Andromeda Galaxy -- M-31

Andromeda Galaxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy

   

Andromeda Galaxy
The Andromeda Galaxy
Observation data (J2000 epoch)
Pronunciation	/ænˈdrɒmɨdə/
Constellation	Andromeda
Right ascension	00h 42m 44.3s[1]
Declination	+41° 16′ 9″[1]
Redshift	z = -0.001001 (minus sign indicates blueshift)[1]
Helio radial velocity	−301 ± 1 km/s[2]
Distance	2.54 ± 0.11 Mly (778 ± 33 kpc)[2][3][4][5][6][a]
Type	SA(s)b[1]
Mass	~1×1012[2][7] M☉
size (ly)	~100kly diameter
Number of stars	1 trillion (1012)[8]
Apparent dimensions (V)	190′ × 60′[1]
Apparent magnitude (V)	3.44[9][10]
Absolute magnitude (V)	−21.5[b][4]
Other designations
M31, NGC 224, UGC 454, PGC 2557, 2C 56 (Core),[1] LEDA 2557

The Andromeda Galaxy /ænˈdrɒmɨdə/ is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years (2.4×10¹⁹ km) from Earth^[4] in the Andromeda constellation. Also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224, it is often referred to as the Great Andromeda Nebula in older texts. The Andromeda Galaxy is the nearest spiral galaxy to our Milky Way galaxy, but not the nearest galaxy overall. It gets its name from the area of the sky in which it appears, the constellation of Andromeda, which was named after the mythological princess Andromeda. The Andromeda Galaxy is the largest galaxy of the Local Group, which also contains the Milky Way, the Triangulum Galaxy, and about 30 other smaller galaxies. Although the largest, the Andromeda Galaxy may not be the most massive, as recent findings suggest that the Milky Way contains more dark matter and could be the most massive in the grouping.^[11] The 2006 observations by the Spitzer Space Telescope revealed that M31 contains one trillion (10¹²) stars:^[8] at least twice the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, which is estimated to be 200–400 billion.^[12]

The Andromeda Galaxy is estimated to be 7.1×10¹¹ solar masses.^[2] In comparison a 2009 study estimated that the Milky Way and M31 are about equal in mass,^[13] while a 2006 study put the mass of the Milky Way at ~80% of the mass of the Andromeda Galaxy. The two galaxies are expected to collide in 3.75 billion years, eventually merging to form a giant elliptical galaxy.^[14]

At 3.4, the apparent magnitude of Andromeda Galaxy is one of the brightest of any Messier objects,^[15] making it visible to the naked eye on moonless nights even when viewed from areas with moderate light pollution. Although it appears more than six times as wide as the full Moon when photographed through a larger telescope, only the brighter central region is visible to the naked eye or when viewed using binoculars or a small telescope.

The Andromeda Galaxy as seen by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer

The measured distance to the Andromeda Galaxy was doubled in 1953 when it was discovered that there is another, dimmer type of Cepheid. In the 1990s, measurements of both standard red giants as well as red clump stars from the Hipparcos satellite measurements were used to calibrate the Cepheid distances.^[35][36]

Formation and history

According to a team of astronomers reporting in 2010, M31 was formed out of the collision of two smaller galaxies between 5 and 9 billion years ago.^[37]

A paper published in 2012^[38] has outlined M31's basic history since its birth. According to it, Andromeda was born roughly 10 billion years ago from the merger of many smaller protogalaxies, leading to a galaxy smaller than the one we see today.

The most important event in M31's past history was the merger mentioned above that took place 8 billion years ago. This violent collision formed most of its (metal-rich) galactic halo and extended disk and during that epoch Andromeda's star formation would have been very high, to the point of becoming a luminous infrared galaxy for roughly 100 million years.

M31 and the Triangulum Galaxy (M33) had a very close passage 2–4 billion years ago. This event produced high levels of star formation across the Andromeda Galaxy's disk – even some globular clusters – and disturbed M33's outer disk.

While there has been activity during the last 2 billion years, this has been much lower than during the past. During this epoch, star formation throughout M31's disk decreased to the point of nearly shutting down, then increased again relatively recently. There have been interactions with satellite galaxies like M32, M110, or others that have already been absorbed by M31. These interactions have formed structures like Andromeda's Giant Stellar Stream. A merger roughly 100 million years ago is believed to be responsible for a counter-rotating disk of gas found in the center of M31 as well as the presence there of a relatively young (100 million years old) stellar population.

Recent distance estimate

At least four distinct techniques have been used to measure distances to the Andromeda Galaxy.
In 2003, using the infrared surface brightness fluctuations (I-SBF) and adjusting for the new period-luminosity value of Freedman et al. 2001 and using a metallicity correction of −0.2 mag dex⁻¹ in (O/H), an estimate of 2.57 ± 0.06 megalight-years (788 ± 18 kpc) was derived.

