Big science for 2007

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 04:05:02 GMT

Despite the efforts of the Republicans, I think global warming has already become widely accepted by the general public and mainstream media. There really seemed to be a shift this year! Being accepted and actually having the public do something about it is, unfortunately, quite a different story. Hurricanes may not have caught their attention this year but the problems in the Arctic sure have the rest of us very worried. Putting a dollar tax on gas would be the first step I’d take.

As for the top science stories of ’06 I thought the water vapor coming from the very small Saturian moon Enceleadus was the real stunner! Such a small body yet so active… Apart from this they found methane lakes on Titan and solar cell efficiency just topped 40%. I guess there was a lot of hoopla over the "return to flight," though I can't see why. Robotic exploration is where the real science is.

As for next year's science stories, I'm sure the Mars Recon orbiter will steel a lot of headlines! Have they found a definitive shoreline on Mars yet? There was also a hot spot detected in the south pole that they thought might be an "Ice Tower" venting heated water vapor... A photo of that would be just too cool.

Doesn't the VLT interferometer telescope come on line soon? What about the LBT? I've been waiting for the promised photos of Jovian planets and hope they'll be able to see the eclipsing effect of an earth-sized moon, perhaps even gauging the atmospheric content of such a moon as they did when a jovian planet eclipsed its own sun.

Big science for 2007

Craig from Seattle — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 04:45:38 GMT

I agree with Chris that in terms of Global Warming, the people (and even most businesses) are far ahead of the government.

I disagree with most of the people who will read this by saying that this isn't a bad thing. When was the last time Americans relied on the government and got a solution? Then why do we keep asking the government to solve our socioeconomic problems? The Kyoto Treaty, for instance, was worse than bad, it was useless.

Global warming will not be effectively combatted until the Laffer Curve gets involved, which seems to be happening. And by the way, Al Gore is still as irrelevant as he ever was.

The big 2006 science story might - just *might* - have come out of a small defense contract held by legendary nuclear engineer Robert Bussard...

Big science for 2007

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:12:19 GMT

I don't think there's just one over-riding example of a top news story for scientific advance in any year. Science is advanced slowly, like Poincare's Hypothesis solution, but who knows where that will lead in the future? Some kid might read it and let it simmer in the subconscious until he (or she) has the Eureka moment and can explain how to achieve antigravity. But that scenario reads like s-f. Advancement in science is only achieved now in minor increments with much slogging and little victories along the way. Our scientists do need encouragement, but money rather than recognition will be their saving grace if our governments smarten up.

Big science for 2007

Michael Palmer, Kingsport, TN — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:03:20 GMT

Alternative fuels is an area of research needing more funding by the Federal Government. There should be a program on the same scale as our effort to put a man on the moon in the late 60s. Not because the cost of gasoline is going to increase as supplies dwindle, but simply because we are going to run out of easily obtained oil one of these days, not to mention the energy blackmail we could become victims of, if the Arabs and the Venezuelans so decided.

I am afraid that the general public is going to be sorely disappointed by the results, however. We must remember that any chemical reaction (combustion is a a chemical reaction) must follow the laws of Thermodynamics. The law of conservartion of energy cannot be broken. To create an alternative fuel that is as cheap as petroleum derived gasoline is a practical and technical impossibility. After all, the energy required to create petroleum was supplied by the Sun over millions of years, decomposing trillions of tons of organic matter. Why do we think we can accumulate that much energy to produce an alternative fuel in a real day-to-day situation?

Everyone has so much hope for hydrogen fuel, but where do we get the energy to produce hydrogen, and what effect will the product of hydrogen combustion, water, have on our ecosphere. Solar panels are now available which approach an efficiency of 40% (much greater than burning oil or gas, by the way), but how much do the panels cost, and even if the costs can be decreased, what about their longevity?

Where does the energy come from to produce these alternative fuels? Right now it is only suffciently available from petroleum, natural gas, or coal. We simply cannot get more out of a system than we put into it. Thermodynamics again.

The study of particle physics and mathematical conundrums such as Poincare's Hypothesis, which so many people view as a waste of time, may well lead to the discovery of a way to create controllable fusion, which, in my humble opinion, would be the THE BEST solution to our energy woes. I am hoping the LHC will be the first step towards this goal, but it may well take an even larger collider to make the discoveries needed. Our government is spending tens of billions of dollars to fight wars that are only escalting the hatred of America worldwide, but we can't spend a few billion to create an LHC on our own soil! It is time the silent majority wakes up and holds our political representatives accountable for the way they waste our money!

Big science for 2007

Josh-Houston, Texas — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:10:40 GMT

Putting a dollar tax on gasoline is no way to curve consumption. Its just a way to destroy the economy. I definitely believe we should switch to hydrogen power, I.E instead of growing massive corn feilds , switch to massive wind fields across the plains to create the electricity that's needed to stir hydrogen production.

