Planting LOTS of trees may help capture carbon from atmosphere

Many have suggested planting lots of trees to help alleviate the effects of too much carbon in the atmosphere, and computer simulations and recent studies support that concept.

While this is likely to happen to some degree, such as our Malawi friend Andrews Nchessie's effort with his students to plant several million trees in their African homeland to help maintain water supplies in lakes that have dried up, this is something I have not heard anyone seriously discuss yet: are there unintended consequences we should be considering before doing this on a massive scale?

This is an important question to ask before starting ANY major project in any field. Unintended consequences. I'm not sure what they would be for a tree project such as what people are talking about, with billions of new trees that could be planted, but I suspect there are some things to worry about longer term. For example, literally off the top of my head, suppose hundreds of millions of new trees have been growing and capturing carbon for the next few decades. What if the growth and reproduction rates of the trees declines over time, for whatever reasons. If all those trees eventually die, and there are smaller numbers of younger trees to 'replace' the dead trees, all that carbon would be reintroduced to the atmosphere as the dead trees decay. Another possibility is more forests, the potential for more forest fires and the pollution and carbon the fires would release. Depending on the types of trees being planted, what are the effects on animal life on those and surrounding regions of the planet? Species that have been living in 'tree free' areas, could those adapt to trees being added to the ecosystem, or would they be selected for diminishment and possible extinction as new species take over the region? How would water tables be affected in those regions where suddenly there are new, dense forests, and would it be sustainable? How would these new regions affect local economies?

And I suspect you can think of even more questions to at least ask, before the world goes off on a new tree planting fad, without thinking through longer term consequences. Always remember one of the important scenes from 'Jurassic Park' - "The scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Remember this as your generation takes off with virtual and augmented reality, robotics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, expansion of the Internet and cybersecurity, computer chips embedded into human brains, nano-machines in human bodies, next generation weaponry and space/satellite technologies, truly unbreakable computer encryption with quantum computers, humans transplanting civilization to other worlds (the moon and Mars), and numerous other STEM fields and projects.

Structure to collect water from air

Check out structures that started to be built a few years ago in parts of Ethiopia, that collect ~25 gallons of water overnight via condensation or moisture from the air.

Can we think of other cheap ways to do this? Are there natural structures or organisms that can do this? Keep in mind that these structures cost about $1000 US, but that is a fortune in local currencies in poor parts and countries of Africa and other continents. But clearly this is the type of thing that is necessary with population growth and climate change. This could be a new path of research in our research center!

Students who go to Community College more successful in 4-year school than high school students

It is interesting that students who graduate and go to Community College for two years, and then transfer to a 4-year school to complete their bachelors degree, have a slightly higher graduation rate than those high school graduates who go straight to a 4-year school. Students who go to a 4-year school, and transfer to another 4-year school, actually have the lowest graduation rate in college.

There is that stigma all across the country that going to a Community College is not as 'successful' as going straight to a 4-year college. There is an air of 'status symbolism' with all this, to be sure. But in this day and age when one can save literally tens of thousands of dollars of debt, to take many of the same introductory classes as you would at a 4-year college, and still be more likely to graduate with a bachelors degree, why are we still not seriously talking about this in normal conversations with students and parents? Most students do not know what they want to study in college as a major, let alone what their career will be. Why not talk with students about exploring different areas of interest and different fields of study in Community College prior to having to declare a major?

Community Colleges are (and always have been) wonderful resources of education that are available to their communities. These schools are vital now in re-training for many American workers, as technologies overhaul professions and more 'blue collar' careers. In addition, speaking of bachelors degrees and where one goes to college, in general keep in mind that the data show it does not matter what school you go to that determines success long-term in life. These are important studies that hopefully will be part of conversations at dinner tables everywhere as students and parents discuss the future educational options for college and beyond. So it really does not mean the end of your options in life if you don't get accepted into that Ivy League school, and you have to 'settle' for something that is not as high on some generic rankings list or on a reputation list.

Hopefully these studies and data will help alleviate some of the stressors our children are experiencing, leading to record levels of child depression and anxiety, drug addictions, and teen suicides.

With no gravity, flames are spherical

Check out how a flame burns in a spherical shape on the International Space Station. Also, they are investigating how certain flames do not produce soot, based on how gas flows around the flame in a microgravity environment.

The Keeling curve - CO2 concentration of the atmosphere

The Keeling curve is what is used to track how many parts per million (ppm) of CO2 is in the atmosphere. This goes back 800,000 years, using ice core data. After 1958, it uses sensors and measurements directly from Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Check it out.

To learn why scientists know the rise is definitely caused by human activities, see Ralph Keeling's explanation. An independent way to know CO2 concentrations is by measuring the ratio of Carbon-13 to Carbon-12. To scientists, climate change is undoubtedly due to human burning of fossil fuels - there is no legitimate scientific debate about this any more, it is clear from multiple streams of data and analysis. 

To get a history of how science has studied climate change and for dozens of references to numerous aspects of this complex science topic, go here - it is extensive and is updated regularly.

Solar system formation simulation

Here's a good simulation of how many think the solar system formed, using Newton's law of gravity primarily. The results of such simulations agree quite well with the actual structure we see today, which is why scientists use simulations. Simulations use the mathematical models and theories, use those equations to calculate what our theories suggest should happen in reality, and then test the simulation by comparing it to reality. When simulations match reality, of course this provides confidence that the theory being tested is certainly on the right track and gives us a set of ideas for how Nature really works.

Simulation of how the moon likely formed

Many astronomers believe the moon formed in the very early days of Earth's formation, when it was largely a hot ball of magma. A large object may have struck the Earth and then this happened.

Cool Chem/Phys discovery: First type of molecule to form after Big Bang

Shortly after the Big Bang created the universe, the first atoms would have been the simplest, almost entirely hydrogen with small amounts of helium. About 100,000 years after the Big Bang, which is when the universe would have 'cooled down' enough for molecules to begin forming (i.e. chemistry starts up in the universe), one would expect helium hydride to be the first. This is helium and a hydrogen ion combining.

Astronomers have discovered helium hydride directly and for the first time in space. For those who study astrochemistry, this is similar to biologists who find candidates for the 'missing link' between species in the evolutionary process. Here, if scientists want to test that their models for chemistry during the evolution of the universe, finding helium hydride was essential.                                   

SpaceX able to launch and land its Falcon Heavy booster rockets

Yet a new amazing feat in the space program - SpaceX launched the world's most powerful rocket, the Falcon Heavy, and then landed all three boosters so they can be re-used. This is a wonderful feat of science and engineering, and is setting new standards for space travel and financing. Check it out.

Interesting study of what happens to human genetics when in space

Two identical twins, Scott and Mark Kelly, with Scott being an astronaut, took part in an important volunteer study. Scott lived in space for one year, and then their genetic expression were compared before, during and after the space time. About 7% of Scott's genes were altered. Check out this summary article - this is research that is absolutely vital before sending people to Mars for multiple years at a time. Zero gravity, radiation, environmental changes that can affect genetics, and more are to be studied.