The Andromeda Galaxy pictured in ultraviolet light by GALEX

Using the Cepheid variable method, an estimate of 2.51 ± 0.13 Mly (770 ± 40 kpc) was reported in 2004.^[2][3]

In 2005 Ignasi Ribas (CSIC, Institute for Space Studies of Catalonia (IEEC)) and colleagues announced the discovery of an eclipsing binary star in the Andromeda Galaxy. The binary star, designated M31VJ00443799+4129236,^[c] has two luminous and hot blue stars of types O and B. By studying the eclipses of the stars, which occur every 3.54969 days, the astronomers were able to measure their sizes. Knowing the sizes and temperatures of the stars, they were able to measure the absolute magnitude of the stars. When the visual and absolute magnitudes are known, the distance to the star can be measured. The stars lie at a distance of 2.52 ± 0.14 Mly (773 ± 43 kpc) and the whole Andromeda Galaxy at about 2.5 Mly (770 kpc).^[4] This new value is in excellent agreement with the previous, independent Cepheid-based distance value.

M31 is close enough that the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB) method may also be used to estimate its distance. The estimated distance to M31 using this technique in 2005 yielded 2.56 ± 0.08 Mly (785 ± 25 kpc).^[5]

Averaged together, all these distance measurements give a combined distance estimate of
2.54 ± 0.11 Mly (779 ± 34 kpc).^[a] Based upon the above distance, the diameter of M31 at the widest point is estimated to be 141 ± 3 kly (43,230 ± 920 pc).^[d] Applying trigonometry (arctangent), that figures to extending at an apparent 3.18° angle in the sky.

Mass and luminosity estimates

Mass

Mass estimates for the Andromeda Galaxy's halo (including dark matter) give a value of approximately 1.23×10¹² M_☉^[7] (or 1.2 trillion solar masses) compared to 1.9×10¹² M_☉ for the Milky Way. Thus M31 may be less massive than our own galaxy, although the error range is still too large to say for certain. Even so, the masses of the Milky Way and M31 are comparable, and M31's spheroid actually has a higher stellar density than that of the Milky Way.^[39]

Luminosity

M31 appears to have significantly more common stars than the Milky Way, and the estimated luminosity of M31, ~2.6×10¹⁰ L_☉, is about 25% higher than that of our own galaxy.^[40] However, the galaxy has a high inclination as seen from Earth and its interstellar dust absorbs an unknown amount of light, so it is difficult to estimate its actual brightness and other authors have given other values for the luminosity of the Andromeda Galaxy (including to propose it is the second brightest galaxy within a radius of 10 megaparsecs of the Milky Way, after the Sombrero Galaxy^[41]) , the most recent estimation (done in 2010 with the help of Spitzer Space Telescope) suggesting an absolute magnitude (in the blue) of −20.89 (that with a color index of +0.63 translates to an absolute visual magnitude of −21.52,^[b] compared to −20.9 for the Milky Way), and a total luminosity in that wavelength of 3.64×10¹⁰L_☉^[42]

The rate of star formation in the Milky Way is much higher, with M31 producing only about one solar mass per year compared to 3–5 solar masses for the Milky Way. The rate of supernovae in the Milky Way is also double that of M31.^[43] This suggests that M31 once experienced a great star formation phase, but is now in a relative state of quiescence, whereas the Milky Way is experiencing more active star formation.^[40] Should this continue, the luminosity in the Milky Way may eventually overtake that of M31.

According to recent studies, like the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy lies in what in the galaxy color–magnitude diagram is known as the green valley, a region populated by galaxies in transition from the blue cloud (galaxies actively forming new stars) to the red sequence (galaxies that lack star formation). Star formation activity in green valley galaxies is slowing as they run out of star-forming gas in the interstellar medium. In simulated galaxies with similar properties, star formation will typically have been extinguished within about five billion years from now, even accounting for the expected, short-term increase in the rate of star formation due to the collision between both Andromeda and the Milky Way.^[44]

Structure

The Andromeda Galaxy seen in infrared by the Spitzer Space Telescope, one of NASA's four Great Space Observatories

Image of the Andromeda Galaxy taken by Spitzer in infrared, 24 micrometres (Credit:NASA/JPL–Caltech/K. Gordon, University of Arizona)

Play media

A Swift Tour of Andromeda Galaxy

A Galaxy Evolution Explorer image of the Andromeda Galaxy. The bands of blue-white making up the galaxy's striking rings are neighborhoods that harbor hot, young, massive stars. Dark blue-grey lanes of cooler dust show up starkly against these bright rings, tracing the regions where star formation is currently taking place in dense cloudy cocoons. When observed in visible light, Andromeda’s rings look more like spiral arms. The ultraviolet view shows that these arms more closely resemble the ring-like structure previously observed in infrared wavelengths with NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope. Astronomers using Spitzer interpreted these rings as evidence that the galaxy was involved in a direct collision with its neighbor, M32, more than 200 million years ago.

