Author Archives: Mark Marchand

About Mark Marchand

I am an adjunct professor in the journalism dept. at the University at Albany (SUNY), teaching courses in crisis communications and public relations writing. I served as a senior manager in corporate communications and media relations at Verizon for almost 25 years. Before that I was a daily newspaper reporter in Springfield, Mass. I fly airplanes as a hobby and I consult on communications and crisis communications, in addition to pursuing my own writing.

Scientists Gather in Boston to Discuss Research and Battle Anti-Science Political Agenda

(cover photo above: Pluto surface detail from New Horizons space probe, 2016)

By Mark Marchand

BOSTON — In the city that helped launch the great democracy experiment known as America, scientists from around the world gathered last month to discuss and share their latest research — and to draw battle lines against the ideological, anti-science platform of the new administration in Washington.

The scientific community here and abroad faces a Republican-led Congress and White House that, among many anti-science initiatives, seeds doubt against the lifesaving success of vaccines and denies the science behind climate change. As they gathered at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, they issued an urgent warning: basic science matters. Leadership of the international organization also called upon its members to advocate publicly for the importance of science in our everyday lives.

In her opening address, AAAS President Barbara Schaal left no doubt about the need to counter a movement that threatens to set back centuries of advancements pioneered by scientists from Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein.

“The case for science must be made again and again so that government understands the essential, critical role science plays in our lives,” said Schaal, also dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Sadly, in the U.S. over the last 10 years, there’s a feeling of concern that the entire scientific enterprise is under threat, that our position in the world is eroding, and that we’re marginalized,” she added. “Our concern is that science is being discounted as just another policy system. We’re concerned with intensifying hostility toward science in many parts of globe. We need the entire science community to have a clear voice and deliver a message for science.”

Schaal said she is particularly concerned about lack of support for what she calls “basic science.” That’s more fundamental science conducted without specific applications or products in mind. The results of these endeavors form the foundation for eventual breakthroughs that benefit all of us — but they are misunderstood because it often takes decades for that type of research to pay off.

I had the opportunity to report on the four-day meeting for the newspaper where I began my career: The Springfield Republican, known as The Springfield Daily News when I worked there from 1981-83. In my first story, I summarized Dr. Schaal’s speech. I know most scientists resist the urge to leave the realm of evidence-based science discuss politics, so I was impressed with Schaal’s strong words — some of which even targeted the Oval Office occupant.

Reporting on the meeting

AAAS’ annual conference, the 183rd meeting for the group, featured hundreds of sessions during which scientists presented some of their latest work. I wrote about three of them for the Springfield newspaper.

The first story involved a West Virginia University professor leading an effort to develop a portable approach to positron emission tomography, also known as  PET scans. Today, PET scanners are large, immobile devices in which patients must sit or lie down. But scientists like Julie Brefczynski-Lewis see the need to study brain processes while a patient is performing an activity, like walking. This could pave the way for better understanding of the brain and possibly unlock secrets to cures for Parkinson’s disease and other maladies.

AAAS PET scan

West Virginia University’s Julie Brefczynski-Lewis and a mockup of her portable PET scanner

Other scientists are working to transform basic components of smartphones, such as the microphone, into portable diagnostic devices. In the future, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients could simply blow into the speaker and obtain instant feedback about their breathing. If Professor Shwetak Patel and his colleagues at the University of Washington have their way, our smartphones could help us detect a range of illnesses or track existing ones.

Because I’ve always been  fascinated with the science of space travel, one of my favorite sessions and stories I wrote involved legendary planetary scientist Alan Stern and his work on the multi-year New Horizons space probe mission to Pluto. Stern is one of the leading space scientists of our era, and he’s articulate. No wonder Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people of 2016.

That’s also why I couldn’t resist having a photo taken with him after his talk:

Mark and Stern

At the beginning of his presentation, Stern showed one of the best images of Pluto in existence before New Horizons was launched in 2006. Taken from telescopes on Earth, it was not a very sharp picture:

Stern 2 -- with only previous, blurry image of Pluto

And then New Horizons started sending back gems like this last year, as well as the cover photo above:

Pluto from New Horizons

New Horizons’ work is not done. After passing Pluto, the tiny atomic-fueled probe is continuing on to examine other objects in the outer edge of our Solar System, also known as the Kuiper Belt.

