I’ve had a turbulent couple of days, so watching this time lapse of laminar flow of clouds over the Swiss Alps was just what I needed:

Very pretty! There’s some astronomy in there as well; in several of the clips as the Milky Way passes by you can also spot the Andromeda galaxy; Orion can be seen in others as well. I think my favorite part was seeing airplane contrails pop into existence and then stream away with the clouds. The video is by Patryk Kizny, who also did the time lapse video of the star party in Poland.

And yeah, there’s turbulent flow there as well. But from a distance, that’s pretty too.

Tip o’ the mug o’ cocoa to Patryk Kizny.

Related posts:

- Time lapse video: from North Carolina to the galactic center
- Gorgeous Milky Way Time Lapse
- Very Large Telescope, Very Stunning Time Lapse Video
- Incredibly, impossibly beautiful time lapse video
- Dust, from the desert below to the galaxy above
- Stunning winter sky timelapse video: Sub Zero
- OK, because I like y’all: bonus aurora timelapse ...

People with type 2 diabetes don’t respond properly to insulin, a hormone that controls the levels of sugar in their blood. Many of them have to take tablets to keep their sugar levels down, while others rely on insulin injections. But in a Swiss laboratory, there are diabetic mice with a more convenient solution. If they need more insulin, all they need is to bathe under a blue light.

The mice are the work of Haifeng Ye from ETH Zurich, who has developed a way of turning on individual genes with bursts of light. Blue light in particular sets of a chemical chain reaction in the rodents’ bodies that eventually switches on a gene called GLP-1. It tells the pancreas to make more insulin, makes our cells more sensitive to this hormone, and makes us feel full.

Ye’s work is a fusion of two of the most exciting methods in biology: optogenetics, the ability to control events in a cell using bursts of light; and synthetic biology, the building of new biological circuits that don’t exist in nature. In a related editorial, Brian Chow and Ed Boyden (one of the ...

What’s the News: We walking, talking agglomerations of cells have always thought of multicellular life as a profound jump in evolution. The first organisms were just single cells, but at some point, they began to work together for the good of the whole, divvying up tasks like nutrient transport and cellular messaging. Eventually, these colonies became the complex multicellular life that we know and love.

But maybe being multicellular isn’t as difficult to achieve as we thought. Scientists presenting at the Society for the Study of Evolution conference have, over just a couple months, gotten single-celled yeast to grow into colonies that function as multicellular organisms.

How the Heck:

First, to get populations of yeast that would be naturally inclined to stick together, the biologists made it hard for lone cells to survive. They suspended cells in tubes of liquid and then spun them in centrifuges, which caused clumped cells to sink to the bottom, while lighter, singleton cells stayed afloat. While floating cells were discarded, the sticky cells ...

Everybody is talking, and rightly so, about the big Al Gore piece in Rolling Stone on science, reason, and the climate crisis. And it is, indeed, quite a tour de force. Gore is not only a charismatic leader (now that he’s not running for president), he’s a great writer.

Nevertheless, I’m afraid to say that Gore is operating, big time, in liberal Enlightenment mode–precisely what I critiqued in The American Prospect. Let’s give some examples of Gore’s Enlightenment rhetoric:

Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it’s a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

And:

We haven’t gone nuts — but the “conversation of democracy” has become so deeply dysfunctional that our ability to make intelligent collective decisions has been seriously impaired. Throughout American history, we relied on the vibrancy of our public square — and the quality of our democratic discourse — to make better decisions than most nations in the history of the world. But we are now routinely making really bad decisions that completely ignore the best available evidence of what is true and what is false. When the distinction between truth and falsehood is systematically attacked without shame or consequence — when a great nation makes crucially important decisions on the basis of completely false information that is no longer adequately filtered through the fact-checking function of a healthy and honest public discussion — the public interest is severely damaged.

I agree with one part of Gore’s message whole heartedly. We really have lost our grip on reality and this really is endangering our politics and our civilization. Without facts, we’re screwed. We’re dysfunctional.