Based on its appearance in visible light, the Andromeda Galaxy is classified as an SA(s)b galaxy in the de Vaucouleurs–Sandage extended classification system of spiral galaxies.^[1] However, data from the 2MASS survey showed that the bulge of M31 has a box-like appearance, which implies that the galaxy is actually a barred spiral galaxy like the Milky Way, with the Andromeda Galaxy's bar viewed almost directly along its long axis.^[45]

In 2005, astronomers used the Keck telescopes to show that the tenuous sprinkle of stars extending outward from the galaxy is actually part of the main disk itself.^[46] This means that the spiral disk of stars in M31 is three times larger in diameter than previously estimated. This constitutes evidence that there is a vast, extended stellar disk that makes the galaxy more than 220,000 light-years (67,000 pc) in diameter. Previously, estimates of the Andromeda Galaxy's size ranged from 70,000 to 120,000 light-years (21,000 to 37,000 pc) across.

The galaxy is inclined an estimated 77° relative to the Earth (where an angle of 90° would be viewed directly from the side). Analysis of the cross-sectional shape of the galaxy appears to demonstrate a pronounced, S-shaped warp, rather than just a flat disk.^[47] A possible cause of such a warp could be gravitational interaction with the satellite galaxies near M31. The galaxy M33 could be responsible for some warp in M31's arms, though more precise distances and radial velocities are required.

Spectroscopic studies have provided detailed measurements of the rotational velocity of M31 at various radii from the core. In the vicinity of the core, the rotational velocity climbs to a peak of 225 kilometres per second (140 mi/s) at a radius of 1,300 light-years (82,000,000 AU), then descends to a minimum at 7,000 light-years (440,000,000 AU) where the rotation velocity may be as low as 50 kilometres per second (31 mi/s). Thereafter the velocity steadily climbs again out to a radius of 33,000 light-years (2.1×10⁹ AU), where it reaches a peak of 250 kilometres per second (160 mi/s). The velocities slowly decline beyond that distance, dropping to around 200 kilometres per second (120 mi/s) at 80,000 light-years (5.1×10⁹ AU). These velocity measurements imply a concentrated mass of about 6×10⁹ M_☉ in the nucleus. The total mass of the galaxy increases linearly out to 45,000 light-years (2.8×10⁹ AU), then more slowly beyond that radius.^[48]

The spiral arms of M31 are outlined by a series of H II regions that Baade described as resembling "beads on a string". They appear to be tightly wound, although they are more widely spaced than in our galaxy.^[49] Since the Andromeda Galaxy is seen close to edge-on, however, the studies of its spiral structure are difficult. While rectified images of the galaxy seem to show a fairly normal spiral galaxy with the arms wound up in a clockwise direction, exhibiting two continuous trailing arms that are separated from each other by a minimum of about 13,000 light-years (820,000,000 AU) and that can be followed outward from a distance of roughly 1,600 light-years (100,000,000 AU) from the core, other alternative spiral structures have been proposed such as a single spiral arm^[50] or a flocculent^[51] pattern of long, filamentary, and thick spiral arms.^[1][52]

The most likely cause of the distortions of the spiral pattern is thought to be interaction with galaxy satellites M32 and M110.^[53] This can be seen by the displacement of the neutral hydrogen clouds from the stars.^[54]

In 1998, images from the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory demonstrated that the overall form of the Andromeda Galaxy may be transitioning into a ring galaxy. The gas and dust within M31 is generally formed into several overlapping rings, with a particularly prominent ring formed at a radius of 32,000 light-years (2.0×10⁹ AU) from the core.^[55] This ring is hidden from visible light images of the galaxy because it is composed primarily of cold dust.

Later studies with the help of the Spitzer Space Telescope showed how Andromeda's spiral structure in the infrared appears to be composed of two spiral arms that emerge from a central bar and continue beyond the large ring mentioned above. Those arms, however, are not continuous and have a segmented structure.^[53]

Close examination of the inner region of M31 with the same telescope also showed a smaller dust ring that is believed to have been caused by the interaction with M32 more than 200 million years ago. Simulations show that the smaller galaxy passed through the disk of the galaxy in Andromeda along the latter's polar axis. This collision stripped more than half the mass from the smaller M32 and created the ring structures in M31.^[56] It is the co-existence of the long-known large ring-like feature in the gas of Messier 31, together with this newly discovered inner ring-like structure, offset from the barycenter, that suggested a nearly head-on collision with the satellite M32, a milder version of the
Cartwheel encounter.^[57]

Studies of the extended halo of M31 show that it is roughly comparable to that of the Milky Way, with stars in the halo being generally "metal-poor", and increasingly so with greater distance.^[39] This evidence indicates that the two galaxies have followed similar evolutionary paths. They are likely to have accreted and assimilated about 100–200 low-mass galaxies during the past 12 billion years.^[58] The stars in the extended halos of M31 and the Milky Way may extend nearly one-third the distance separating the two galaxies.

Nucleus

HST image of the Andromeda Galaxy core showing possible double structure. NASA/ESA photo

M31 is known to harbor a dense and compact star cluster at its very center. In a large telescope it creates a visual impression of a star embedded in the more diffuse surrounding bulge. The luminosity of the nucleus is in excess of the most luminous globular clusters.^{[citation needed]}

Chandra X-ray telescope image of the center of M31. A number of X-ray sources, likely X-ray binary stars, within Andromeda's central region appear as yellowish dots. The blue source at the center is at the position of the supermassive black hole.

