solid so hard for heat to penetrate. Oceans can move and mix and extra heat can penetrate deep into the ocean easily. An example of ocean forecasting. A vertical slice along the equator, in the Pacific , the top few hundred metres, coloured according totemp. Warm colours and cold colours, 2 plots in Jan and 2 plots in Feb of 2014. A warm blob is moving to the right and by april it is well over to the right and all the cool blue colours are displaced, a big warming anomaly in the Pacific. This enables a forecast that for that year that would be a significant El Nino event. These are huge climatic events that result in flooding in some places, droughts in othe rplaces, etc. Data from these floats were able to forecast this , and governments could plan for it. The argo system makes changes for climate change detection much more robust. So if you7 want to say how the world has changed from 1950 - 1960 , to 2000-2010. A grat change in the number of measuremnts in those 2 decades and hence the sharp reduction in uncertainty. In the earlier decade there were huge swathes where we simply were not sure. Now we are sure, we've measured everywhere. In 10,20 ,30 years time we will be absolutely sure and precise. We know the global sea are getting warming and also know there ar e distinct salinity changes as well. Warming of the atmos is not a good estimate of global warming. For a couple of hundred years, that was the best we had, as they were the only measurements made. The atmos is a sort of indicator of what is going on . A time series from 1880 to 2010 of global average air temp. In the last 10 years it was not going up much and there was much talk in hte press of a hiatus, global-warming was not happening. The air temp goes up and down , but then only 10% snapshot of the global warming pic. No wthe ocean record from 1960 to the present. In those "suspect" 10 years of air temp, the period we were getting the peak number of float profiles, the global sea temp was going up still at the same rate as before. You simply cannot beat the physics of the cO2 in the atmos trapping the heat. Where air and ocean temperatures do sometimes go out of kilter is after a major volcano event. So Pinatibo, El Chichon, big events that put so much dust in hte atmos, that it acted as a barrier, like painting your greenhouse windows white. In such events everything can cool down, but its just a blip on the underlying trend. What we'd really like to know about is ocean rainfall. We have the hydrological cycle. 95% of water evaporation is over the sea and most falls back over the sea. Some evaporates over land and some falls back over land. What we whant to know is the net result of the amount coming out of the sea and falling on the land as that is what is significant for floods , droughts and agriculture etc. Its hard to measure everywhere the amount of rainfall and the amount of evaporation. But where water evaporates, the ocean left behind is a bit saltier, and where it rains , the ocean becomes a bit less salty. So measuring the salt concentration you can discover where there is lots of evaporation and where there is lots of rainfall. Map of average ocean surface forcing, 33 to 37 parts per thousand. The surface atlantic is a bit saltier than the surface of the Pacific. A map showing where the ocean tends to evaporate , like the north and south Atlantic , and so are relatively salty compared to most of the world's oceans. Now a map of changes, the trend in saltiness. As measured long term, where its salty its getting saltier and where less salty its getting less salty. That means the process of evaporation and rainfall is speeding up , thats how we interpret this. That means , for the land, the wettest bits will flood more and the dry bits will have more droughts, becuae of the speed up of the evaporation/rain cycle. The Argo system allows us to determine changes and sooner and with greater confidence. Autonomous platforms are now the dominant source of data for describing the oceans. We will now extend into the deep ocean and taking other measurements. The Discovery ship based in Soton , set off to the southern ocean a few weeks back. To get to the ocean deep, the tube design will not work down to 600 atmos. The walls would have to be so thick, it would be too heavy to float. You have to go for a sphere design and the material is glass. Counter-intuitively a glass sphere about 1 inch thick , if perfectly made , can withstand 600 atmos of ressure. If you could mill them out of metal that would be fabulous , titanium say, but milling out of a block titanium would be a couple of million dollars per float. Wheras glass spheres are about 2000 dollars. Made in 2 hemispheres and pushed togethere with sealant. So Deep-Argo getting to the lowest half of the ocean . They are currently being made and tested by several groups. A new instrument package is undewr parallel developement. This also has to survive higher pressure and hte demands and accuracy are about tenfold increase over upper half floats. We need to measure ocean temp to about 3millidegrees accuracy and unattended for 10 years without any drift . We've been recently tasked by the G7 science ministers to come up with a proposal for a deep measurement programme. It would cost about 25 million USD a year. The existing programme costs about the same. It sounds a lot but divide it between 7 or 8 major nations to answer the fundamental question, how much glogal warming is happening. How much is it worth to our nation to know exactly how global warming is working , worth 2 million dollars to the UK? Oceanography like a lot of technologies , follows on from new technologies, when suddenly you could do things that you could not do before. Over 40 years the Argo system has much improved our data gathering and is the only technology to provide global coverage. In the next 10 years its likely to move to deep , involving biochemical measurements, oxygen , ocean acidification and things like that. Its the key data-set for global change studies . The current NOC scientists will be the first generation who will actually be able to describe human impact on climate , completely and without doubt. Our generation has made the tech to make comprehensive measurements, but w eneed to do that for 30 years , and the next generation will be able to describe with very narrow uncertainty what is going on. Q&A CO2 amount is still going up. It is worse than I thought it was? Arhenius in 1896 said , what if it doubled, that would make a big difference, the Earth would warm 4 degrees. He worked thsat out as a theoretical construct, no one them dreamed that CO2 could double. The concentration was then about 280 . By 1960 up to 320, so even by 1960 CO2 concentration had only gone up 20%. So people then were still saying how could it double and get 4 degrees warming, how could mankind burn that much C. We're no at 400 so mankind has added 50%, so halfway to Arhenius's doubling. Its getting steeper and steeper. With the curve as it was in 1960s , people said it would take 200 years before we'd have a problem. The population has doubled so the amount of energy required has doubled. There must be an interesting correlation with hte type of energy being used. Since I was at uni , coal use has changed and gas use increeased. ? Coal use has not declined globally , in the UK yes. China is digging up coal as fast as it can to make steel. The US wants to revive its coal industry. So the UK use is irrelevant really.? When you as an individual goes out and votes, your vote is irrelevant. Unless the margin was 1, then your vote is irrelevant. If everyone says that then , no votes. We're relevant in hte sense we are 1 of 10 or 20 countries that contribute to this problem. You only solve it, if everybody agrees to solve it. The proportion of energy from coal is probably just as high as it ever was. Yo mentioned that dust was ironically , was favourable, as at ground level you don't see it that way? There has been a lot of talk about what is called geo-engineering. Would it be possible to do things to the planet, to reduce global warming. So perhaps giant turbines in the ocean to pump heat quicker into the great absorber that is the oceans. Or great carbon extractors from the air. Another one was an experiment to spray dust into the upper atmosphere. So creating a shield, the advantage of doing that , is that its utterly reversible. If it fails to work it will just fall out as rain. Thats been an active experiment with a couple of big volcanoes. The global temp record noticeably cooled then. Pumping 2 cubic kilometres of earth into the upper air as dust, cooled the earth down for a cople of years, but temporary. Surely if that was allowed then isn't it just enabling the carry-on-as-usual people just to carry on their errant ways? Absolutely. The primary problem is fixed so we can carry on as we were. Some geo-engineering concepts do appeal as something worth experimenting with. Something thats come in at the same time as redustion of coal use, is scrubbing S out of emissions and also low-S coal to start with. Ironically , is that part of your little blip , going the other way, removing the S aerosols in the upper atmos.? No that has had no effect. The CO2 level is still going up as fast as it ever was. It maybe after a period of getting steeper and steeper , it might just be a bit less. I was thinking of the volcano effect, if you put this S particulates up into the upper atmos , it is like the dust effect? I don't think its been done on a big enough scale for that effect to be noticable. When people talk of emissions controls, they mean freezing emissions at the present level. The curve would suddenly become horizontal. Its not even tailing off , its still rising inexorably. The idea was that by 2020 our emissions would not be going up any more. While on CO2 there is absolutely no dispute or arguments about any changes in the way CO2 was measured having changed over the decades and so can quiblle about the validity of that graph? No. Inorganic chemistry was all stitched up in about 1920. I'm thinking about comparison with global sea level rise , there is an Indian system that relies on tide-gauges and other satellite systems and the 2 don't really agree that well? Because of disputed zeroes. But inorganic gas chemistry , Tyndall in 1850 , was able to say I will measure the radiative properties of various gases, there ability to transmit energy at different wavelengths. He did that in 1850 perfectly satisfactorily. That sort of mechanical stuff they coud do. They would calibrate their then sensors by making mixtres of gases , pure N2 and pure O2 that they knew how to make , pure CO2. So make different ratios, place the sensor in those that they'd made , then compare it with out in the air. If they were uncertain measurements , they'd be very noisy, they'd be all over the place but get better and better, 0ver time. But no such change as this was 18th century , not even 19th century chemistry. But the annual ups and downs look so precise that they look a bit bogus? That may be governed by just the seasonal change at the observatory . Not due to the northern hemisphere bias , with the more extensive forest growth there? It could be. South and North hemispheres are not identical , but doing it on Hawaii , its very well mixed, you are not down stream of Los Angeles. Its on a mountain well up in the atmos , 2000 miles from intensive industry. Thats why its so