The things one can do with light – and messages in the dark [The Weizmann Wave]

 

 

One day in the future, we may be treating our ailments with microbiotic combinations designed specifically to correct imbalances in our personal microbiomes. We’ll bring our prescriptions on rewritable paper and pay using shimmery optical chips embedded in our cell phone cases or maybe our jewelry. Or we’ll be waiting in our doctor’s office for a simple test of our microbiogenome to see if a light-based nanoparticle delivery treatment is working, while watching iridescent optical displays that change as we move…

These future scenarios (and many more) are all imaginary, but they are imminently feasible, given today’s new stories on basic research at the Weizmann Institute. These are about several things one can do with light, including a disappearing trick or two, and messages hidden in deep, dark places.

Dr. Rafal Klajn’s messages are written with light. Printed images on a unique surface disappear within a few minutes. This system, made of nanoparticles in a gel-like medium, can be rewritten over and over again, so it could, one day, be the basis of rewritable paper. Klajn’s innovation is to put light-sensitive molecules into the medium (rather than engineering the nanoparticles); light exposure turns the gel acidic and leads to a fairly simple chemical reaction with the nanoparticles that causes them to disperse. The molecules Klajn uses, by the way, were developed back in the day (1950s) at the Weizmann Institute, and they have been used, among other things for photosensitive coatings on glasses.

Lighting the medium causes nanoparticles to disperse. Image: lab of Dr. Rafal Klajn

Lighting the medium causes nanoparticles to disperse. Image: lab of Dr. Rafal Klajn

A different trick of the light is that of a tiny marine creature commonly known as a sea sapphire. Only a millimeter or so in length, the males of several species flash in brilliant colors ranging from purple to green for a second or so, and in the next they appear to completely vanish from sight. Though we still don’t know if the colors are meant to attract females or warn other males, thanks to Profs. Lia Addadi, Steve Weiner and Dan Oron, and their students Dvir Gur and Ben Leshem, we now know exactly how they perform the trick. Thin, clear crystals on the sea sapphires’ backs are stacked in precise arrays with “spacers” of cellular material holding them in place. It is the tuning of the spaces between the crystals that cause light to be directed in very specific wavelengths. In some species, this creates a glitzy blue iridescence when the light hits them full-on, from above. But when the sea sapphire performs an evasive corkscrew maneuver in the water, the angles are foreshortened as it turns sideways and the reflected light is shifted into the ultraviolet – effectively creating a sort of temporary invisibility cloak.

The precise stacking of the crystals, say the researchers, could lead to the design of artificial nanophotonic structures that would have numerous applications.

Finally, a study that brings to light a signal hidden in a place that daylight never reaches – deep inside our intestinal tracts. We know by now that the thousands of different types of bacteria living there are writing their own messages, which our immune systems interpret to our benefit or detriment. Type 2 diabetes, for example, and inflammatory bowel disease are mediated by the mix of microorganisms in our guts. Today we can work out the makeup of a person’s gut microbiome, but its message is mostly still too faint to read.

Computer scientist Prof. Eran Segal and his research students, working together with the group of Dr. Eran Elinav, an immunologist, have come up with a way of identifying a sort of communiqué within the broad picture. The idea is to sequence all of the DNA in a single sample, a task that is already available today with advanced sequencing techniques. Such techniques break the DNA into pieces and then reassemble the short sequences into long ones. But the group showed that this information can tell you not just quantities each kind of bacterium, but how fast each is reproducing. That’s because many of them are in the process of copying out their genomes in preparation for splitting into daughter cells; thus an overall sequencing will turn up lots of partial genomes. Since each kind of bacterium conveniently starts copying at the same point in its circular genome, one can figure out the first and last sequences to be copied and compute the ratio between the two. That will tell you, from a single sample, how fast each is replicating.

And changes in growth rates, according to the team’s further analysis, is a better indicator of the above-mentioned disorders than any other attempt to read our microbiomic messages, so far.

Three different studies – all basic research – in departments ranging from physics to computer science to chemistry and biology. The future possibilities are endless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1LPUw56

 

 

One day in the future, we may be treating our ailments with microbiotic combinations designed specifically to correct imbalances in our personal microbiomes. We’ll bring our prescriptions on rewritable paper and pay using shimmery optical chips embedded in our cell phone cases or maybe our jewelry. Or we’ll be waiting in our doctor’s office for a simple test of our microbiogenome to see if a light-based nanoparticle delivery treatment is working, while watching iridescent optical displays that change as we move…

These future scenarios (and many more) are all imaginary, but they are imminently feasible, given today’s new stories on basic research at the Weizmann Institute. These are about several things one can do with light, including a disappearing trick or two, and messages hidden in deep, dark places.

