Astronomy Picture of the Day

Discover the cosmos! Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.

2007 February 22

Mystery Over Australia
Credit & Copyright: Ray Palmer

Explanation: Place your cursor on this stunning view of dark skies over western Australia to highlight wonders of the southern Milky Way -- including the famous Southern Cross, the dark Coal Sack Nebula, and bright reddish emission regions surrounding massive star Eta Carinae. Recorded Tuesday at about 2 am, the thirty minute long color film exposure also captured a bright but mysterious object that moved slowly across the sky for over an hour. Widely seen, the object began as a small point and expanded as it tracked toward the North (left), resulting in a comet-like appearance in this picture. What was it? Reports are now identifying the mystery glow with a plume from the explosion of a malfunctioned Russian rocket stage partially filled with fuel. The rocket stage was marooned in Earth orbit after a failed communication satellite launch almost a year ago on February 28, 2006. A substantial amount of debris from the breakup can be tracked.

Tomorrow's picture: dust and the dying star

reposted from: Nasa
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Australia plans to ban traditional light bulbs - a practical step toward slowing climate change

SYDNEY (AFP)—Australia has announced plans to ban traditional light bulbs in a move Prime Minister John Howard called a practical step toward slowing climate change.

Claiming a world first for a national government, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said incandescent lightbulbs would be phased out by 2010 in favour of the more fuel-efficent compact fluorescent bulbs.

He said replacing the traditional coiled filament bulbs invented by Thomas Edison in the 19th century would cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by four million tonnes a year by 2015.

"If the whole world switches to these bulbs today, we would reduce our consumption of electricity by an amount equal to five times Australia's annual consumption of electricity," Turnbull said.

"The climate change challenge is a global one. I encourage other countries to follow Australia's lead and make the switch to more energy efficient products like compact fluorescent light bulbs."

Turnbull said the traditional light bulb's lack of efficiency was reflected in the heat it wasted when switched on.

"A normal light bulb is too hot to hold. That heat is wasted and globally represents millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that needn't have been emitted into the atmosphere if we had used more efficient forms of lighting," he said.

"These more efficient lights, such as the compact fluorescent light bulb, use around 20 percent of the electricity to produce the same amount of light."

Conservative leader Howard, who has softened his sceptical stance on global warming as an election looms later this year and opinion polls show high voter concern on the issue, said he was a "climate change realist".

"I think some of the stuff that's around at the moment is too alarmist," he said. "But on the other hand I think the evidence is very strong that mankind has made a contribution to the warming of our globe."

Howard said households would benefit from the switch to the high-tech fluorescent bulbs.

"They'll be a bit dearer to start off with but over time they'll be less expensive and they'll last four to 10 times longer.

"We need to take practical measures in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Green groups and the opposition Labor Party welcomed the move but said the government needed to examine more meaningful ways to reduce global warming, including signing the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

"The major producers of greenhouse gas emissions in this country are not individuals, they're governments and business," opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett said.

Australia is believed to be the first national government to look at banning tradtional lightbulbs, although lawmaker Lloyd Levine proposed similar legistion in the US state of California last month.

US energy policy think-tank the Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that replacing a 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent saves 1,300 pounds (590 kilograms) of carbon dioxide over the life of the bulb.

The institute said the average life of a 75-watt incandescent bulb is roughly 750 hours, while the life of an energy-efficient bulb is 10,000 hours.

reposted from: Seed Magazine
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Stop Climate Change - nextgenerationearth.org

Scientists agree the Earth's climate is being directly affected by human activity, and for many people around the world, these changes are having negative effects. Records show that 11 of the last 12 years were among the 12 warmest on record worldwide.

Above: Greenland's melting ice cap

Be Part of the Solution

Commit to the Next Generation and join the fight against climate change. Join governments, companies, universities and individuals like yourself throughout the world to endorse a clean energy future.

If we act now, we can stop further climate change.

Click here to learn how to be part of a clean energy future.

Climate Change Statement of Principles

Climate change is an urgent problem requiring global action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Energy use is vital for a modern economy. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. Thus, confronting climate change depends, in many ways, on adopting new and sustainable energy strategies that can meet growing global energy needs while allowing for the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at safe levels.