There was a lot more science presented at the AAAS meeting, and I did write about a few more. I’ll share them on my blog in the near future.

But I left there feeling the scientific community has awakened to the need to better express the value and importance of their work — in a world that has become more polarized and often dismissive of evidence-based science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America’s Ballparks: Living Time Capsules

They Built Them; I Came

By Mark Marchand

Major league baseball stadiums are like time capsules — living time capsules that preserve the game Americans have loved since the mid 19th century.

Within stadium walls, dazzling plays come to pass, the sometimes plodding nine-inning script proceeds without time constraints, fans cheer, fans boo, beer and peanuts are consumed, one team wins, and one loses. All of this and more occurs without any thought to the world outside. Time capsules, after all, maintain things as they are for future generations to see.  And with some exceptions, spectators today witness the same pitches, the same hits, and the same fielding plays that took place since baseball’s birth two centuries ago.

Out there, meanwhile, wars continue, traffic creeps by, people live and die, jets soar overhead, money is made and lost, and the struggle of life carries on.

The fan who nestles into his or her ballpark seat for about three hours expects to be transported into the more magical, timeless world that author W.P. Kinsella painted for us. Kinsella, who passed away late last year, wrote the book Shoeless Joe, upon which the popular movie Field of Dreams was based. He had a knack for capturing the essence of this simple game, the arenas in which it’s played,  and the game’s  relevance to our lives. His tale of creating a lush, green ball field out of an Iowa cornfield brings to life the feelings many baseball fans harbor for their beloved diamonds and the enclosures in which the game is witnessed. There might be economic turmoil and a cruel world out there in Iowa. But cross the foul line, in Kinsella’s case, and you’re protected as a warm sense of the contest and sentinel-like lights surround you. Perhaps, as he writes, memories of old games and long-lost relatives will arise, and maybe even the ghost of a famous player will wander in from the outfield.

Image result for iowa cornfield baseball fieldThe Iowa cornfield/baseball field from “Field of Dreams

These ballparks come in all shapes and sizes. We watch our games in venues ranging from the cramped wooden or plastic seats in Fenway Park in Boston, to cushy, spacious seats in newer stadiums like PNC in Pittsburgh. Thankfully, many of the newer parks have been built as part of professional baseball’s “retro” phase, during which the design of many new parks harkens back to the shapes and feel of mid-20th century venues.

Almost without exception, major league ballparks remain in the downtown areas of cities. The 1970s-80s trend to move some sports venues out of congested cityscapes to the wide-open suburbs is just wrong. If you’re the Cubs, you play in the city of Chicago. Don’t use the city in your team’s name and abandon it for shopping mall-laden suburban America.

Since seeing my first major league contest in 1968 at Fenway, I have maintained a steady love of the game. I have expanded my fandom to include studying and, eventually, visiting as many ballparks as I can. Armed with a private pilot’s license and a career that had me traveling to cities around the nation (if my former boss is reading this, hey you didn’t expect me to just sit in my hotel at night?) I have so far visited 18 of 30 ballparks. Of those 18, only 16 remain active. Olympic Stadium in Montreal is no longer used by the Expos. They’re now in Washington, D.C. and are known as The Nationals. The Seattle Kingdome was imploded in 2000 to make room for a new football stadium. The Mariners of baseball moved to new Safeco Field up the road.

Here are some observations and reflections on the ballparks I have visited:

Fenway Park (Boston, Red Sox) — Five words come to mind when I think of Fenway, where I’ve co-owned weekend season tickets since 1988: asymmetrical, green, historic, cramped, and beautiful. If famed sports broadcaster Keith Jackson were crafting this piece with me, he’d describe Fenway with his Rose Bowl phrase: “the grand daddy of ’em all.” Fenway Park in the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston is, after all, the oldest baseball park in the nation. It’s also the smallest. Fenway opened in 1912, the same week the Titanic sunk in the North Atlantic. Some might say that timing portended the decades of tragedy and failure for which the Red Sox were known. Maybe so, but the Red Sox finally won a World Series title in 2004, ending an 86-year drought.

