go to wordle.net to make your own... thanks wordle.
Apologies to my reader for the substantial lag in posting. This will be remedied when I have more time. Honest.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Wordle of Elsie Smith
go to wordle.net to make your own... thanks wordle.
Apologies to my reader for the substantial lag in posting. This will be remedied when I have more time. Honest.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Dengue fever
Dengue is a mosquito-borne virus which affects some 50 million people a year. A report by the BBC blames climate change for the growth in Dengue:
"Some scientists say climate change is to blame, with rising temperatures and increased rainfall boosting the number of mosquitoes, which carry the disease."
However, another piece by the BBC says it is overpopulation, slum conditions and air travel that are to blame. A much more plausible explanation. It is far too easy to point the finger at climate change without a shred of evidence. However.
It was actually a third BBC report on Dengue that I was searching for when I came across those two articles. Entitled 'Lame' mosquitoes to stop Dengue, the piece explains how a team of scientists has genetically-engineered male mosquitoes to carry a dominant gene that prevents flight muscles from forming in the female. Original article: [Female-specific flightless phenotype for mosquito control, Fu et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 22nd 2010] (free access to pdf of article)
Now, will it work? Will releasing sterile males into an outbreak population (or an endemic one) reduce the numbers of mosquitoes? At first sight, the plan seems flawless. We can release thousands of males (they don't bite, remember - only the females do), each carrying a little time bomb - a genetic one. Each female that mates with one of our males will produce two kinds of offspring: males with the inhibitor gene but that are unaffected by it, and females that can't fly, and thus can't feed, or reproduce. What's not to like?
The plan does have potential, but it is most likely of short-term effect. Natural selection is a wonderful thing, and there will be very strong selection against our males (because they produce half as many viable offspring as a non-modified male). The question really is whether such hi-tech solutions are really of any point, when cheap environmental solutions could be put in place much more easily and with permament effect.
For instance, putting lids on water butts might be an effective way to reduce standing water for mosquitoes to breed in (if this sounds naive, it shouldn't - Dengue is present in built-up areas, including relatively affluent ones). Clearly such an approach is laughable where waterways are little more than open sewers... but building new sewage systems not only combats Dengue, it combats a bunch of other stuff too.
"Some scientists say climate change is to blame, with rising temperatures and increased rainfall boosting the number of mosquitoes, which carry the disease."
However, another piece by the BBC says it is overpopulation, slum conditions and air travel that are to blame. A much more plausible explanation. It is far too easy to point the finger at climate change without a shred of evidence. However.
It was actually a third BBC report on Dengue that I was searching for when I came across those two articles. Entitled 'Lame' mosquitoes to stop Dengue, the piece explains how a team of scientists has genetically-engineered male mosquitoes to carry a dominant gene that prevents flight muscles from forming in the female. Original article: [Female-specific flightless phenotype for mosquito control, Fu et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 22nd 2010] (free access to pdf of article)
Now, will it work? Will releasing sterile males into an outbreak population (or an endemic one) reduce the numbers of mosquitoes? At first sight, the plan seems flawless. We can release thousands of males (they don't bite, remember - only the females do), each carrying a little time bomb - a genetic one. Each female that mates with one of our males will produce two kinds of offspring: males with the inhibitor gene but that are unaffected by it, and females that can't fly, and thus can't feed, or reproduce. What's not to like?
The plan does have potential, but it is most likely of short-term effect. Natural selection is a wonderful thing, and there will be very strong selection against our males (because they produce half as many viable offspring as a non-modified male). The question really is whether such hi-tech solutions are really of any point, when cheap environmental solutions could be put in place much more easily and with permament effect.