Energy efficiency must play an important role in these strategies, but long-term success will require a concerted effort to de-carbonize the global energy system. This means significantly increasing the use of non-fossil-fuel energy sources, significantly raising the energy efficiency of fossil-fuel power plants through advanced technologies, and developing and deploying technologies that trap and store the CO2 produced by the fossil fuels that will remain in use.

Cost-efficient technologies exist today, and others could be developed and deployed, to improve energy efficiency and to help reduce emissions of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy. Research indicates that heading off the very dangerous risks associated with doubling pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of CO2, while an immense challenge, can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts. To meet this challenge and take advantage of these opportunities:

• The world’s governments should set scientifically informed targets for “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” in accordance with the stated objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This should include an ambitious but achievable mid-century, interim target for global CO2 concentrations.

All countries should be party to this accord, which should include specific near- and long-term commitments for action in pursuit of the agreed targets. Commitments for actions by individual countries should reflect differences in levels of economic development and GHG emission patterns and the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

Clear, efficient mechanisms should be established to place a market price on carbon emissions that is reasonably consistent worldwide and across sectors in order to reward efficiency and emission avoidance, encourage innovation, and maintain a level playing field among possible technological options.

Government policy initiatives should address energy efficiency and de-carbonization in all sectors, allow businesses to choose among a range of options as they strive to minimize GHG emissions and costs, encourage the development and rapid deployment of low-emitting and zero-emitting energy and transportation technologies, and provide incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and harmful land management practices.

Governments, the private sector, trade unions, and other sectors of civil society should undertake efforts to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change, since climate change will occur even in the context of highly effective mitigation efforts.

• http://nextgenerationearth.org/signatures/add/

• More Ways You Can Help

  

  Here are a few things you can do to help stop anthropogenic climate change, which is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

  Write Your Congressperson

  Many Web sites have pre-written letters you can send to voice your support of legislation that reduces carbon emissions. Here's an example of one.

  Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

  New York Times writer Andrew Postman discovered some easy ways to reduce his carbon output when he put his family on an energy diet.

  Stay Informed

  One of the biggest things you can do is stay informed. Many news outlets such as BBC News have special sections that explain climate change.

  Information is also available on the politics of climate change at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

• Fast Climate Facts

  

  Warmer surface temperatures over just a few months in the Antarctic can splinter an ice shelf and prime it for a major collapse, NASA and university scientists have reported. The process can be expected to become more widespread if Antarctic summer temperatures increase.

  Above: The Larsen B ice shelf, which was about the size of Rhode Island, collapsed over a period of 35 days in 2000.

  Photo credit: NASA

  Scientists agree the Earth's climate is being directly affected by human activity, and for many people around the world, these changes are having negative effects. Records show that 11 of the last 12 years were among the 12 warmest on record worldwide.

  The just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers — the first volume of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report — states that scientists are more than 90% confident that human industrial activity is driving global temperature rises. (add your thoughts on the report at RealClimate.org)

  Carbon dioxide levels today are nearly 30 percent higher than they were prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution, based on records extending back 650,000 years.

  According to NASA, the polar ice cap is melting at the rate of 9 percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.

  The current pace of sea-level rise is three times the historical rate and appears to be accelerating.

  The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report said that this trend would likely continue.

  Droughts in the Sahel during the 1970s and 1980s were found to be caused by warmer sea surface temperatures, and the current drought in the Amazon is suspected to be a result of rising ocean temperatures.

  Poverty and food insecurity has also been tied to climate variability. A recent publication shows that providing climate information to vulnerable populations can improve — and even save — lives.

• http://nextgenerationearth.org/facts

reposted from: http://nextgenerationearth.org/
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Warm Feelings About Climate - Al Gore

Bring together John Rennie of Scientific American, Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute and Al Gore of, well, Al Gore and you are certain to hear passion on the subject of global warming. And that's exactly what happened last night at Columbia University, where Gore was honored by this magazine for his contributions as Policy Leader of the Year in 2006.

Economist Jeff Sachs took the opportunity to remind the assemblage of students, scientists and dignitaries (including U.N. President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain) that the world has confronted such global crises before. 2007 marks the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol--a global effort to stop the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for refrigeration that eventually escape into the atmosphere and eat a hole in the ozone layer. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, that hole is healing (albeit slowly).