In 1991 Tod R. Lauer used WFPC, then on board the Hubble Space Telescope, to image M31's inner nucleus. The nucleus consists of two concentrations separated by 1.5 parsecs (4.9 ly). The brighter concentration, designated as P1, is offset from the center of the galaxy. The dimmer concentration, P2, falls at the true center of the galaxy and contains a black hole measured at 3–5 × 10⁷ M_☉ in 1993,^[59] and at 1.1–2.3 × 10⁸ M_☉ in 2005.^[60] The velocity dispersion of material around it is measured to be ≈ 160 km/s.^[61]

Scott Tremaine has proposed that the observed double nucleus could be explained if P1 is the projection of a disk of stars in an eccentric orbit around the central black hole.^[62] The eccentricity is such that stars linger at the orbital apocenter, creating a concentration of stars. P2 also contains a compact disk of hot, spectral class A stars. The A stars are not evident in redder filters, but in blue and ultraviolet light they dominate the nucleus, causing P2 to appear more prominent than P1.^[63]
While at the initial time of its discovery it was hypothesized that the brighter portion of the double nucleus was the remnant of a small galaxy "cannibalized" by M31,^[64] this is no longer considered a viable explanation, largely because such a nucleus would have an exceedingly short lifetime due to tidal disruption by the central black hole. While this could be partially resolved if P1 had its own black hole to stabilize it, the distribution of stars in P1 does not suggest that there is a black hole at its center.^[62]

Discrete sources

Artist's concept of the Andromeda Galaxy core showing a view across a disk of young, blue stars encircling a supermassive black hole. NASA/ESA photo

Apparently, by late 1968, no X-rays had been detected from the Andromeda Galaxy.^[65] A balloon flight on October 20, 1970, set an upper limit for detectable hard X-rays from M31.^[66]
Multiple X-ray sources have since been detected in the Andromeda Galaxy, using observations from the ESA's XMM-Newton orbiting observatory. Robin Barnard et al. hypothesized that these are candidate black holes or neutron stars, which are heating incoming gas to millions of kelvins and emitting X-rays. The spectrum of the neutron stars is the same as the hypothesized black holes, but can be distinguished by their masses.^[67]

There are approximately 460 globular clusters associated with the Andromeda Galaxy.^[68] The most massive of these clusters, identified as Mayall II, nicknamed Globular One, has a greater luminosity than any other known globular cluster in the Local Group of galaxies.^[69] It contains several million stars, and is about twice as luminous as Omega Centauri, the brightest known globular cluster in the Milky Way. Globular One (or G1) has several stellar populations and a structure too massive for an ordinary globular. As a result, some consider G1 to be the remnant core of a dwarf galaxy that was consumed by M31 in the distant past.^[70] The globular with the greatest apparent brightness is G76 which is located in the south-west arm's eastern half.^[17] Another massive globular cluster -named 037-B327-, discovered in 2006 as is heavily reddened by the Andromeda Galaxy's interstellar dust, was thought to be more massive than G1 and the largest cluster of the Local Group;^[71] however other studies have shown is actually similar in properties to G1.^[72]

Unlike the globular clusters of the Milky Way, which show a relatively low age dispersion, Andromeda's globular clusters have a much larger range of ages: from systems as old as the galaxy itself to much younger systems, with ages between a few hundred million years to five billion years^[73]
In 2005, astronomers discovered a completely new type of star cluster in M31. The new-found clusters contain hundreds of thousands of stars, a similar number of stars that can be found in globular clusters. What distinguishes them from the globular clusters is that they are much larger — several hundred light-years across — and hundreds of times less dense. The distances between the stars are, therefore, much greater within the newly discovered extended clusters.^[74]
In the year 2012, a microquasar, a radio burst emanating from a smaller black hole, was detected in the Andromeda Galaxy. The progenitor black hole was located near the galactic center and had about 10 . Discovered through a data collected by the ESA's XMM-Newton probe, and subsequently observed by NASA's Swift and Chandra, the Very Large Array, and the Very Long Baseline Array, the microquasar was the first observed within the Andromeda Galaxy and the first outside of the Milky Way Galaxy.^[75]

Satellites

Like the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy has satellite galaxies, consisting of 14 known dwarf galaxies. The best known and most readily observed satellite galaxies are M32 and M110. Based on current evidence, it appears that M32 underwent a close encounter with M31 (Andromeda) in the past. M32 may once have been a larger galaxy that had its stellar disk removed by M31, and underwent a sharp increase of star formation in the core region, which lasted until the relatively recent past.^[76]

M110 also appears to be interacting with M31, and astronomers have found in the halo of M31 a stream of metal-rich stars that appear to have been stripped from these satellite galaxies.^[77] M110 does contain a dusty lane, which may indicate recent or ongoing star formation.^[78]
In 2006 it was discovered that nine of these galaxies lie along a plane that intersects the core of the Andromeda Galaxy, rather than being randomly arranged as would be expected from independent interactions. This may indicate a common tidal origin for the satellites.^[79]

Future collision with the Milky Way

The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way at about 110 kilometres per second (68 mi/s).^[80] We measure it approaching relative to our sun at around 300 kilometres per second (190 mi/s)^[1] as the sun orbits around the center of our galaxy at a speed of approximately 225 kilometres per second (140 mi/s). This makes Andromeda one of the few blueshifted galaxies that we observe. Andromeda's tangential or side-ways velocity with respect to the Milky Way is relatively much smaller than the approaching velocity and therefore we expect it to directly collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years. A likely outcome of the collision is that the galaxies will merge to form a giant elliptical galaxy.^[81] Such events are frequent among the galaxies in galaxy groups. The fate of the Earth and the Solar System in the event of a collision is currently unknown. Before the galaxies merge, there is a small chance that the Solar System could be ejected from the Milky Way or join M31.^[82]

Renewables Spurred by Natural Gas Development?

