I am super-excited to be Convening a session on Games for Geoscience at the 2018 General Assembly of the European Geoscience Union (EGU). In fact, I am so super-excited, I am prepared to use the phrase ‘super-excited’. I am also super-excited to be co-convening alongside two of my favourite people, Sam Illingworth and Rolf Hut.
I like playing games. Personally, I’m not a fan of board games, I prefer games with a narrative – I like tabletop strategy games, having been addicted to Games Workshop games since the age of 10. I like computer games, but having slow reactions and no hand-to-eye co-ordination, I have to stick to games like Football Manager (which my wife describes as ‘just answering emails’).
It’s probably not surprising then my research revolves around numerical modelling. There is great potential for game-like application for numerical modelling – I once got a group of 40+ 9-year olds running CAESAR-Lisflood by describing it as ‘Minecraft with worse graphics’ – and those who work with them often have a playful curiosity. We like to ask questions like ‘I wonder what happens if I do this?’, and this playful curiosity can lead to the discovery of some of the most fundamental knowledge about how our planet works.
From the original hacked version of CAESAR-Lisflood, through to TideBox and the Defend the City workshop, I’ve found that the numerical model has lent itself to a gaming environment extraordinary well for the use in teaching and public engagement.
Games are pervasive throughout Geosciences, finding use in research, in teaching, and in wider communication. They are powerful training tools. I bet you have used or played games in your work, maybe without even realising it. If you have, then this is the session for you! We are not going to be strict about definitions for what is considered a game or not, just as long as it is playful, interesting, and most importantly, fun.
Abstract submission is open from 13th October 2017, and closes 10th January 2018.
If you’ve never submitted to an Educational and Outreach Symposia (EOS) session before, I would encourage you to do so – they are very enjoyable, and as they don’t prohibit you submitting another Oral abstract for another session they are great way to maximise the exposure of your research.
Alongside the session we are hoping to host a related gaming session, giving us all the opportunity to try each other’s games – have something you want to bring along? Let us know.
EGU Blood Bowl Cup – I’m also interested in running the first ever EGU Blood Bowl Cup. I only need at least one opponent to make this happen, so let me know if you want in. I might even make a special pitch for the occasion.
This post represents my own views and is not intended to represent the views of my employer, present or past.
I’ve been umm-ing and ah-ing for a couple of months now about whether to write this blog, but I think I have finally had enough. You see, in Hull, we are at risk of flooding from the sea, or more specifically, the Humber Estuary. This risk emerges when low pressure out in the North Sea, caused by the storms, which can be common in the winter, effectively suck up the sea causing it to raise a little. High winds whip up waves, and these add a little more height to the water. All of this has the potential to raise the level of the sea, for a few hours, by up to a couple of metres. On December 5th 2013, a storm surge (as these events are called) raised the water level in the Humber by 1.7 metres.
The added complexity to this are the tides. The difference in the water level between low and high tide at Hull, according to the Associated British Ports (ABP) is between 3.5 m for a neap tide, and 6.9 m for a spring tide – this staggers the level we have determined to be 0 m, or sea level. This means the risk of flooding is all a matter of timing. If, on December 5th 2013, the storm passed by a few hours earlier or later the surge would have aligned with the low tide, and the additional 1.7 m would have barely been noticed by anyone. However, it was timed with a high spring tide, resulting in record water levels in the Humber and caused flooding in Hull and around the Estuary.
Graphic showing how coastal, or tidal, flooding forms. This was the type of flooding which occurred around the Humber in 2013. Thanks to NERC for producing these great resources.
When we design and build flood defences on the coast we don’t build them to just hold back tidal levels of the water, but also to defend against enhanced water levels produced by storm surges. Since 2013, the defences around Hull have been updated and a repeat of the event would result in little or no flooding in the city – I don’t know the exact level of the defence, but we can say that it is able to contain sea levels of at least 1.7 m higher than the highest natural tidal level.
A big issue facing Hull is sea level rise. Sea level has been rising since the end of last ice age, and is set to continue in the future. On top of this, the climate change caused by our industry is accelerating this. Our best estimates for the Humber area, assuming that as a species we continue increasing our influence on the climate, suggest the sea level will be around 1 m higher in 100 years than they are today – this will increase the risk of flooding and we need to ensure that the public understand this and that we continue to invest in improving the standards of our defences to keep pace.
