I love The Onion. It is that simple. I hope someone was eating a banana when they wrote that piece.

Sam Harris put it pretty well: the timing of when young Earth creationists claim God created the Universe, "… is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue."

I post a lot of pictures here from Hubble, Spitzer, and other massively-funded large observatories. But it doesn’t take a huge, multi-billion-dollar project to create amazing astronomical images. Proof in point: Emil Kraaikamp is one of the more gifted astrophotographers I’ve seen. He has a 25 cm (10″) telescope that he uses to create truly jaw-dropping views of the sky.

Want proof? Check this image out: it’s an animation he made of Mars, using observations he made in early December and showing the planet’s rotation over the course of more than two hours about 45 minutes (a day on Mars is a half hour longer than Earth’s). You can clearly see both the south and north polar ice caps together with several dark surface features on the planet, which in itself is lovely and very cool.

But what blew me away is something you may not notice immediately in the picture. Take a look on the left side of the animation. See those three aligned blue spots, with the one blue spot to the lower right? Those are called orographic clouds, formed when moist air is lifted up over an obstacle; the air cools and the moisture condenses, forming clouds. What kind of obstacle on the Martian surface could do that?

Volcanoes. Yes, volcanoes: in the animation, you can actually see clouds that have formed as the Martian atmosphere moves up the banks of the enormous volcanoes on the Tharsis shield, a massive uplift feature on Mars. The fourth cloud to the lower right is actually marking the spot of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano in the solar system. The image inset here is from NASA, showing Olympus Mons up close; but you don’t need to go to Mars to see it.

After all, it can be captured with a ten inch telescope.

Holy — and for once I mean this literally, folks — Haleakala.

On his page, Emil Kraaikamp showed how he took three images using red, green, and blue filters to create the stills that were then used for the animation:

I love this, because it shows how using filters tells you a lot about what you’re seeing. Note that in the red Mars is fairly smooth, with some dark spots. The red dust covers the planet, so it smooths out features (though the ice caps are obvious). In the green you’re just starting to see a hint of clouds, and then in the blue the clouds pop right out.

Combine them, and you have Mars. Another world, seen through what most people would consider a small telescope here on Earth.

You absolutely must peruse his other planet images; the animations of Jupiter are fantastic, and the detail he was able to capture on Venus — normally a featureless white blur — is nothing short of spectacular!

I’ll add that his setup is quite sophisticated, and he spent many hours processing these images, so it’s not like you can buy an off-the-shelf ’scope and expect to do this on your first night. But it does show what someone dedicated to the art and science of astronomy can do when they set their mind and heart to it. Amazing.

Credits: Images from Emil Kraaikamp used with permission. Olympus Mons image: NASA.

Researchers from the Imperial College London have a new strategy to combat malaria. The species of mosquito responsible for the spread of malaria in Africa, Anopheles gambiae, only mates once during its life. Putting a stop to their one shot at reproduction should slow down malaria transmission. Anopheles males deploy a glob of proteins and fluids known as a “mating plug” that is essential for ensuring sperm is correctly retained in the female’s sperm storage organ, from where she can fertilise eggs over the course of her lifetime [BBC News]. Without a mating plug, the sperm is not stored and the mosquitoes can’t reproduce. Simply put, the researchers want to prevent male mosquitoes from plugging in the wild.

Anopheles gambiae is the only known species of mosquito to use a mating plug. (However, mating plugs are found in other animals where they prevent multiple males from reproducing with a female. Plug checking mice in research laboratories is a right of passage for many graduate students.) In their research, written up in the journal PLoS Biology, scientists were able to alter the mosquitoes’ genes so that they could no longer form a plug, and thus were unable to reproduce. If this process could be developed for use in the field, perhaps in a spray form like an insecticide, it could “effectively induce sterility in female mosquitoes in the wild,” [study author Flaminia] Catteruccia wrote, offering potential as “one more weapon in the arsenal against malaria” [Reuters]. The WHO is optimistic that their increased funding efforts will produce more technologies similar to this one and that, hopefully, one of them will prove effective.

Related Content:
80beats: Potential Mosquito Repellent Keeps Them From Smelling Victims’ Breath
80beats: DEET Is Harmful to Cells in Lab Settings. What’s the Significance?
80beats: The Ultimate Source of Malaria Is Found in Chimps

So there’s a video of actress Jessica Simpson which is burning up (hahahahahahaha!) the internet right now. Her friend gave her an ear candle for Christmas, and she’s using it in the video:

I love this video, for a lot of reasons. First, as should be obvious to anyone who prefers not to set their head on fire, ear candling is dangerous and ineffective. Unless you’re trying to set your head on fire. Then it’s very effective.

Second, Ms. Simpson clearly thinks this is a bad idea as well. She titled the video "Who gives this kind of candle for a christmas gift?", and her reactions to it in the video is pretty clear. I love how one purported benefit of ear candling is relief of vertigo, but Ms. Simpson complains of nausea constantly in the video.