Posted on August 3, 2014 by Natural Gas Now Guest Blogger

Original Link:  http://naturalgasnow.org/renewables-spurred-natural-gas-development/#more-5168

Nick GrealyAdministrator of NaturalGas2.0, NoHotAir and ShaleGasInfo Blogs

 

Renewables are part of the energy revolution in the US made possible by shale gas but you wouldn’t know it given some of the sector’s stupid friends.

Two reasonable sounding arguments against shale gas here in the UK/EU are a fear that cheaper natural gas makes investments in efficiency and renewables uncompetitive. That was the argument proposed by both Craig Bennett of Friends of the Earth and Tom Burke of E3G on Sky News and BBC News Channel on July 28 during the few minutes we were allowed together.

Is it a reasonable argument? As usual, the US provides some answers. European Greens like Craig and Tom don’t quite get that the US energy transformation (energiewende) is not only about gas. It’s about several systemic disruptions across energy. The shale revolution isn’t the only game in town anymore and disruptions are breaking out in efficiency, wind and solar.

Shale Gas, Renewables and Efficiency – The Triple Revolution 

It sounds perfectly reasonable to people to say that surely we can just be more efficient. The answer is two yesses. Yes, we can, but also, yes, we already are. A core assumption is that modern life is inevitably energy intense, but here’s an interesting fact via BP World Energy Statistics. Convert energy use from all sources (oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewable) to Trillion Barrels of Oil Equivalent (TBOE) and peak energy was 228.2 in 2005, compared to 223.9 in 2000. The figure of 200 TBOE in 2013 shows an encouraging drop both this century and from the pre-recession peak of 2005.

But, most interesting of all, is how the UK uses roughly the same amount of energy today than we did in 1968 when there were 8.5 million less of us watching one 19 inch black and white television in an unheated home, and walking to work for far lower average disposable income.

Trillions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent Used in UK

In short, as in most things, life is getting better by almost any measurement, but we’re far more energy efficient than most people lead themselves to believe. In the USA, the TBOE figure of 2265 is 75% more ,but population rose 63% since 1965, and there was a substantial migration to the sunbelt brought on by the development of wide scale air conditioning. In short, the richer we become, the more energy efficient we systemically become.
Returning to 2014, we see that US shale is a revolution that peacefully co-exists with a revolution in lower energy use and higher renewable penetration. From the Wall Street Journal, no sign that cheaper shale gas in generation is an enemy of either efficiency or renewables:

When customers of American Electric Power Co.started dialing back on power consumption in early 2009, company executives figured consumers and businesses were just pinching pennies because of the recession.
Five years and an economic recovery later, electricity sales at the Columbus, Ohio-based power company still haven’t rebounded to the peak reached in 2008. As a result, executives have had to abandon their century-old assumption that the use of electricity tracks overall economic conditions.
“It’s a new world for us,” says Chief Executive Nick Akins.

Homes and industry are cutting energy use organically as almost everything we buy is far more efficient than the product it supersedes. Something as mundane as lighting is a good example but computers are another. The big success is in auto fuel economy which cuts carbon emissions as this from the US EPA shows:


Green World Still in Dark Eyeshades

But it’s the same old world that UK greens, and their nimby allies who see all change as negative appear to live in, even when utilities problems stem from renewables success. I’ve noted before, and mentioned to Tom Burke at the BBC, how Texas shows wind and hydrocarbons get along just fine in Texas. In the UK, the song is things can only get better, but in Texas, they are:

..turning wind into electricity is one thing; moving the energy to a profitable market is another. For years, the wind industry has been hampered by such a severe lack of transmission lines that when the wind is strong, a local power surplus forces some machines to be shut down.

Now, Texas is out to change that by conducting a vast experiment that might hold lessons for the rest of the United States. This year, a sprawling network of new high-voltage power lines was completed, tying the panhandle area and West Texas to the millions of customers around Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and Houston.
The project, its supporters say, is essential if states are ever to wean their reliance on fossil fuels and meet new federally mandated rules to reduce carbon emissions.

This is completely counter to UK (and US) green narratives: The world hydrocarbon capital providing more gas, more wind, more efficiency and lower CO2. Quite a switch from the Energiewende example. A better question may be to ask why aren’t EU efficiency and renewable targets achieving the same success as in the US?