regular , as its a big average measurement. Ice cover disappears and apparently methane is given off, even permo-frost melting ??? ? The problem with the methane is that , as a molecule it is so much more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Of all greenhouse gas contributors methane gets about 1/8th. Its only a tiny proportion of the gas mix but it is so much more effective. At the moment a lot of methane is frozen into the permafrost and tundra . The risk is you only have to heat it up a little bit . It doesn't take much heat to melt it out, then its greenhouse effect becomes hugely out of proportion in comparison to the amount of energy to melt it out. During the Cambrian period the ppm of CO2 was 400, so where did that disappear? The amount of CO2 has always fluctuated, from forests to atmos CO2, it can get buried in the ocean, and all the stuff that turns into oil. So stuff that grew as marine life. As crustacians groe in seawater ,they take CO2 out the water and so out of the air, because the seawater is below saturated and is taken in at the surface and is drawn down. They die, fall into the sediments , where it has sat for the last couple of hundred million years , when we come along and turn it back into atmospherics. So fluctuating between 200 and 400 during which we've had most of the globe being frozen and most of the globe being tropical. Those fluctuations have taken hundreds of millenia to grow slowly and this happening in 100 years is not a natural cycle. o people have said we need to get it back into sediments. If we can make the oceans grow plants quicker , then crustacea will grow quicker , and take the C down with them when they die. Large areas of the Great Barrier Reef are being destroyed? Thats a separate thing. Things that upset marine life are either warming or acidification and corals are suscreptaible to both of those. Anything that makes calcified shells , containing calcium carbonate, where the C gets buried. Oceans are naturally alkaline , more than pure water. So acidification means ,add CO2 and they become less alkaline than they used to be. In Ph terms where 7 is neutral, oceans are naturally about 8, on th e alkaline side. But they'll go from 8 to about 7.5, so still a bit alkaline , so favourable to making carbonates but in order to grow a good carbonate shell you need it to be definitely alkaline and if its only a bit alkaline , you grow damaged or softer shells. The tem pchanges and the Crown of Thorns star fish comes along and eats all the polyps out of th ecoral, slaughtering the coral which don't do too well when its warmer anyway. See the Barrier Reef while you can, it will soon be gone. How do you stabilise floats in rough seas, make sure they are the right way up . And how do you calibrate the instruments and how do you know whether the operational ones have been damaged? How many get eaten by boats and how many get hit by ships? If one was hit by a boat we would not necessarily know, we would come off worst, we're small and light. For stability we have a plastic disc, basically a plastic dinner plate around the tube. When a wave comes along it rides over the wave . If the wave tends to lift then it drags the disc and the float goes up and down. For uprightness, we put the batteries at the bottom, because they are the heaviest bit. The top has a bit of air space in , around the circuit boards etc. The batteries act as a keel. With a massive wave , would it self-right? Yes, because all the heavy stuff is at the bottom. Have you a record of how many have disappeared? Over the programme we've deployed just over 13,000 and there are 4000 still active. Mostly, of those 9000, they will simply exhaust their batteries. Some disappear for no apparent reason. Along with the ocean measurement data , they send engineering data, battery voltages, instrument diagnostics . So you can watch the voltage drop off and soon after no more data. When you don't get the object back its frustrating and not being able to diagnose othe rfailures. Some wash up on beaches about 5 a year . We try and get thse back although they are damafged beyond repair and re-use. There is alittle label on them , they all have a number. We have a clearing house via a website. Send a picture to us , even if its in Indonesia , along with its number, and I will be contacted. On the data transfer, how much does a single squirt of data , via the Iridium system cost? That depends on who you are . If you are the US float programme , then very cheap. They don't worry about the telemetry cost, it all goes thru their dept of defense. We pay about 50 GBP per month for each float and the UK maintains 160 floats in the water , so several thousand a month for the telephone bill. Each squirt is just a couple of seconds? Its a couple of minutes, about 30kbytes of data back each time it returns to the surface, about 3 times a month. If the weather is bad , with a lot of waves washing over the antenna , the connection may drop and have to start again. So its a low datrate but its fairly reliable? Yes, the connection speed is perhaps 9600 on the modem once its made the link. The Iridium people are always trying to increase the data rate. Could you tell us about the Jason system? In the 1990s there wer esatellites built to measure sea-level. Is sea-level rising was the question. If you do it with just coastal tide gauges , you can se the sea levels rising at the coast but it may be dropping somewhere else . So they put radar altimeters on satellites . Very precise instruments, the satellite would fly over , measuring the transit time of down and up from the sea surface. If you know where the satellite was to a few cm , and accurately measure the transit time , then you know what the sea level was to a few cm. Those 1990s satellites typically lasted about 10 years. So when Argo started about 2000 the next satellite coming along was to be called Jason, so w ethough t Argo would be a good marine counterpart . Because Jason and Argo were tackling much the same question, of how much and fast is sea-level rising. We are iterested in sea temp because of the gloabal warming problem, but about 1/3 of all sea level rise comes from simple expanding of the ocean, by warming it. So you hav emelting glaciers adding to sea level volume , but about 1/3 of the rise is simply warming what is already there. Warming water does not increase very much but take a 4km pile of water , and warm it by 0.5 degree , then it expands by 0.1% and that is 4m of rise. So our programme is geared to that problem as well as is global warming happening and where has the heat gone. So we work closely with the satellite sea-level people. How do you cope with marine growth on these floats? They spend most of their life submerged, deliberately so. We don't need measurements every day, every 10 days is fine. They park at 1000m where its cool and dark ,and marine growth is not a problem there. But when they visit the surface then growths is a problem. Inside our sensor payload, there is a pump and a duct with sensors in the duct. If you get growth in that duct then a real problem , as it contaminates the measurements badly. So ther is a tiny pill of biocide in the duct , that slowly dissolves over a period. The biocide is TBTO, tributyl tin oxide. This is what the hulls of ships were painted with , but its now banned . If you paint a ships hul lwith 25 tons of such TBT paint , it dissolves everywhere, that is a problem. We have about 3gm in each float , but it is banned and we had to apply for an exemption all the way up thru the various departments. I wrote a letter of support saying this was critical for climate science, and the amount of TBT in any single float is minuiscule, its not near land or near coasts . For a while you could not import TBT into the EU. Fortunately there was a 10 year supply stack of these pills that wer ein Germany. You could move them around the EU and you could deploy them on instruments you alreadyt had, but you could not import any new ones. So we're good for 10 years, and hope negotiations for exemption will be complete by then. Its just one of those engineering aspects, how to make somethin glast 5 to 10 years, in-spec , without maintainence. I think the manufactures have sorted all this out but it was thought they'd have to ship the instruments without the biocide and then we'd have to sort out the biocide. I've been told a lot of the big ships still have TBT on their hulls? Its probably the case, they've not had to scrape it off , just they won't be allowed to repaint it with TBT, next time around. A coastal state probably has the right to deny entry to a ship that does not conform to some regulation. With such regulations it usually comes in first with new build ships , then existing ships get a period of grace of 10 years or so to catch up. Do you collect the ones that hav efailed batteries? We don't surprising to many who ask that. The most likely time a float will fail is when the controller says inflate the bladder and rise to the surface , as that is the biggest energy use. So if we were to pick them up, then they'd have to abort operation, go into a fixed surface mode, something like 80% thru their life. We did think about doing that ,but the financial and environmental costs of picking them up would be enormous. For original placement then via a merchant ship or a research ship doing other projects . They all go out in one straight line but very soon they are essentially randomly sited. If you knew a float was on its last legs, then to go out and pick it up would be at least a day of ship time. If 300 miles apart and ship goes 300 mile sa day , then every float picked up would cost a day of ship-time. The sort of ships that can go to the south Pacific cost 20 or 30,000 USD a day, much the same cost as a new one. Environmentally that ship burns about 6 to 8 tons of fuel in that day, so environmentally pointless. The floats are mainly aluminium which is very abundant in seawater anyway. THere is some plastic , yes. Even the lithium of the batteries is fairly common in seawater , by the time 1 battery is dissolved in a cubic kilometer , its fine. Its only the plastic bits we have concerns about, as plastics don't dissolve, they simply break up into smaller and smaller pieces. There is even gold in there , that will dissolve away. The Challlenger expedition was near enough the first organised marine science expedition i nthe 1870s. The next one was a German expedition in the 20s, on a ship called the Meteor. They wanted to survey the south atlantic, better than the Challenger had done. They asked the German govt to give them a ship , we will survey the south atlantic, the temp and the chemistry. The govt wanted a reason for putting money into such a project. The chief scientist told them that the south Atlantic has 2000 tons in the ?? and we should go and survey the gold concentration . It is only 1 part per billion but they will find where all the gold is, in the souht atlantic , and off they went. There is thousands of tons of gold in the oceans , absolutely true, just not easy to recover, but they got a good expedition out of the ruse.