But the path of that issue also provides a lesson in how the world copes with large environmental problems, according to Sachs: first comes recognition, followed by industry denial, public acceptance, technology solutions and finally global diplomacy. In Sach's view we have reached the third stage of this process on climate change--public acceptance--in large part thanks to the efforts of the former Vice President. And big business is lining up to take part in the solution; "the whole idea that his is a business conspiracy, it ain't right," Sachs said. "Business is way ahead of the politicians. They want to make money but they know they're going to have to do it in a carbon-constrained world."

The global diplomacy will take time (don't expect U.S. action before 2009, in Sachs' view) and will require commitments from everyone, including developing countries like India and China. But starting in Bali this December, the global community will meet to begin drafting the successor to the Kyoto Protocol--the first baby step in an effort to combat climate change.

Sachs, of course, was simply the opening act for the rock star of the event: Mr. Gore. In friendly environs, I imagine he gets the same standing ovation every time he speaks now.

Note: he's aged a bit in the 13 years since this photo was taken.

He reiterated some of his "An Inconvenient Truth" spiel on the climate crisis, noting that humanity's relationship to Earth has profoundly changed in the last 100 years. Global population has quadrupled, human technology impacts every aspect of the Earth's ecosystems, and our outlook has shrunk from planning for decades to planning for moments (or just the next quarterly report of a business).

But he also took up Sachs analogy and extended it, noting the London Amendments to the Montreal Protocol that followed three years later and significantly tightened the restrictions on CFCs. A similar process is needed with Kyoto, Gore argued, and not by 2012, when it would expire, but by 2010. "I believe the solution requires a redefinition of this issue as a moral issue," he said, and moral issues do not wait.

A few pre-selected questions were asked (Should we adapt to climate change or try to stop it? What specific actions can people take? And what kind of sacrifices will be required?) but the answers were not very specific (even to the most specific question). And no one asked Mr. Gore if he'd be running for office to try to implement some of this moral crusade practically in the political realm.

Ultimately, the only real solution on offer was political: a global petition for a framework that all countries and all peoples can agree to, available at nextgenerationearth.org. But what about the electricity consumed (and coal burned) when everybody turns on their computer to sign up?

reposted from: SciAmerican
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Intellectual honesty in science: the Marcus Ross case.

This is an example of how scientists can 'compartmentalise' (in Richard Dawkins terminology) their scientific work from their religious and faith positions. Dr. Marcus Ross is an extreme example. Could he be described as being 'dishonest'?

Posted on: February 21, 2007 1:11 PM, by Janet D. Stemwedel

By now, you may have heard (via Pharyngula, or Sandwalk, or the New York Times) about Marcus Ross, who was recently granted a Ph.D. in geosciences by the University of Rhode Island. To earn that degree, he wrote a dissertation (which his dissertation advisor described as "impeccable") about the abundance and spread of marine reptiles called mosasaurs which disappeared about 65 million years ago.

Curiously, the newly-minted Dr. Ross is open about his view that the Earth is at most 10,000 years old.

There have been interesting discussions in the comments on the linked posts about what precisely a Ph.D. signifies (that you have completed coursework and banged out a defensible piece of research, or that you are fit to enter a holy society of scientists?), about whether science is primarily concerned with facts or methodologies, about whether it is possible simultaneously to hold contradictory ideas in your head. Because those discussions are happening elsewhere, I don't want to replicate them here.

Rather, I'd like to examine whether it would be possible for someone like Marcus Ross -- a self-professed Young Earth Creationist (YEC) -- to write a doctoral dissertation in geosciences that is both "impeccable" in the scientific case it presents and intellectually honest.

I take it that the main worry about Dr. Ross's dissertation is that what he wrote was some distance from his actual views. Larry Moran writes:

Ross did not discuss his YEC beliefs in his thesis, Instead, he wrote his thesis as though he believed in an Earth that was billions of years old and as though species evolved and went extinct over periods of millions of years. In other words, Ross did not tell the truth about his true "scientific" beliefs when he wrote his thesis. I assume that he also didn't discuss his true beliefs during the Ph.D. oral exam when his examining committee questioned him on his thesis work, including his interpretation and its implications. ...

The Ross case gets complicated because he did not do what any honest scientist should do and defend his "scientific" opinion in public. There's nothing in his thesis about Young Earth Creationism. However, his real views were well known because he had been consorting with Young Earth Creationists for some time. ...