Third, and related to the second, the video shows how painful and awful this procedure is. It may set antiscience "alternative medicine" back a thousand years. Which is where alt-med is anyway. So I guess that’s a wash.

Fourth, it makes me wonder if anyone has sent Ms. Simpson to this website. I’ll refrain from commenting on any potential video of that.

Fifth and finally, it gives me a chance once again to use this drawing, which has been lonely lately:

Today a link to this story hit my inbox:

..the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.

……

Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

While admittedly, I haven’t read the book, it appears the authors are just as hard on cats for killing wildlife, producing toxic waste, and eating Fancy Feast. In fact, no pet is innocent… not even goldfish. BUT there’s a big elephant in the room on this one (hopefully included in detail once readers get beyond the eye-catching title).

While the cumulative ‘eco-pawprint’ of our furry friends may be large, the trouble isn’t really about pets specifically. Rather, the point is that here on planet Earth, we (humans included) eat lots of protein. Food production (for dogs, cats, people, and more) has a gargantuan impact. Thus, the largest part of this equation–by far–has everything to do with the overwhelming carbon footprint of the meat industry.

The solution would be shifting average diet away from meat. Is it possible? Yes. Likely? That’s more complicated.

Earlier this month DISCOVER covered the 213-million-year-old fossils of the theropod Tawa hallae, a dinosaur ancestor that could show how early dinos spread around the world. Now, in a study (in press) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, another research team has uncovered a surprise in the bones of a theropod from almost 100 million years later. By that time, these creatures may have adopted a clever new weapon: venom.

Sinornithosaurus lived 125 million years ago in what’s now China, and while it might have been covered in feathers (and the size of a turkey), the researchers say it attacked like modern rear-fanged snakes. Rear-fanged snakes don’t inject venom. Instead, the toxin flows down a telltale groove in a fang’s surface and into the bite wound, inducing a state of shock [National Geographic].

Looking at the dinosaur’s skull, study author David Burnham says his team found a pocket that they believe Sinornithosaurus could have used to store venom. A groove runs from there to the base of the fang, the team says. Like rear-fanged snakes, the venom Sinornithosaurus used was probably not lethal. The researchers suggest it instead caused rapid shock, allowing the dinosaur to subdue its prey [BBC News]. Today’s komodo dragons may use a similar blast of venom to weaken their targets.

Burnham says the dinosaur probably ate the birds that lived in the forests of that time and place. Short front teeth were probably used “to pluck the feathers off their victims,” wrote the researchers, who suggest that other members of Sinornithosaurus‘ family, including the velociraptors of Jurassic Park fame, had the same venomous capabilities [Wired.com]. What Burnham doesn’t know is how far back venom goes—if dinosaurs 125 million years ago possessed the ability, it possibly could date to even earlier reptiles.

Related Content:
80beats: New Fossil Suggests Dinosaur World Domination Started in S. America
80beats: T. Rex May Have Been Hot-Blooded, Sweaty Beast
80beats: Did a Throat Infection Take Down Sue, the Famous T. Rex?
80beats: Four-Winged Dino Cliches the Case for Bird Evolution
80beats: Miniature T. Rex Was a Man-Sized Monster

Image: National Academy of Sciences

It is getting to be that time of year again–that time of year when everybody summarizes the year. So this is an open thread to ask for your picks: What happened in science, technology, and medicine in 2009 that was really important, potentially historic or groundbreaking, or simply worth remarking upon?

I certainly have my ideas, but I want to hear what others think as well….

In the last post, I asked whether we should go back to basics on climate science. I also wondered how to do so in a way that wouldn’t be a waste of time and energy, by requiring me to re-write things that have been written a hundred times.

But I may have found a solution: NOAA’s Climate Program Office has done a nice brochure about the basics of climate science literacy, which are enumerated as the following:

CLIMATE LITERACY: The Essential Principles of Climate Science

1. The Sun is the primary source of energy for Earths climate system.
2. Climate is regulated by complex interactions among components of the Earth system.
3. Life on Earth depends on, is shaped by, and affects climate.
4. Climate varies over space and time through both natural and man-made processes.
5. Our understanding of the climate system is improved through observations, theoretical studies, and modeling.
6. Human activities are impacting the climate system.
7. Climate change will have consequences for the Earth system and human lives.

Anyone who wants can read the brochure for further explanation of each point. I actually am surprised that the greenhouse effect is not one of these 7 major points, but is subsumed under 1.

But anyway, it is interesting to contemplate whether climate “skeptics” take issue with any of these basics, or whether they are indeed “climate science literate” by this standard. For after all, the complicated data and “hockey stick” type issues that “skeptics” seem to seize upon don’t appear to have much to do with these basics; and yet these basics are all you need to know that global warming is a serious concern and that we stand to get fried.

So perhaps finding clarity about who accepts the basics can provide a firm foundation for further discussion. So let’s hear it, “skeptics”: Has NOAA gotten anything wrong in its attempt to spread climate science literacy on a pretty rudimentary level?