On the first point, talking to residents of Hull about the risk of flooding from the Estuary provokes two responses. (1) There is a lack of appreciation of the risk from the Estuary, and when I start to talk about the 2013 flooding, people tend to share with me their experiences of the 2007 flooding (a surface flooding event). (2) People tend to feel that there is no point in doing anything as “Hull will be underwater in 100 years”. This latter point is what I want to discuss here, it’s a common perception and leads to a kind of apathy where people become disengaged with flood risk and actions to mitigate for it, but it is wrong.
It is a deeply held belief that goes beyond even the city – in 2015, Dr Hugh Ellis, the now Head of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), made the claim that the city would be underwater in 100 years –
“We need to think about moving populations and we need to make new communities. We need to be thinking, does Hull have a future?” (Source – Daily Telegraph)
Ok, he was trying to make a valid point, one that sea level rise is going to increase the risk of flooding for coastal cities, but I don’t think bold, and inaccurate statements, like this are helpful, and they only result in residents of the areas becoming disengaged – why do anything about the problem if it is futile?
But where does this idea come from? Why are people convinced Hull will be underwater in 100 years? Why do people think it will become the “Venice of the North”? Well, look at the map below –
This is map of ‘risk’ taken for the Humber area. For areas outside of the US, the Risk Map has been produced using a map of land heights obtained from space by the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, which mapped the entire globe at resolutions between 30 m and 90 m. The areas shaded in blue are all those ‘below sea level’ – normally 0 m, but in the map above I’ve set it at 1 m to represent the predicted sea level in 100 years time. Hull isn’t labelled on that map, but it basically the large blue area between North Ferriby and Hedon – very clearly ‘under water’.
But the method is problematic, it’s too simple. An average measurement of land heights over a 30 m area is fantastic when considering it is for the whole planet, however for determining flood risk it’s a bit rubbish. It smooths the land surface, removing obstacles, like wall, roads and buildings, and crucially, flood defences. The method also ignores ‘hydraulic connectivity’*, basically meaning that for water to flood an area it has to have a source of water and a route for it to get there – flood defences work by removing this hydraulic connectivity and this is why today the Humber region, and much of Holland, is close to or below sea level, but not under the sea.
To understand the actually risk posed by sea level rise requires a more complex model, one which accounts for tides, contains more detailed data, and more importantly includes flood defences. Our model (paper here behind paywall) does this, and a version of it is incorporated into Humber in a Box – with both of these we observe no flooding around the Estuary for natural tides with a 1 m sea level rise. This is because the defences are built to hold back the much higher water levels caused by storm surges.
Climate Central have been careful to refer to this shading as ‘risk’, and not direct inundation by the sea, but the use of blue and not making this explicit anywhere opens this up to mis-interpretation where ‘below sea level’ means ‘below the sea’. This is clearly happening – see this article in the Conversation, which made the BBC Sports pages, which used the app to suggest Everton’s new stadium “could end up underwater” in the future, or this article shared by the awesome Geomorphology Rules Facebook page, suggesting that coastal cities in the US will be “drowning in water”.
Sea level rise is going to increase the risk of flooding in coastal cities but they are not going to be under water. The risk does not emerge from the tidal water levels, which will most likely be contained by present defences, or those to be built in the future. However, the risk from storm surges will increase – the likelihood of events like December 5th 2013 is set it increase, both in strength and frequency, and with 1 m extra sea level in 100 years our defences will need to be updated to cope with the enhanced levels. This will take a lot of money, a lot of effort, a lot of political will, and this requires the buy in and support of the residents of these areas. Telling them, or suggesting, that they will be required to relocate will only achieve the opposite.
Sea level rise and the related flood risk is a complex issue and we can’t keep trying to find simple answers.
*For areas within the US, the method uses much higher resolution height data, and accounts for hydraulic connectivity by shading areas differently.
It’s almost time to go to Vienna again for the 2017 General Assembly of the European Geoscience Union, or #EGU17. It’s promising to be another awesome week of science, schnitzel, and the collection of cold bugs from around the globe. Incredibly, it will be my fifth EGU, and I have the pleasure of being joined by a couple of first-timers from my research group – I’m looking forward to showing them the ropes.
I have two oral abstracts and a poster at this year’s meeting –
LEMSI – The Landscape Evolution Model Sensitivity Investigation Christopher Skinner, Tom Coulthard, Wolfgang Schwanghart, and Marco Van De Wiel Wed, 26 Apr, 16:30–16:45, Room N1
This talk will show the results from our global sensitivity analysis of the CAESAR-Lisflood model. This has been a large piece of modelling work, and seems to have been going forever. Our computers have been busy for well over a year, so it’s great to get the results out there.