In this situation we have an example of someone who carefully hid his true belief from the thesis committee, or at least went out of his way to give them an excuse to avoid facing up to the main problem. This is deceptive and antithetical to how science is supposed to operate ... It opens a whole other can of worms. While most of us would agree that openly advocating a young Earth in your thesis would be grounds for failure, we couldn't fail someone who effectively lied about his "scientific" opinion. We put our faith in honesty and scientific integrity whenever possible. It's the default assumption.

If Ross wrote a dissertation that asserts something that he then disavowed elsewhere (and in such a short interval of time that clearly he must not have believed it when he asserted it in the dissertation or in his defense of it), that looks like lying. One might wonder how big a leap it is to go from, "These critters lived in these places until they went extinct about 65 million years ago (although actually they can't have lived that long ago since the Earth was created much more recently than that)" to "Here's the data from the isotope-dating of the fossils I found in these locations (although actually I didn't find any fossils so I just made the data up)." My suspicion is that Ross would not cross the line of actually making up data; what is the principled difference between crossing that line and making assertions that one does not believe?

One possibility is that Ross saw his dissertation as an exercise in presenting the inferences one could draw from the available data using the recognized methods of geoscience. In other words, here's what we would conclude if all the assumptions about the age of the earth, deposition of fossils, isotope dating methods, etc., were true. Given Ross's YEC, he presumably has reason to think at least some of these scientific assumptions are false. (They are religious reasons, not scientific reasons. If there were scientific reasons to doubt these assumptions, it seems like examining those could only lead to a stronger body of knowledge in geosciences, and that Ross could have made such an examination the focus of his doctoral research.)

Is it an obligation for a scientist who has concerns about the goodness of an assumption on which people in his field rest their inferences to voice that concern? Is it an obligation for that scientist to gather data to test that hypothesis, or to work out an alternative hypothesis that is better supported by the data? Or is it OK to keep your doubts to your self and just use the inferential machinery everyone else is using?

A shorter way of asking the same question: Does intellectual honesty in science just cover the way you use the inferential structure and the inputs (i.e., data) from which you draw your inferences? Or does it require disclosure of which assumptions you really accept when drawing your inferences and which you are inclined to think are mistaken?

Does intellectual honesty require that you disclose as well the fact that you don't actually accept this inferential structure as a good way to build knowledge?

reposted from: Scienceblogs - and see this page for comments
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Io - Jupiter moon

Io is a colorful place. The closest large moon of Jupiter, Io has the most volcanic activity of any moon in the solar system with its surface being completely buried in volcanic lava every few thousand years. The black and red material corresponds to the most recent volcanic eruptions and is probably no more than a few years old. This image by the automated spacecraft Galileo highlights the side of Io that always faces away from Jupiter. In this image, colors have been adjusted to enhance contrast, but are based on real composite infrared, green and violet-light images.

Image credit: NASA/JPL

reposted from: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_764.html
my highlights / emphasis / comments

sciencehorizons - Shaping the Future - Science & Technology in 2025

Resources for you to download:

• Discussion pack - View the instructions as a pdf file...

What is sciencehorizons?
sciencehorizons is a national series of conversations about new technologies, the future and society. It has been set up by the UK government and will run during 2007.

Developments in mobile technology, the internet and healthcare have changed our lives over the last few decades. New applications of science and technology will continue to shape our futures. The government has invited scientists, engineers and other experts to say which areas of science and technology they think will have the biggest impacts in the future. But experts don’t have all the answers. They can’t predict which particular developments will emerge and they can’t say how developments will be used by individuals and society. sciencehorizons is your chance to tell us what you think, and what sort of future you want.

What is this pack for?
The sciencehorizons pack will help you start a group conversation and give us your views. It contains stories about what life might be like in 2025. These are not predictions, they are just possible futures, based on currently emerging science and technology.

What will happen to the results?
The results of the sciencehorizons programme will be presented to the government in Autumn 2007. Your views will help the government understand how people feel about the way developments in science and technology could be used in the future. This will help them make decisions about how to research, regulate and communicate science and technology.

1. Decide who will write down the group’s views on the response form and make sure they are entered online or posted to us.
2. Read one of the stories in your chosen theme.
   
