Who's been sleeping in my porridge?

Christmas card

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:27:46 GMT

Submit my question to Avaaz to ask Gordon Brown about HFCs

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:18:59 GMT

I am trying to get a question about HFC regulation by the Montreal Protocol into the Avaaz crisis phonecall with Gordon Brown. It may help if others submit my question too.

HFC regulation could be taken over by the Montreal people. It would be a very similar job to regulating CFCs - a job which they have already successfully done. This would very likely work effective and efficiently, now. But the Montreal Protocol people want a clear statement from COP 15, and ministers and leaders are unlikely to be sufficiently well informed. Thrusting this at Gordon Brown's face today might actually make a genuine difference. So, if you could go to the Avaaz site and re-submit my question, I'd really appreciate it. And do forward to anyone else who cares and might bother.

More background. (if this is not open access I can email it to you).

----------------
My question
HFC regulation under the Montreal Protocol

With talks near deadlock, there remains one fairly easy option that would make a real difference.

Will you push for a strong statement from COP 15 that they would like the Montreal Protocol body to take over regulation of HFC emissions, under the amendment proposed by Micronesia and Mauritius?

Background: HFCs are highly potent greenhouse gases. They are also short-lived, so reducing their emissions would have immediate benefits. If unchecked, they may account for 45% of radiative forcing by 2050. The Montreal Protocol has been exceptionally effective at reducing emissions from CFCs - similar gases, produced by the same utilities. They have the expertise and experience. They are taking seriously the option of moving into HFC regulation. But they would prefer a strong statement from COP 15 supporting this action. Please work to provide one.

-------

Thank you

Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:36:26 GMT

When you joined me last we were waiting for a session to start. After three hours of waiting, they were finally ready to start - and thought it best to chuck all the NGO observers out first.

So, now, after a busy and interesting afternoon of side events, you join your correspondent again. This time, we are discussing Annex I countries' commitments going forward under the Kyoto protocol. (Annex I countries, as you will be aware, are those countries that were defined as being `developed' back when they Kyoto protocol was drawn up).

This is a `contact group' - which means it's in a smaller room. It also means, as far as I can see, that something actually gets done. I've been pottering into a few dull little working groups for the last week; I always seem to miss this one, the interesting one, as it has a tendency to be postponed after I think I've arranged my side events round it. None the less, I do think it's been meeting for the last week.

So we have a nice table of developed countries, and their commitment to emission reductions in the period 2013-2017. Let's have a look at it.

Nothing left to do but fill in the blanks? This key and vital blanks; the heart of the agreement.

You'll be glad to hear which column we're discussing, then. That's right. We're still discussing the first column. We genuinely just spent 20 minutes discussing the name change from `European Commission' to `European Union' - although Sweden (EU presidency) just emphasised that, for these purposes it was simply a name change.

You couldn't make this up.

Edit: Fail; I meant the name change from `European Community' to `European Union'. Yes, I do know the difference. Still, at least I didn't hold up an important international meeting for 20 minutes with my own unimportant confusion.

Sense about science and libel reform

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:45:37 GMT

Background on the Simon Singh / Chiropractic debacle.

Now:Sense About Science has joined forces with Index on Censorship and English PEN and their goal is to reach 100,000 or more signatories in order to help politicians appreciate the level of public support for libel reform.

The petition is here.

Give Gordan a call

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:55:45 GMT

Today's climate change action suggestion: call Gordan Brown. He wants you too; it might be faintly helpful.

-------

I should have been blogging about what's going on here, but to be honest, a lot of the time I have no idea. After an hour or so of plenary sessions in which absolutely nothing happens (as in, the conversation has not even moved on to Agenda item I), we decide our time is better spent in the interesting-sounding side events. There we sit through hours of detailed discussion of financing mechanisms, and emerge blinking, to hear that there has indeed been action and drama in the main discussions - but that nobody seems quite sure what. So we turn to the bbc news website.

