Tag: Science

On-The-Air On-The-Web

There was a time when astronomers felt this asteroid had a plausible chance of hitting Earth in 2049. That’s only 35 years.

geoff on slooh

I spent part of the night on-the-air. Is that right? Does on-the-air still apply? I spent a good part of the night on-the-web doing a broadcast for slooh.com.

Slooh is the “Community Observatory.” They maintain three telescopes, one in Chile and two on the Canary Islands. Slooh members individually assign the telescopes’ “missions.”

000259p652617_20140826_003136_0_7078_lIt’s a very cool idea. Timeshare telescopes, better than what most could afford, in locations astronomers covet. You view is via the Internet. Members look at comets, asteroids, planets, galaxies and, of course, stars.

That’s a shot of Comet Jacques on the left. I took it last week on one of the Canary Island telescopes.

As part of the company’s outreach, we produce shows on the Internet. It’s me as host, astronomer Bob Berman and observatory director Paul Cox. Tonight we had Lindley Johnson, who runs the show for the Near Earth Object program at NASA. Our show centered on Asteroid 2002 CU11.

Tonight 2002 CU11 passed within .03 AU of Earth. that’s 3% of the distance to the Sun. In space terms, close.

There was a time when astronomers felt this asteroid had a plausible chance of hitting Earth in 2049. That’s only 35 years away!

Since the first prediction 2002 CU11’s orbit has been recalculated with more precision. We’re off the hook for now, but time is on the asteroid’s side.

I love doing these shows. I work with two very smart guys. Bob is encyclopedic in his astronomy knowledge. Paul is just smart. I’m not sure what he’s not smart in. I haven’t seen it. And the British accent makes him sound smarter–unfair.

Usually we do shows from home. Bob is near Woodstock, NY. Paul lives in England. I’m here in SoCal. Our director/producer sits in East Hartford, CT. How cool is that?

I’m in my office using a webcam and headset. It doesn’t quite look like network TV, but it’s obviously pro.

Good TV needs chemistry. It took a few broadcasts to understand each other’s timing and pace.

My job is to be the dumb guy. That’s not to say I don’t know anything about space and astronomy, but these guys are the experts. I ask questions viewers would like answered and make sure we stay on topic. Think of me as a batting practice pitcher.

I am lucky to once again do a show with substance. Not everyone can say that.

Please Help With My Bottomless Pit Of Science!

Throw me a bone. Maybe there’s a story in something you’re involved in? Is there a concept you can help me explain?

Now that I’m on FoxCT doing science reports most afternoons at 4:00 PM I realize I am staring down a bottomless pit! There’s only so much science I know. I’ve already shown much of my low hanging fruit.

Some of you probably work for companies that delve in science and technology. Throw me a bone. Maybe there’s a story in something you’re involved in? Is there a concept you can help me explain?

I can’t promise to report every story that’s suggested, but I will consider every one.

Maybe there’s something in science or technology you’d like explained? I can do that too.

Please email your suggestions to me or leave them here as a blog comment. Thanks in advance.

The Oscillating Iodine Starch Clock

If you look carefully you can see I’m petrified it won’t work. Rachel Lutzker on the other hand is just petrified!

Tuesday afternoon on FoxCT I performed an oscillating starch clock experiment. I love doing this. It’s incredibly visible. If you look carefully you can see I’m petrified it won’t work. Rachel Lutzker on the other hand is just petrified!

Thanks to Dr. Eric Mahan at the University of Hartford for getting me set up.

[jwplayer mediaid=”10030″]

Mr. Science Returns

Times have changed again. Here’s my first science feature from FoxCT.

Thank you Diane Smith! Back in the good old days Diane named me Mr. Science. I enjoyed doing science stories, but as times changed it became something I wasn’t allowed to do.

Times have changed again. Here’s my first science feature from FoxCT.

 

Global Warming Revisited

This is probably the only controversial subject I address on the blog – Global Warming. I think I’ve made it clear I’m a skeptic, and the others I know who forecast the weather are also mainly skeptics.

It’s not a small thing. If I’m wrong, I’m asking you to sit by and doom the planet. If the Global Warming proponents are wrong, they’ve asked that we cripple our industrial base, allow others to continue to spew ‘greenhouse gasses’… and all for naught.

Every time I feel my position is solid, I think of reading things like:

Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

That always gives me second thoughts.

Now there’s more… but it’s nothing I ever expected. It’s an eye opening article in the Telegraph from the UK. In case the link ‘expires,’ I will place the actual text at the bottom of this entry.

Here’s a little excerpt:

However, her (Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California) unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents – and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

I have often feared Global Warming is a politically and not scientifically motivated

campaign.

I’ll keep my ears open for more on this.

Continue reading “Global Warming Revisited”