Dr. Rafal Klajn’s messages are written with light. Printed images on a unique surface disappear within a few minutes. This system, made of nanoparticles in a gel-like medium, can be rewritten over and over again, so it could, one day, be the basis of rewritable paper. Klajn’s innovation is to put light-sensitive molecules into the medium (rather than engineering the nanoparticles); light exposure turns the gel acidic and leads to a fairly simple chemical reaction with the nanoparticles that causes them to disperse. The molecules Klajn uses, by the way, were developed back in the day (1950s) at the Weizmann Institute, and they have been used, among other things for photosensitive coatings on glasses.

Lighting the medium causes nanoparticles to disperse. Image: lab of Dr. Rafal Klajn

Lighting the medium causes nanoparticles to disperse. Image: lab of Dr. Rafal Klajn

A different trick of the light is that of a tiny marine creature commonly known as a sea sapphire. Only a millimeter or so in length, the males of several species flash in brilliant colors ranging from purple to green for a second or so, and in the next they appear to completely vanish from sight. Though we still don’t know if the colors are meant to attract females or warn other males, thanks to Profs. Lia Addadi, Steve Weiner and Dan Oron, and their students Dvir Gur and Ben Leshem, we now know exactly how they perform the trick. Thin, clear crystals on the sea sapphires’ backs are stacked in precise arrays with “spacers” of cellular material holding them in place. It is the tuning of the spaces between the crystals that cause light to be directed in very specific wavelengths. In some species, this creates a glitzy blue iridescence when the light hits them full-on, from above. But when the sea sapphire performs an evasive corkscrew maneuver in the water, the angles are foreshortened as it turns sideways and the reflected light is shifted into the ultraviolet – effectively creating a sort of temporary invisibility cloak.

The precise stacking of the crystals, say the researchers, could lead to the design of artificial nanophotonic structures that would have numerous applications.

Finally, a study that brings to light a signal hidden in a place that daylight never reaches – deep inside our intestinal tracts. We know by now that the thousands of different types of bacteria living there are writing their own messages, which our immune systems interpret to our benefit or detriment. Type 2 diabetes, for example, and inflammatory bowel disease are mediated by the mix of microorganisms in our guts. Today we can work out the makeup of a person’s gut microbiome, but its message is mostly still too faint to read.

Computer scientist Prof. Eran Segal and his research students, working together with the group of Dr. Eran Elinav, an immunologist, have come up with a way of identifying a sort of communiqué within the broad picture. The idea is to sequence all of the DNA in a single sample, a task that is already available today with advanced sequencing techniques. Such techniques break the DNA into pieces and then reassemble the short sequences into long ones. But the group showed that this information can tell you not just quantities each kind of bacterium, but how fast each is reproducing. That’s because many of them are in the process of copying out their genomes in preparation for splitting into daughter cells; thus an overall sequencing will turn up lots of partial genomes. Since each kind of bacterium conveniently starts copying at the same point in its circular genome, one can figure out the first and last sequences to be copied and compute the ratio between the two. That will tell you, from a single sample, how fast each is replicating.

And changes in growth rates, according to the team’s further analysis, is a better indicator of the above-mentioned disorders than any other attempt to read our microbiomic messages, so far.

Three different studies – all basic research – in departments ranging from physics to computer science to chemistry and biology. The future possibilities are endless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1LPUw56

Career Spotlight: Environmental Health Engineer

 

Amy Pickering is an environmental health engineer and works as a research associate at Stanford University in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and at the Woods Institute for the Environment.  She combines social science, microbiology and engineering to study ways people in low-income countries can access safer water and better sanitation. People living in the developing world are often exposed to higher levels of bacteria and other germs, usually because of contaminated water and poor sanitation conditions. Pickering tries to reduce the spread of disease by  travelling to areas with poor water quality and studying why people are getting sick and coming up with low-cost and low-tech solutions that can help minimize illnesses. She also runs research studies to test and evaluate how effective various interventions are at preventing the spread of disease. Pickering spends about 20% of her time in the countries in which she works and the rest at Stanford.