Last week was clearly the chilled warm-up act. We would breeze through security in a mere 10 or 20 minutes, take a sip from our water bottles to prove they didn't contain explosives, and carry on into this magical wilderness of aircraft hangers. But this week, not only are the ministers turning up (Ed Milliband was hanging out a few metres behind me half an hour ago), but the number of NGO observers seems to have more than doubled. From tomorrow, access only to NGO observers with one of a limited number of special passes (Oxford are running a lottery for us). And we queued for an hour in the ~1 degree Danish morning to even get at security.

Rather worryingly, there were others in the queue around us with the pink badge of `Parties' to the conference. In other words, members of national negotiating teams.

Having made it in, this morning, we're hoping to sit in on some real action in the plenary session - 'open-ended informal consultations to address major issues requiring political guidance'. It was meant to start an hour and a half ago. We were early and have good seats, but now can't leave to forage for lunch - we'd never get back in. We're told there's a delay, but not why.

The answers we cannot find on the ground, of course, can be sought from the bbc - according to Richard Black it is a row over whether these issues should be debated in this forum. But I really hope the problem isn't that delegates are stuck in the queue outside.

Nonsense, but cheering

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:50:42 GMT

Feeling gloomy about the future for the planet, I search for hope.

How do I search for hope? The same way as I search for everything.

And what do I find? High quality disc brakes and bicycle parts.

That's got to be a good sign.

Australian Prime Minister in talking complete sense shocker.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:14:08 GMT

"Climate change skeptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives. They are radicals.

They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence."

There are days when I think working in it means I've intellectualised it, when I can merrily discuss the extreme uncertainty and unbounded utility loss. But not every day. Not today.

Beautiful picture

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:56:03 GMT

I want a big print of this:

The American Freedoms "mythbuster" from these people is quite interesting too - for the weird stuff about importing efficient cars.

I am not indigenous[0]

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:56:58 GMT

It's true. A huge wave of illiterate immigration has swept across Britain, taking the wealth and jobs and destroying the culture. The indigenous peoples - those that remain - have been pushed to the edges. Their descendants shall not inherit this land. Perhaps one can say something sensible about comparing their plight to that of the Aborigines.

This happened 1500 years ago.

There are many reasons to despise and attack the BNP. This one is not the most important. Even if it were true that the 'indigenous' people of Britain were the ones now having to make friends with immigrants, that would not excuse their policies. But I am a pedant, and I wish to attack them on their profound and blithering ignorance of British history.[1]

Anglo-Saxons are not indigenous to this land. To be indigenous means to have 'ancestral connections to place prior to formally recorded (i.e. written) history'[2]. The Anglo-Saxans came, as is well-recorded by history, in 500 AD. The native Celts were driven to Wales, Scotland and the South-West. Some historians have suggested that this was a cultural conquest, rather than mass immigration. Nick Griffen certainly seems to think so.[3], but (I linked to this already above but would like to emphasise what it says), genetic evidence proves otherwise.[4]

By restricting membership to "indigenous Caucasian" people, the BNP's constitution is not merely illegal. It also nullifies the membership of most of its 'members'.[5]

If you want to lead a fascistic party based on nationalism and history, it is not asking much you learn a bit of the history you claim to represent. This land is not isolated or culturally pure; it has always been subject to waves of immigration. It always will be. To argue otherwise is to deny our history.

[0] Though my non-indigenous status is a little more complicated than that of the Angles and the Saxons; my name is Norman (so Scandinavian, via France) and I also have Parsee descent (Persian, via India). Not necessarily relevant, but meant to illustrate my final point: this is not (just) mere pedantry about the meaning of the word 'indigenous'; our history is a series of flows of peoples.