Texas Natural Gas and Renewables Electricity Generation Both Huge

Could it be that cheaper natural gas incentivizes green technology not to stagnate or disappear, but to flourish? Could it be that the integration of renewables into the electricity network is not hindered, but actually accelerated by low cost natural gas?

Incentives to replace CO2 clearly aren’t working in Germany and the UK:

Germany and the United Kingdom have 18 of the 30 most polluting energy plants in the European Union, according to a study by green NGOs, funded by the European Union.

But returning again to the US both solar and gas are flourishing, albeit at US subsides far lower than UK ones.

The United States put online 102 utility-scale solar PV and concentrating solar power plants with a total capacity of 1.13 GW in the first six months of 2014, according to the latest Energy Infrastructure Updatefrom the nation’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

This represents a 5% decline from the first half of 2013, but is still 32% of new generation put online during the period. In June 11 utility-scale PV plants totalling 40 MW were commissioned, with First Wind’s 14 MW Warren PV plant in Massachusetts as the largest completed during the month. 

FERC’s monthly reports do not include “behind-the-meter” residential and commercial solar, and if these were added solar would make up closer to half of new generation during the first half of 2014.

Natural gas continues to be the leading form of new electricity generation in the United States, and another 1.55 GW of gas plants were added in the first six months of 2014, making up 44% of recorded capacity.

Most importantly Monday, in what may be a  Khruschev speech moment for UK greens, The Guardian offered them some uncomfortable reading.

The very word sounds designed to shock, and it really can make the earth move. But there are serious reasons why fracking is likely to be part of Britain’s future. The caprice of global markets, which Vladimir Putin does much to emphasise, puts a premium on sourcing some energy at home…and if the UK is to curb emissions, then – on top of scaled-up renewables and reduced waste – we’ll need cleaner hydrocarbons to burn.

The comments, and Tony Bosworth’s letter in response, show reality is slow in coming. But once it does, there’ll be more and more of it.

…green groups must be thankful to have a popular countryside crusade they can embrace – opposition to the nascent fracking industry, which the government kickstarted this week by announcing that most of the country is open for prospecting for shale gas. But it is not obvious that they are winning the race yet or even that they have backed the right horse.

Editor’s Note: Nick’s piece is on the right track. Subsidies to the renewables industry put a relative handful of government officials in charge of picking winners and losers, rather than consumers making free choices. They inevitably distort markets, while making any industry dependent upon them lethargic and less likely to innovate. Renewables are doing better here in the US than in the EU precisely because we do less force-feeding of them. Natural gas is the natural ally of renewables development and, as Texas goes, so goes the nation. Unfortunately, some renewables advocates have been drawn into an “us vs. them” ideological war that ignores this reality. That’s the sort of thing stupid friends do and stupid friends are always a lot more dangerous than your enemies.

Science Is Not Democratic

By James Conca
From:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/08/03/science-is-not-democratic/
            

And it’s not supposed to be. When that happens we start burning books, burning witches and making some very bad decisions. We’re not there yet, but we are seeing a very worrisome trend.

President Obama touched on this very subject while speaking to the League of Conservation Voters’ Capital Dinner at the end of June, implying that science is being politicized (LCV Dinner). While on the surface this isn’t news, the extent to which our country is rejecting science over ideology is news – bad news. Bad for business, bad for security and bad for the future.

During his speech, Obama lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the U.S. has become an effective political tool since the 1980s. But it is also extremely dangerous to our democracy.

No one expects the public to be experts or to recognize important scientific results. But we do expect that when important scientific results occur, they are implemented and used for the betterment of America and the world.

Caption - President Obama at the League of Conservation Voters when he lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the United States has become a growing ideology used for political purposes but is actually dangerous to our democracy. Source: White House

Everyone remembers how the tobacco industry pretended scientific studies showed cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. But when results finally came out from independent scientific studies showing they do cause cancer, the country, and even smokers, accepted it pretty quickly. As Obama put it:
“I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, OK.”

 

The most glaring examples of this distrust of scientific experts are in climate change, evolution and nuclear energy. Being a geologist, I know quite a bit about climate change, having studied its effects over the last two billion years on Earth, and even on other planets like Mars Mars and Venus, where we began our models of extreme climate change in the 60s and 70s. But even I have to defer to those researchers who are knee deep in its influence over the last 10,000 years and the role of human activities, such as deforestation, agriculture and volatilization of fossil carbon, in aggravating the effects over recent time.

But if you disagree with the scientists in these fields, it is easy to believe it’s a conspiracy by various moneyed interests who have bought that entire scientific field and everyone in it. So you can just ignore all of them.

The notion that science should not depend on public opinion is an American tradition, a major reason we became the most powerful nation on Earth. The Founding Fathers were students of the Enlightenment and viewed science and technology as fundamental to the emerging Nation’s survival:

“There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage, than the promotion of science and literature.” – George Washington, 1^st State of The Union Address, 1790

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry” – Thomas Jefferson, 1779

We all understand that public attitudes on science are more influenced by political and religious beliefs than by the public’s scientific literacy (IFL Science). That a quarter of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth isn’t as bad as it sounds. Half of Americans believed that 100 years ago. Close to 100% thought that in 1776.