Monday 13 November 2017, Prof Alistair Pike, Soton uni : The origins of European cave art. Did Neanderthals paint? 26 people, 1.5 hours Did Neanderthals (N) paint, did N paint. When did human/hominim sysbolic form use start. 4mya Austropythenin, early African species of hominims. 2 hominimum made it out of Africa, H Erectus and H Heidelbergensis, the current thinking is that outside Africa , probablty in Europe or Eurasia H H evolved into N and in Africa they continued evolving and ended up as humans, so an isolation of populations in Africa and in Eurasia . One of them led to us, the other left what we might style an archaic human population behind. You can see they are f=different, in stature, robustness , lack of a chin, wider nasal passages . Current thinking is this was for cold adaption. So warm Savannah adapted modern H and cold adapted tundra N. Sites with N remains or N toolkiyts , a specific type of tool is really Europe and Eurasia , the near east. A few good sites in hte UK , one in Norfolk , Linford a quarry near Brandon , with a N butchery site. A mammoth probably bogged down in a river value and whole skeleton of the mammoth found, along with the tools that looked that were made on the spot. We've known of N for nearly 200 years , the first in 1829 in the Netherlands , a very fragmentary set of bones , mostly post-cranial, lower skeleton. No one thought much of it, then another was found, with more of the skull intact, in Gorhams cave Gibralter. Started paying attention to Ns. Originally though to be just pathological conditions of humans, some sort of illness that made thicker bones and odd faces. Then the famous type-site was found in the Neander valley . That drew the attention of William King who compared it with other discoveries like Chapelle Leusande, which is much more complete. He realised that this pathology could not express itself , distributed, so frequently in the same way. He decided it was a new species of human, giving it the name H N, the human from the neander valley. He decided it was backward , stupid and the quote "incapable of moral and theistic conceptions". His German counterpart was less kind, preferring the term Homo Stupidus. So from the outset there was this idea that Ns were brutish, using the gorilla as the base mof=del. That perception lasted a long time and if you ask questions like could Ns paint, today a lot of respected archaeologists will say, of course not. Slightly later non-gorilla , toolmaking version of the N. So painting in caves. We are interested in how,why and when symbolic behaviour starts, using symbols to express language or meaning. They start decorating their own bodies to portray an identity. Did it start with modern humans, and when humans started to look like modern humans, when they became anatomically modern. Or is it a uniquly modern human trait, or did it happen earlier with perhaps even different species. We have something we call anatomical modernity. Amongst fossil populations, particularly in Africa, human fossils that look like us. They don't lok like earlier and don't look like other species of hominims. We sense this occured between 150,000 and 250,000 ya. Based on genetic clocks , fssils we can date relatively well such as this one from Aywash, Ethiopa with Argon-Argon dates between 150 and 160,000 ya. Also from Ethiopa Homo Kabish dayted by Ar-Ar and U-Thorium dating to about 190,000ya. So our cronologies of anatomical modern humans is matching what the geneticists have been saying for a number of years. We think modern humans appeared in Africa around 200,000 ya. We don't get anything in the architectural record for what we might call behavioural modernity at 200,tya, that appears later in the archaeological record. Is the behavioural change driven by something else, at a later stage. Wnen did BM appear, depends on who you ask. We have no consencus on what BM is, when people started behaving like modrrns, as opposed to just looking like modern ones. A number of parameters used, and don't always use all of them. eg paintings, decorating your body , structured use of space such as living space and working space, the use of standardised and specialised tools, requiring planning ahead in what tool best fits a purpose, long distance exchange networks. Some people require all of those parameters, some say 1 is enough. Dating fist appearance of BM from 40 tya back to 300 tya. There is one parameter they all use to define BM, symbolic behaviour, it is considered quintessentially modern. Within symbolic behavious we have cave painting. It is fairly sparse evidence. Hom Kabeesh, in Ethiopia 200 tya and by 100 tya at Echskabul Israel we find perforated shells, interpreted as necklaces or body adornment. 85 tya at Dikluth rock shelter in South Africa, engraved ostrich eggshells , probably used as water carriers, rudementary decoration. In Morocco Tapperaltz, 75-80 tya, red ochre, also perforated shells. The earliest African paiintaings are Apollo 11, an animal on a painted plaque,found at the same time as the Apollo landings, about 27tya. But in Europe we find cave paintings maybe as old as 40tya, Chauvais the cave of forgotten dreams. In Europe we find lots of symbolic objects, musical instruments such as bird bone flutes, firstly in Europe. We also get the first 3D representation of animals and sort of mythical creatures like lion-man, head of a lion body of a human. So why in Europe before Africa. It looks like painting came late in the history of symbolic behaviour, but its hard to date paintings. It seems to have appeared in Europe before Africa which is counter to the other evolutionary trends and behaviours. So is it a real differnce or a problem with our cronology, that we struggle to find the earliest painting in Europe. For dating paintings it is possible to use relative dating, how about 99% of all cave paintings are attributed. Someone who knows his stuff looks at it and says that is 40tya as thats how they painted thn. So some idea of the relative age of paintings , by the superimposition , a paitning is done, then someone overpaints it, you know hte order even if you don't know the times. Occcassionaly there is stratographic association ,say a cave fills up with sediments with good archaeology in it. You know the painting has to prevede the later archaeology. Some people think they can age paintings by the amount of weathering, pristine paintings are younger than weathered ones. The trouble there , a lot of conjecture in the relative sense, stylistic interpretation . We need to get some cronological evidence associating what is on a wall to what is under the ground. We can use absolute dating like radio-C , if they had used charcoal pigments. Some people think there is a change occurs in the chemistry of rock engravings. Desert varnish , and then changes over time and then with cathion ratio dating . You can date the time that quartz grains were last exposed to sunlight , using a technique called OSL dating. Cave paintings aren't done with quartz but mud-wasps sometimes build their nests on top of them in the likes of Oz. The dating I use is Uranium series dating, that dates Calcium Carbonate deposits , stalegmites and stalegtites that grow in caves and sometimes thin veneers or a crust that form on top of paintings. Dating those deposits , you get a minimum age for the painting. Stylistic dating has been around for a long time, before scientific dating methods came along. In some cases they could compare the things drawn on the wall with examples of portable art , such as engraved bone or carved bone that they found in relatively well dated archaeological deposits. As we go back in time, we start losing the portable art objects and end up with conjecture. Based o nthe first art is going to be more primitive than later more evolved art. So any not so good horse , will be arlier than the better horse. There is no evidence for this. A test of the stylistic dating method , set out graphically as a flow-chart. VonPartiger and Knowle went to France and asked a dating expert , how old is that painting , 18500 years . Why do you know that, because its the same as the horse in the cave over there. They went to that cave and asked an expert for the date and he said 18500. How do you know that, because its the same date as the cave over there. They kept on doing this until they kept coming back to the base that they started. The whole dating model was completely self-referential. If you changed the dat e of one of them , you'd have to cascade that date change thru all of them, yet none of them had been dated. There is a long history of cave painting experts who would say of a painting , it must be this date. I'm not saying don't use use style as concept in studying cave paintings as there are styles of horse drawing, ways of drawing seem to change either regionally or cronologically. But to use it for dating without any reference points , makes no sense. Their conclusion was, where there was well dated examples , they were avoided by the experts. Almost an active desire to keep their self-referential wheel going. Incorporate science-based dates and it will rock the boat too much. Why not radioC dating as its the most common archaeological dating method. Tens of thousands of RadioC dates measured and published every year. Firstly you need something organic i nthe painting. Some of ths art is made with clays like red ochres, with no organic matrix in them. If they do, then the organic material is not related to the painting , its related to the formation of the clay, leading to spuriously old dates. In caves there are engravings as well, and nothing in an engraving for radioC. There ar emany potential sources of contamination within a cave. So a piece of burnt wood ground down to a powder , contains C, slapped on a wall, that formed 125 mya that is calcium carbonate, with very old C in it. Coat cave walls with organic materials and the bugs will get in there. Those bugs can metabolise CO2 fro mteh environment. Some of them can even metabolise the C from the Calcium Carbonate from the cave wall. So can be a mixture of modern contamination and old. This is not a new problem, it can occur with all archaeological samples . The solution often, is to take a really big sample, and you can then give it lots of chemical pre-treatments. But cave painting are so precious , if they let you take a sample , it will be really tiny. Much less than ideal for C14 dating and this magnifies the effect of contamination. So looking at publishe d C14 dates , samples have been taken , 2 or 3 from the same painting , and the results differ by perhaps 10000 years. So we chose not to use C14 dating. A method used by earth scientists and spieliologists , Uranium Series or Uranium -Thorium dating. Uranium238 decays very slowly 4.5 billion years through some very short lived isotopes , ignore as only 3 or 4 days, to a long-lived isotope U234 , which decays to Thorium230 with half-life of 76,000 years. Eventually the decay product is a stable isotope of lead. Somewhere inthat chain is Polonium210, that poisoned Mr Litvinyenko. for a sample many millions of years old, it reaches a radioactive equillibrium, the rate of decay of every member of that chain , is the same. If we disrupt that equillibrium then it will go back to that equilibrium and its tht we're using for dating. This disruption occurs naturally in ground waters because U is soluble and Thorium is not soluble . So anything that precipitates out of groundwater such as stalegmites and stalgtites will contain U but no thorium. Gradually over time the Th to U activity will grow back, until it reestablishes the equilibrium is returned and rates of decay equal to each other. That takes about 500,000 years, so that is the limit of our