1. Mind and Body
   
2. Home and Community
   
3. Work and Leisure
   
4. People and Planet
3. You can get people to read out the story sheets or pass them round, or you can use the CD-ROM to view all of the information together.
4. Discuss the questions about the story on the response form and write down the group’s views.
5. Read another story, discuss the questions and record the views on the response form. Repeat until you have discussed all four stories in the theme.
6. Discuss whether there is anything you would like to say about the stories in the theme, or the pack more generally, and record your points on the response form.
7. Fill in the group details and give us your contact details if you would like to keep in touch.
   

• Discussion pack - View the Mind and Body Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the Home and Community Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the Work and Leisure Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the People and Planet Theme as a pdf file...
• Discussion pack - View the Questions as a pdf file...

Please discuss the following questions about all four stories and record your answers on the paper or online form:
1. What do you like about the technology in the story, and why? Please list all the things people in the group like.
2. What do you dislike about the technology in the story, and why? Please list all the things people in the group dislike.
3. Of the things you either like or dislike, which is the most important? Try to agree as a group- if you cannot agree, please explain why.
Please discuss the general question:
13. What else would you like to say about the stories in this theme, or about the pack in general?

Requests for sciencehorizons packs are coming in now (over 600 sent out so far), discussions are starting to take place (look at the calendar page for the larger ones), and we are pleased to say thanks to Ilkley U3A for being our first group to enter the results of their discussion online.

There are various ways you can get involved.

sciencehorizons is funded by the DTI’s Sciencewise programme and run by a consortium of Dialogue by Design, Demos, the Graphic Science Unit, BBC Worldwide Interactive Learning and Shared Practice.

Quick Links

• What is sciencehorizons? - sciencehorizons is a national series of conversations about new technologies, the future and society...
• Launch event video -what a sciencehorizons discussion can look like..
• How to get involved - sciencehorizons events will be taking place all over the UK from January to June 2007...
• What will happen to the results? - The results of the sciencehorizons programme will be presented to the government...

Resources for you to download:

• Broadening our horizons - an (more academic!) article putting the project in context.
• Podcast Kathy Sykes talking about public enagagement with science

Calendar of Events: http://www.sciencehorizons.org.uk/calendar.asp

Examples:

Date: Thursday, 8 March 2007

Time: 11.00
Venue: Science Oxford, Science Oxford, 1-5 London Place, Oxford, OX4 1BD
Suitable for: Years 12 and 13 students
Event name: sciencehorizons... shaping our future
Event description: Years 12 & 13 students are invited to take part in a discussion with scientists about what they want for the future and how they feel about the promise of new technologies.
Booking details: Booking essential. Call 01865 728953 or e-mail events@oxtrust.org.uk.

Date: Saturday, 10 March 2007

Time: 11.00am and 1.30pm
Venue: Science Oxford, Science Oxford, 1-5 London Place, Oxford, OX4 1BD
Suitable for: General public
Event name: sciencehorizons... shaping our future
Event description: Come and join scientists and other members of the community to explore what excites and concerns you about these possible futures.
Booking details: The event is free. Booking essential. Call 01865 728953 or e-mail events@oxtrust.org.uk.

Date: Thursday 22nd March 2007

Time: 18.00 - 20.30
Venue: The Institute of Biology, 9 Red Lion Court, London EC4A 3EF
Suitable for: Anyone aged over 18+
Event name: London Branch sciencehorizons Discussion Group
Event description: You are invited to the London Branch Science Horizons discussion group. This is your chance to express your hopes and concerns about possible future technological developments to the government. You will be presented with a series of short stories showing possible future scenarios on the themes of Mind and Body, Home and Community, Work and Leisure, and People and the Planet. We will explore the stories and record our views (anonymously) to questions about our reactions to them.
Booking details: Free but booking is essential. Email londonbranch@dicentra.plus.com

Interactive scenes

Source: http://www.sciencehorizons.org.uk/interactive.asp#

There are 4 themes:

• Mind and Body 2025
• Home and Community 2025
• Work and Leisure 2025
• People and Planet 2025

Click on a theme to view the interactive scenes for that theme.

When you are in a scene use your mouse to 'roll-over' the scene and click on a character to read their story.Each scene contains the stories of two characters and there are two scenes in each theme.

When you have finished one theme don’t forget to discuss the questions and enter the results, and remember to exit the scene and come back to this page to look at the next theme.

Results of small group discussions: http://smallgroups.dialoguebydesign.net/open/sessionlist.asp



reposted from: http://www.sciencehorizons.org.uk
my highlights / emphasis / comments