Big science for 2007

Darren, Madison, In — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:46:58 GMT

The thing that boggles my mind about global warming is this: Whether or not you accept the science behind it what gives our politicians or our people the right to be so cavalier about it? We shouldn't risk the unknown future for the sake of the economy. Someone will always find a way to make money, but very few of us will be able to make ice for our scotch when the temperature on any given winter day is 120 degrees and energy prices skyrocket because we need air conditioning to survive.

Big science for 2007

Crosby Key, Burleson, Texas — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:52:22 GMT

This theory is in no way a total explaination for global warming, it is just a question to theorize that it may be a contributing factor.

1. The earth follows an eliptical orbit.

2. The northern hemisphere is closer to the sun in winter and farther away in summer, making our winter a bit warmer and a bit cooler in summer. (The reverse is true in the southern hemispheres.)

3. There is more land mass in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere.

4. The specific heat of water is greater than land.

5. Water mitigates the extra temperature changes in the southern hemisphere, (thus their summers that would be hotter because of the close proximity to the sun, and reverse in the winter are not so dramatic as in the northern hemisphere.

6. The earth is on a 26,000 year wobble, and 13,000 years ago we were tilted in reverse from today's orientation, causing our winters to be colder and summers hotter in the northern hemisphere.

7. According to Kepler's 2nd law, our speed near the sun is faster than away from the sun so we spend more time in the cooler part of the orbit.

8. The ice sheet began to recede about 10,000 years ago, if we are on a 26,000 year cycle, we have about 3,000 more years before we begin to cool down a little.

Big science for 2007

Jim Pickett, Niskayuna, NY — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:05:32 GMT

Atmospheric scientists have taken Crosby Key's points into full consideration in their models. The simple fact is that carbon dioxide levels have increased by about 30% over the last century, and no reputable scientist can explain how CO2 levels can increase without causing increased temperatures. I've seen some efforts to explain this away, but they are simply wrong. We can debate the magnitude and consequences, but not the cause.

As a scientist (a chemist), I've followed this issue for a long time with my opinion changing from skepticism to alarm over the years as the data have become increasingly consistent and certain. The wikipedia.com entry on "global warming" is excellent and should answer a lot of people's questions.

Big science for 2007

Paul Steeley, Franklin, Georgia — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:14:06 GMT

Michael Crichton is best known as a writer of fiction: Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, State of Fear, et al. However, he has quite a scientific mind, and I would encourage everyone interested in "global warming" to read his speeches archived on his web site. I did. And then I looked at the raw data as opposed as to what gets reported. Quite illuminating!

Big science for 2007

David, Ann Arbor, Michigan — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:17:28 GMT

I find it somewhat interesting that people consider certain research useless. I am a graduate student and have spent the last 2 years doing research in atomic physics. The main scope of my research drew theory and results from twenty of thirty different projects in several different fields. Now I am not trying to solve global warming or cure AIDS, but any time we learn something new that is a good thing and could very well lead to these big breakthroughs. In the 1990s people made the first Bose-Einstein Condensate, without the invention of the laser some fifty years earlier that would not have been possible. The research that led up to the first demonstration of a laser took some thirty years. So I have a hard time when people say, "Oh this abstract research is useless, let us spend the money on something we need now." That is fine, and I'm sure if we did that we would have some really refined technology, but it would also slow the pace of innovation in technology.

Big science for 2007

Marcel Cooperman, Haifa, Israel — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:17:39 GMT

Sometimes I wonder on what happened to the American Common Sense. The same people who agree with the sacrifice of more than 3000 young guys with all their memories and dreams, hopes and feelings, 3000 young guys who left behind mourning parents and children, wives and friends, the same people are fiercely opposed to the sacrifice of about 1000 embryos that have nothing of all this and don't leave anything behind. More of the first were sacrificed for the most harmful (for USA!) war, while the second will be sacrificed for the healing of millions of suffering people.

Big science for 2007

John Mack, Fairway, KS — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:18:54 GMT

Global warming? Sure, the globe is warming. I don't have a mile of glacial ice over my head. OK, now, tell me something new.

The planet has periodically cooled and warmed many times over millions of years without Ford Excursions to help the matter. Why is this new round of warming/cooling so alarming?

Big science for 2007

Gary, Angora, MN — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 01:24:02 GMT

I have a vision, perhaps a sentimental one, to mark this New Year. As an old Star Trek fan, I realize that probably the only way out of our energy problems, as a species and a civilization, is a new energy source that is orders of magnitude greater than fossil fuels. Whether it be fusion or space solar arrays, let's then use that energy together with some sort of process that combines our waste, such as garbage and sewage, with the gases in the atmosphere, to create gasoline! We could then, thanks to the cholesterol drugs, be literally fat, dumb, and happy cruising around in our muscle cars and trucks as long as we wish. It sure beats the heck out of wondering if I'll have to burn the furniture to keep warm in my old age. Happy New Year!

Big science for 2007

Derwood B Harlow New Hampshire — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:43:39 GMT

For almost 5 years I have been in a study of what I believe will make a very important change in our energy solution.

I have an idea and a theory!

The theory of how static electricity is available as energy.

This may sound impossible because we simply have not been teaching ourselves to think this way.