But I don’t agree with Gore’s account of why this happened. He blames the “powerful.” He blames the “Polluters.” He blames the media. But most of all, for him it’s special interests–money in politics, money in the fossil fuel industry, is blocking our progress and sowing misinformation.

Gore seems to assume that if these pernicious effects were vanquished–or controlled by better policy–then the “public interest” would triumph again and we would all rally around it–just as we would all embrace the same facts again. But that just isn’t true.

The truth is that we are psychologically programmed not to accept the facts; and moreover, we don’t all want the same things–liberals and conservatives, in particular, have different value systems and psychological needs. And liberals, in particular, need to think that society can be rational, and that science can fix our problems–and that if it isn’t working out that way, it must be due to some kind of wrongdoing or nefariousness.

But alas, while our state of dysfunction is very real, the cause is not some evil Machiavellian group of special interests (an argument that works less and less well, by the way, as more and more fossil fuel companies become supporters of climate action). No: the cause lies within ourselves, and our brains.

Don’t worry, this is for science.

It’s not easy being a parent. There are the constant feedings, the sleepless nights—and of course, the time-consuming task of shimmying into that unwieldy animal suit.

When the offspring of endangered species are orphaned or abandoned, scientists and vets fill the pawprints of the missing parents. But animals raised by humans can develop all sorts of issues; they’re not prepared to fend for themselves in the wild, they don’t play well with others, and they have an unhealthy interest in humans, cozying up to hikers and hunters.

So while humans are busily looking for Mommy’s nose in Junior’s face, these scientists take things in the opposite direction. Here’s how they make themselves over to look, act, and even smell like the animals they raise:

Scientists at the Hetaoping Research and Conservation Center for the Giant Panda, part of China’s Wolong Nature Reserve, donned full-body plush panda suits to raise a four-month-old cub. The result is both adorable and more than a little absurd: Look, it’s a panda! Walking on two legs. And weilding a measuring tape. Uh, what happened to its head?
At the Wildlife Education and Rehabilitation Center in California, vets ...

It’s quite the question these days, for all of us. And it’s the subject of a panel I have organized for the World Conference of Science Journalists in Doha, which begins in just a few days now:

Am I a Science Journalist?

In the evolving world of science communication, how do we define a science journalist? This panel will discuss whether the venerable word “journalist” can or should be applied to some, all, or none of the new generation of science bloggers and educators who are remaking the field.

Producer/moderator

Chris Mooney, Discover; Point of Inquiry (USA)

Panelists

Ed Yong, Not Exactly Rocket Science (UK)
Moheb Costandi, Neurophilosophy (UK)
Homayoun Kheyri, freelance; BBC World Service (Australia/Iran)
Cristine Russell, Council for the Advancement of Science Writing; Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (USA)

The panelists have to figure out the “answer” to the question more than I do, but it is certainly a conundrum, when almost nobody has a staff job at a publication any longer. Do all science bloggers count as science journalists? The thought gives me pause–I don’t think all of them practice the norms of journalism, though some clearly do.

I know and practice the norms, meanwhile, but many things that I do professionally–like science communication work and training–clearly aren’t journalism. Everybody is piecing it together in different ways. Maybe the problem is that the concept of “journalism” partly bears the stamp of an era that’s behind us.

A few months ago I posted about the Autism Science Foundation: an organization that funds real research into autism. We don’t know what causes autism, but ongoing research is making progress, and ASF is helping support that.

For today only, they are featured on the Philanthroper home page. Philanthroper is a group that helps raise money one dollar at a time. I like this idea. Giving a dollar isn’t all that hard for a lot of people, and the process is pretty painless: if you have a buck and a Paypal account, it takes less than a minute.

A lot of time, money, and effort is being wasted looking into a connection between vaccines and autism when we know no such connection exists. I’m glad there are groups out there trying to find the real causes, and that’s why I already donated to ASF.

So. Got a minute and a buck?

For one of the brightest stars in the sky, Betelgeuse still has some surprises up its sleeve. We’ve known for a couple of years it’s surrounded by a cloud of gas, but new observations show that nebula is far larger than previously thought!

[Click to enorionate.]