Pickering did not always know she wanted to do this type of work. In high school, one of her math teachers suggested that she go into a career involving numbers.

"I knew that I loved the outdoors and the environment so I decided to do engineering, and specifically environmental engineering. And I also wanted to do something that challenged me and I thought that engineering would provide that challenge," explains Pickering.

After she graduated from college with an undergraduate degree in biological and environmental engineering from Cornell University, she went on to get a masters in environmental engineering with an emphasis on water quality from University of California, Berkeley. There, she worked on a low cost UV water disinfection device, which was being implemented in Mexico to help clean contaminated water. After she graduated with a masters degree, Pickering wanted to work at the intersection of science and policy so she began working at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  in Washington DC.

"I liked working at the EPA a lot, but I was in a cubicle and I quickly became restless just sitting in a cubicle all day," says Pickering.

As Pickering was growing restless with cubicle work, a tsunami struck and destroyed large parts of South Asia.  She and some colleagues from graduate school decided to go to Sri Lanka to help with the tsunami relief effort. To provide residents with clean drinking water, they installed the UV water disinfection devices that they had worked on at UC-Berkeley. She loved this type of work and that's when she knew she wanted to work on global water quality.  She then received a Fulbright scholarship to teach English, math and photography and completed a photo essay about how people in different parts of the world interact with water. She eventually ended up completing a Ph.D in the Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources at Stanford University.

This video will be featured in our Engineering Is: Cleaning Poop from Drinking Water e-book. The e-book explores the science and engineering principles behind one of Amy Pickering's projects– a device that purifies drinking water in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The e-book includes videos, interactives and media making opportunities. Stay tuned for its release. You can find our other e-books at kqed.org/ebooks.

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


from QUEST http://ift.tt/1Jy33Ga

 

Amy Pickering is an environmental health engineer and works as a research associate at Stanford University in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and at the Woods Institute for the Environment.  She combines social science, microbiology and engineering to study ways people in low-income countries can access safer water and better sanitation. People living in the developing world are often exposed to higher levels of bacteria and other germs, usually because of contaminated water and poor sanitation conditions. Pickering tries to reduce the spread of disease by  travelling to areas with poor water quality and studying why people are getting sick and coming up with low-cost and low-tech solutions that can help minimize illnesses. She also runs research studies to test and evaluate how effective various interventions are at preventing the spread of disease. Pickering spends about 20% of her time in the countries in which she works and the rest at Stanford.

Pickering did not always know she wanted to do this type of work. In high school, one of her math teachers suggested that she go into a career involving numbers.

"I knew that I loved the outdoors and the environment so I decided to do engineering, and specifically environmental engineering. And I also wanted to do something that challenged me and I thought that engineering would provide that challenge," explains Pickering.

After she graduated from college with an undergraduate degree in biological and environmental engineering from Cornell University, she went on to get a masters in environmental engineering with an emphasis on water quality from University of California, Berkeley. There, she worked on a low cost UV water disinfection device, which was being implemented in Mexico to help clean contaminated water. After she graduated with a masters degree, Pickering wanted to work at the intersection of science and policy so she began working at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  in Washington DC.

"I liked working at the EPA a lot, but I was in a cubicle and I quickly became restless just sitting in a cubicle all day," says Pickering.

As Pickering was growing restless with cubicle work, a tsunami struck and destroyed large parts of South Asia.  She and some colleagues from graduate school decided to go to Sri Lanka to help with the tsunami relief effort. To provide residents with clean drinking water, they installed the UV water disinfection devices that they had worked on at UC-Berkeley. She loved this type of work and that's when she knew she wanted to work on global water quality.  She then received a Fulbright scholarship to teach English, math and photography and completed a photo essay about how people in different parts of the world interact with water. She eventually ended up completing a Ph.D in the Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources at Stanford University.

This video will be featured in our Engineering Is: Cleaning Poop from Drinking Water e-book. The e-book explores the science and engineering principles behind one of Amy Pickering's projects– a device that purifies drinking water in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The e-book includes videos, interactives and media making opportunities. Stay tuned for its release. You can find our other e-books at kqed.org/ebooks.

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


from QUEST http://ift.tt/1Jy33Ga

Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars

Citi Global Perspectives & Solutions (GPS), a division within Citibank (America’s third-largest bank), recently published a report looking at the economic costs and benefits of a low-carbon future. The report considered two scenarios: “Inaction,” which involves continuing on a business-as-usual path, and Action scenario which involves transitioning to a low-carbon energy mix.