 

But they didn’t really influence scientific policy. Now they do.

Before 1980, Congress and the President generally deferred to the scientific community to interpret science. Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t argue the merits of the Bohr atom with Oppenheimer when he wrote to him 1943. Yes, the Moon landing was driven by military and Cold War aims, but no one in politics questioned how NASA went about getting us there.

Science isn’t a belief system. It’s proven knowledge. It either knows the answer to a problem, or admits it doesn’t and keeps looking for it. Every time we ignore the scientific community, bad things generally happen.

Beginning in the 16^th century, it took almost 200 years for the scientific method to develop to the point where it provided demonstrable survival advantages to civilization. It is not coincidental that this realization by the monarchs and governments of those times came first through military applications and the advancement of material sciences, since they were the original funding agencies.

At the same time, application of scientific results to agriculture and sanitation began to affect everyone, for the better. The long 20^thcentury rise in scientific advantages, and resultant military and economic power, began in the late 1800s. A combination of 19^th century American individualism, the rise of manufacturing and unions, and the assumption that scientists should be encouraged to excel with less direction from patrons than was generally exercised in Europe, allowed the United States to rise in economic and military power fast and far in the 60 years following World War One.

There was a recognition in America that it was important we have both basic scientific and applied scientific research – one that would provide fundamental discoveries and advances while the other would take those results and determine if, and how, they could be of any use. Thus, research on the mating habits of the Tsetse fly in the 1960’s would become integral in identifying vectors in the spread of AIDS in Africa 30 years later.

 

In fact, the real difference between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was just this idea of scientific control and integrity. In the Soviet Union, many scientists were told that their results better be acceptable to the Communist Party. This led to several major disasters in the Soviet Union, the most famous being Chernobyl. But the worst was an attempt to impose a pseudoscientific theory in place of true evolutionary theory, à la Darwinism and genetics, during the 1940s and 50s. This last one decimated their agricultural productivity and mortally wounded their economy during the critical period when America had an upper hand in the Cold War.

That disaster resulted from the Communist Party’s support of an ideology, derived from Lamarck and espoused by biologist party-loyalist Trofim Lysenko, over the scientists who understood evolution. All scientists were told to believe only in this Lamarckian theory and to denounce Darwinian evolution. The Party went so far as to require only this theory be taught in school.
Dissenting scientists were driven out of science, imprisoned or killed.

Since this theory was wrong, it was inevitable that applying it exclusively would destroy the agricultural industry of the Soviet Union. This even spawned the term Lysenkoism which means the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Obama is actually referring to Lysenkoism when he refers to the rejection of scientific consensus by many in Congress (KSTP).

This dangerous warping of science by politics was feared by scientists beginning in the 17^th century. In order to make sure science didn’t get too politicized, and that results didn’t start being cooked to satisfy the powers-that-be, scientists began forming scientific societies to support the scientific method itself.

 

Each society focused on its own field since only those in that particular field understood the subject sufficiently to self-police its members. It wasn’t always perfect, and they themselves were subject to lots of internal politics, but it made it difficult for non-scientists to pretend they were experts.

Thus formed in America were societies like the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, the American Medical Association, the American Nuclear Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Geophysical Union, to name a few of the hundreds we have in this country.

Not only did these societies encourage the exchange of results and vetting of theories, they convinced the Government that science actually mattered and that there should be federal agencies that were populated by scientists trained in specific disciplines of importance to the Nation.
Overtime, many science-based government agencies were formed to address the pressing scientific and technical challenges of each time period, including the United States Geologic Survey, our system of Agricultural Research Stations, the Center for Disease Control, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and many, many others.

The benefits to America were vast and obvious, and led directly to the United States becoming the greatest nation on Earth in the years following World War Two.

 

But things began changing in the United States about 30 years ago. Basic Science began being cut in favor of Applied Science. Research budgets for agencies like the Department of Defense exploded while basic research funding for Universities and scientific societies began drying up. The Directors and Chiefs of those science-based government agencies, previously held by scientists in those fields who worked their way up that agency’s ladder, became political appointees. It was worrisome.

Slowly, a scientific expert started to become a dirty word in some halls on Capital Hill. Political and ideological groups became adroit at pretending to include science to push their agendas, resorting to pseudoscience when necessary. The new crop of Google Graduates are their present-day soldiers and are flooding society with so much science noise, it’s difficult to tell who’s a scientist and who’s not.

Vaccines are suddenly seen as more dangerous than diseases like whooping cough. Fluoride in water is a conspiracy. Instead of asking the Geological Society of America about earthquakes and evolution, for which it was formed, it’s now OK to surf Creation Ministries. While we love TV shows featuring fancy CSI scientific mega-labs, that’s not how real law enforcement works. Watching political activists on TV discuss events like Fukushima, one wonders “where are the nuclear scientists on this show?”

These are dangerous and stupid trends, trends that have undermined our funding for science in America,  have eroded our scientific and technological leadership in the world,  have discouraged American students from entering the hard sciences, and  have made us more dependent on science coming out of other countries. A few generations of this foolishness and we won’t ever recover.
But if you don’t believe me, there must be some expert you can ask.