Fenway was designed to fit into a dense residential-commercial setting, which led to its odd layout. Left field is hemmed in by a 37-foot wall (aka the “Green Monster” and THE most historic, manually operated scoreboard in baseball), while right field ends in bleacher and grandstand seats. The foul pole at the famous left field wall is only 310 feet away from home plate. The right field foul pole is 302 feet away from home, but the short wall there curves quickly to 380 feet away from home, near where the bullpens start. And for good measure, the farthest reach of center field in an uneven triangle is 420 feet away from home — a tough challenge for even the best hitters in baseball.

Looking down at Fenway from above and from north to south, the lower left resembles half of a square. The remaining boundaries are made up of four different lines with nary a right angle to be found. Five neighborhood roads form the irregular shape: Yawkey Way, Brookline Avenue, Lansdowne Street, Ipswich Street, and Van Ness Street.

Image result for aerial view of fenway park

An aerial view of Fenway Park

I could wax on, but there are other ballparks to discuss. Fenway, though, has drawn attention from many writers who have taken descriptions of this 103-year-old baseball monument on a more poetic excursion. Take John Updike in 1960 in the New Yorker magazine:

“Fenway Park is a little lyrical bandbox of a ballpark. Everything is painted green and seems in curiously sharp focus like the inside of an old-fashioned Easter Egg. It was built in 1912 and rebuilt in 1934 and offers, as do most Boston artifacts, a compromise between man’s Euclidean determinations and nature’s beguiling irregularities.”

I described my feelings about the place in 2012, when Fenway turned 100. This is a column I wrote for The Republican  daily newspaper in Springfield, Mass.

Image may contain: 2 people

With friend Joe Lahiff after watching the Red Sox win the World Series in Game 6 of the 2013 World Series at Fenway Park

Yankee Stadium (New York City, Yankees) — Home to the dreaded Red Sox rivals, Yankee Stadium joins Fenway as perhaps the two most famous and historic stadiums in all of baseball. The venue where the Yankees play today isn’t the original that Babe Ruth built. A new one opened in 2009, a few hundred yards from the original — but the owners retained or enhanced many of the famous architectural features from the 1923 version. The best known is the facade lining the top of the inside wall.

Aside from my feelings about our rivals, I’ve always liked Yankee Stadium for three reasons. First, it sits in the heart of New York City’s densely populated borough, The Bronx. The swamps of New Jersey might have lured the Jets and Giants of football, but the Yankees are right at home at 161st Street in The Bronx. Second, it’s huge. The capacity is down a bit to 50,000 from the 56,000 that could occupy the original. But there’s a “wow” factor when you enter. The noise, the vendors hawking food and drink, the sheer quantity of people, and massive electronic scoreboards overwhelm the first-time visitor. Finally, while diminutive Fenway has only one or two decks in places, Yankee Stadium soars upward with up to four decks. I once bought a seat in the highest deck. It took my friends and me a full 20 minutes to reach the rarefied air via a series of sloping ramps.

Image result for photos of new yankee stadiumThe “new” Yankee Stadium

Oriole Park at Camden Yards (Baltimore, Orioles) — Next to Fenway and Yankee Stadium, this is my favorite baseball arena. Opened in 1992, the dazzling, green structure sparked a revival in constructing new baseball stadiums that mimic older, classic ballparks, ranging from Fenway to the long-gone Ebbets Field in Brooklyn. For most baseball fans like me, Camden Yards put an end to the boring, downright ugly circular fields that dotted the baseball landscape in the 1970s — including those in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. All three and many others have since been demolished and replaced with warmer, friendly “retro” parks that remind us of baseball’s halcyon days.

Like Fenway, Camden Yards was designed to fit into a tight downtown district. While the outfield layout is more symmetrical than Fenway’s, right field is hemmed in by tall, refurbished brick warehouses and a small section of bleacher seats. Centerfield ends in a collection of bushes and a dark background for hitters. Three decks of grandstand seats rise behind left field.

I’ve walked the entire ballpark and I defy anyone to find a seat with a bad view. The designers did their homework. The food options are great. I first visited on a Sunday in 2000 and for $100 I bought a seat in the first row behind home plate. The ticket also included lunch at the Boog Powell (a famous Oriole first baseman) restaurant behind right field, and access to the private clubs and their tall, cool drinks in the second deck above home. I usually don’t spend that much for a ticket, but it seemed like a bargain to me.