One of the most interesting findings in the report is that the investment costs for the two scenarios are almost identical. In fact, because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario.

What is perhaps most surprising is that looking at the potential total spend on energy over the next quarter century, on an undiscounted basis the cost of following a low carbon route at $190.2 trillion is actually cheaper than our ‘Inaction’ scenario at $192 trillion. This, as we examine in this chapter, is due to the rapidly falling costs of renewables, which combined with lower fuel usage from energy efficiency investments actually result in significantly lower long term fuel bill. Yes, we have to invest more in the early years, but we potentially save later, not to mention the liabilities of climate change that we potentially avoid.

The following figure from the Citi report breaks down the investment costs in the Action ($190.2 trillion) and Inaction ($192 trillion) scenarios.

action vs inaction

Investment costs of climate Action and Inaction scenarios. Source: Citi GPS.

This conclusion soundly refutes the main argument against climate action – that it’s too expensive, with some contrarians even having gone so far as to claim that cutting carbon pollution will create an economic catastrophe. To the contrary, the Citi report finds that these investments will save money, before even accounting for the tremendous savings from avoiding climate damage costs.

What about those avoided climate costs? As shown in the bottom left corner of the above figure, the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion. Even moderate (2.5°C) warming could cost $30 trillion less than a business-as-usual high global warming scenario.

As a result, the Citi report concludes that taking action to cut carbon pollution and slow global warming would result in a positive return on investment.

By comparing the cost of mitigation to the avoided ‘liabilities’ of climate change, we can derive a simple ‘return on investment’. On a risk adjusted basis this implies a return of 1-4%  at the low point in 2021, rising to between 3% and 10% by 2035.

This isn’t a groundbreaking finding. Other reports have arrived at the same conclusion, and have found that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be modestly beneficial for the economy (again, before accounting for the economic benefits of curbing global warming). This is why there’s a consensus among economists that we should be reducing carbon pollution.

economists consensus

Survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its carbon emissions. Source: New York University; Economists and Climate Change report.

The Citi report then asks the trillion-dollar question – if tackling global warming is such an economic no-brainer, what are we waiting for?

With a limited differential in the total bill of Action vs Inaction (in fact a saving on an undiscounted basis), potentially enormous liabilities avoided and the simple fact that cleaner air must be preferable to pollution, a very strong “Why would you not?” argument regarding action on climate change begins to form … Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action.

Dave Roberts at Vox took a stab at answering that question, and the answer is touched upon in the Citi report:

The clear loser between the scenarios is coal, which sees its total investment bill fall by some $11.5 trillion over the next quarter century. Gas investment also reduces though by a far smaller amount, $3.4 trillion in total

While the global economy would clearly benefit from climate action, it would create “stranded assets” for the fossil fuel industry, because a large percentage of known fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground if we’re to avoid dangerous climate change.

Some studies suggest that globally a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of current coal reserves would have to remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to have a chance of meeting the 2°C target.

Click here to read the rest



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1N5AZxD

Citi Global Perspectives & Solutions (GPS), a division within Citibank (America’s third-largest bank), recently published a report looking at the economic costs and benefits of a low-carbon future. The report considered two scenarios: “Inaction,” which involves continuing on a business-as-usual path, and Action scenario which involves transitioning to a low-carbon energy mix.

One of the most interesting findings in the report is that the investment costs for the two scenarios are almost identical. In fact, because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario.

What is perhaps most surprising is that looking at the potential total spend on energy over the next quarter century, on an undiscounted basis the cost of following a low carbon route at $190.2 trillion is actually cheaper than our ‘Inaction’ scenario at $192 trillion. This, as we examine in this chapter, is due to the rapidly falling costs of renewables, which combined with lower fuel usage from energy efficiency investments actually result in significantly lower long term fuel bill. Yes, we have to invest more in the early years, but we potentially save later, not to mention the liabilities of climate change that we potentially avoid.

The following figure from the Citi report breaks down the investment costs in the Action ($190.2 trillion) and Inaction ($192 trillion) scenarios.

action vs inaction

Investment costs of climate Action and Inaction scenarios. Source: Citi GPS.