Using what I was good at in school (not listening :) I decided to teach myself. I had to rethink many known physics and use what I thought. It started to become organized and then became a theory. It seemed to make sense. I worked hard and long using process of elimination. I came up with my own theory.

I am calling it The H Theory.

I hope to introduce this science to help many. You see I like many have always thought that someone somewhere will come up with something that will give us hope, please keep a little something in your pocket or purse that you can touch whenever you want. This puts a little spark of hope within reach. Then if you really think we can do something look at every alternative. There are thousands of us waiting for this, why not this year?

Big science for 2007

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:28:21 GMT

- Like CE, I think Mars Recon Orbiter is likely to produce some newsworthy discoveries in '07 . . . there's no convincing evidence of any putative martian shorelines yet, though.

-To DE: there ARE still occasionally major developments in science. According to some (not necessarily me...), “string theory” may provide the next one. Also, many scientists (and almost all the best ones) do science simply because they love doing it, not for money, fame or power. For example, the “chairmanship” of my department gets treated more like a disease than an honor, a pay raise, or a chance to policy-make...

-Craig seems to advocate a very dangerous policy: going right ahead warming the planet. This would be like opening the back of your pocket-watch and tinkering around in there with a pipe-wrench. And, very far from irrelevant, Gore is going to become increasingly relevant (for better or worse) as public opinion to slow climate change builds....

-The facts put forth by CK, in addition to being over-simplified, are a rehash of arguments used by mis-direction artists who claim “natural cycles” are causing most or all of global warming. They are a total red herring (put forth by people whose bottom-lines stand to lose when people finally decide to act). None of them, zero, nada, can account for the rapidity and magnitude of the changes currently observed, which are unprecedented in the geologic record (except for sudden events like impacts and massive volcanoes).

-MP points out that most of the energy we use comes ultimately from the Sun. Don’t give up hope on solar energy! We haven’t made any major effort to develop ways of making use of it yet! Also, whatever happened to plain-old conservation? Oh, right, this is the US.

-Michael Crichton would get laughed off the stage at any scientific conference I've ever been to. I HAVE seen presentations by the guy, and he’s a fool spouting about something he has no clue about. He goes on and on and on about the infamous “hockey stick” graph seemingly totally oblivious to the fact that it has become virtually irrelevant under an avalanche of other evidence. Why train and pay hundreds of scientists, if conspiracy theorists are what we really want?... For fiction, read Crichton. Want science? Listen to Jim Hansen (of NASA).

-Bravo, Darren! Good point! What good is ANY economy, if your planet goes to hell?

-JM’s comment is somewhat alarming to me since it demonstrates something too many people are still doing: not going and finding out for themselves what’s going on and what scientists REALLY think. Here’s a hint: current global warming has VERY LITTLE to do with ice ages. It DOES have to do with the fact we are changing the composition of our whole atmosphere. Unfortunately this tendency makes the misrepresentations made by such as Crichton easier to get away with.... I would recommend the American Geophysical Union’s website as a place one could start reading (look under ‘position statements’). There are many other resources on the web. I also highly recommend Al Gore’s movie. While he IS a politician (and as such has an agenda), I couldn’t find a single thing in the movie that isn’t widely accepted by geoscientists. In point of fact their are many signs of climate change that Gore doesn’t even mention.

-I *am* encouraged by the numbers of people and local governments who are increasingly tuning out the politicians and the novelists, and starting to listen to the people who actually study this stuff. Like CE, I think there is finally a growing shift away from denial and toward action.

Big science for 2007

Tom, Boston MA — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:37:57 GMT

I find David's point to be most illuminating, and as a fellow graduate student (Electrical Engineering, in my case) I would put the biggest scientific breakthrough as inter discipline work. More and more Nobel prizes are being awarded to teams instead of individuals, and more and more research groups are comprised of researchers from multiple fields. It is this coming together of science and the advances in group thinking, and group learning that really strike me.

It really shows how subtle and clever God was when he created the universe, as science has to fundamentally change to learn more.

Big science for 2007

Tom, Boston MA — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:50:32 GMT

As to the fossil fuels question, the problem is not the fuel we burn in our cars. The problem is on the back end of energy production.

On a single tank of gas, my saturn can develop up to 40 kilowatts for up to 6 hours. This is about 250 kilowatt hours. At 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that means that gas power and electricity cost about the same.

Synthetic fossil fuels will be governed by the efficiency of manufacture. this means that, despite what skeptics say, any given synthetic fuel can supplant oil, it will just be significantly more expensive.

Nuclear energy comes out of the ground, and is only a stopgap. The only real question left is how we will extract solar/tidal energy. There is wind power, from solar heating of the atmosphere, there is solar directly, etc.

Big science for 2007

Wayne Whitman, Russellville, KY — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:00:23 GMT

The fact that the government spends billions of our tax dollars on space exploration while people go homeless and hungry in America is a disgrace. Note: I am NOT a liberal democrat.

Big science for 2007

John Romanoski 68246 Adolph Street, Bridgeport, Ohio 43923 — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:33:40 GMT

As a scientist I vote for the Hadron Collider as the biggest science news in 2007.