dating method. An awful llot archaeology is contained within the last 500,000 years. Its been used for dating cave calcites for 50 years now. Earth scientists use it because stalegmites grow incrementally, if not annully necessarily. So they get a time series of Calcium Carbonate and includes othe risotopes like oxygen , C . From the organic inclusions as well, it tells them somethng o fthe environment and the climate. Occassionaly they grow on top of Archaeological deposits, or in our case grow on top of cave paintings. So a cave wall, with no calcite on there to start with say. Someone places a hand on , spits red pigment at it , then layers of flow-stone growing over it. In most cases we are removing those layers of flowstone . If we get down to pigment at the bottom , that gives a minimum age for the painting. Sometimes we get an opportunity to get underneath the art, and take a sample, and that gives us a maximum age. A piece of calcite "curtain" and at some point an earthquake or someone broke a piece , then the calcite continued to grow. So a painting, then stalegmite formed after the painting, then some time later someone came along and broke a piece. That gives us the opportunity to drill under the pigment and so get a maximum age. So we can start sandwiching our dates between min and max ages, constraining the ages. We got a grant from the NERC , and went to Spain to several caves mainly north Spain and got as many dates as we could. Dirk Hoffman and I worked on this at Bristol Uni , i came here, he moved to the Max Plankh Institute for evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig . We realised the samples we took were just too big, limiting the number of samples we could date. Because we are a victim of geology . They don't necessarily form immediatley after a paintingwas created, 10 to 30,000 years after is possible. The only way we could constrain the dating , was to blanket-bomb it. So accidentally collect the sample that nails it. I was taking 100 to 200mg samples. But you could expand the number of paintings able to date, if you took 10mg. We managed to reduce it down to between 1 and 10mg about half a grain of rice. The initial project we tok about 50 samples, a sort of pathfinder mission. For 4 years now we've been working almostt exclusively in Spain and dated about 400 samples . Moved out to East Timor to sample they're cave art this summer and been to Italy and the bits of France they let us in. When we set out to do this, the oldest cave art, in France, was claimed to be Gros Cheauvais 35,000 calibrated years. Subsequently one published at 40,000 and claiming this was the birth of cave painting. Only a few hundred miles away, in Spain, th eoldest dated cave art is 10,000 years younger. Is it taking the artists that long to get from France to Spain or is it a problemin our chronology. The calcite results are a minimum age for the art. Most are Holocene , younger than 10,000 years. Not a problem, as they are minimum ages for cave paintings, lots of calcite formed in the Holocene, forming in warm wet conditions. When cold and dry the production of calcite slows right down. So we get lots of post-glacial dates for calcite formation. We do have some dates older than 20,000 years, even 25,000 years. This shows cave painting was going on in Spain before the oldest previous cave paintings. Tito Bustillo a cave site in Asturias has thousands of cave paintings. We were most interested in an anthropomorph of a lion man figurine form. Under a draped stalagmite, it had been broken in atiquity , so we could get a maximum and minimum ages. It gave a date between 29.6 and 35.5 thousand years. There was an excavation close by and they found some pigments and some charcoal from a hearth that was C-14 dated , showing human activity from about 36 to 39,000 years, so looking at very early activity and very early cavve art. Elsewhere in the cave there are cave paintings that are much younger, including horses about 3m long . The black pigments there have been C14 dated to no more than 14,000 years. One mistake people have been making is assuming that caves get painted in a single episode. What we're finding , with highly decorated caves, there's been multiple episodes of painting. We went to Altimera, the famous polychrome ceiling , in Cantabria. The bison are about 18tyo , beautifully painted to follow the contours of the ceiling , which is sort of rippled. It would seem the shape of the rock was suggesting the art to the artist. Those had been dated many times by C14 dating. We were interested in the redness underneath, that is largely neglected. A bison's back leg has been painted on top of it, an earlier phase of painting. Since Altamera was discovered a long argument about whether a short or a long chronology. Most had gone on the short, based upon stylistic interpretation but also when they excavated , they found no archaeology older than 22tyo. So another hope for myth-busting , that underground archaeology reflects the paintings on the walls. Generally we find , caves that were never painted and paint3d caves that don't have archaeology. They wern't living there, lighting fires and doing the things that leave a long archaeological record. Several possible phases from the styles. The red horse outline was stylistically attributed to an earlier period than the polychrome bison. We focus on small samples from thin carbonate crusts, that overlay th e pigment. We got a date older there older than 22tyo. Still supports the short chronology , though a minimum age. It does show it predates the Magdelanian polychrome bison. More exciting were the odd shapes that didn't sem to be figurative. People have referred to them as claviform, shaped like a key. We have ages for these , and they underlie the painted bison at 36tyo, much older than the bison. Back to the period of the arrival of the very first modern humans in Spain. At El Casrillo cave, near Santander, you as the public can go right into the cave not a low stifling corridor place. It has the Panel of Hands, negative hand stencils, made by placing hand on the wall and blowing pigment at them. Something like 80 of them. Most are obscured, barely see them because of a thin layer of calcite . We love that as everything is covered with stuff we can date. Inside the hand stencils, there are lines of red dots, dating a hand and a dot, they come out as the red dot older than 40,800 years old and the hand stencil older than 37,300. Currently the olded dated cave art in the world. We can put all this on a timeline. Bearing in mind most are minimum ages, something older than 22tyo does not mean it could not be 50tyo, this isa weakness in our technique. We rarely get max and min ages. It is showing that the oldest cave paintings are at least as old as the arrival of modern humans in that part of Spain. We've taken a lot of criticism from people who like to look at art. also ended up i na journal spat with the people of Grot Chauvais who want their paintings to be the oldest in the world. They've challenged us , saying things can go wrong with uranium/thorium dating. It can behave as an open system ,the U starts there and loose some of it over time, sort of washed out. That artificially makes the age look older. We've found ways around that and are now dating long sequences of samples. We take a sample, then another sample from the same spot, a bit closer to the pigment, so a bit older, and so on. Its then hard to think of a mechanism that is going to remove U equally from every one of those layers. When they come out in stratographic order , the dates in the right order, then we're happy we are getting the right answer. A pic of the lowest sample taken just showing the pigment poking through in a few places. Thats where we stop, we don't touch the pigment at all. The pigment would only contaminate our last sample anyway , if we went deeper, and be unusable as a result. So we have dates older than 40,800 years, how do we interpret that. Jual Duyall ? chronology for the Iberian peninsular. He has in northern Spain about 42tya, he's got what we call Chapperonian , an industry that includes a lot of art objects, and people are arguing as to whether it was made by N or by modern humans. Letrs say it was made by modern humans. In the south of Spain, N persist a bit later . It seems modern humans didn't cross the Ebro river. So if our dates had come out ,in sites of southern Spain of 40tya , we'd have to conclude that it was Ns who were making them. But they're not, they're in northern Spain , but they are minimum ages and at 41tya it would seem we have evidence of only modern humans. Bu tthese are minimum ages, so we have to come up with a number of interpretations of this. Painting in Europe 41tya at least, the earliest painting in Africa 27tya, whats going on. Either there's an earlier painting in Africa but we've not fouind it yet, or found but not dated yet. Or the employment of painting caves , even painting at all , was an innovation after humans had left africa. We have paintings about 40tya in Sulawesi , so maybe there is an origin somewhere between Africa, Europe and Sulawesi where we'll find the earliest paintings. Then the very first modern humans arrived between 45 and 42tya, in Europe, they were already bringing with them a tradition of painting caves. Or painting arose in Europe , if thats the case why here and not Africa. Nick Connard associates painting withthe rise of the otherwise unique firsts in symbolic behaviour in Europe. The difference between Europe and africa was that in Europe, when modern humans arrived, there were N around, but in Africa there was just modern humans. There was no competition with another human species. If you're in competition , not necesarily fighting them, but you might want to organise yourself into different groups , the way your social structures work , to survie in a more complex environment, than just one species of humans roaming the savannahs of Africa. Conard sees the rise of things like musical instruments asa manifestation of this, caused by competition with Ns. The third interpretation is, could it be that Ns made these. These are minimum ages, they could be older, perhaps significantly older than 41tya. How much older do they have to be for us to conclude they were done by N. Someone comes along in the past, puts their hand on a wall , sprays it with paint, and leaves a mark. Then an unknown amount of time passes and we get the formation of stalagmites and this forms over time. They may not be building up continuously , stopping and starting perhaps. Then we come along and take a chunk out of it. We don't go to the very bottom for a sample, also the layers are very thin , that we sample. So we mix them up and take the average of all those layers and that will be our minimum age for the painting. But we've not accounted for all the time back near the beginning. It turns out, from what we know of the arrival of modern humans and the disappearance of Ns , that the age underestimation , only has to be 2,000 years . It only has to take 2000 years for all of that stalagmite to have grown , for the painting to fall into the time range in which there was only Ns in northern Spain. Our argument here , with more samples yet to be taken, On th ebalance of probability , this age estimation gap is so small that we believe when we look at those hand stencils in El Castillo cave , that you are looking at handprints made by a N. But if you look elsewhere, evidence of symbolic behaviours among Ns , its everywhere, its just been overlooked. 