For instance, putting lids on water butts might be an effective way to reduce standing water for mosquitoes to breed in (if this sounds naive, it shouldn't - Dengue is present in built-up areas, including relatively affluent ones). Clearly such an approach is laughable where waterways are little more than open sewers... but building new sewage systems not only combats Dengue, it combats a bunch of other stuff too.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Freerice results
Results from recent Freerice experiment, where I "donated" 1000 grains of rice a day for ten days to see whether my vocabulary improved. Here are the best levels I obtained in the sequence:
Thursday 21st 51
Friday 52
Saturday not tested
Sunday 50
Monday 51
Tuesday 52
Wednesday 53
Thursday 51
Friday 51
Saturday 51
Sunday 52
No obvious trend. Have I consciously learned any new words? The only two that spring to mind after a fallow period are:
i)Cenote (a sinkhole)
ii)Ceruse (skin whitener containing lead)
It is tricky to improve your level, even if you know most of the words - every time you get one wrong, you drop down a level. To go UP a level, you have to get three right in a row. So if reaching level fifty you get three right, you go to level 51. Two more correct and you're still on 51. One wrong and you're back to 50. So, in essence, you need to get more than 5 right for every 1 wrong. Quite tricky.
My next challenge will be to donate one day's worth of rice (20,000 grains). That will be 2,000 correct answers (I usually do 100). Not sure when this will happen but it will, soon.
Thursday 21st 51
Friday 52
Saturday not tested
Sunday 50
Monday 51
Tuesday 52
Wednesday 53
Thursday 51
Friday 51
Saturday 51
Sunday 52
No obvious trend. Have I consciously learned any new words? The only two that spring to mind after a fallow period are:
i)Cenote (a sinkhole)
ii)Ceruse (skin whitener containing lead)
It is tricky to improve your level, even if you know most of the words - every time you get one wrong, you drop down a level. To go UP a level, you have to get three right in a row. So if reaching level fifty you get three right, you go to level 51. Two more correct and you're still on 51. One wrong and you're back to 50. So, in essence, you need to get more than 5 right for every 1 wrong. Quite tricky.
My next challenge will be to donate one day's worth of rice (20,000 grains). That will be 2,000 correct answers (I usually do 100). Not sure when this will happen but it will, soon.
Climate scepticism on the rise
Last week the BBC reported that climate scepticism is on the rise. Between November and February there was a 10% increase in the proportion of people who don't believe in global warming, from 15% to 25%. Now, why?
i) What we might call the no-brainer. We've had a cold winter in the UK. Therefore there is no global warming. With logic like that, it's no wonder we're still the world's greatest Empire.
ii) The "Climategate" emails. Why does every scandal have to have the word "gate" appended? I know, it's because of the Watergate building. Well maybe we should call it the "WaterClimate" conspiracy for a bit of variation. Was there anything to disprove global warming in these emails? Not really. Enough to paint the scientists concerned as human beings, i.e. not the ivory-tower ascetics we might have suspected they were. You didn't expect that? H'mm. Steve McIntyre's blog has good coverage of these (though some would say it is not entirely neutral). You can get the raw emails here.
iii) The Himalayan glaciers. The Internation Panel picked up on a story that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 and put it in their state-of-the-end-of-the-world report. Trouble was, the story had no basis in science. Whoops.
iv) The slow drip of confusing allegations by sceptics. "The Proxy Data are wrong." "The Hockey Stick is an invention." "Carbon dioxide is already saturating in the atmosphere." "Use a trick to hide the decline." (the latter from the Climategate emails). (See ClimateAudit again for these; RealClimate has the orthodox view.
v)The UEA, host of the Hadley Centre (Climate Research place), found to have dealt wrongly with the Freedom of Information requests by sceptics searching for a global conspiracy.
Well, that's quite a bit of negative press. To address item i) alone for now. You know the problem? It's simple. If we have a mild winter, experts are wheeled out who say (or are made to say by journalists) things like "we'll expect more weather like this with climate change." Ditto summer heatwaves. They're due to global warming, as are storm surges and rainstorms leading to floods.
Then we have unseasonally cold weather, the folks in the public put two and two together and work out that the same causal attachment should be made between climate and all spells of weather, not just the ones that fit the picture that the media now expect. All of which is nonsense, but natural.
So next time there is a heatwave, listen out for any voices mentioning global warming. There will be some.