Follow Jim on https://twitter.com/JimConca and see his and Dr. Wright’s book at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419675885/sr=1-10/qid=1195953013/

So Long, Seafood! Ocean Acidification Projected to Slam Alaskan Fisheries

By Zoë Schlanger

Filed: 7/29/14 at 9:13 AM  | Updated: 7/29/14 at 10:36 AM

From:  http://www.newsweek.com/ocean-acidification-alaskan-fisheries-alaska-crab-crabs-climate-change-alaska-261756       
         

The worst socio-economic consequences of acidification will fall on the southwestern and southeastern coasts of the Alaska. NOAA

ADVERTISEMENT

The sinuous Alaskan coastline, which is 50 percent longer than the rest of U.S. coastline, produces half of all commercial seafood caught in the nation. It is also ground zero for ocean acidification, one of the most devastating effects of our carbon dioxide emissions. In other words, those bountiful crab, clam, and salmon fisheries may not be around much longer.
What scientists don’t know is how much longer.

“The scary thing is that we don’t know the answer to that question yet,”  says NOAA oceanographer Jeremy Mathis. “The potential is certainly there for it to be a rapid event, literally overnight. Whether that’s a slow degradation of the fisheries over decades, or whether a species is there one year and isn’t the next, we still don’t know that. That’s what I’m most concerned about.”
Ocean acidification can be thought of as climate change's similarly disasterous twin. Oceans absorb around one-third of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. As the concentration of CO2 rises, so does the amount that sinks into the ocean, raising the acidity of the water. Acidification is happening everywhere, but even more rapidly in Alaska, where cold coastal waters are able to absorb more carbon dioxide, and where circulation patterns bring deep, naturally acidic water up toward the surface. Sea creatures rely on specific conditions to stay alive. When those conditions change, so do their populations. Usually for the worse.

An acidification spike around the coast of British Columbia in February 2014 wiped out 10 million scallops. Acidification in the the Pacific Northwest around 2006 began dissolving oyster larvae, wiping out some hatchery populations completely. But projected acidification in Alaska would be on a much grander scale. Hundreds of thousands of people depend on the Alaskan fishing industry for jobs and food.

Mathis and his team’s latest research, published Tuesday in the journal Progress in Oceanography, paints a comprehensive picture of just how threatened certain Alaskan communities are by the prospect of fishery decline or collapse. The fishing industry in Alaska supports over 100,000 jobs, and generates more than $5 billion in annual revenue. Beyond commercial fishing, around 120,000 Alaskans, roughly 17 percent of the state's population, rely on subsistence fishing to feed their families, according to the report. The analysis found that communities most reliant on fishery harvests, with relatively lower income and fewer alternative job options, face the highest risk of ocean acidification.

Mathis hopes his team’s research will provide a basis for local governments and nonprofits to design programs to help Alaska’s fishing communities survive lower and lower yields.

“Economic diversification is key,” Mathis says. “A lot of those places are almost solely reliant on the fishing industry. It's like a stock portfolio. If you don’t have any diversification, you have a lot of risk.” The report proposes job training programs, increased educational options, and investing in new infrastructure to open up new opportunities to coastal  southeastern and southwestern Alaska, where acidification is projected to have the most dire economic consequences.

Communities facing the highest risk are in the Southeast and Southwest of the Alaska. NOAA
Among the perils of higher acidity is that it makes it harder for mollusks like clams and crustaceans like crabs to build their shells. The lowered pH dissolves calcium carbonate, it difficult for the animals to extract enough of the mineral compound from the water to build shells. It also appears to damage gill function in crabs and change their behavior, as pointed out in a Newsweek cover story earlier this year.

Pteropod, a tiny swimming sea snail, is especially vulnerable to reduced shell-building due to acidification in the Gulf of Alaska. These little snails make up half the diet of the pink salmon, so their survival and the survival of Alaska’s salmon runs are intimately linked, according to Mathis’ earlier research, as reported by Scientific American. Pteropod populations in similar acidity conditions as those already seen in coastal Alaska have shown “rapid and significant shell dissolution,” according to the latest report.
Habitat ranges of vulnerable species studied in the report: Tanner and snow crabs, geoduck, littleneck, and razor clams (adapted from Alaska Department of Fish & Game). NOAA
In the past 200 years, global average pH has dropped by .1 units. If CO2 emissions continue as projected, the next 100 years will sink pH by another .3 units. “That’s a 300 percent change by 2100. I think that if those changes come to fruition, the oceans in general are probably going to be in trouble,” Mathis says.

Once acidity reaches those levels, there’s no turning back--at least not in a terms of time scales relevant to people alive today. “It is reversible, but not on human lifetime scale,” Mathis says. In a fantasy scenario where we halted all CO2 emissions beginning right now, it would still take hundreds of years to recover. If we emit the amount of CO2 we are projected to emit over the next hundred years, Mathis says, it will take “hundreds of thousands of years” to bounce back.

Long before then, sometime in this century, but perhaps overnight, it may be the people of Alaska who first feel the socio-economic pain of ocean acidification.