And of course Camden Yards is downtown, and easily reachable via an above-ground light-rail system that connects to the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, about 10 miles away. I know many Albany-area Red Sox and Yankee fans who find a cheap ticket on Southwest Airlines to see their teams play in Baltimore. This often creates resentment among Oriole fans, who find themselves out-cheered by fans from visiting teams. But the experience is too good for us out-of-towners to resist.

Image result for photos of Camden yards 2016Camden Yards

Tropicana Field (St. Petersburg, Fla., Rays) — I strive for balance when I write, so I have to mention one of the most terrible fan experiences. Quite simply put, this is the worst place in America to see professional baseball. The Tampa Bay Rays play in what is easily the ugliest, architecturally speaking, venue in Major League Baseball. Watching a game there, as I have done twice, is like visiting a mausoleum. No one has ever satisfactorily answered this question for me: Why build an enclosed stadium with a non-retractable dome in Florida? A co-worker once told me it was because Tampa experiences more lightning strikes than almost anywhere else in the U.S. Perhaps, but the last time I checked, Florida called itself, “The Sunshine State.”

In addition to a tilted roof ringed with a series of catwalks inside — a feature that requires special ground rules because some fly balls and pop-ups hit those walks — the blotchy, puke-green artificial turf looks like it’s been around for 100 years and suffered from hundreds of chemical spills. Don’t adjust your TV set when you see a game being played here. The picture you see is real.

The sound is bad, the parking is tight, and the lighting can give you a headache. I pity the poor Rays. They seldom sell out the place, even on the rare occasions when they’ve made the playoffs since the field opened in 1990. Team owners have made several attempts to build a new stadium. It hasn’t happened.

The most fan-friendly feature at Tropicana is the 10,000-gallon tank in center field, where ticket-holders can pet and feed one of 30 devil-ray-like fish called cownose rays.

Image result for photos of tropicana fieldInside Tropicana Field

Rogers Centre (Toronto, Blue Jays) — Speaking of domes, don’t pass up an opportunity to see a game here. Located in downtown Toronto and originally known as The Skydome, this indoor baseball stadium has a retractable roof! I know it costs a lot more to engineer and build a roof that opens and closes, but what a concept: If the weather’s nice (Canada north of the border can be beautiful)  open the dome. Fans can bask in sunlight and warm air, while gazing at the downtown skyline that surrounds the field. This includes the majestic Space Needle-like CN Tower that pokes about 1,500 feet into the sky next door. If it rains, the Blue Jays close the roof. Rain checks are not needed here.

The stadium itself is a little ordinary, and the games are played on artificial turf. There are three decks that rise from the field on all sides, except for the outfield. There are some seats in center, but that area is ringed in by a large video scoreboard and a complex of glassed-in restaurants and hotel rooms. You can eat or just hang out in your room while watching a game. This did create some buzz a few years after the structure opened in 1989. On three occasions, young couples in one of the outfield hotel rooms forgot to close their curtains during romantic encounters.

Image result for photos of Rogers Centre 2016Rogers Centre

Wrigley Field (Chicago, Cubs) — I’ve been here twice during work trips and I have to mention it because the Cubs finally won a World Series last year. It’s the second-oldest ballpark in the country, behind Fenway.  Wrigley suffers from some of the same issues as Fenway. It can be cramped and many of the seats are uncomfortable. But it’s also located in a mostly residential neighborhood, with lots of bars.

And then there’s the layer of climbing ivy vines on the walls that enclose the outfield. Baseball fans must see this unusual ballpark feature once in their lives. There is nothing else like it. It can create some unusual plays, such as when the batted ball gets stuck in the ivy. There are special ground rules that apply in that situation. In most cases, instead of the outfielder fishing the ball out of the vegetation while the runner circles the bases, the runner is awarded a ground-rule double. What many don’t know is that behind the layer of ivy is a solid brick wall. Many an outfielder bounding after the ball has suffered a near or full concussion after bone-crushing collisions with the wall — after expecting a soft landing in the brush.