The other items on the list will have to wait for another day, but I will address them all in time.
i) What we might call the no-brainer. We've had a cold winter in the UK. Therefore there is no global warming. With logic like that, it's no wonder we're still the world's greatest Empire.
ii) The "Climategate" emails. Why does every scandal have to have the word "gate" appended? I know, it's because of the Watergate building. Well maybe we should call it the "WaterClimate" conspiracy for a bit of variation. Was there anything to disprove global warming in these emails? Not really. Enough to paint the scientists concerned as human beings, i.e. not the ivory-tower ascetics we might have suspected they were. You didn't expect that? H'mm. Steve McIntyre's blog has good coverage of these (though some would say it is not entirely neutral). You can get the raw emails here.
iii) The Himalayan glaciers. The Internation Panel picked up on a story that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 and put it in their state-of-the-end-of-the-world report. Trouble was, the story had no basis in science. Whoops.
iv) The slow drip of confusing allegations by sceptics. "The Proxy Data are wrong." "The Hockey Stick is an invention." "Carbon dioxide is already saturating in the atmosphere." "Use a trick to hide the decline." (the latter from the Climategate emails). (See ClimateAudit again for these; RealClimate has the orthodox view.
v)The UEA, host of the Hadley Centre (Climate Research place), found to have dealt wrongly with the Freedom of Information requests by sceptics searching for a global conspiracy.
Well, that's quite a bit of negative press. To address item i) alone for now. You know the problem? It's simple. If we have a mild winter, experts are wheeled out who say (or are made to say by journalists) things like "we'll expect more weather like this with climate change." Ditto summer heatwaves. They're due to global warming, as are storm surges and rainstorms leading to floods.
Then we have unseasonally cold weather, the folks in the public put two and two together and work out that the same causal attachment should be made between climate and all spells of weather, not just the ones that fit the picture that the media now expect. All of which is nonsense, but natural.
So next time there is a heatwave, listen out for any voices mentioning global warming. There will be some.
The other items on the list will have to wait for another day, but I will address them all in time.
Friday, 29 January 2010
Per capita carbon emissions vs GDP
One thing that has always concerned me about climate change is the way the government’s approach has whiffed sharply of hypocrisy. In the UK, we are going to have new runways, we are said to need 240,000 new homes a year, and car manufacturing is trumpeted as Definitely Good for the UK. On the other hand, Govt. is always talking about CO2 like the world will end if we dare to so much as breathe out. So, which is it to be? Go after CO2 emissions or let the economy grow? Politics seems to be an attempt to dodge a falling rock by moving both directions at once. It’s impossible. You have to jump one way or the other. Which way they jump, I have never really minded (I just would like the Grey Suits to be consistent – either consistently determined to grow the economy come what may, or consistently determined to cut CO2. Then we can vote according to which view we like. Just be honest, guys.)
What of the “low carbon economy”? Can there be such a thing? Can growth come at the same time as CO2 is cut?
I’ve just compiled some data to find out. It turns out, if history is a predictor of any sort, that growth at the same time as cutting CO2 is impossible.
The graph (click it for clearer version) shows year-on-year changes in per-capita CO2 emissions against the deviation in global growth from what the IMF term the global recession level, i.e. 3%. Which way you should plot this could be argued. Perhaps it should be the other way around, with CO2 emissions driving GDP growth. In either case, the line is the same, as is the conclusion: When the global economy grows, per-capita emissions grow. “Sustainable Growth” is a politician’s myth. We can have Sustainability or Growth. Not both.
One caveat: there is a possibility that some of the two data sets actually have the same source. For example, some carbon dioxide emissions might be estimated by economic activity. This shouldn’t be a problem, because the raw number for CO2 (its atmospheric concentration) is well known, and population size ought to be independent of GDP. Ought to be. I just don’t know exactly how the data was produced.
Data sources:
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre
IMF economic database
What of the “low carbon economy”? Can there be such a thing? Can growth come at the same time as CO2 is cut?
I’ve just compiled some data to find out. It turns out, if history is a predictor of any sort, that growth at the same time as cutting CO2 is impossible.
