Switch-Grass - An energy panacea?

Unlikely, but it's a hell of a lot better than corn for producing ethanol, probably. From what I can gather from the limited information provided switchgrass seems like its more of a hardy weed-like plant than wimpy corn. If predictions hold, we'll be able to get a maximum of five times the energy you put into it, that is if we can scale up the refining process, compared to a paltry 1.25 times the input energy as an upper limit for corn. Now let's see if the all-powerful corn lobby will let them grow it. Five times or 1.25 times are both paltry compared to the energy gain in extracting a barrel of oil, but we gotta start somewhere.

Of course, it's hard to take the article seriously with misstatements like this one :

"Cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than ethanol made from corn

What the hell, Scientific American? Ethanol is just ethanol, it contains the same energy density no matter how you manufacture it, and burns the same way. Hopefully what they mean is something like you can make far more ethanol gram or per unit of input harvesting energy with cellulose than with corn.

Skynet is on its way, people

If they put a .50 cal on the front of this thing, we're all fucked.



Our defensive strategy of running up and kicking will be useless against this thing. Useless!

The IPCC and Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize

I think that this year's selections for the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore and the IPCC, were especially appropriate, and I commend the committee. Al Gore is a somewhat controversial pick, but I think he deserves it - He has essentially abandoned his political career to advance awareness about global warming. At the same time, it was critical that the IPCC also receive the award, because they are the ones who truly will effect a change in world policy. Gore for public opinion, the IPCC for policy. Bravo. I am proud that someone from the US won.

That makes it all the more embarrassing to read the feedback of CNN.com readers on the issue. It seems like the majority of them still think that anthopogenic global warming is still in question, which is just sad. 12th century European peasants, I tell you. You've got to laugh though, when you read how some of them think that Gore actually performed the research he presents in "An Inconvenient Truth" (i.e. that he did the science). Also, I find it hilarious when I see the comments from people who are mad that Gore won, but not the scientists. The IPCC IS the scientists. We need to stress more reading comprehension in our schools.

It was also interesting for me to see the IPCC win it right after I saw Michael Prather speak at our UCI physics colloquium yesterday. He gave a good summary of the IPCC findings (mixed with some unfortunately inappropriate politics). At the end of his talk, an older guy from the audience asked him if he would be willing to debate a climatologist with an opposing viewpoint. Michael gave a good response - "Why should I debate him? Debate is just rhetoric, it doesn't change the science. If he wants to challenge our findings, he should write a paper!" So true, although that's not going to change public opinion. But then, I guess that's what Al Gore is for. That's why he won the prize!

Scientific Illiteracy

I overheard this conversation while eating late at my local Jack in the Box last week, between a group of four guys (I have no idea who spoke when, and these aren't exact quotes):

What'sup fag?

Whatup. There's like a total eclipse of the moon tonite.

Whoa! Like, how can that happen?

I dunno man. I think the sun passes between the Earth and the Moon.

What? That's crazy!

It was all I could do to keep from hurling my Dr. Pepper and ketchup-stained tray at them. These were college students, for fuck's sake! I walked out in disgust, unable to concentrate on my journal article anymore with those cretins talking behind me. I think maybe that they were working it out as I left, but still, how could anyone so ignorant of science (and so stupid) have made it to college? Perhaps they were drunk and I'm being too hard on them, but I really think this experience lends credence to the theory that Americans have the Scientific literacy of 12th-century European Peasants. (Think Monty Python.)

Anyone else have amazing tales of scientific illiteracy encountered in everyday life?

In case you were wondering

Things that will almost definitely give you pancreatic cancer:

- Cigarettes [1] [2] [3]

- Meat [1] [2] [3]

Things that might give you pancreatic cancer, depending on who you listen to:

- Having Diabetes no, yes, no

- Booze no, maybe, yes

- Coffee yes, no, no

Don't worry, it's only always fatal.

Have a nice day!

So Much For Us

It looks like Woo Suk Hwang made some valuable contributions to science after all. Good for him. However, if you're a guy, you should still hate him, because he's effectively made us obsolete:

Daley believes that the Hwang group generated parthenogenetic stem cells by accident, and didn't have the tools to conclusively determine what they had created... Parthenogenesis is a method of reproduction, common in plants and in some animals, in which the female can generate offspring without the contribution of a male.

(Emphasis mine). Now that humans no longer need sperm to reproduce, we males are going to have to keep a close eye on the females to ensure they aren't planning to kill all of us. I can imagine their thinking now: "Without males there would be less violent crime, sports would fade into oblivion, and George W. Bush wouldn't exist".

Hmm.. now I'm almost convincing myself...

Nerds don't have much sex!

Duh.

Still, despite its obviousness, this blog post (on the blog "Gene Expression") is an interesting read. The post discusses a study in which it was found that average IQ correlates with increased sexual activity, whereas below average and above average IQ correlates with decreased, from high school to beyond. The post then discusses several hypotheses as to why this might be.

As a former virgin nerd who desperately wanted to have sex, I can tell you that I subscribe to the "Sexually Active Women in America Generally Don't Find Intelligence Attractive Especially in High School" theory, also known as "Pussies Don't Get Pussy". Of course I wasn't too athletic either, so I think the combination of intelligence with athletic activity also plays a part.

Also, a factor missing from the discussion is opportunity. When I was an undergrad, I had to make a choice between physics and anthropology as a major, both of which I loved. I knew that anthropology had many more women, so when I eventually chose physics I was well aware that I would probably not be able to bang as many smoking hot babes over my lifetime. (I was right!) MIT students probably also have similar difficulties. For straight guys, there are only so many slutty women to go around.

Of course, I can't take those studies too seriously. Only 68% of male MIT students masturbate? Maybe they didn't tell them that Second Life cybersex still counts.

Got Physics Envy?

There's a rumor floating around that we physicists believe that other types of scientists are just people who wanted to be physicists but sucked at math. I'd just like to set the record straight that yes, we physicists do think that, but that's only to compensate for our poor male/female ratio and general bad hygiene (go to any physics conference and I guarantee you'll have to hold your breath once or twice).

Out of that rumor spread this meme, to see whether it was true:

1. What's your current scientific specialty?

2. Were you originally pursuing a different academic course? If so, what was it?

3. Do you happen to wish you were involved in another scientific field? If so, what one?

So, do you have other-science envy? (My answers in the comments)

Swarm Behavior

National Geographic as a great and easily accessible article about Swarm Theory, which is the theory of how Swarm intelligence works. Anyone who has had to do battle with an ant colony invasion, or seen schools of fish react to predators, will appreciate the theory.

National Geographic also had something to say about how we can use Swarm Theory to improve our society:

Such thoughts underline an important truth about collective intelligence: Crowds tend to be wise only if individual members act responsibly and make their own decisions. A group won't be smart if its members imitate one another, slavishly follow fads, or wait for someone to tell them what to do. When a group is being intelligent, whether it's made up of ants or attorneys, it relies on its members to do their own part. For those of us who sometimes wonder if it's really worth recycling that extra bottle to lighten our impact on the planet, the bottom line is that our actions matter, even if we don't see how.

I think that that's a great message. Sometimes it may seem that one person can never make a difference, so why bother to act responsibly when it's easier to be lazy? The answer is that if we each have a set of rules, beneficial to society as a whole, that we follow, then collectively those actions add up. It's a cliche, but the bottom line is that if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Edit: I actually decided to link to the article!

Pick your favorite cartoon

Via PZ, I see that the Union of Concerned Scientists is holding a vote to determine the best cartoon about the politicization of science by the Bush administration (and government in general). My favorite is below:



Go vote!