This new image is care of the Very Large Telescope, and shows a very deep and very high-resolution shot of Betelgeuse in the infrared. The inner black circle is the 2009 shot of the star and its surrounding gas — what we knew about before — and the big image shows all the gas around it just discovered. At the very center is a red circle indicating the actual size of Betelgeuse on this scale — it’s a red supergiant, and nearly two billion kilometers in diameter.

This structure is actually a wind of material blown off of the star itself. The exact mechanism behind this is unclear, though. Red supergiants are so big that gravity on their "surface" (they don’t really have a surface; they just kinda fade away into space) is very weak, and they can barely hold on to ...

Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men:

Within each 4-year period, participants gained an average of 3.35 lb (5th to 95th percentile, ?4.1 to 12.4). On the basis of increased daily servings of individual dietary components, 4-year weight change was most strongly associated with the intake of potato chips (1.69 lb), potatoes (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb), unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed meats (0.93 lb) and was inversely associated with the intake of vegetables (?0.22 lb), whole grains (?0.37 lb), fruits (?0.49 lb), nuts (?0.57 lb), and yogurt (?0.82 lb) (P?0.005 for each comparison). Aggregate dietary changes were associated with substantial differences in weight change (3.93 lb across quintiles of dietary change). Other lifestyle factors were also independently associated with weight change (P<0.001), including physical activity (?1.76 lb across quintiles); alcohol use (0.41 lb per drink per day), smoking (new quitters, 5.17 lb; former smokers, 0.14 lb), sleep (more weight gain with <6 or >8 hours of sleep), and television watching (0.31 lb per hour per day).

I took the results when they controlled for other variables and filtered them all so that their p-values were 0.001 or less (in fact, of ...

“Karaoke singing is a very popular entertainment among young people in Asia. It is a leisure singing activity with the singer’s voice amplified with special acoustic effects in the backdrop of music. Music video and song captions are shown on television screen to remind the singers during singing. It is not uncommon to find participants singing continuously for four to five hours each time. As most of the karaoke singers have no formal training in singing, these amateur singers are more vulnerable to developing voice problems under these intensive singing activities. This study reports the performance of 20 young amateur singers (10 males and 10 females, aged between 20-25 years) on a series of phonatory function tasks carried out during continuous karaoke singing. Half of the singers were given water to drink and short duration of vocal rests at regular intervals during singing and the other half sang continuously without taking any water or rest. The subjects who were given hydration and vocal rests sang significantly longer than those who did not take any water or rest. The voice quality, as measured by perceptual and acoustic measures, and vocal function, ...

xkcd raises an interesting issue or three. Click to see the exciting conclusion, starring Joe Biden.

Naturally, in less time than it takes to eat a sandwich there was a Tumblr account dedicated to Joe Biden eating.

But one can’t help but ask — is it true? Does it really not matter what it is we choose to lavish our attentions upon? Would we find as much depth and complexity in different cans of Diet Dr. Pepper as oenophiles would claim are lurking in a bottle of fine Bordeaux?

I think we have to say no. Some things really are more complex and nuanced than other things. I could provide examples, but they aren’t any better than ones you can imagine yourself.

That’s okay, it doesn’t make the comic any less funny. And there is a clever point that remains true: people pick and choose the things on which they lavish their attention. To one person, all jazz is just noise; another would say the same about classical, and another about punk. The real issue isn’t the existence of complexity, it’s how we choose to recognize and value it. If we went through life taking note of every fact around us, we’d go insane within minutes. Making sense of existence relies heavily on coarse-graining.

But there’s yet another issue! (Yes I know I’m spending too much time analyzing a single comic — or am I deviously making a point?) The cartoon didn’t choose Diet Dr. Pepper as its example, it chose pictures of Joe Biden eating sandwiches. And you know, there really is a lot of depth there. There’s a lot you could say about a large collection of such photographs. So the question is — are any of those things worth saying? Complexity might be necessary for great art, but it doesn’t seem to be sufficient. Paying attention to certain kinds of details seems rewarding in a way that paying attention to others is not.