[1] Though there is a point here that I believe is deeply important: the distinction between debate and points of view, and truths versus untruths. These are confused frequently in discussions of climate change. The climate chapter of Superfreakonomics is terrible not because it presents a one-sided point of view, biased but with some validity; it is terrible because it states as fact many things that simply are not true. And yes, I have read it. And no, I am not intending to blog about it myself.

[2] Yeah, Wikipedia. Tell you what, let's look in my Collins Gem instead. Ooh, this one says 'born in or natural to a country'! Well, we can offer the BNP that one as an alternative definition; bet they'll love that. But that's the definition of the word in general; for its specific usage to refer to peoples, I believe wikipedia is completely correct in saying that it refers to those who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection

[3] "The indigenous people of these islands, the English, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the people who have been here for the last 17,000 years, are the aboriginals. The majority of British people are descended from people who have been here since time immemorial". Source: quoted in the Telegraph. No, Nick, that is true of the Scots, Irish and Welsh, but is not true of the English.

[4] "Assuming no background migration, the 95% confidence interval of the proportion F of the Central English population derived from an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event is 65%–100%". One gets different numbers if one assumes different levels of background migration from Frisia to central England; one feels we would have noticed a steady maintained drip of immigration from Frisia over the last 1500 years. I recommend you flick through this extremely interesting paper.

[5] Including, I suspect, Nick Griffen himself; I cannot be bothered to google his ancestry but the clips I've heard of him on the radio do not sound especially Celtic.

Dentist

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:40:01 GMT

When I was little, I couldn't quite understand why people hated going to the dentist, why they made such a fuss about it.

Well, late developer in many ways.

Climate change: attribution and consensus

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:44:52 GMT

Following an argument in the pub, I was challenged to show that there is a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and to show how scientists go about attributing it, my only tool being peer-reviewed science. Having written the response, I may as well post it here too. Any additions / clarifications / corrections warmly welcomed! I don't claim to any expertise in climate science.

0. The fact that the earth is in fact warming was not the subject of the original debate, so I haven't put time into showing that using only peer-reviewed science, referring mainly to the blog Real Climate (climate science from climate scientists) to explain the hockey stick debate, give a series of pictures of the temperature record (constructed from a wide variety of sources, and discussed here in the context of the "tree ring" debate, and the hypothesised "warming pause" since 1998.

However, I have got a couple of nice papers to cite, on the question of global cooling since 1998: Murphy et al (2009): the majority of global warming goes into heating the oceans, not the land, so it is the oceanic temperature record one should look at. They only go up to 2003, cause that's the dataset they have, but 2003-2008 is covered by a different dataset in Schuckmann et al (2009). In case you can't open that, a key picture is reproduced here. See any global cooling?

1. The degree of scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

The IPCC is written by hundreds of scientists, every part of it requiring consensus among contributers. Its conclusions have been endorsed by many national scientific societies, here and here. Numerous specialist institutions have also supported the consensus position.

But those aren't peer-reviewed scientific papers, and anyway, what of individual scientists publishing contrary positions and evidence? The key paper on this subject is Oreskes (2004). She used a keyword search in a database of scientific articles, to find about 1000 papers on "global climate change". She read all the abstracts of all peer-reviewed papers with this keyword, published between 1993 and 2003. She found 75% implicitly or explicitly supported the consensus view, that anthropogenic climate change is taking place. She found 25% dealt with methods or with paleoclimate analysis - ie useful tools, but neither supporting nor rejecting the consensus view. She found absolutely no peer reviewed scientific papers rejecting the consensus view. Note that this study did not cover all science in the area at that time, but it did cover about 10% of it, which is a pretty good sample.

[This study was then questioned by Ben Peiser, who attempted the same search and claimed to find 34 abstracts rejecting the consensus view. His article was never published, and if you look at the abstracts, you can see why: it simply isn't true that most of them reject the consensus view. He has in fact himself retracted, and conceded that only one of the studies rejects the consensus view: see also here . The "study" he stands by is not peer-review science, but an "annual report" by the AAPG. If you're interested, AAPG stands for American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Yes, that's right; in the best attempt to undermine Oreskes' finding, the only piece of evidence that was found was a statement of position by the petroleum industry.]