400tya to 200tya they are collecting and hoarding pigments, they're not necessarily painting with them , bu tthey like a red stone. We find thousands of them in N contexts, we have the deliberate burial of the dead . They've interpreted specific butchery marks on raptors such as eagles as the deliberate collection of feathers and talons, not for meat , you would not cut talons or feet off , for meat consumption. They are probably collecting feathers, and talismans of these powerful birds. There is one example of an engraved bone, loads of black pigment, perforated shells also with traces of pigment inside , interpreted as make-up containers, somethin to do with body paint. We don't have cave paintings there, but we do have elaborate decoration of the body. If you had 150,000 years of exploiting shells and pigments, then its conceivable that in that long time span they would start putting paint on walls rather than themselves. If this is true, after the next phase of our project , we can twll you if its true or not, then w emust stop thinking of N in the early 19C way, knuckle-dragging brutish individuals. But as a painter, a thinker, as far more sophisticated individual, far more related to us , beyond what we know from DNA studies, but also in our behaviours. Q&A I've been to a cave in France and there is obviously 2 different phases of paintings at 2 different locations within that cave. Just from the stylistic approach because they are very different. Not only was there cave art in there but also evidence of animal activity in there. Bears had been active in the cave , sedimentary evidence of that, bear claw marks within clay deposits , where a bear had falllen in and got stuck and died. Obviously caves weren't safe havens when they were doing this. Venturing in, in the dark, with marginal torch light and yet they produce great artworks, so much more goes into it , the creation of the dyes and the paint, preparation and potential animal attacks? That might be the reason. Lots of art examples that is put in inaccessible places. THere are some examples where even the artist could not see what they were doing. They'd put a hand up a preattic tube and paint a perfect horse. It was only discovered because someone put an optical fibre camera up there. There was no way you could see what you were doing. So an element of performance about some of this, not public performance. Its about being in the other world, I think. The fact there might be dangerous animals fown there might make it more appealing, to go and paint there. We get a sense of that from, not necesarily the context of painted caves but the Seema de los Quesos in Attapuerca , Spain, there is a very long drop. At the bottom there was remains of about 45 young men, only young men. They were all pre-Ns, about the time of the split between N and modern humans. Why would you have that unusual age and sex profile , probably something about the act of going into that cave, exciting perhaps. Or a religious elemement, or they were all chucked down there or a right-of-passage thing. Thank goodness, if people didn't go and do stupid things in caves half the archaeology we rely on would be missing. I looked into going to northern Spain thus year, but when I started to look into it, it seemed there was hardly anything open to the public. ? All the sites I've shown tonight are open to the public. Even AltaMeira ? No , you get to go into a replica, then your name gets put into a hat and if you are 1 in unremembered number , there is one tour of the real cave a day. But the original is a horrible cave . Go to El Castillo , there are 4 caves there, they are all painted and 3 are open to the public. But you need to know their opening times because differnt in winter to summer, and they do tours in English. And only a couple of Euros for entry, for a world heritage site, if it was in the UK it would be 25GBP to get in. Tito Bustillo is only 1 hour drive from Bilbao, yes , go. Were you saying the earliest paintings were the handprints and the red dots? Yes Those are the ones more likely by Ns? Yes the stylistics also said they would be the earliest . So its a question of evolution of painting , to more realistic images? What we can't determine . Lets assume for the sake of argument all red stencils i nnorthern Spain and all the red dots, were made by Ns, what we cant work out is who made the horses and the figurative art. So far all our very earliest art seems to be non-figurative, but thats not to say they are not symbolic. They were made deliberately. The hand stencils were very carefully placed on specific bits of the wall. Some ar eon ceilings htat you had to crawl into, they're not mucking about with some paint. They go into a cave to make a painting. In Lascaux and some other vaves there are patterns of dots? We get some of those as well. Not able to date those? Not diagnostic dates, they are older than 12tyo, thats all we can tell. .... , was it just the floor level was higher or had equipment like ladders? Some of them , not even we could get to with our best ladder. So they've clearly built some structure to get up there. We got very excited in Ardales cave, because in one of the stalagmites was a piece of rope , looked like mother-of-pearl , turned to rock. Thinking of a 40tyo piece of rope . We took a sample, C14 dated it and came out to 1650 . I think they were using ropes , standing on each other's backs or perhaps even building scaffold to access some of their chosen sites. With the hand outlines, is there not sufficient anatomical difference between a N hand and a modern hand? Even if you had the bones, you couldn't. There is a difference but its at a population level. The average thickness of the bone , the average length of fingers is different. But there is sufficient overlap , if given just one finger. Also there is a parallax effect , the width of the fingers change , if blow from one angle com[ared ot another angel . They have been able to measure the difference between males and females, something like 70% of the hand stencils were made by females. And some made by children? Yes, not very many though. Thats been a bit overblown. Is there any evidence that any were painted by children, stylistically even? With the small hands it could be children or the child's hand placed against the rock and someone else did the stencil. I don't think we can clarify, which. What we can say is there very few practise ones. They tens to be all brilliant . You'd expect people doing this, there would be horses that didn't really look like horses. I was thinking the ones interpreted as early could be kids? I think they were artists and almost were famous for being artists. Do we think of it as cave painting, just because that is where they have survived, wheras they were painting elsewhere and thousands of years earlier but they have not survived? Absolutely and I suspect body painting was reallly important, thats why we find hoardes of pigments everywhere , even though we have no paintings. Bark paintings would not survive . We do get a sense of non-cave art context where we see portable art, the lionman 35tyo, thats quite early in the art context. Places like the Coeur Valley in Portugal, with very low errosion rates of the rocks, every flat surface is engraved, in fact over-engraved, that was 20tya. So maybe the whole landscape was decorated but most has worn away, especially if limestone. Calcite over painting protects it, but paint the outside of a cave it probably won;t last 10 years. I'm assuming an ablating process to take the samples, to get 10 or 12 pretty accurate equal thicknesses of samples for testing. ? Its me with a scalpel , some practise and some very large glasses. Some of it is really hard and may take 3 hours to remove one sample. Another observation , I suppose, is the Uffington White Horse is supposed to be only 2,000 BC , if that. But stylistically it is very minimal , but from the simple style you could say it was very much older, but its not? I think they have archaeological reasons to think it is neolithic/bronzr age. I think artists call it the line, a sense of how you can sumarise a thing just with a single brush stroke. You see it all the time . A line just swirls and you can see its a mamoth, but really its about 30cms of a single stroke of the brush. You also find areas of the cave , where the wall suggests the shsape. The famous one is the Pechmell horse , a rock that looks like a horse, all they've done is put a face on it and dots and a couple of legs. You start to see that sort of thing everywhere. Some of the bosses on the roof of Altamera look like sleeping bison . In Al Cassio cave there is a stalgmite that looks like a bison and all they've done is put an eye on it. It casts a shadow like a bison. They might have been tracing things that already existed . You mentioned that modern humans were the only hominem in Africa at one point, how lon g had that been so? Probably for always , or very shortly after modern humans evolved. THe uncertainty on some of our dates may 30ty to 200ty, so we don't know whether or not 1 only prior to humans evolving, the genetic mixing was enough so everyone became humans or whether lots of little branches that only lasted 10ty and wer e dead ends. But it does look you have to go back 350ty before you start seeing something much different to the modern human. But in northern latitudes we've probably got 4 species, N, Denisovans only known from the genetics of a single fingerbone but seem to have interbred with the human popultations that became Se Asian and Australasian, and a residual homo erectus in Java but everyone is arguing over the dates of that. In this country we have Paviland , using red ochre, but you think there was red ochre art such as Creswell , but it has not survived? I have a piece excavated at Creswell that is a big chunk of red ochre. We were excavating outside it. The reason we have little on Creswell is because the Victorians dynamited it all, the fossil hunters were collecting large faunal bones. In the crypt outside church? ho? , we have 2 or 3 pieces of red ochre. We spent 3 years going thru Victorian spoil heaps , washing every single piece of stone, in case it was engraved, because they would have missed it, but no engravings. Then underneath we found Pleisocene sediments and in that were bits of red ochre. So they could have been ? ? Its such an open site, you can see the weathering on engraving. Creswell Crags in Derbyshire , its Britains only authentic bit of paleolithic cave art, 4 or 5 engravings , but they are in a cave thats been open for ever, and you can see its weathered. One might imagine they were painted , like lots of cases in France and Spain where there was engraving followed up by painting. Could have been the samne at Creswell , but weathered away. I assume somewhere along the way, you've cross-correlated between the stalagtite/stalagmite people and their deposition rate of growth and your U/Thorium process.? Its totally variable . It can vary from metre to metre. It would be great if all the stalagmites in a ca=ve behaved in the same way , then you could use one not associated with art and use that to calibrate the age of the art. So you cant even do it within one cave? No because the wate ris trickling through cracks and it moves , and thinfgs change in the way of vegetation above