The graph (click it for clearer version) shows year-on-year changes in per-capita CO2 emissions against the deviation in global growth from what the IMF term the global recession level, i.e. 3%. Which way you should plot this could be argued. Perhaps it should be the other way around, with CO2 emissions driving GDP growth. In either case, the line is the same, as is the conclusion: When the global economy grows, per-capita emissions grow. “Sustainable Growth” is a politician’s myth. We can have Sustainability or Growth. Not both.
One caveat: there is a possibility that some of the two data sets actually have the same source. For example, some carbon dioxide emissions might be estimated by economic activity. This shouldn’t be a problem, because the raw number for CO2 (its atmospheric concentration) is well known, and population size ought to be independent of GDP. Ought to be. I just don’t know exactly how the data was produced.
Data sources:
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre
IMF economic database
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Baby names, Character names
A name is an important attribute. Not just for people, but for characters in stories too. When writing fantasy, there are a number of naming options available to a writer. Some of these:
(i) Invent one. The perils of this approach are many. Firstly it may sound stupid. Secondly it may be unreadable. Take some of the names in Iain "M." Banks' The Player of Games: Jernau Morat Gurgeh and Yay Meristinoux. Then we have a machine called Mawhrin-Skel and one called Chamlis Amalk-ney. Yark! (Terry Pratchett satirizes this approach in The Colour of Magic with Lio!rt and K!sdra (or somethings similar)).
(ii) Use a fashionable one. Peril: the possibility of becoming dated. Not a serious consideration for aspiring writers, I suggest. But I wouldn't advise using Olivia or Grace or Ruby, names that are extremely popular today but may not always be so.
(iii) Use a popular classic. Jack will still be popular in one hundred years. It just will. Peril: a sort of blandness, I suppose. A smudging across of all the other Jacks your reader has read about.
(iv) Use a rare classic. In His Dark Materials, Pullman uses the names Will and Lyra. The peril here is of the name potentially being seen as old-fashioned. On the other hand, there is the possibility of setting a trend.
An excellent resource for names is at the Office of National Statistics, where you can download spreadsheets of boys' and girls' names for 2008. The only thing you don't get is any names that were used fewer than three times (to protect confidentiality, apparently). There are more than 7,000 girls' names here and more than 5,000 boys'. So if you're having a baby or naming a character, this is a good place to look. (75 girls were named Lyra in 2008, and there were 202 Wills.)
I already have a name for the main character of my next MS: Edison (which I now see was used 22 times in 2008). But I need a name for the second character, a girl...
(i) Invent one. The perils of this approach are many. Firstly it may sound stupid. Secondly it may be unreadable. Take some of the names in Iain "M." Banks' The Player of Games: Jernau Morat Gurgeh and Yay Meristinoux. Then we have a machine called Mawhrin-Skel and one called Chamlis Amalk-ney. Yark! (Terry Pratchett satirizes this approach in The Colour of Magic with Lio!rt and K!sdra (or somethings similar)).
(ii) Use a fashionable one. Peril: the possibility of becoming dated. Not a serious consideration for aspiring writers, I suggest. But I wouldn't advise using Olivia or Grace or Ruby, names that are extremely popular today but may not always be so.
(iii) Use a popular classic. Jack will still be popular in one hundred years. It just will. Peril: a sort of blandness, I suppose. A smudging across of all the other Jacks your reader has read about.
(iv) Use a rare classic. In His Dark Materials, Pullman uses the names Will and Lyra. The peril here is of the name potentially being seen as old-fashioned. On the other hand, there is the possibility of setting a trend.
An excellent resource for names is at the Office of National Statistics, where you can download spreadsheets of boys' and girls' names for 2008. The only thing you don't get is any names that were used fewer than three times (to protect confidentiality, apparently). There are more than 7,000 girls' names here and more than 5,000 boys'. So if you're having a baby or naming a character, this is a good place to look. (75 girls were named Lyra in 2008, and there were 202 Wills.)
I already have a name for the main character of my next MS: Edison (which I now see was used 22 times in 2008). But I need a name for the second character, a girl...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)