2. Attributing climate chage: Note that complete, unanswerable proof is a property of mathematics, not science; were we to require this standard of any other discipline we would be stuck with Decartes.

The IPCC (AR4, WG1, Chapter 9) provides a good summary of the problem and process[1].

Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to the assumed cause. ‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings’ (IPCC, 2001).

Two good recent examples of this process are Lean and Rind (2008) and Allen et al (2006).

Lean and Rind take an empirical approach, using datasets on temperature for the last ~150 years, and regressing them against datasets on natural factors that give rise to temperature change, as well as anthropogenic forcings. They find:

Only by associating the surface warming with anthropogenic forcing is it possible to reconstruct the observed temperature anomalies. [....] In the 100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends produced by all three natural influences are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature trend reported by IPCC."

Allen et al survey many recent climate models and the extent to which they match the data, with and without the anthropogenic element. They find "hypothesis of no anthropogenic influence can be rejected at the 5% level in almost all cases."

3. What is the science, then? Starting from the beginning:

The greenhouse effect was first noted and studied by Tyndall, around 150 years ago. I provide only the wikipedia link as I'm not aware of any controversy at all over his findings: various constituents of the atmosphere, most notably water vapour, followed by carbon dioxide, trap radiation. The extent and spectrum of these effects has been verified in labs; this is the easy stuff.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 278 ppm (pre-industrial levels) to 385 ppm (now). The onus is actually on those who claim that this has not had an impact on the global mean temperature, to explain why a 38% increase in a well-understood and studied greenhouse gas would not have such an effect.
If the global warming consensus is correct, the Earth should be absorbing more solar radiation than it is emitting. Here we turn to Hansen et al (2005). This paper has been referred to as the "smoking gun" for anthropogenic global warming. (One of the coauthors writes for the realclimate.org blog; he has provided a layman's explanation of the paper).
The greenhouse gas hypothesis to explain global warming implies one should also see cooling of the stratosphere (less heat going out through it). No alternative explanations of the current warming trend predict this; they predict the opposite. Cooling of the stratosphere has indeed been observed, and attributed to anthropogenic factors, by Ramaswamy et al (2006).
On the other hand, models predict the troposphere (lower atmosphere) is predicted to warm at ~1.5 times the rate of surface warming. This has been observed in Fu et al (2004)

Other ways in which model predictions have been verified (I do not even begin to pretend that this list is complete):

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters: see Cane et al (1997). (See point 0. for more about ocean warming and more recent papers).
Mount Pinatubo's eruption provided an opportunity to test model hypotheses against data, and hypotheses were shown to by highly robust: Soden et al (2002)
Models predict uneven surface warming, accentuated over the polar regions; this is observed in the data

Another nice summary of the CO2 global warming process is given in realclimate.org (again, fully referenced).

Appendix: The blogs without which I would have no idea where to start are

RealClimate.org

A few things, ill-considered and in particular their "How to talk to a climate skeptic" guide (which is vetted by the professionals at realclimate.org
Climate progress

[1] Actually, IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 is the right place to go to to answer the question. But in the original argument, the other person rejected anything the IPCC says as it is a "political organisation". Refuting this (as far as I am aware, the only political appointment is the IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, who was recommended by... George W. Bush) is not the subject of this Sunday afternoon. So I stick to peer-reviewed science in scientific journals.

Edit: I should note: these are a tiny tiny selection of the articles attributing AGW. I'm not claiming that they're either the best or a representative sample. Nor am I intending to compile such a sample. This is just a selection of some of the key points that are made on this issue (no doubt I have missed many), with papers in decent journals that clearly illustrate the points.

Edit: Excellent page just on the consensus.