the cave, all sprts of things change. For public access to these caves , do they have to wear surgical masks, to reduce lichen and fungal growth, like the Egyptian problem. Some closed are closed to the public or only a very small number of people allowed in. With forensic examiner type suits? Yes, but others have been partially open to the elements for their entire history and so the action of humans is irrelevant. But caves like altamira have remained largely sealed . Or people breathiing and especially their lights is creating all kinds of problems, bacterial colonies and algae. Lascaux has been shut now for years because they never could get rid of the algae brought there by the humans and their lights. If you looked at the style change, from 40 to 20ty, where would the earliest African, the 27tya. Where would that fit into .? It would probably fit more with Magdelanian art , which in Europe is 18tya or younger. So you could argue that that sort of art is earlier in Africa than it is in Europe. Therre are no proxies for earlier stuff. What African art that has been dated is late Holocene, perhaps 7tyo. It kind of fits. It can be partly defined by the fauna as well. You said some of the caves have other archaeological stuff in there, would suggest they were lived in as well. So sometimes there would be art in someone's home and other times seem to be sacred sites? People really only lived in cave mouths, its really dark back there , and also poor ventilation and it would soon fill up with smoke from fires. There probasbly were pictures and symbols at the mouth s of caves but tend to have eroded away. We've found a few bu tthe main stuff is in deep caves. Every so often a cave appears where the roof has collapsed, and people think its a deep cave but usually the entrance was somewhere else. So most are where people are taking quite perilous journeys into very dark places , with only little oil lamps, not like our powerful spotlamps. Shadows seem to pay a part, the throw of shadows , animation of some of the bas-relief carvings are almost like animations with a flickering light source, the horse legs seem to move. Almost anothe rworld for these individuals. Any audio effects found in the caves? Acoustic people have been down and done all that. They treated all the art as one phase and didn't realise the spatial distribution is chronologically determined. There are phases when deep caves are painted and phases when only shallower caves ar epainted, and they each have different acoustic properties. I think they were seeing patterns defined by the behaviour of individuals , rather than by the acoustics. There are some interesting performances on the web, with people playing flutes made from Ibex bones and the like. ... any cross-over , one teaching the other to paint? I mentioned the Chapelperonian , a thorn in the side of all archaeologists. Its a layer of cultural material that lies between something we definitely know is N and something we definitely know was made by moderns. We've found them in the sites of those species. Most archaeological sites, we don't find any human remains, so we go by the shape of tools . The Chappeperonians had elements of N flint technology with lots of beads , shells and pigments etc. So made by which species. So the people who say they were made by modern humans, say perhaps they were made by Ns but were just copying modern humans. So they are arguing culturisation. All we have to do is show Ns painted caves before humans got anywhere near Europe. Maybe it could be culturisation, but they already had their traditions of painting caves and being symbolic, so no need to invoke moderns arriving. I suppose when both where around there would be stylistic changes. There was a period of quire rapid climate change in that period, so there would be changes in how fauna move around , even some goig extinct. You'd consequentially have to change the way you hunt. If you go from eating only bison , to eating ibex then you might find ibex appearing on cave walls. ... other examples? Some in Russia , we would have gone to but there is a group in Copnhagen working on them. There is Sulawesi and the whole of Australasia , covered in cave apintings. Thats the next big thing. Humans arrived in oz about 55tya, so I expect to find 55tyo cave apintings there. Is there any new upcoming dating process, thats currently in yhe developenent stage? A method thats been around for some time, but its really hard. Called cosmogenic isotope dating , come over from geology. The reason geologists use it , because they can take half a kilo of sample . These are isotopes formed by the exposure of silicate material to cosmic radiation. You can have a rock thats sat under 5m of rock , wont have been exposed to that radiation. A glacier comes along , scrapes that off and is now exposed to cosmic radiation. Very slowly over time, these isotopes buid up by nuclear reaction. About 100 atoms per gram being produced so a big sample is needed. I can iagine if they are getting their samples from clay deposits that are exposed, then taken into ta cave , some of those cosmogenic isotopes atre radioctive and start to decay, isolating them from the source of production. They've done that with flint, flint from shallow flint quarries . In earlier days instead of mining deep in chalk , they were using river cobbles. So it gets exposed , then moved to a cave, that shields it, but again you destroy the whole artifact. Then the uncertainty is massive, one day they will enhance the precision on such measurements , where we could a little fleck of pigment , and age it. Generally speaking the owners of these caves, don't mind you taking samples of calcite deposits, as long as you don't touch the paintings? We've been banned from France. One of the French officials misrepresented the size of a 12x12mm sample we'd taken in Spain . Even the conservators put the wall up , saying if you take even a little bit of this calcite area off, in 10 years the cave art would be gone. A coda. We're in the middle of our project thats been going now for about 9 years. There is a very good chance that we'll be able to reveal the results of many hundreds of dates , when we talk to the Southampton Archaeological Society, St Joseph's Hall in March 2018. S12

Monday 11 December 2017, Prof Bob Grimble :Well we've made it so far:- nutrition, genetics, immune function and health. 24 people, 1.5 hours In my teaching and research career I've been very involved in how nutrition influences the way our immune systems (IS) function. Read a packet of cereals or a pack of pills and you'll read how your immune system needs to be "boosted" all the time. Then you come to realise that someone with rheumatoid arthritis is having their IS boosted in the wrong way. I'm not an expert on immunology , coming into the area largely by having a Chinese medical student, whose father owned a Chinese restaurant in Gosport. We would work on pregnancy and lactation , but she wanted to work on immunology. I listened to all Prof Stevenson's lectures at the uni . What impressed me then , was what a dangerous friende the IS is, full of potent molecules. Put it all together then its a tissue as large as your liver, scattered throughout body in the skin , lungs , blood stream etc. It tackles bugs in a number of complex ways. I will talk about one of those ways tonight, inflammation. That is increasing the blood flow , increasing bofy temp , creating molecules that will start to break down tissues to feed the IS. And molecules that will zap bugs, free radicals FR. All that together is what I call inflammation . Also nutrition, our genetics , their influences and how there is a knock on effect on our longevity and other aspects of healthy life. A pic of a cut on my thumb in the 1970s but I'm still here , talking to you tonight. Also a pic of apples that were mouldy in 1975 and they never survived. I have an IS, the apples don't. The IS is essential for survival in a world surrounded by microorganisms that are trying to gain access to our body. My gut is full of them. We try to keep the bugs out of our inner mechanisms. Wipe any surfsce here and transfer to an agar plate, most interesting moulds and stuff will grow. Their in the air , every breath takes in microbes. Yet we manage to repel them in a way that doesn't damage our health, most of the time. You know when you've picked up a bug. Sore throat, headache , sweaty etc. Thats your IS swinging into action. So why does the body go through these paiful processes to repel bugs from our system. Why do we loose our appetite, it seems non-sensical. When you have a bug on board, you want to figth it, needing fuel to do that. Go the RCS and a statue inside the door , of John Hunter. He was surgeon to Charles II. He notices something interesting about people who were injured or infected. They all produced a similar type of response, what he called an inflammation. Loos of appetite, raised temp, fatigue ,ma;aise etc. A common respons eto a wide range of things attacking the body. About 1960-70 we started to know why this was. Our body as a lamb, and the IS as a lion very powerful. But it has the ability to kill us if it over responds. Woody allen quote " And the lamb and the lion shall lie down together but the lamb won't get much sleep". When the ISdetects something wrong i nthe body , say an e-coli germ. An immune cell in the body, a macrophage ,once it contacts that bug, it will lead to the release of a whole range of molecules called cytokines, from Greek meaning cell exciters. The result is the usual symptoms, fever, appetite loss. If ill for a long time, you loose your muscle. If you look in hte blood stream, there i a lot of FR and oxidant molecules being produced. The reason for raising your temp is that most germs don't like high temps. They used to treat syphilus patients in steam baths, because there was a certain amount of success in raising body temp and fighting the infection that way. Oxidants are very important , germs don't like their surface being attacked by FR. A wide range of cells in the body that will release FRs and oxidant molecules, like bleach hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorous acid , all will damage cell membranes and in particular targetting invading organisms. Oxidant production is an important part of the response . The IS must be fed, fed with the right things. Someone with a severe infection , the IS doesn't want you to walk to the shops and get a donah kebab , a food not important to the IS. It wants to feed on yourself, it starts to break down your muscles, creates glucose from molecules in your body. These are amino acids released from the muscles, will help to provide food for the IS. THe IS An " organ" the size of your liver needs a lot of nutrition, so by loosing appetite the body has made sure , the food for the IS comes from the right source, which is from muscles rather than what you're eating. The ideal response to an invading organism. First there is the IS which is activated. The IS is made of white blood-cells T and B cells, also the cytokines which will stimulate a whole range of processes in the body. Like bleach, oxidants are very good at killing bugs. We're producing these where the bug is, the bug will die. So we're creating a hostile environment in the body. We have to ensure we don't damage our own tissues. In our bdies are anti-oxidant systems. We eat antioxidants AO in our diet , things like vitamin E , vitamin C, the katakins found in tea. We also create in our bodies glutothione an important AO. There are also AO enzymes in our body which help to dismantle oxidant molecules. So we release oxidants and we increase our AO defences. Our ability to do that depends on whether we are well nourished or not. Poor diet and we won't maintain our glutothione levels, and not good levels, at the tissue level, of vitamins E and C. So that parrt of the system can break down if ill nourished. The nutrients from our tissues will be processed , some will ?glucose , which is a favoured fuel for B and T cells. Glutamine and sulphur-amino acids ar eimportant for making glutothione , a key part of our AO defences. So a well coordinated series of events, triggered bythe cytokines. To further help release this burst of nutrients , from our host tissues, our appetite is lost, so we start to feed ourselves from within. There is a limit to that, if the fever is self limiting, lasting only a week or 2 , it doesn't matter as you can always eat again after recovery. But if a long chronic disease, where this is constantly being stimulated, this will lead to malnutrition . Malnutrition leads to a poor immune system and leads to a poor Immune response, and subsequent infections. So can enter a downward spiral by this series of events, if unable to recover and feed yourself properly. How come this seemingly perfect biological response , designed to ensure survival. This action is not designed to ensure the survival of the individual , but survival of the species. S osome individuals , within the species , will pay a price for certain biological systems working in their body . The IS is a bit like agression . 