At the the Houston Museum of Natural Science thousands of visitors are lining up for the smell of rotting bodies. They want a look at a five-foot-tall plant affectionately called the “corpse flower,” or more specifically, Lois. The flower will bloom for the first time in seven years and release its stench for an expected three days.

The flower, native to Indonesia, will be the 29th to bloom in the United States; another bloomed last summer at San Francisco State University. Sporting buttons that say “Bring on the Funk” and “Amorphophallus titanum (Latin for AWESOME),” 4,000 to 5,000 visitors a day have been coming to the Houston museum to sniff, Reuters reports. In its pre-bloom phase, it smells a bit like rotting pumpkins–which is disappointing to museum visitors with a nose for rancid corpses, museum spokeswoman Latha Thomas told Reuters.

“They want to smell the flower. I think that’s why they keep coming back over and over because they are so excited about smelling it.”

The AP reports that not everyone is excited. Jessica Zabala has booked the museum for her wedding this week and is hoping the flower doesn’t foul up her ceremony.

The museum has provided a live webcam, for those who want to see without smelling.

Related content:
Discoblog: Vicious Hogweed Plant Could Star in “Little Shop of Horrors” Sequel
Discoblog: Make Room For Space Florists: First Plants to Be Grown on the Moon
Discoblog: Can Plants Talk to Each Other? Researchers Say Yes
Discoblog: DNA Cops Crack Down on Flower Theft and Other High Crimes

Image: Wikimedia

Yes, you read that right.

Finally, at last, after many months, I can now officially reveal the project that has kept me so busy over all this time. I think you’re gonna like this… so why not just jump right in to the teaser trailer posted online by a small TV network you may have heard of called THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL!

[evil laugh]

[UPDATE: D'oh! There was a problem with the video, and Discovery is in the process of fixing it. It should be back up soon.]

How ’bout that?

I’ve been working with the Discovery Channel on hosting a new TV science show called "Phil Plait’s Bad Universe". It’s a three-part program where I dissect issues in astronomy and science, putting claims to the test. There’s no air date yet, but I’m hoping it’ll be on your TV sets this fall.

As you can see in the trailer, the first episode is about asteroid impacts, and we tackle the issue in a way that I don’t think has been done on TV. I get right into the mix, blowing things up, flying in a jet, going where the action is so that I can participate in experiments with scientists and try to find out what works and what doesn’t. The idea here is not to have some dry, narrated documentary. Instead I will show you what’s going on, take you along, so that you can see how these things work and what we’re doing to investigate these issues.

I’ve been having a tremendous time filming this, flying around the country, seeing things I ordinarily would never get to see. And the beauty is, you can come too!

Eventually I’ll post some pictures I’ve taken on this adventure, and we’ll be posting more video online as well as more information about the show soon. I’d like to thank everyone at Discovery Channel and Morningstar Entertainment for giving me this chance to fulfill a long-standing dream of mine. We’ve worked very hard on this program, and I hope you like it.

Yay!

Kamil crater, at only about 150 feet wide and 50 feet deep, may not break any size records–but what the Egyptian crater lacks in range it makes up for with cleanliness. In an paper published yesterday in Science, researchers say that its “pristine” impact, spotted in 2009 during a Google Earth survey, makes the crater an ideal model to understand similar impacts.

The best place to see a clean crater? Rocky or icy planets without an atmosphere. Earth’s weather quickly erodes a crater’s structures, making it difficult to determine how exactly a meteorite struck. The Kamil crater, study leader Luigi Folco says, has avoided this fate:

“This crater is really a kind of beauty because it’s so well-preserved that it will tell us a lot about small-scale meteorite impacts on the Earth’s crust…. It’s so nice. It’s so neat. There is something extraordinary about it.” [Space.com]

The crater rises above its desert surroundings, and during visits to the site over the past two years researchers have collected around 5,000 iron meteorites (the dark rocks pictured at right). They estimate that the original meteorite weighed between 5 and 10 tons and smacked the site at 7,800 miles per hour, giving the crater its characteristics, including “rays” that are visible in satellite photos.

These rays, which emanate from the impact site like spokes from the hub of a wheel, are what drew researchers’ attention to the crater, says Folco. While such “rayed craters” are common on the moon and other airless bodies of the solar system, they are exceedingly rare on Earth because erosion and other geological processes quickly erase such evidence. [Science News]

Researchers estimate that the site is relatively young, only about 5,000 years old, given that it must have struck at a time when Egypt’s deserts were in their current arid state.

Related content:
80beats: Latest Mercury Pics Reveal Massive Craters & Possible Volcanic Vents
80beats: Asteroid Photo Session: Rosetta Spacecraft Snaps Pics of Battered Lutetia
80beats: Disappointing News: No Icy Patches in the Lunar Craters
80beats: Nano-Diamond Discovery Suggests a Comet Impact Killed the Mammoths

Images: Museo Nazionale dell’Antartide Universita di Siena

Now there’s data–actual data–showing how few climate scientists doubt the existence of climate change. From Science Daily:

The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers.

–

Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.

Prominence was assessed by taking the four most frequently cited papers published in any field by each scientist — not just climate science publications — and tallying the number of times those papers were cited by other researchers. Papers by climate researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced.

–

“I never object to quoting opinions that are ‘way out.’ I think there is nothing wrong with that,” said Stephen Schneider, professor of biology and a coauthor of the paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “But if the media doesn’t report that something is a ‘way out’ opinion relative to the mainstream, then how is the average person going to know the relative credibility of what is being said?”

“It is sad that we even have to do this,” said Schneider. “[Too much of] the media world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science.”

The Stanford team is prepared for the doubters of anthropogenic climate change to object to their data.

Unfortunately, I am too. Carry on…

(H/T Philip)