Climate change legislation in the US Senate

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:42:52 GMT

just got a lot more likely (Kerry now has an ally from the Republicans to build a bipartisan agreement).

Joy update

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:33:35 GMT

This week, I have mostly been delighted by:

being at home with Duncan;
Toni being back in the country (not that I've seen her yet, but still);
discovering JabRef, which reads my bibtex file as a database, allows "grouping" and keyword searching, ties your references to where the file is stored on your hard disk so you can open the file from the reference, and makes you tea;
gathering many exciting new papers I want to read and sticking them in my new database (with keywords and group labeling so I'll actually remember to read them);
having an absurdly large new office with a big window AND having a monitor / keyboard / mouse to plug into my laptop;
the descriptions of the lectures I'm doing this year.

... but I think I'll spare you the "lecture course title... squeee!" part of this post, and get on with the thing I'm meant to get done this week, which I'm scared of...

Copenhagen

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:32:50 GMT

I'm going to Copenhagen!!!!!

Edit: WITH antoniabaker!!!!!!!! So much joy!!!

A few climate change action points

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:02:41 GMT

Note: I'm sorry I'm posting again before replying to comments. Thing is that I can access dreamwidth from the office, so I can post, but I can't access livejournal, so I can't reply to comments there.

I was asked to pass on some specific climate change action ideas. The trouble with asking me to do this, is that if I let myself start I'll never stop. So this post is a one-off; if you want regular action requests, sign up to one of the mailling lists below.

Butanyway. Here are some things you can do right now.

Read the climate safety report that I've already blathered on about.
Forward it to your MP[1], or any other people with power and influence who occur to you. (You may well say "what good will that do?" - my point is that, as far as I can see, few in public life get the scale of the problem. This is an unusually clear document for communicating that. If everyone with any power or influence got it, we'd have a pretty damn good chance of fixing things. And MPs do (or should, esp at the mo with everyone hating them) actually respond to their constituents concerns and questions; "Please read this nice clear readable report" is a much easier request than "please try to fix this issue which is well outside of your remit".

Moving on to new instructions....

Sign up to 10:10 UK. (If you don't see why you should cut your personal emissions by 10% next year, read the climate safety report. If you don't see how you can - have a look at the website. It's probably a lot easier than you think.) (Though actually, everyone in the UK aiming to cut their own personal emissions by 10% has interesting economic consequences; as with all things, it's a bit more complicated than it may appear. This is very interesting and I'll blog about it properly another time.)
And more significantly, get your workplace or your college to sign up too.

Now, next week is pretty significant, especially if you happen to be in New York, as there's a big UN conference on climate change, and lots of events throughout the city and the world.

Avaaz are coordinating a global climate wake-up call. Join a local flashmob! Be part of an internationally coordinated series of flashmobs! Ftw!
Try to see The Age of Stupid on 21st or 22nd September (the world's first simultaneous global broadcast that needs translating! The Live Aid of our generation! This thing is also pretty awesome).
If you're in New York, be part of a human sculpture global countdown jobby in Central Park on Sunday. (If you're not, try to spot me in the pictures.[2])

And finally, if you want regular instructions on action points, you could join the email list of one (or all) of:

Avaaz - not just climate change but more general human rights[3]. Excellent, regular calls to sign petitions or make small donations on rapid-response campaigns. Very well footnoted explanations of the issues. They reckon they have a lot of influence and successes; have a look at the website to see if you're convinced.
350.org - much much more specific, calling not just for climate change action, but for the specific long-term target of atmospheric concentrations 350ppm CO2 (which we have already passed). This target has been endorsed by Al Gore, the head of the IPCC and Professor Lord Nicholas Stern[4], as well as the association of small island states and the association of least developed countries - over 100 sovereign states in all. (The precise target is less important than the "no really, we need really really robust action message though, if you ask me).
Greenpeace. They're Greenpeace. They send out action emails. Some of these involve writing to your MP etc in ways on points that are not covered by 350 and Avaaz.
TckTckTck. I'm not actually on this one. If anyone joins, let me know what you think.
100 months - this being the amount of time we have left to save the climate (or rather had - they're down to 87 now). I don't think their emails and action points are as good as those from avaaz or 350.org, but they do some different things I suppose.