2 contexts where agression is being applied - a UN peacekeeper in Bosnia telling some nasty peole ot keep away, backed up by a tank, so the security of the population is maintained, the species is maintained. An aggressive football supporter, inappropriate agression . The actions of the IS are only appropriate in the right context , the context of life in general. ook at a general young population, made up of all sorts of individual characteristics , different stages of developement, different general health, different genotypes etc. There is thr population in which the IS operates. Some people will be able to use the IS very effectively , others will have problems with the IS. So some factors that influence the strength of inflammatory response IR. Some have a direct or indirect nutritional background to them. So obesity, type of fat in the diet, AO intake . And aging , not nutrition but has a direct effect on IR. Other things, we cant do anything about our genetics , nothing about our gender, or aging. Obesity , I'm fat as I'm suffering from chronic inflamation. Everyone overweight or obese is suffering from low-level inflammation. The cells that make up the fat stores of the body, odiphocytes?. A sequence of events, starting with someone who is lean , someone getting a bit fatter and someone who is obese. The adiphocytes, the cells that hold the fat under the skin, around the liver , the kidneys etc . They store fat and release fatty acids into the circulation when needed . As the cells get fatter, the cell walls get stretched and start to emit molecules which attract in immune cells from outside . A macrophage being attracted into the adipose tissue. The cells start to produce cytokines , TNFalpha is being produced . As the individual gets bigger , with stretching cells, more macrophages coming in and a greater number of kinds of cytokines being released. The adipose tissue becomes an inflammatory tissue as a consequence. If the individual slims down and the adipose tissue shrinks , it gets turned off. Anyone a bit tubby is undergoing inflamation to varying extents. The Jericho picture, the raft of the Medusa. A big political disaster at the time. A steamer called the Medusa went down , a lot of people hang onto a raft . It was largely ignored by passing ships and the artist Jericho drew a pic of it. A take-off of that , a raft full of fat people . A lady from the Department of Health , waving a flag saying, Eat More Fruit. While the raft of obesity is sinking. The extent of obesity across the industrialised world is getting bigger and bigger , leading on to all sorts of other health problems . Like diabetes mialitis linked to inflammation , arthritis linked to inflammation , athro-schlerosis also linlked to inflammation. The type of fat in our diet. Polyunsaturated fatty acids , everyone very keen on these. Called poopers sometimes. There are 2 types omega 6 and omega 3 . You get them in margarines and things like that, as added. Various health effects, omega6s they lower cholesterol , important yes, but don't have any effect on triglyceride which is another form of fat in the blood. There is growing evidence they are pro-inflammatory, increasing inflammation is certain circumstances. We're supposed to eat about 1% of our calories as omega6. That prevents us from getting fatty acids deficiency. The current level of consumption in the UK is 8%, 8 times over. The omega3s , no effect on cholesterol , but they lower triglycerides , anpther risk factor for arthro-schlerosis. These polyunsaturates are anti-inflammatory, they reduce the levels of inflammation in the body. So not all polyunsaturates are the same, as far as inflmmation is concerned. They may be roughly the same in reducing the level of fat in the blood. An american study looked at tumour necrosis factor TNF, an inflammatory mediator in the blood stream of a a huge number of USA women and men. They looked at their diets and divided the intakes of omega6 and omega3 into quartiles. The lowest intakes of omga3 to the highest, a large difference in levels of TNF in the blood. Very high in the lowest quartile of omega3 intake and in the highest quartile of omega6 . Same is true in the men, similar pattern. This is suggesting hte level o f fat in the diet of the population, as a whole , has an effect on the level o f inflammation. As for AO intake , why ar ethey important. THey are putting out fires in the body, basically. How do AO control inflamation. Inflamation is complex, it involves genes being turned on. A cell membrane of an inflammatory cell, the oxidants on the outside . On the inside , cell components becoming oxidised, by hydrogen peroxide produced during an infection say. Or the oxidents produced by cigarette smoking. In the cell are transcription factors. One is nuclear-factor-kappaB, NFKB. Many genes in the cells have a sensitive region on them for NFKB, when attached to the gene , it gets turned on. Normally NFKB is kept quiet by an inhibitory path. As soon as oxidents come along , the inhibery path is removed and hte NFKB moves to the nucleus and turns on the genes for production of inflammatory mediators. Things like the cyto-kines, production up-regulated by oxidant molecules in the cell. Within an infection, we produce oxidents to kill the bug , bu tthose oxidants have the capacity for further upregulating the immune response if they're not controlled. AO can control them, stop the breakdown of NFKB activation, reduce the degree to which cell components are oxidised which is also a trigger for inflammation. Omega3s help to tone down the prduction of cytokines, from inflammatory cells and also stabilize NFKB and its inhiitory component. Now for genetics. My genetics is from the spin of the dice. Which sperm hits which egg and produced my genotype. You are stuck with it, and your ability to produce cytrokines in any situation. In a gene there are polymorphisms , a single base change in the promoter region of the gene. The promotor is the switch that turns the gene on, within that region can be various combinations of various of AGTC. I could be 2 "green", a red and a green, or 2 reds variations. As you move across the poltmorphisms , the biological response gets stronger. So someone with 2 As in the TNFalpha gene will tend to produce more TNFA in a given context compared to someone with one copy of it, or none. THese polymorphisms are hard-wired into our genetics that will control the strength of our response , throughout our lives. No matter the stimulus, whether cigarette smoke or an infection, person A will have a bigger response than person B. This was really looked at first in late 1980s , a whole new range of genes has been described . The genotype associated with raised cyctokine profuction or poor disease outcome a list of them. As far as TNA is concerend if you have an A allele in your genetic makeup you will tend experience a stronger inflamatory response, to a stimulusof infection or injury or even just old age. Our genetics and the amount of body fat we have may create a time-bomb for future ill health or inflamation being above what it should be. Men are not as tough as they think they are. A study in 2000 in journal SHOCK, people who hacve developed sepsis an overwhelming response to a hospital acquired infection. Mortality rates of people with polymorphisms in lymphotoxin-alpha gene , one of the drivers of inflamation. You either have a G or an A. People with AA, from mum and dad as opposed to GA only inherited from 1 parent, they have a higher mortality amongst the men. Look at the women , not so high, women are protected against this genetic effect. I did a study with an abdominal surgeon, simply lookig at interluken6 production , post operatively. Preoperativelt, with te 2 genotypes we could identify , either GG or AG , A being the inflamatory allele. Those with an A had a bigger response than those ith GG. So every time you had a challenge, with that phenotype, tou would have larger response. As you get old you get more inflamed. Biologically , inflamation does increase as you get older. The level of C-reactive protein in the bloodstream of healthy volunteers at medical school. They're not infcted or obviously inflamed in anyway. 