Big science for 2007

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 03:56:17 GMT

Another major advance last year was by Honda who created an enzyme that could make "significant" amounts of ethanol from discarded plant matter such as grass, not just corn or sugar cane! Being able to produce some type of fuel on a local level helps insulate us during times of crisis!

I didn’t follow it too closely but the Z-machine in a national laboratory in New Mexico "produced plasmas that exceed temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin — hotter than the interiors of stars. The unexpectedly hot output, if its cause were understood and harnessed, could eventually mean that smaller, less costly nuclear fusion plants would produce the same amount of energy as larger plants" when they switched to using iron in their experiments. Hopefully such experiments will pan out into a new method of fusion or something similar!

I like the sound of that rapid charging nano battery! I’ll have to follow up on that…

Across the board scientists are making rapid and stunning advancements! It is in many ways as much a great time to be alive as it is a challenging one! As always, I give the Europeans a great deal of credit for being on the cutting edge of many things. Their new collider is much welcomed news as was their role in finally getting the ITER fusion program finally going again after such long delays. Though I too like the potential of fusion, such a reactor won’t be fully tested for another 16 years and it is a smaller one than they originally hoped for...

Big science for 2007

Rodger Liley, Lexington, Kentucky — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 07:08:10 GMT

Its 2am Jan 1st 2007 and 50 deg F outside. No surprise, it's been that way most of December and warmer. The only thing that surprises me is that no one is really talking about it. I haven't heard one weather person say "Golly Gee Whiz, It's a bit warm for this time of year." Instead all I hear is what a wonderful day. I hope they are still singing that tune when the Ohio River is lapping at I-64 and our old Kentucky home is beachfront property.

Big science for 2007

Chuck Flink, Diamondhead, MS — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:34:01 GMT

Possibly the greatest lesson of science, one that should be celebrated every New Year, is humility.

The history of revolution in science is long and healthy; the "consensus view" has almost always been wrong. Newton's Laws were taught as "fact" for generations of scientists, and then recognized as only an approximation at the beginning of the last century. Eienstien's own views are now challenged on many fronts, and his goal of a grand unification theory is still not met.

Many proponent of "science-driven" politics seem to lack any appreciation of why the word "theory" has overtaken the word "law" in the teaching of science.

Nature seems to insist on "putting us in our place" on a regular basis; consider the last two years of hurricane predicting as just one example. Given that history, it is foolish to think we know what way to go in order to avoid the coming impact of climate change.... except to fund greater research into what is actually happening and what can be done to change it, IF we should.

Big science for 2007

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:30:39 GMT

more about my "move Hubble near ISS" proposal (and a good project to start in 2007): ---- the "Give Hubble a chance to survive (near the ISS)" image here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/hubbleneariss.jpg ---- a very interesting .pdf document (found by BAUT forum's moderator ToSeek) where that problem was evaluated at high scientific level: http://www.aura-astronomy.org/nv/hubble.pdf ---- my BAUT forum's thread about the "move Hubble near ISS" proposal: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=50793&page=7

Big science for 2007

Paul K, Alamo, CA — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:11:48 GMT

I think the larger issue with regard to Global warming and the like, is that science needs to be allowed to work properly. For too many years now, the White House and congress has allowed/caused scientific debate and opinion to be rewritten by political hacks who have an agenda. Stopping reports from being issued, allowing fools to edit reports, and staffing government science departments with industry players has done a lot of damage to everyone (regardless of what you believe on any particular subject). If people think the evidence points to other answers, let them debate it properly and not through blogs, censorship, and nonsense.

Politicians may still make decisions, but make them in the light of actual scientific thought. The politicians can still use cynical renaming techniques to try to trick the population (e.g. allow more toxins in the air, but call it the "blue skies initiative"). But, do not suppress the science.

Big science for 2007

Bruce Hagen — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:16:32 GMT

It is interesting that so many of you cite the laws of thermodynamics to illustrate the reality that putting more energy into our earth system will result in heat unless an equal amount is dissapated. Yet we still cling to the idea that technology will provide us a new energy source to save us. I am all for using solar, wind, and sea energy, but any other source is like throwing fuel on the fire. Even ethanol requires energy input to derive the indirect solar energy locked in plant material. So unless string theory can show us how to harness lightning call me skeptical of its value for energy production. The real problem remains wasted energy. Most of our electric appliances and gadgets are wasteful or needless. We drive our cars when we should walk or bike. A lot of our toys burn gas and create even more pollution. The most sensible solution remains conservation. But you can't force that on the apathetic masses. We either teach a philosophy of caring and giving to attain happiness to our children or use fear to cause people to change their lifestyle which hasn't worked so far. There is a myriad of other partial solutions to global warming we overlook such as revegetate barren land or just coat rooftops and absorbant areas with reflective materials, or better yet solar cells. But for today lets turn off the lights and walk for a change.