Image result for photos of wrigley field 2016Wrigley Field

The rest — In no particular order, I also visited and watched games at: Turner Field in Atlanta (which is being closed next year in a controversial move to a suburban, publicly funded new stadium), Cromerica Park in Detroit, Progressive Field in Cleveland, U.S. Cellular Field on the South Side of Chicago where the White Sox play (and soon to have a new corporate name, Guaranteed Rate Field), Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, PNC Park in Pittsburgh, Miller Park in Milwaukee, Target Field in Minneapolis, Globe Life Park in Arlington, Texas, and Citi Field where the Mets play in Queens, New York. I highly recommend all of them, especially the retractable dome field in Milwaukee.

They built it; I came — with a tip of the hat to Kinsella for his great line in Shoeless Joe. At least 12 other ballparks await.

Climate Change: Avoiding the ‘Natural Variations’ Pitfall

Waterfront Property: Buy Low, Sell High?

 

By Mark Marchand

 

“Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.”

For over a century, this comment has served as the standard retort when a friend or colleague laments hot and humid weather or complains about a massive snow storm. But when University at Albany Interim President James R. Stellar uses it to talk about work at UAlbany’s  Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Studies (DAES), he’s not grumbling. He uses it as a setup line before he talks about what he, his colleagues, and many others in academia are actually doing about the weather as the world wrestles with persistent climate change caused by humans.

Christopher Thorncroft, a UAlbany professor and DAES chair, is an ardent advocate for steering away from the political and news media musings that often cast climate change as some sort of “50-50” proposition that casually, and inaccurately, describes consensus on the topic. The actual worldwide consensus among scientists and experts, he says,  is 97 percent believe and understand that climate change is real, it’s caused by us, and we need to do something now.

The challenge, he said at a recent UAlbany conference, lies in understanding why human actions are causing the relentless warming of our planet. Next is helping the public understand what is happening — hopefully leading to greater adoption of efforts to, for example, reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by burning fewer oil-based fuels.

What often gets in the way, Thorncroft says, are short-term variations of colder weather that embolden climate-change naysayers. The key, he says, is generating awareness and understanding of those variations, how they have been occurring for centuries, and how they will continue despite the persistent, longer-term trend of warmer temperatures.

The Nov. 10 presentations by Thorncroft and two of his UAlbany colleagues — Assistant Professor Andrea Lang and Associate Professor Paul Roundy — focused on three areas that help us understand natural events that are often misinterpreted as reversing global warming.

Natural Variations (or, one cold, snowy winter doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real)

Natural occurrences of cold weather that cause some to doubt the overall trend of warming temperatures hit home for me the day my wife and I stood on the deck of a cruise ship watching Marjerie Glacier calve into the chilly waters of Alaska’s pristine Glacier Bay. A National Park expert speaking over the ship’s PA system described how this particular glacier had been damaged by lower snowfalls and warmer temps. Instead of one long sheet of slowly moving ice, he said, it was now a series of connected, smaller glaciers. Many other glaciers, he also said, were much smaller and struggling to remain frozen. Yet a cranky,  elderly gentleman standing next to me missed the point. If Al Gore were here, he said as he gaped at the massive ice wall, he’d take a shard of ice and insert it somewhere in Al Gore’s backside, proving that once and for all the global warming brought on by climate change was not an inconvenient truth. That man is not alone in a world full of climate-change deniers.

Thorncroft builds his conclusions on evidence-based practices. The year 2015 finished with the warmest temperatures ever recorded. In fact, he told the large crowd, the top 10 warmest years since the 1880s have been the last 10 years — with the exception of 1998.

1998 and some other exceptions to the warming trend underscore the natural variability in the results we see. But they don’t deter from the alarming, overall trend of spiking temps caused by rising levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide — which has occurred in synch with the rising temps.

The chart below, from our friends at NASA, helps illustrate the point. The dark line from left to right tracks deviations from average global temps over five-year periods. The “empty” circles above and below the line are shorter, annual mean temp recordings. Thus, you can see the variations Thorncroft mentioned and the general, overall spike upward.

globaltemp

Thorncroft and other scientists are always asked what causes these variations. Among the answers, he says, are naturally occurring phenomena like massive volcanic eruptions. Take Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. When its cataclysmic eruption happened in 1991, tons of material were spewed into the atmosphere. Some of the ash reached as high as 22 miles and was carried over a wide area by high-level winds. The subsequent blocking of solar radiation, he explains, temporarily cooled areas of the planet, leading to short-term halts or even reductions in climbing global temps.