Anyone have a simple demarcation between the two? When is complexity deserving of study, and when does it merit being ignored? I’m sure aestheticians have argued about this for centuries, and I’m not trying to break any new ground here. I’m just at a loss for a good theory, which isn’t a condition I like to be in.

What’s the News: Parrots are even less bird-brained than previously thought, suggests a new study in the journal Biology Letters. In a series of tests, researchers have learned that some African grey parrots can use logical reasoning to uncover hidden food.

How the Heck:

Sandra Mikolasch and her colleagues at the University of Vienna in Austria trained seven African grey parrots to find treats stashed under cups. While the birds watched, Mikolasch placed food under one cup and left an adjacent cup empty—the parrots had to choose the correct cup to get their snacks.
After training the birds, Mikolasch hid a seed and a walnut under two separate cups in front of the on-looking parrots. In plain view, she removed one of the treats and allowed the birds to choose cups again. Three of the parrots were able to correctly pick the cup with food at least 70 percent of the time. If the birds were purely guessing, ...

Just as a so’s-you-know: the radio/podcast interview I did with Jules Sherred for Geeky Pleasures is now online for your listening nerdtainment. We talked about a ton of stuff, including the space program, Doctor Who, space colonies, Trek, asteroids, antivaxxers, and nudity.

Oh, did that get your attention? I figured it would. People love it when I talk about Doctor Who.

What’s the News: Lytro, a Silicon Valley start-up, has designed a camera that lets you shoot first and focus later. The camera captures the far more light and data than traditional models, and comes with software that lets you focus the photo, shift perspective, or go 3D after you’ve taken the photo. The company plans to sell a consumer, fits-in-your-pocket model by the end of the year.

How the Heck:

Lytro’s camera captures the light field, all the light traveling every direction through every point in a scene. Light-field cameras records data—such as direction, color, and intensity—about each individual ray of light. (Typical digital cameras, on the other hand, also take in information on color, instensity, and—to some extent—direction, but they essentially sum up light in a scene and record the total rather than tallying the information for each ray of light.) To do this, the camera has an array of microlenses behind the main lens, which help break up the light coming in into its component rays.
As Lytro CEO Ren Ng told the Wall Street Journal, it’s akin to recording each musician in a band on a different track and mixing the tracks later, rather than recording ...

It’s been known for some time that the ice sheet in the arctic is thinning. And now, a new study (PDF) by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program lays this out in grim detail.

The report lists 15 key findings about the changes at the Earth’s northern regions. Fifteen. Here are four that alarmed me particularly:

1) The past six years (2005–2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic. Higher surface air temperatures are driving changes in the cryosphere.

3) The extent and duration of snow cover and sea ice have decreased across the Arctic. Temperatures in the permafrost have risen by up to 2 °C. The southern limit of permafrost has moved northward in Russia and Canada.

7) The Arctic Ocean is projected to become nearly ice-free in summer within this century, likely within the next thirty to forty years.

12) Loss of ice and snow in the Arctic enhances climate warming by increasing absorption of the sun’s energy at the surface of the planet. It could also dramatically increase emissions of carbon dioxide and methane and change large-scale ocean currents. The combined outcome of ...

Here’s a great segment from Jon Stewart last night–although it has one flaw. But watch first:

The problem is, Stewart wasn’t actually wrong, not even in the teeny way that he confessed to. Politifact cited the wrong studies to refute him, while ignoring numerous studies that I have found, all of which support Stewart. For a full explanation, see my latest DeSmogBlog item. Brief excerpt:

It is of course around contested political facts, and contested scientific facts, where we find active, politically impelled, and emotionally laden misinformation campaigns—and it is in the latter realm that Fox News viewers are clearly more misinformed. Once again, I’ve cited 5 studies to this effect—concerning the Iraq war, the 2010 election, global warming, health care reform, and the Ground Zero Mosque. By contrast, Politifact only cites two of these studies, and attempts to critique one of them (the 2010 election study)—misguidedly to my mind, but who really even cares. It is obvious where the weight of the evidence lies at this point, unless further, relevant studies are brought to bear.