This conclusion soundly refutes the main argument against climate action – that it’s too expensive, with some contrarians even having gone so far as to claim that cutting carbon pollution will create an economic catastrophe. To the contrary, the Citi report finds that these investments will save money, before even accounting for the tremendous savings from avoiding climate damage costs.

What about those avoided climate costs? As shown in the bottom left corner of the above figure, the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion. Even moderate (2.5°C) warming could cost $30 trillion less than a business-as-usual high global warming scenario.

As a result, the Citi report concludes that taking action to cut carbon pollution and slow global warming would result in a positive return on investment.

By comparing the cost of mitigation to the avoided ‘liabilities’ of climate change, we can derive a simple ‘return on investment’. On a risk adjusted basis this implies a return of 1-4%  at the low point in 2021, rising to between 3% and 10% by 2035.

This isn’t a groundbreaking finding. Other reports have arrived at the same conclusion, and have found that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be modestly beneficial for the economy (again, before accounting for the economic benefits of curbing global warming). This is why there’s a consensus among economists that we should be reducing carbon pollution.

economists consensus

Survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its carbon emissions. Source: New York University; Economists and Climate Change report.

The Citi report then asks the trillion-dollar question – if tackling global warming is such an economic no-brainer, what are we waiting for?

With a limited differential in the total bill of Action vs Inaction (in fact a saving on an undiscounted basis), potentially enormous liabilities avoided and the simple fact that cleaner air must be preferable to pollution, a very strong “Why would you not?” argument regarding action on climate change begins to form … Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action.

Dave Roberts at Vox took a stab at answering that question, and the answer is touched upon in the Citi report:

The clear loser between the scenarios is coal, which sees its total investment bill fall by some $11.5 trillion over the next quarter century. Gas investment also reduces though by a far smaller amount, $3.4 trillion in total

While the global economy would clearly benefit from climate action, it would create “stranded assets” for the fossil fuel industry, because a large percentage of known fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground if we’re to avoid dangerous climate change.

Some studies suggest that globally a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of current coal reserves would have to remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to have a chance of meeting the 2°C target.

Click here to read the rest



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1N5AZxD

Mary’s Monday Metazoan: Lost in those eyes [Pharyngula]



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KzMbRs


from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KzMbRs

Fireballs erupt over Hawaii as space debris hits atmosphere

Looking a lot like how Hollywood might portray an invasion by space aliens, videos began surfacing Sunday of strange fireballs streaking across the night sky over Hawaii islands.

News reports from the Honolulu TV station KHON2 and news source MauiNow.com peg the light source as space debris burning up in the atmosphere.

MauiNow reported:

According to information released by the DoD’s Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB in CA, the object was likely the Cosmos 1315 payload launched in 1981. Gene Stansbery, Program Manager for NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office confirmed the report with Maui Now this morning.

Great light show! But how do they know the source of the space junk that burned up? Well, NASA tracks as much of it as they can locate because …

More than 500,000 pieces of debris, or “space junk,” are tracked as they orbit the Earth. They all travel at speeds up to 17,500 mph, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft.

The rising population of space debris increases the potential danger to all space vehicles, but especially to the International Space Station, space shuttles and other spacecraft with humans aboard.

But, not all sources of “lights” in space are as well understood. For instance:

Video by Jake Ellison
Bright UFO paces International Space Station
On Aug. 3, ”lights” or reflections of sunlight off an unidentified flying object appeared briefly near the International Space Station and caused a stir in media around the globe. The brief appearance of the bright and colorful unidentified object was first spotted by UFO enthusiasts and declared evidence of alien life watching Earth’s activities. The Seattlepi.com investigated and found more, much clearer video footage from Aug. 23 of a similar bright object keeping pace with the ISS for minutes at a time. Space junk? Aliens? NASA hasn’t commented. So, you decide. (Note: All video footage is taken directly — unaltered but zoomed in on and sped up — from raw recordings on the Ustream account of NASA TV’s live feed from the International Space Station.)

And …

Video by Jake Ellison
‘UFO’ bombs NASA video of ISS repair
Oct. 7th started out as just another day in space with astronauts fixing things on the rickety old International Space Station … until …

Of course some of those fireballs in the sky are not as harmless as small space junk!