Big science for 2007

Dr BLT — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:10:59 GMT

I hope blog n roll is the next big thing to happen over the internet in '07. Of course, as the humble inventor of the phenomenon that failed to really take off in '07, I'm a little biased.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE! Here are a couple of brand new, original New Years Day songs for your listening pleasure:

A Future to Behold (Celebrate '07 Mix)
Dr. BLT (c) 2006
http://www.drblt.net/music/future3.mp3

Another New Years Day
Dr. BLT (c) 2006
http://www.drblt.net/music/AnNewYear.mp3

Big science for 2007

J. Vanderlinden, Irvine, CA — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:58:36 GMT

I totally agree with Michael Palmer, Kingsport, TN. The bottom line is THERMODYNAMICS. Why spend $100 BILLION to patch the whole in our energy policy life boat (the middle east/oil) when we could have the energy to drain the whole swamp if we figured out fusion. The real inconvienent truth is THERMODYNAMICS, would someone please tell Al Gore, maybe he can help explain basic physics to the politicians. If the oil companies were smart they would get the goverment contracts to do the research and then export this technology to the rest of the world. This would also help create the next generation of high tech jobs the US needs to offset the flight of lower level jobs to China. This may be looking forward more than the next election cycle but this is a Win, Win, Win!!!

Big science for 2007

John P Baker, Heath Springs, WOuth Carolina — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 22:32:16 GMT

An ignored, but potentially significant report in 2006 was the correlation between the decline in cosmic rays due to the doubling of the sun's magnetic field during the 20th century and the decrease in cloud formation in the lower atmosphere which has resulted in an increase in global temperatures.

The Svensmark hypothesis suggests that as much as 1.2 watts per square meter of the estimated 1.4 watts per square meter increase in heating since the beginning of the industrial revolution (200 years ago) may be due to the decrease in cosmic rays.

This represents more than 85% of the total temperature increase.

However, reporting in this country has been limited, since the Svensmark hypothesis does not conform with the politics of the global warming hysterics.

Big science for 2007

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:41:51 GMT

JC of Fairbanks does a good overview of the comments in this blog. But I still advocate governments spend more on basic research, without demanding bottom-line returns immediately. The researchers who lay out their results may never get paid for their efforts - I remember "string theory' being studied years ago, and maybe those studies will bear fruit in 2007, maybe not, but unless those who investigate the theory can be supported fiancially the answers to their questions will be very slow in coming. After all, every blind alley is checked by the cops when they search for a missing person, and something is gained even if the alley is empty. One discovery leads to another and not always in a straight line, but very few discoveries turn out to be world-shaking immediately. Unfortunately, with global warming we need an immediate solution, or it will be too late.

Big science for 2007

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:19:34 GMT

The evidence for an anthro-CO2 -> global warming connection is quite strong; the Svensmark effect is almost nothing more than theoretical (yes I HAVE read about it....), without physical evidence. The geologic record clearly shows that CO2 and temp. are closely linked. Where’s the Svensmark effect in the geo-record? The point being that this is currently nothing but another of the red herrings I mentioned above; I’m glad to see that more and more people are starting to see through such obfuscation tactics.

DE: I’m all for as much fundamental research as possible! The point about immediate payoff is important though: “private enterprise” will never fund stuff which may end up as all ‘gee whiz!’ and no cold cash (they just swoop in if something profitable comes of it); government must pay for our things like Hubble and L.H.C..... String Theory was ‘all the rage’ a decade ago (like ‘Chaos Theory’ before it) with a lot of big talk about “Theories of Everything”, but it turned out to be a bigger can of worms than they anticipated. In short, it has yielded some great results, but also some total contradictions, and it has become pretty controversial in physics/math circles (there was an ok NOVA on PBS about this a while back...). The combatants can be quite bitter toward each other, so I bet their annual conferences are alot of fun. I think ST has the *potential* to do great things, but I agree that a negative result is still a valuable one, as any scientist would, and if ultimately S.T. collapses we still will have learned something.

Big science for 2007

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:04:07 GMT

No politician is capable of seeing past the next election. To expect otherwise is to demand something that the organism is incapable of doing. Would you ask a manta ray to fly in the air or a porpoise to sculpt?

Organic "fuels" are too valuable to use as one-time fuels. They should be preserved as the chemical feedstocks they are. Fusion is the way to go, obviously. Minor matters of confinement time, thermal gradients, conversion (hydrogen - heat - electricity) efficiency, etc. Don't forget the waste heat, efficiency losses that will contribute heat to the atmosphere. Just think about the heat of friction caused by getting on the brakes of a stupidly usless vehicle at 65 mph!

Larry Niven had a good discussion of the effect of an immense population on the heat balance of a planet in "Ringworld".

Big science for 2007

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg pA — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:26:35 GMT

Des Emery, Immediate solutions to prevent global warming are hard to come by. As Bruce Hagen notes above, personal conservation is one of the best ways. Even as the "environmentalist" I thought I was, I was still wasting so many things out of habit or some ritual-like routine like washing and waxing my car every week which is hardly necessary. Forget the environment, people are literally more interested in their own social status than getting more out of life itself and such wastefulness is what is damaging both. People would rather look good driving a 35K sports car or SUV to work everyday their entire life than to retire five or more years early or take multi-year vacations before they’re 40 like I have. That just isn’t too bright

As you can see, conservation doesn't always have to mean living without. It just means wiser and more effective choices that typically pay off monetarily as well as environmentally.