18-29, 30 -49,50 - 84, the Creactive protein , increases steadily across the age range, highly significant effect. Raised blood fats are a risk factor for arthro-sclerosis also tested across the agrs. Inflamation occurs naturally as you get older. An Italian study looking at phenotype and longevity in a huge range of Italian subjects. Ages 60 to 80 , 81 to 99 and over 100. Genotype as far as Interluken6 is concerned, where you can either have a C or a G. If CC you have lower inflamation than GG, and in the middle if you just have one copy . For the men 1/4 are CC, 1/2 CG and 1/4 GG. The next age range the pattern stays the same, but go above 99 the number of GG has decreased , because they have died. Wheras the proportion of CC increases because they've survived. so for men if you have an inflamatory genotype you're less likely to live to a ripe old age. For women, clearly god is a woman. There is no change in the pattern as you go across the age bands. As you age, your leg arteries start to clog up , find it harder to walk at a normal pace. With the grim reaper behind you, if you smoke or are obese, you have to run faster. Chronically raised blood glucose and a direct poor in AOs , let the grim reaper catch you earlier. Good sources of AOs are fruit and veg. Some examples of how fish-oil allows you to walk faster. I met up with a vascular surgeon , working on peripheral vascular disease. People who have difficulty walking without pain, walk briskly and they get extreme pain in their legs. Because the arteries there ar efull of artheroma plaques blocking the arteries. In his studies he had a treadmill , gradually increasing the angle of the base. Got people to walk on it at a certain speed , via metronome , for as long as they could, without pain. We fed his patients 6gm of fish oil a day for 3 months. in that time they could double the walking distance to go without pain. Then we went to the genetics , and thse with inflamatory genotypes are the ones who benifited most from having fish oil. Q&A What is the effect of vitamin B12 on inflammation, as people get older they tend to have their vitamin ? going down , is there a correlation? I cant think of a reason why B12 would influence inflamation, either way, neg or pos. Its importany in cell growth , so it might influence some of the cells in the IS, more work needs to be done. Its vitamin A that is exceedingly important in immune function. People keep going on about vit C being important in infection and IS, but there is hardly any evidence at all that C does anything for the IS. If you have scurvy , then your IS is shot to bits. Vit E is important because its an AO. Trials in the third world involving vit A , where they've improved the immune function in huge populations of children just by giving them vit A. For food products that have non-food in them , does that mean not enough vitamins included, ??? and building up problems? There is no evidence that vitamins cause obesity. Obesity is due to energy intake exceeding energy expenditure. There is a little evidence that obesity and genetics can be connected. As far as obesity is concerned. People tend to think of energy in terms of running . I used to run marathons it puts up your energy expenditure by a small amount, that is running 26 miles. The main part of your energy expenditure is your resting metabolic rate, just staying alive, is about half your energy expenditure. If you eat a lot its very difficult to exercise enough to get rid of its effects. Studies have shown that every time you eat , you get hotter. Have a meal and you waste about 15% of it just as increased metabolism , absorbtion of amino acids, glucose etc. Eat a cold meal and you get just as hot as eating a cold meal. As you get older, that effect gets smaller. Your appetite stays the same so it means you get fatter. When I was a student they were trying to find out what made people fat, and the question is still not answered, other than intake is greater than expenditure. Is their psychology there? Can I think myself thin perhaps. A sort of evolutionary question, animals like us, very much requir e oxygen , why should oxygen and therefore oxidants be such a problem ? wouldn't evolution got rid of that problem along the way. Within our bodies are very powerful AO systems. We talk about them in our diet but in our body there are enzymes like superoxide-disputase that gets rid of superoxide one of the free radicals. Glutothione is a very important AO , made from 3 amino acids, that we get in our diet. Levels of glutothione in the liver are very high indeed and in the blood stream. so we already have AO defences. If you have a load of vitamin C it doesn't really boost your defences , it simply makes you make lots of oxalic acid, the end of the biological process. I'm not sure there is a problem , why do we get old, why do we fall apart. We're only supposed to be here so many years. You can't live forever, whatever faddish diet you take up. The fad thing now is very restricted calory intake? In the USA there is a low calory society, living on just over 1000 calories a day. How miserable it must be. When one of them dies, the rest must get very concerned, because of what they could have eaten all along. Isn't part of the reasoning , to reverse some effects, such as diabetes, have a low intake , and reverse the insulin resistance? There is an argument for short periods of time of low intake. But those people think they can increase their lifespan by reducing their calory intake. We do correlations between metabolic rate of animals and there is an inverse correlation , lower the heart rate, the higher the survival. i wouldn't recommend it. The more you know about science, the more complicated it is. The less you know about it, the simpler it all is. Would high doses of vitamin C help combat cancer , or help tissue growth? A lot of cancer treatments involve either generation within the body free radicals or the administering of them in some form of oxident stress. So there is probably an argument there for increasing the level of Vit C , simply to compensate for that, and protect the healthy tissues that are not being treated. I've no evidence on tissue growth effect. Do you have any take on epigentics as that came in after observations of mass starvation in Holland? Epigenetics is very big in Soton, a major promoter of it was Prof David Barker. At the beginning i was very sceptical . In 1944 Holland, prior to D-Day, the Dutch were very active in one area of Holland. Then there was the Arnham landings , that got defeated. The Nazis then punished that part of Holland by cutting off the food supply. Within that area were women who were pregnant on a calory intake per day of about 800 calories, vastly inferior to requirement. The children survived and after the war , they were studied in comparison to the children born in other areas of Holland , not so affected. I did not believe him , unless in the 2 areas of Holland have different disease patterns. But he said they do have different patterns of disease. The same ethnic group, bu tthe ones who had a period of starvation , during pregnancey, and carried that with them later , higher diabetes, higher schizophrenia and another condition I forget now what. They now know the mechanism in that post fertilisation genes become methylated i ncertain posiyions, that supresses the degree the gene can be activated or increases it. Folic acid is quitre a powerful switcher on or reduces gene activity . Thats why , most countries add folic acid to flour , but in the UK its not. There are 2 forms of anaemia , one is pernicious which is fatal and the other is folic-acid deficient anaemia. For the Uk they felt supplementing the whole population with folic acid, they would not be able to tell apart the 2 forms of anaemia, and a result people might die unnesessarily. i thought that was a good move for another reason. If you can increase the activity of genes or decrease it by feeding folic acid, then you may be permanently switching on certain genetic profiles in the population, and you won't be able to counteract it. Once the epigenetic traits have got into the standard genetics , then its there for succeeding generations? I think it takes a long time for these effects to wear off. This is the latest sexy area in genetic science. Can you throw any light on the effect of immuno-suppressants on Infamatory Bowel Disease?, how they work and also could diet be benificial to people with IBD. ? Second part first, studies have shown , that fish-oil supplements reduces the symptoms of Chrone's disease and also cystic fibrosis. Immuno-suppressants don't always work. The IS is made up of antibody producing cells called B-cells and T-cells that go to where the trouble is. Immuno-supressants tend to knock out the Tcells. Immuno-suppressants for tissue implants is because new tissue is treated as an invading organism and will be attacked by T-cells. So if they stop the Tcells acting , then the graft is likely to take. The down-side is the T-cells have othe rfunctions, they kill viruses , kill bacteria ,kill cancer cells, so swings and roundabouts here. People with suppressant treatment need monitoring all the time. I'll put fish-oil on my diet? ??? , I've never been advised of this ? The only effective way is taking fish-oil capsules. The downside of fish-oil consumption is you tend to smell of fish though. With so-called cod-liver oil capsules, you look on the ingredients list , yes there is cod-liver oil in there bu also a lot of other fish-oil. Is there some sort of significant medical difference there? Yes, people often confuse cod-liver oil with fish-oil. Cod liver oil comes from the liver of cod. Fish oil comes from the bodies of small fish and is totally different in its EPA and EPDHA content, the 2 principal omega3 fatty acids. You get more of those 2 components in fish-oil rather than cod-liver oil. Cod-liver oil contains far less of the omega3 fatty acids than fish-oil. Do you have to take anything along with these oils, to cross the gut barrier process.? No it gets absorbed in the duodenum nd the top bit of the digestive system by being combined with bile acids , the same as the other fats in your diet. I read somewhere that if you don't take something , I forget what , with cod-liver oil capsules , it doesn't transfer? Perhaps another product they sell , but not required. If you want to increase your omega3s in your body tissues , your cell membranes, you should cut right down on your omega6 intake. Because omega3 and 6 compete for inclusion in the cell membrane . So if you're taking loads of corn oil as well as fish oil it may have no effect at all. How do these oils know which bpart of the body to go to? We're making cell membranes all the time and made from whatever is passing. I was thinking of fat collecting as spare-tyre rather than in your toes or something? I talked of the inflamatory nature of adipose tissue , the adipose tissue as spare tyre produces far more cytokines than the adipose tissue generally under the skin . This is why visceral obesity is such bad news for diabetes etc. There is the visceral fat around the liver etc and other body fat? There are regional differences , subcutaneous fat is different. So if you're looking at your spare tyre , that would be subcutaneous fat overlying perhaps the visceral fat? Yes you can't see the underlying bad fat. That's what the BMI is supposed to point up? Not so much BMI but waist-hip ratio is the important ratio, whether you are a pear or an apple person. Its better to be a pear than an apple. Women survive better than men , nature is against men. So why do women have it better? Some have tried to poopoo this, by saying men are risk takers and women aren't. Men are body abusers more than women, men used to smoke more than women. Al lsuch factors come into mortality rates , so may not be true. But from the cytokine data we've seen there is a suggestion that women produce lower levels than men. Cytokines have this ability to act against an individual, then that may be part of the answer. Certainly women live longer than men, evening up a bit with the proportion of women smoking these days. Do you have any take on the Sardinia Island apparent longevity anomaly, purely genetics or Meditteranean diet? There is no such thing as the Mediterranean diet now because everone has hamburgers these days. The true Med diet was a pint of olive oil , grilled herrings or sardines and "good" crisp bread. A question on inflamation and nutrition nd the nightshade plant family, peppers, potatoes , tomatoes. Do they , via a chemical in them , switch on inflamation or no . I don't think so. Inflamation can only be turned on as a stimulus to the IS. When they talk about osteo-arthritis ???, if O-A is caused by chronic inflamation , and is caued by switching on some of these enzymes , advice about not eating peppers and similar. I was just wondering what the chemical was, or is it a myth? A myth, perhaps put out by interested parties.