Jake Ellison can be reached at 206-448-8334 or jakeellison@seattlepi.com. Follow Jake on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Jake_News. Also, swing by and *LIKE* his page on Facebook.
If Google Plus is your thing, check out our science coverage here.



from The Big Science Blog http://ift.tt/1X6LVya

Looking a lot like how Hollywood might portray an invasion by space aliens, videos began surfacing Sunday of strange fireballs streaking across the night sky over Hawaii islands.

News reports from the Honolulu TV station KHON2 and news source MauiNow.com peg the light source as space debris burning up in the atmosphere.

MauiNow reported:

According to information released by the DoD’s Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB in CA, the object was likely the Cosmos 1315 payload launched in 1981. Gene Stansbery, Program Manager for NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office confirmed the report with Maui Now this morning.

Great light show! But how do they know the source of the space junk that burned up? Well, NASA tracks as much of it as they can locate because …

More than 500,000 pieces of debris, or “space junk,” are tracked as they orbit the Earth. They all travel at speeds up to 17,500 mph, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft.

The rising population of space debris increases the potential danger to all space vehicles, but especially to the International Space Station, space shuttles and other spacecraft with humans aboard.

But, not all sources of “lights” in space are as well understood. For instance:

Video by Jake Ellison
Bright UFO paces International Space Station
On Aug. 3, ”lights” or reflections of sunlight off an unidentified flying object appeared briefly near the International Space Station and caused a stir in media around the globe. The brief appearance of the bright and colorful unidentified object was first spotted by UFO enthusiasts and declared evidence of alien life watching Earth’s activities. The Seattlepi.com investigated and found more, much clearer video footage from Aug. 23 of a similar bright object keeping pace with the ISS for minutes at a time. Space junk? Aliens? NASA hasn’t commented. So, you decide. (Note: All video footage is taken directly — unaltered but zoomed in on and sped up — from raw recordings on the Ustream account of NASA TV’s live feed from the International Space Station.)

And …

Video by Jake Ellison
‘UFO’ bombs NASA video of ISS repair
Oct. 7th started out as just another day in space with astronauts fixing things on the rickety old International Space Station … until …

Of course some of those fireballs in the sky are not as harmless as small space junk!

Jake Ellison can be reached at 206-448-8334 or jakeellison@seattlepi.com. Follow Jake on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Jake_News. Also, swing by and *LIKE* his page on Facebook.
If Google Plus is your thing, check out our science coverage here.



from The Big Science Blog http://ift.tt/1X6LVya

Astroquizzical: How do we know the universe is expanding evenly? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

When it comes to the Universe, physicists say things like: it originated in a Big Bang, it’s isotropic (or the same in all directions), and it’s homogeneous (the same everywhere), save for the effects of cosmic evolution. In every direction we look, we see galaxies expanding away from us, with the expansion rate increasing the farther away we look.

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team, via http://ift.tt/1xhgeCV.

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team, via http://ift.tt/1xhgeCV.

But an expansion inherent to the fabric of space itself isn’t the only explanation; it’s conceivable that we see what we see because everything else in the Universe is speeding away from us, and that spacetime itself is static. But what does the Universe itself have to say about that?

Image credit: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).

Image credit: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).

Jillian Scudder takes this on for this week’s Astroquizzical!



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Q4dcMV

When it comes to the Universe, physicists say things like: it originated in a Big Bang, it’s isotropic (or the same in all directions), and it’s homogeneous (the same everywhere), save for the effects of cosmic evolution. In every direction we look, we see galaxies expanding away from us, with the expansion rate increasing the farther away we look.

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team, via http://ift.tt/1xhgeCV.

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team, via http://ift.tt/1xhgeCV.

But an expansion inherent to the fabric of space itself isn’t the only explanation; it’s conceivable that we see what we see because everything else in the Universe is speeding away from us, and that spacetime itself is static. But what does the Universe itself have to say about that?

Image credit: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).

Image credit: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).

Jillian Scudder takes this on for this week’s Astroquizzical!



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Q4dcMV

Me on P. Thorne on Hansen et al. [Stoat]

1440598719541 I previously promised to read Hansen et al., and I finally have – well, at least skimmed. It hasn’t really changed my opinions.

global CO2 emissions continue to increase… the threat posed by ice sheet instability and sea level rise

This is in accord with what I’ve said before, that the most obviously unambiguously bad physical consequence of GW is SLR (see What I think about global warming from 2010 for the rest, which I don’t see any great reason to wish to update). So H focussing on it is understandable; but this leads to a regrettable tendency to need lots of SLR earlier than is obviously likely.