As a result of all of this, Politifact should either produce relevant research to rebut Stewart, or run a far more forthcoming retraction than has been issued so far. Note, however, that the issue grew a tad more complicated last night when Stewart did an excellent segment on all of this, where he both dramatized how much Fox misinformed viewers and yet also kind of conceded Politifact’s point, when he didn’t actually have to. He wasn’t wrong. They were wrong.

When the fact checkers fail—and in this case, they not only failed, they generated a falsehood of their own–they have a special responsibility to self-correct.

Again, full post here.

A rock about 10 meters in size will fly past the Earth Monday at 13:30 UTC (09:30 Eastern US time). It’ll be a particularly close shave — passing just 12,400 km (7430 miles) from Earth’s surface; a bit less than the diameter of the Earth itself — but it’ll miss for sure.

We’re in no danger from the asteroid, named 2011 MD, since there’s essentially zero chance it will hit us. Even if it did, it’s too small to impact the surface, and would instead break apart and burn up in the atmosphere. That would be exciting, and make quite a show, but that’s about it.

Here’s a diagram of the asteroid’s trajectory (note that the size of the Earth is not to scale!):

On this scale, the Earth is actually about half the size shown; it was enlarged on the diagram to make it clear. In this smaller diagram here the trajectory is shown from a different angle (edge-on to the Moon’s orbit) with the Earth to scale, and you can see better that 2011 MD will miss ...

I’m at Dulles airport, about to board a plane to Doha, Qatar for the World Conference of Science Journalists. Then, a small group of us are going on to Egypt for a workshop on science journalism.

I’m not entirely sure how blogging will fare during all this–I return July 5. It may be easy and normal, or not so much.

I know Jon and Jamie will be pitching in, as always. Indeed, check out Jamie’s great fracking post (below), and look forward to more…

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., a research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action

Recently, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that there is no evidence that the “fracking” process has lead to contamination of ground water. In response to a question from the U.S. House Oversight Committee, she said,

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing.”

The term “fracking” refers to a process of extracting natural gas from wells drilled deep below the Earth’s surface. The technique is officially known as hydraulic fracturing and involves pumping a water-based fluid into a well under high pressure so as to cause the formation of cracks in deep rock layers. The cracks and the chemical ingredients in the fracture fluid facilitate more efficient extraction of the natural gas.

Critics of the process have made claims that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated aquifers and other water sources with ingredients from toxic fracking fluid in areas where natural gas drilling is occurring. A documentary entitled “Gas Land” recently sensationalized the story by showing scenes in which drinking water had become flammable. Here’s a famous scene from the movie:

The problem with the critics’ argument is there is insufficient evidence to prove that the contaminated water is indisputably due to fracking. The process has been used for many years and has not been scrutinized until recently. Despite the scrutiny, no one has carried out thorough investigations to determine whether the process is likely to lead to water contamination. Sure, there have been cases where it is suspected that the process has contaminated ground water. Indeed, I have blogged about it here at The Intersection, but with no analysis of the ground water prior to drilling, one cannot be sure that the contamination is directly caused by the fracking industry.

Personally, even though the evidence is sparse and inconclusive, I still believe the risks of contamination are too high for us to continue drilling for natural gas without significant oversight and regulation. A recent blowout in Bradford County, Pennsylvania has contaminated the immediate surrounding areas and three private wells with chemical-laced water. I feel strongly that fracking is unsafe as it is currently being carried out.

Fortunately, the Obama administration has made it a priority to take a look at the hydraulic fracturing industry. On Thursday, the EPA announcedthe seven natural gas drilling sites where it will conduct case studies. The investigations will look at the impact of hydraulic fracturing on local drinking water.

The sites include drilling in Haynesville Shale in DeSoto Parish, La., Marcellus Shale in Washington County, Bradford and Susquehanna, Pa., Bakken Shale in Kildeer and Dunn Counties, N.D., Barnett Shale in Wise and Denton Counties, TX, and Raton Basin in Las Animas County, Colo.