Influence of Rainfall Product on Hydrological and Sediment Outputs when Calibrating the STREAP Rainfall Generator for the CAESAR-Lisflood Landscape Evolution Model Christopher Skinner, Nadav Peleg, and Niall Quinn Wed, 26 Apr, 17:30–19:00, Hall X2
This poster has been selected by the session conveners as being of public interest. We’ve used a rainfall generator to produce ensembles of high spatial and temporal resolution rainfall, and used this to drive the CAESAR-Lisflood model – the results are very interesting indeed!
SeriousGeoGames – Geoscience Virtual Reality Experiences for Festival Settings Christopher Skinner Thu, 27 Apr, 10:45–11:00, Room L4/5
My final talk is something a little different, and will be summarising the SeriousGeoGames project the best I can in 12 minutes! I will show a little of Humber in a Box and Flash Flood!, and sum up their successes. For a preview, check out the brand new Flash Flood! YouTube Free60 –
Please do come find me and say “hi”, or “Oi, your research is rubbish”, and if you have something you think I should see, let me know.
No score and three years ago the storm surge of December 5th 2013 swept along the East Coast of England, and the Humber Estuary. There was flooding in Grimsby and Hull, and the port at Immingham was also badly flooded. One of the worst affected areas of the village of South Ferriby on the South Bank of the Humber, a few miles away from my home town of Barton-upon-Humber.
Since the event, my colleagues and I have done a lot of research and work based on this event. This post will briefly highlight some of this, how you can find out out more, and what we have planned for the future.
At the time I was working on a project called Dynamic Humber helping to develop the CAESAR-Lisflood model. Although the original intention was to use the model to predict long-term geomorphic trends in the Estuary, basically how we can expect the mud and sediments to move and change over time, the storm surge changed the focus to flood risk.
We published our work on this in early 2015 – see the academic paper here.
The modelling technique was developed for other areas by my colleague Jorge Ramirez, and this research can be seen here.
This research led to us using our modelling to help the Environment Agency, and this work is ongoing still. We are also seeking to further the work of simulating the sediment processes within the Estuary,and understanding how this might influence future flood risk.
One of the enduring images of the event was the breach it punched in the spit-like feature at mouth, Spurn Point. For nearly two centuries Spurn has essentially been a man-made structure, and its origins, true nature, and hence its future, are largely a mystery. Read more on this here.
In Easter 2015, a PhD project was begun to try and model the future of Spurn Point, merging a model of the North Sea with our model of Humber.
Finally, SeriousGeoGames emerged as a direct consequence of this event and our modelling of it. The first application, Humber in a Box, shows a simplified version of our Humber model in an attractive, immersive, virtual reality environment. By raising the sea level we can see how flood risk in the Estuary is likely to change over time.
If you have a Cardboard-style headset, try the YouTube demo here.
I’m currently working with some talented students from SEED Software on the second iteration of Humber in a Box, called TideBox. We hope to make the application more ‘self-led’ and more generic about estuaries and tide, making more accessible.
There are likely to be lots of exciting developments in 2017 and I will bring you them as soon as I can.
I anticipated it would be much harder and take much longer for me to make a full video demonstration of Humber in a Box. Actually, once I got the hang of things it was pretty straight forward. I even managed to record audio with my phone and add that to it too.
The video shows the basic functionality of Humber in the Box, demonstrating the graphics, as viewed in an immersive VR environment, and how the CAESAR-Lisflood model behind is calculating the tidal flows. The second part shows the sea level change function, increasing the water level by 1m in line with predictions for 100 years in the future. This is shown to not be as dramatic as other methods of showing the effects of future sea level rises, as it accounts for the flood defences in place (don’t forget, these will be significantly improved and raised also).
Part three gets into the hypothetical, looking at a 10m high tsunami wave travelling down the estuary. It is very dramatic, but really isn’t much of a possibility in the Humber. Finally, the video shows what would happen if all of the planet’s ice instantaneously melted, adding 74m to sea level.
You will, of course, need a Google Cardboard, or a VISR, or similar, to view this video in the way it is intended. Hopefully, before long I will be able to produce a 2D equivalent but I don’t have a version of Humber in a Box to achieve this yet. Hope you enjoy, and I really would appreciate any feedback or comments you might have.