But I have read P. Thorne’s review, and I find that very helpful. Eli also notes it, but appears to read it rather differently to me; I view it as substantially negative about the paper. Why?

In many senses the study should be uncontentious: this isn’t a compliment. Why are you publishing boring stuff that people aren’t going to disagree with? All the hosing stuff, for example, is passe.

The question really is how this sea level increase will occur: yes indeed; but does the paper manage to answer, or advance our knowledge of these questions? Not obviously.

during glacial to interglacial transitions, there are relatively short-lived events of rapid change… The question here is whether with an interglacial ice-sheet configuration as at present day such event types can occur… the assertion that we may lie close to… a tipping point… a period of large scale and rapid changes in sea-levels… To make this conclusion relies to an uncomfortable extent upon a causal chain… Each link in this chain is certainly plausible based upon the relatively scant evidence to hand, but is not by any stretch determinant… Given the length of the causal chain… it is far from certain that the results contended shall match what will happen in the real-world. This I think is the key problem; its the familiar long chain of connections which may be broken at any point.

The paper is of inordinate length: I see this as a warning sign of poor overall paper construction; as per previous, its like a brain-dump, which may be kinda interesting, but if H wants to publish such, well, he’s got a blog and a mailing list. PT suggests editing to avoid repetition; my skim didn’t see much of that but I would strongly argue for various sub-pieces to be hived off into separate papers; like the Bahamian sea level evidence.

there was a tendency in several places to editorialize. By that I mean that in places the paper tends to read somewhat more as a blog post or advocacy piece than a scholarly paper: see previous.

some simplified assumptions that the rate of ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling every n years… It is not in my mind sufficient to assert that recent behavior can be extrapolated forward more than a very finite time as a predictor for the future… some more physically based rationale would be warranted… I see a nice discussion in Section 7.3 but it does not directly address the realism of the model prescribed fluxes to the extent I would expect: this seems rather important.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JHjXil

1440598719541 I previously promised to read Hansen et al., and I finally have – well, at least skimmed. It hasn’t really changed my opinions.

global CO2 emissions continue to increase… the threat posed by ice sheet instability and sea level rise

This is in accord with what I’ve said before, that the most obviously unambiguously bad physical consequence of GW is SLR (see What I think about global warming from 2010 for the rest, which I don’t see any great reason to wish to update). So H focussing on it is understandable; but this leads to a regrettable tendency to need lots of SLR earlier than is obviously likely.

But I have read P. Thorne’s review, and I find that very helpful. Eli also notes it, but appears to read it rather differently to me; I view it as substantially negative about the paper. Why?

In many senses the study should be uncontentious: this isn’t a compliment. Why are you publishing boring stuff that people aren’t going to disagree with? All the hosing stuff, for example, is passe.

The question really is how this sea level increase will occur: yes indeed; but does the paper manage to answer, or advance our knowledge of these questions? Not obviously.

during glacial to interglacial transitions, there are relatively short-lived events of rapid change… The question here is whether with an interglacial ice-sheet configuration as at present day such event types can occur… the assertion that we may lie close to… a tipping point… a period of large scale and rapid changes in sea-levels… To make this conclusion relies to an uncomfortable extent upon a causal chain… Each link in this chain is certainly plausible based upon the relatively scant evidence to hand, but is not by any stretch determinant… Given the length of the causal chain… it is far from certain that the results contended shall match what will happen in the real-world. This I think is the key problem; its the familiar long chain of connections which may be broken at any point.

The paper is of inordinate length: I see this as a warning sign of poor overall paper construction; as per previous, its like a brain-dump, which may be kinda interesting, but if H wants to publish such, well, he’s got a blog and a mailing list. PT suggests editing to avoid repetition; my skim didn’t see much of that but I would strongly argue for various sub-pieces to be hived off into separate papers; like the Bahamian sea level evidence.

there was a tendency in several places to editorialize. By that I mean that in places the paper tends to read somewhat more as a blog post or advocacy piece than a scholarly paper: see previous.

some simplified assumptions that the rate of ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling every n years… It is not in my mind sufficient to assert that recent behavior can be extrapolated forward more than a very finite time as a predictor for the future… some more physically based rationale would be warranted… I see a nice discussion in Section 7.3 but it does not directly address the realism of the model prescribed fluxes to the extent I would expect: this seems rather important.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JHjXil