Bruce, walking or riding a bike to work is great in areas that are safe but an even better idea would be to live right where we work. If you think about it, there really isn't very much a service economy does that cannot be done on a very local level. Better urban planning that places homes, businesses, and recreational facilities close together eliminates the entire middleman of transportation and that not only benefits our environment, it increases our free time by 10% (or four years worth of your career). No hassle and so on! Better urban planning means consolidation with five- and six-level shopping centers, not sprawling one-level wal-marts that simply pave over all the farmland they need for parking. Consolidation also means less infrastructure to maintain or replace after a disasters.

Other immediate solutions to help stop global warming can be things like effective traffic control systems that speed up traffic and a resurgence of less wasteful/functional products.

Big science for 2007

Laura Ft Worth, TX — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:32:53 GMT

I just wanted to ask if anyone else read a story about using an arc-plasma ray for waste disposal. MSN ran a story about it a few months ago and I haven't heard anything else since. Apparently it creates less emissions than even Japan's stringent emission policies, and the by-product can be hardened into slag for paving roads. I don't know much about the topic but if it really works as well as it sounds we could have a much brighter future ahead.

Big science for 2007

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas Tx. — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:35:11 GMT

Re: Lack of Appreciation for Poincare's Conjecture...

The criticisms are kind of funny... "useless"... "waste of time/energy"...

I would remind all the critics that those of us who love math do not do math as some sort of debt to pay down to society- we do it for the same reason a painter paints. We love it.

When it happens to have an application to real life (i.e. the non-euclidean geometry explored by revolutionaries like Lobachevsky)- be it general relativity in a non-euclidean universe or otherwise- it is just an unfortunate consequence.

Ooops. I meant a fortuitous consequence. For the applied mathematicians anyway.

Big science for 2007

500laps, Indianapolis, Indiana — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:42:31 GMT

There are how many planets? How many of these are orbited by debris and foreign objects that will be excavated and brought for scientists to proclaim an organism lives and dies shorter than any other organism on earth? See, we must explore these interesting findings because in the near future maybe controlling our breathing in an atmosphere entirely made up of gases that cannot support our arithimic systems. Would our expectations any less of proper science take our innovative minds, makes us easier to tell our neighbors that this global home is small, so is our planetary system.

Are any of us ready to say "to hell with it all", yes but no, our firm comforts is knowing that one day we will all live, travel pass the stars and make it a home.

Big science for 2007

BG, Scottsdale, AZ, USA — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:50:03 GMT

Yes, the world has warmed a bit in recent years. No, this is nothing new that hasn't happened umpteen times in the world's past, long before the evil humans appeared on the scene.

Yes, mankind's habit of spewing gases into the atmosphere doesn't help matters. No, mankind's actions have not CAUSED global warming (just ask the cows).

Yes, ice coverage at the poles is shrinking. No, we're not going to face ice shortages and be forced to drink warm scotch. The ice is pretty and it’s so sad to see it go, but think of all the newly-exposed rocks we get to look at (hey, I’m a geologist). Besides, the ice will be back soon.

Yes, the world's oil dependency is an unhealthy habit that is based on a finite resource, crude and inefficient technology, it is mired in political turmoil and instability, and it has been the seedy undercurrent in too many political maneuverings. No (unfortunately), the world’s oil dependency isn’t going to end until an alternative energy source becomes economically advantageous to implement. No other way around that one...altruism can’t fuel the world’s economy.

And please tell me what is worse for the world....a few more years of unhealthy internal combustion or mass irrational hysteria that leads to economy-collapsing environmental regulations? Does anyone REALLY think it would matter one bit to the history of the Earth if we reduced man-made carbon dioxide emissions by some minuscule percentage next year? Does anyone think that redirecting trillions of dollars to “fight global warming” might have a negative impact on world economy?

We certainly should direct more time, effort, and money to alternative fuel research and I hope that is one good thing that comes out of the new Democrat-controlled Congress. But I also fear that there is going to be a lot of expensive hysteria coming out of Pelosi’s house...

Big science for 2007

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:36:55 GMT

Wow... seeing some of the uneducated pseudo-science comments, does not make me feel comfortable about the direction mankind is taking

Big science for 2007

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:29:39 GMT

today's news says NASA may DELETE in 2007 (both) Ares-I and Ares-V to develop only a single "Ares-IV" http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=51646

Big science for 2007

John Erwin, Fraser, Colorado — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 23:31:11 GMT

If we put as much money into alternative fuels research (as we have put into Iraq), paid attention to what Brazil is already doing, and all started raising sugar cane in our back yards, we could likely kiss the arabs good bye and watch them return to their camels and wandering tribes in the sandy plains.