Right! Go forth and do things! Should you feel so inclined!

[1] Unless you live in Cambridge! Perdrix gets many virtual biscuits for having already sent it on - and got a response that he's reading it!
[2] Then grind your teeth that I get to be in New York and still lecture everyone else about climate change. I will do the offsetting post another day; also you will eventually get told about the papers I've been writing here and see whether you think they make up for my wickedness.
[3] Yes, climate change is very much a human rights issue. As well as the-rest-of-biodiversity's right.
[4] Yeah, I just write it that way cause I love the "Professor Lord" thing.

Essential climate reading. And: do you want reading lists?

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:23:25 GMT

There are people in this blogosphere gizmo, who post regular reading lists of interesting articles they've come across. They're generally on their own topic of interest / passion / mild obsession, from feminism to fanfic. You may be such a person yourself.

This is a habit I've not copied[1], largely because I seldom read other people's reading lists, so why should I expect anyone to read mine? Butontheotherhand,

a lot of you chaps are actually interested in the climate, but read about it less obsessively than I do
when I do tell people about stuff, they do a good impression of being genuinely interested
if you're not interested, if you don't think it need affect you, er, you're wrong.

And, in any case, I should not ask my MP[2] to do anything I wouldn't ask my friends to do. So, just this one, I will say: please read this report.

We knew we were screwed before IPCC 4th Assessment Report[3]. Then AR4 came along, and we saw that we were really screwed. But since, what's been happening in the Arctic is far, far worse than the hundreds of scientists who contributed to AR4 predicted. And - well, to quote the report's own opening quote:

“Arctic ice second-lowest ever; polar bears affected”
Reuters Headline, August 27th 2008
“What happens in the Arctic actually does not stay in the Arctic.”
Richard Spinrad, NOAA.

It's not a peer-reviewed report, but it draws heavily on peer-reviewed science and the views of many respected scientists. Its precise policy recommendation (that we should aim to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouses gases way below where we are now, at 300ppm) is, erm, contentious - but the descriptions of recent events and what they actually mean is excellent and clear. Maybe I'm only really really asking you to read the science part. That's only 13 pages long.

If you cannot bring yourself to stagger through that much, at least you could read the excellent 2 page summary?

A lovely little WWF film makes some of the same points; I will now have another go at embedded media:

Soanyway. Yes. I seem to have blathered on rather about that, but the other point I wanted to make was: if I were to sometimes post lists (without blather) of good recent articles / blog posts etc on climate change, would you have any interest?

[1] Drawing everyone's attention to the latest exciting exploits of Lord Adonis does not count. And is seldom actually the most interesting thing I could draw people's attention to; I just do that when I need to squee, which is different.
[2] Not that I'm suggesting anyone else might do the same. Oh no. Though actually, if you live in Oxford East, might be best not? I don't want him to simply end up hating me.
[3] I'm not suggesting you read that. It's thousands of pages long. That's just a link, as part of my attempts to get in the habit of providing citations. And unnecessary numbers of footnotes.

Edit: Sorry, did that come across as being disparaging about people who do posts reading lists? That wasn't what I meant in the slightest; I know a lot of people get a lot out of reading each others, and the whole thing is part of the general joy of this generation. I just don't read them myself (there really is a lot about climate to read on the internets, and apparently I'm not actually meant to spend my entire life on them). So I don't want to assume anyone would read mine. And I don't want to bother, if nobody would. Yes. Erm. Blather blather.