Here are my concerns about the EPA’s plan:

First, there is little or no evidence that the toxic ingredients in fracking fluid have contaminated drinking water directly from the below-ground wells. Dangerous chemicals like benzene and acrylamide are known to be part of the fracking mixture, but legislation has protected the industry under intellectual property rights from fully revealing the contents. Therefore, investigators have been unable to do proper testing for all the chemicals contained in the mixture. Regardless, it seems that the fracking fluid and, in fact, the fracking process is not the problem.

There are numerous physical arguments against the possibility that fracking fluid will find its way into drinking water during the hydraulic fracturing process. The pressures at those depths are so high it is unlikely the chemicals will be able to flow upward into the aquifer. Also, the permeability of the shale is so low it seems unlikely the chemicals will penetrate the rock. Of course, there is the possibility that the cracks created by the process could connect with natural cracks in the rock formations leading to a direct connection between the well and the aquifer, but this is statistically unlikely. My point is that if the EPA focuses on the fracking process alone it is unlikely that they will find a connection between drilling and contamination at the 7 selected sites.

As described in the PNAS paper, the problem of contamination is most likely due to leaky gas-wells, not the hydraulic fracturing itself. The EPA investigators will need to look at the wells as well as the fracking process. However, because the sites have been announced ahead of time, the drillers can take special precautions to ensure high quality wells are drilled and that the concrete is poured properly so as to avoid any leaks or spills. If so, investigators may not find any contamination.

Second, there are millions of natural gas wells across the country. Very few of them have been linked to any contamination. Statistically, for the EPA to choose only 7 wells, I believe it is highly unlikely they will find a correlation between drilling and contamination.

For me, the issue of water contamination due to the fracking process is not simply a yes or no question. It is a matter of risk. We must ask ourselves if we are willing to risk the possibility of water contamination occurring in our neighborhood. Given that few of the natural gas sites across the country have caused contamination, I think it is unlikely that the EPA study will demonstrate a direct correlation between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. If this is the case, this study will do more harm than good by providing evidence, albeit faulty, for the gas industry to argue that fracking is safe. The real question is whether you are willing to take the risk of having undrinkable water. Are you?

I guess we can be thankful that the fracking process as it is being done today is very different from the plowsharing process proposed in the 70′s.

Let’s keep our eyes on this study and hope that it yields the results we need.

Follow Jamie Vernon on Twitter or read his occasional posts at his personal blog, “American SciCo.”

UPDATE:  Solved by Thom Cope at 12:33

Here we are again, and guess what?  Tom got a really cool prize lined up for a bonus riddle, so we’ll be running a bonus riddle Monday,  July 4th.  It’ll add a little something extra to your holiday celebration (if you’re American).  You have today and next Saturday to get your name on the list, so you get busy with that, you hear?  I know you’re ready to get going on the riddle, and I have an interesting one for your consideration.

Today’s riddle answer is found in the real world, but don’t leave the land of fancy too far behind.

This gorgeous image comes from the Deep Photographic Guide to the Constellations, and you can check out this genuinely mesmerizing website at: http://www.allthesky.com/constellations/const.html

It is correctly referred to by four “official” names and three “common” names.

It was independently discovered by three different people.

This was not known to your distant ancestors.

Mmmmmmm! Looks like dinner is ON!

There’s something rather remarkable about today’s riddle answer.

It’s doing something you don’t see happening every day.

Also, it’s quite the celestial beauty.

Disney Princesses - that's Snow White and Princess Aurora pictured

Recent studies indicate this sleepy-eyed beauty is probably the survivor of an ancient catastrophe.

If that’s not enough to grab you, your riddle answer hangs out in a very interesting neighborhood.

One thing is sure; just when you get comfortable, this lady will spin you around in a completely different direction.

...there's just something about them...

And there you have it.  As always, I’ll be hanging out in the comments… waiting patiently for someone to talk to me (heavy sigh).  So far, the people who are eligible to solve the bonus riddle are:  Bill, John, Roger, Jeff, Rob, Patrick, and Editus.  Hopefully, I’ll add your name to the list today.  Good luck.