But without regard to all this, the Hadron Collider is exciting. With the new energy levels possible, we are likely to uncover yet another layer/aspect of the atomic mystery only to find that we will need an even bigger collider to get to the next level, and the next, and so on.

Big science for 2007

wg cannon detroit michigan — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:37:01 GMT

About the Large Hadron Collider, one fact that seems to be left out by a lot of people is that the focal point of physics for something like 30 years has been at Fermilab in Illinois, now with the LHC that focus moves to the Swiss border, along with its infrastructure. All because a past admininistration, much like people in this blog decided that building a supercollider was less important than social security, or a cure for cancel.. Another industry the US about to lose its lead in.. And that's what makes the LHC both exciting (for the discoveries it will uncover) and saddening for the US losing another key area of technology it had lead in. What next, perhaps space because some new administration will decide there's no benefit in going to the moon...

I said it once and I will say it again, there's always going to be an inpact when you move monies from tech to prop up poorly managed social programs. Sometimes that impact is 10, 20 30 years but there is always going to be a negative impact. And you're going to see it now.

Big science for 2007

BG, AZ, USA — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:47:36 GMT

wg cannon, very good points! People get all upset when they see money going towards something they can't comprehend and they whip out the tired old whine, "that money could go towards the poor, homeless, illiterate, cancer, aids, etc." You don’t think all those social programs are already well funded? Throwing money at the problem does NOT solve the problem!

If people think little things like creating reliable space travel and establishing a colony on the moon are a waste of money, then NASA will soon be changing its name to CHINASA.

Big science for 2007

Guy S. Newell, Niles, MI — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:09:06 GMT

I must be missing something. Why do people keep talking about "Hydrogen Power"? There's no such thing. Hydrogen fuel cells are a battery technology, not a source of energy. It's a way to power cars from coal generated electricity. It's a technology to solve a political issue, not an environmental issue. In fact, unless the electricity used to produce the hydrogen is generated by nuclear power, it would actually make the greenhouse gas problem worse by increasing the environmental impact of automobiles. If we are going to solve the environmental problem, we must start thinking clearly about the issues and not get confused this easily.

Big science for 2007

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:35:17 GMT

Guy S. When looking at hydrogen from the top down--as a society overall--I agree that it wouldn't be the best idea. Coal power plants would be needed to produce most of the gas and that indeed does cause pollution (perhaps not as much considering the new GE coal plants).

However, what I like about hydrogen is that it is one of only a few fuels that can be produced right at the local--indeed--the household level. If ordinary citizens start adding enough solar or wind generators to their homes (where applicable) the hydrogen can be cleanly produced. As citizens, producing our own fuel would insulate us from energy spikes and from major region-wide disasters.

If possible, we should just try to skip the middleman (of needing any kind of fuel whatsoever) and just use electric cars when battery technology permits. At that point, hydrogen would only be needed for aircraft which aren't able to use batteries.

Big science for 2007

The Horsemen — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:09:32 GMT

Solution to global warming...and a host of other issues.....98% human population reduction.

Release the airborn ebola plague and be done with it. The sooner the better.

Big science for 2007

John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):* — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:19:20 GMT

I'll believe the discussions on Global Warming are serious when they include Nuclear Options (And please, don't even mention the problems with our 60 year old designs in current production, move up to at least EBR-II style). I cannot figure out this fascination with Ethonal or other bio-fules - we cannot affort to use 90% of our cropland to produce enough fuel to make a significant impact.

Big science for 2007

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:19:10 GMT

[...] In answer to questions about Hydrogen as a fuel, please see:
http://www.aps.org/publications/
apsnews/200405/upload/may04.pdf

and the preceding issue of APS News.

Big science for 2007

Des Emery, St. Thomas, on, Can — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:54:59 GMT

People who think linearly only seem to always come up with an either/or solution to mankind's problems with each other and with the natural forces of the world. People still build homes on flood plains or on shifting mountains; they still travel to places where they shouldn't and drink the water anyway. We're always placing ourselves in harm's way and never seem to realize that nature is the most powerful force in the universe. Global warming is real and immediate -- does it matter if we caused it or if it a 'natural' progression? No, but we have to do something about it now. It is more than losing ice cubes for our Jack Daniels and more than just peeing and not flushing the toilet (sorry, Chris Eldridge, you're one of the good guys). Too many of us are ignoring the signals nature is sending our way, and we all will have to pay the price.

Big science for 2007

Pete Howells, Reno, NV — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:41:02 GMT

Des Emery says, "Global warming is real and immediate -- does it matter if we caused it or if it a 'natural' progression? No, but we have to do something about it now." Why?

Because WE think WE should be comfortable. If global warming is a problem, the planet will fix it. If the current global warming is part of another natural cycle, the cycle will move on, as others have in the past. If we are responsible, the planet will kill us (or enough of us) to correct the problem.

Humans destroy or maintain the evironment for one purpose: our own perceived self interest. The Bush administration's self interest is "eat, drink, and make merry, for tomorrow we die." The tree huggers' self interest is the idea that their children and grandchildren should live in a world similar to the one they (we) live in. The planet's self interest is one of disinterest: Mars may or may not have had life on it at some time or another; Mars is still there, whether life is or not. With or without us, the Earth will still be here.

