November 25, 2024: Chimps sharing skills across communities, coaxing the ocean to soak up more carbon pollution and humor as a coping mechanism. —Robin Lloyd, Contributing Editor | | | Western chimpanzee female "Fana" aged 54 years shows her grandson "Flanle" aged 3 years how to crack open palm oil nuts in Bossou Forest, Mont Nimba, Guinea. Nature Picture Library/Alamy Stock Photo | | | With extreme climate events forcing their hand, oceanographers are diving into research on chemical and biological techniques that can coax ocean waters to absorb more carbon pollution from the air. The aim is to precisely measure the pros, cons and effects of these methods as part of larger efforts to mitigate climate change, writes oceanographer Jaime B. Palter. As it is, ocean waters naturally pull in about a quarter of the huge quantities of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil-fuel burning and other human activity. Approaches for so-called marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) include adding alkaline rock dust and other nutrient sources to the ocean's surface to spur phytoplankton blooms; the microscopic algae then consume and store more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Other methods include pumping seawater through facilities that extract carbon dioxide for storage or commercial use; or engineers could ramp up seaweed growth so it extracts more carbon dioxide from the air.
Why this is controversial: In the wake of disastrous efforts to tamper with nature, many researchers have valid concerns about geoengineering. You might recall the story of cane toads imported to Australia in 1935 to consume crop pests only to have the toads become a national menace. Also, the energy requirements and environmental impacts of mCDR techniques must be entered into overall calculations. Finally, it is extremely difficult to directly measure or even model the effects of marine carbon removal in the vast, dynamic ocean environment.
What the experts say: "Only if we slow the gushing faucet of [carbon] emissions to a trickle can mCDR possibly open the drain to stop the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," writes Palter. | | | Why Is the Sky Dark at Night? | | | The big bang theory helps to explain why the sky is dark at night, writes astronomer and science communicator Phil Plait. Well into the 20th century, many astronomers still thought the universe was "infinite in time and space, stretching on forever," as Plait writes. "The stars were always there and always had been." Those assumptions, now known to be false, would imply that the sky should be very bright. But it isn't, of course. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the cosmos was expanding, not static, paving the way for the big bang theory to come into focus in subsequent decades. Under that theory, the universe had a beginning, now known to have kicked off about 13.8 billion years ago. So, cosmic expansion, stars with finite lives and stars so distant that their light can't reach us add up to yield a fairly dark sky at night.
The legacy: The dark-sky contradiction, called Olbers' paradox, had troubled astronomers for centuries, Plait writes. It was named for German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers, who wrote an 1823 treatise on this problem. Olbers was not the first scholar to ponder the problem.
Why this is cool: In an 1848 essay, a celebrated American writer was one of the first to propose a plausible, albeit non-quantitative, solution to Olbers' paradox. You've got some clues. Read Plait's essay to learn who it was. | | | • Ballot measures to retain or expand abortion rights largely succeeded despite the re-election of Trump, who is responsible for the overturning of Roe. v. Wade. This seeming contradiction is an example of the time-honored practice of "split ticket voting" in the U.S., writes Kelly Baden, vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute. The recent state victories for abortion rights suggest that politicians and advocates can do a better job educating voters on the connections between abortion, health care, economic justice, racism and democracy, she writes. | 5 min read | | | The humor finding above might sound obvious to you, but "everything is obvious once it's been pointed out," my graduate advisor once said. Two shamelessly silly jokes to get you through the start of the week:
1.
Q: What do you call a chicken looking at lettuce?
A: Chicken sees a salad.
2.
Friend 1: I heard someone say you do a terrible impression of an owl.
Friend 2: Where?
Friend 1: Holy moley, that *is* bad.
| Heard any new science-themed jokes? Feel free to send them as well as feedback or questions to: newsletters@sciam.com. | —Robin Lloyd, Contributing Editor | | Subscribe to this and all of our newsletters . | | | | Scientific American
One New York Plaza, New York, NY, 10004 | | | | | | Support our mission, subscribe to Scientific American | | | | | | | | | |