Age of Stupid

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:25:02 GMT

"The Age of Stupid" gets released worldwide on Monday and Tuesday. The whole concept is pretty exciting - it's a "crowd-funded" film, and together with the film you'll get live images from around the world and the solar powered "green carpet" tent in New York. (Which I'm not going to, it's only for competition winners, but I am going to another cinema in NY).

Only, it was already released in the UK, so if that's where you are, you don't get cinema screenings. But you can still watch the live event stuffs on the internet - says how on the website.

Anyway, that was all a preamble to what is actually an experiment: can I successfully embed a flash widget in my blog? But if you're not in the UK, consider yourselves persuaded to go and see it.

Edit: and the answer appears to be "no, dreamwidth strips out the code". I will go home and see if I can do it in livejournal.

Bye bye internet shopping

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:15:32 GMT

And many other things too, of course, but that was the first thought I had when I read of actual progress in quantum computing. Damn. Last time I noticed the world of quantum computing, which was admittedly many many moons ago, they were having trouble keeping their ion in their ion trap for more than a day or two.

Is cryptography based on elliptic curves a little more impervious, does anyone know? Or should we all really have thought of putting a lot more money into number theory while we blithley funded the quantum computing labs?[1]

[I am actually very ignorant on much of this stuff. Anyone care to elucidate? On the impacts of effective quantum computing, I mean; I know in principal what it is.]

[1] I know there's a lot of money goes into GCHQ et al and no doubt they have solutions and will be fine - but will somebody think of the internets?!

Am a moron.

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:09:44 GMT

What's the point of a "mathematician" trying to inject some good, reasoned analysis into the carbon tax / cap and trade debate, if she messes up such elementary bits of maths?

... move on, nothing to see here. Am just so cross with self I have to vent.

See the little proto-economist!

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:30:50 GMT

I gave a seminar in the research I've been doing here. There was a good discussion afterwards. People have complemented me on how good it was since.

*does little happy dance*

Huh? Yeah, yeah, I've given plenty of seminars before. But: I've not given an economics seminar before (nor have I ever used a data projector before. Really). And I'm generally worse at seminars to a wider audience base (such as this one). And this was the best seminar I've ever given. Much better than any of those maths ones. Though they were, if we're being honest, pretty dreadful. Maybe my point is that this is the first half-decent seminar I've given.

Maths software help

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:41:51 GMT

I need to calculate some very fiddly integrals. I think the time has come for some software to do this for me.

But this institute does not have much - I think there's one on-site Matlab license, or something. Will be a pain.

However I am running ubuntu on my merry little laptop and can apt-get anything I like. What should I use? Friendly for first-time users more a priority than being something worth learning properly and using forever.

Thank you, oh internets.

Edit: have octave and qtoctave. Am apparently too lazy to learn how to use them. Making tea instead. Suggestions for easier software warmly welcomed. Lalala.

Edit 2: Thank you all for many awesome and helpful suggestions. With their help, I have established that no analytical solution is known to exist for the integral I need to do. However, a numerical approximation would also be good. Online graphical calculators, anyone?

I have the measure of Manhattan

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:30:48 GMT

It's not actually that far from one end to the other. It just looks further in the haze.

Also, entire mango onnastick ftw!!

BrooklynBike

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:09:43 GMT

I just bought a bike for New York.

I didn't like not having a bike. It isn't me.

Also, there are a lot of bikes around in this bit of Brooklyn. It's a normal thing to do. And there are a lot of nice on- and off-road cycle paths.

Yeah, I also think I may be a bit mad. But I was getting a bit homesick so it was the only sensible thing to do.

More Lord Adonis love

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:08:51 GMT

Why can't we have more Nuffield fellows in the cabinet?

What with him and Ed Miliband, I'm becoming very sorry that this government hasn't more than another year in power.

Ha! The best response to climate change deniers

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:03:16 GMT

is to take the piss out of them!

It doesn't stop them existing, being powerful, being wrong; being powerfully wrong. But it does cheer us all up.

Right, back to proving that cap and trade is awesome...