The only reasons for being concerned about the environment is: do we want to be here and, if so, what kind of quality of life do we want? Humans as a species adapt to change quite well. Humans are also inherently lazy (all "progress" is in some way related to making things easier for ourselves) and the need to adapt is annoying to us. However, when it comes to the environment, we are in a lose/lose situation: we either have to work to maintain the current environment or we have to work to adapt to a changing environment ... bummer.

Big science for 2007

Des Emery, St.Thomas, ON, Canada — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:30:21 GMT

The Large Hadron Collider will provide us with more answers to our questions soon, and also provoke more questions. Unfortunately, global warming will change our world sooner rather than later and could make Hadron totally irrelevant as we battle each other over a cup of cold water and build walls to keep each other out.

Whether or not global warming is natural progression or man-made we must do something to be prepared for its inevitability. Too many people in high places seen prepared to make plans for its ultimate arrival in the far future when it is just now at our door and waiting for us to answer its demands.

Big science for 2007

Reece Goelzer — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:00:38 GMT

Q: Is a stable, closed photon orbit mathematically possible?

Q: Is there a formal connection between Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Uncertainty Principle?

Q: Must a 'Perfect' Turing machine generate errors? How often?

Q: Is there a maximum speed at which even the most massively parallel computer regimes can operate?

Q: Does the Einstien-Rosen Podolowsky effect truly demostrate a FTL effect?

Q: If a snowflake or a cotton boll carries a given density, why is the total weight proportional to the square of the radius, rather than the cube?

Q: Does the Babbage "Differential Machine" qualify as a Turing Machine? Was Lady Lovelace truly a 'programmer?'

Q: What is the origin of 'religion?' Why are even the most remote roots not seen in primate societies?

Q: Is "life" inelectable in all but the most severe climates (those which preclude complex 'organic' molecules)? Is not this a refutation of the Second Law?

Q: Why are Shakespeare and even Homer still enormously influential? Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas, ...?

And, of course, there are many more.

Big science for 2007

David Esker, Colorado Springs, Colorado — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:41:20 GMT

What will be the big science story for 2007?

Well if I am successful in getting the word out such that I am 'discovered', the big science story for 2007 will be my solution to the big dinosaur paradox.

For real! Over 350 years ago Galileo wrote about scaling properties in Two New Sciences. The scaling properties are fundamental to every major and most minor science discipline including physics, biology, chemistry, aerodynamics, planetary science, and of course nanotechnology. Yet the scaling properties have been ignored because no one has been able to explain the dinosaurs and other large species of the Mesozoic era. What grade school science teacher wants to explain scaling properties when they are sure to be embarrassed when the children ask about the dinosaurs?

I am a college physics instructor who has known about the scaling properties and the dinosaur paradox for over thirty years and now I have solved the big dinosaur paradox.

How big of a discovery is this? It is actually a new major scientific theory regarding the development of the Earth. But before you conclude that this is too big to be possible, please read my web site 'www.dinosaurtheory.com'. From the web site there is an article that gives the solution to dinosaur paradox. Also my book The Solution is Science will be coming out later this year that explains the entire theory.

We all like to believe that we have an open mind. But is it really true? Galileo was right about the Earth revolving around the Sun and yet the science community has ignored his arguments about scaling properties that are just as valid.

Visit my web site to be one of the first to know about the coming science revolution. This is good science!

Big science for 2007

Des Emery. The Carborundum Chronicles, St,Thomas, ON,Canada — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 06:15:44 GMT

David Esker -- I haven't read all of your blog about dinos, but I think I get your idea about the scale of things in general. I just heard on tv about a scientist who studies very old rocks. It surprised her to find ultra-high concentrations of oxygen in stone which co-incidentally dates from the times of the dinos and the giant insects, like dragonflies. But after thinking about it she realized that the higher concentrations of oxygen would allow giantism to flourish back then. Does this info work into your project?

Big science for 2007

David Esker, Colorado Springs, Colorado — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:32:40 GMT

No, if there were higher levels of oxygen then the thinking is that this would possibly increase the metabolism of the animals, but that would not increase the size of the animals.

To increase the size of the dinosaurs, insects, and trees of the Mesozoic era these species need to feel lighter even though they have greater mass. This can only be accomplished by reducing the effective 'g' on the surface of the Earth.

For over a century people have been coming up with one crazy idea after another in the hopes of explaining how this could be possible but none of these ideas were physically possible or supported by evidence. Whereas my solution of there being an extremely thick atmosphere, 2/3 of the density of water, is both physically possible and it is supported by the evidence. An atmosphere of this density gave the species of the Mesozoic era an upward bouyancy that supported 2/3 of the animals weight. Without this assitance the largest dinosaurs, the sauropods, would have been stuck lying on the ground like beached whales.

I encourage you to request my science article from my web site 'www.dinosaurtheory.com'. Sending me an e-mail through my web site will automatically respond with the article. The science article is not difficult to read and it will address many of your questions.