Here’s basically the same chart as before, but Thorncroft has added when the natural variations occurred, and why (More on El Nino in a bit.).

global-temps-chart

 

In  addition to natural variations and overall warming temps, what worries Thorncroft is the increasing intensity of routine weather events such as rainstorms. Since 1958, he says, scientists have recorded a 74 percent increase in “intense rainfall” activity. Many of the storms we’re witnessing now are more extreme because of higher temps. He likens the situation to baseball players who use steroids. The storm systems are stronger and last longer because they are fueled by artificial human actions.

“We have to understand that this is what’s happening — and we have to be prepared to deal with these extreme weather events,” he said near the end of his talk.

If the overall trend persists, Thorncroft concludes, the temperatures and overall climate in New York will become more like Georgia, and potentially even warmer.

El Nino (or, it’s been around since the dinosaurs)

Put simply, Professor Roundy says, El Nino is the periodic warming of equatorial and Pacific Ocean waters, which — when combined with the Earth’s rotation — disrupts the normal flow of the atmosphere. The result is the transfer of heat from ocean waters into the atmosphere, blowing more warm Pacific air into the western United States and beyond, leading to warmer temps.

The winter of 2015-16, he suggests, was  milder (featuring 70 degrees here last Christmas Eve) due to El Nino, reversing the trend we experienced during the long, cold, snowy winter of 2014-15. He and other scientists are already seeing evidence of colder Pacific water emerging, so they expect this coming winter here will be colder, but nowhere near as bad as two winters ago.

This pattern — or oscillation — of warming and cooling ocean waters (known as La Nina), Roundy says, has been around since dinosaurs roamed the globe. Yet every time we experience a harsh, cold winter, many people think global warming has stopped. No, he explains, it’s just the normal ebb and flow of ocean temps that naturally disrupt normal weather patterns.

The Polar Vortex (It’s not new; even Al Roker says so)

As the harsh winter of 2014-15 battered the Northeast, many of us began hearing about a new weather phenomenon called the polar vortex. It was, we thought, something novel that directly caused our terrible winter. We were half right.

According to Professor Lang, the term polar vortex term has been used by meteorologists for over a half century. Her conference presentation even included a 2014 tweet from NBC weatherman Al Roker, explaining that the National Weather Service has used the phrase as far back as 1959. He was responding to accusations that the news media had created the term to add pizzazz to explanations about and reporting on the winter of 2014-15.

What we really need to be concerned about, she says, is how changes in the vortex can alter our normal weather patterns. The polar vortex is a naturally occurring, large-scale circulation of air above and around the North Pole and surrounding region. It generally forms during the winter as the axis of the Earth tilts the northern hemisphere (us) away from the sun. This tilt causes generally cooler temps (otherwise known as winter) because solar radiation passes through much more of the atmosphere before it reaches the ground. Changes in the strength of the vortex can affect our climate.

Generally speaking, when polar vortex winds are strong, they help keep the colder air over the pole. Weaker polar vortex winds (or a “wavier” pattern) allow “dips” in the circulatory pattern, resulting in the spread of colder air south of the north pole. This is, she explains, what happened two winters ago when a weaker polar vortex allowed more colder air than normal to escape south. In 2015 to 2016, she adds, the warmer weather was aided by a stronger vortex that helped keep colder air up north.

One chart from Lang’s presentation shows us how a “wavier” polar vortex pattern (on the right) allows that chillier arctic air to temporarily move south.

polar-vortex

 

By tracking changes in the strength of polar vortex winds, she adds, scientists and meteorologists can make better projections about winter weather up to 90 days in the future. What bears further study  are the reasons for the year-to-year variations in strong vs. weak polar vortex winds.

The point, she and her colleagues emphasize, is that El Nino/La Nina, polar vortex changes, and natural events like volcanic explosions have existed for a long time. They will always cause variations in weather — despite and during the overall, relentless elevation of temps by human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Where do we go from here?

The evidence supporting climate change is stark. According to NASA, sea levels (from melting polar ice sheets and glaciers) are close to seven inches higher today than they were last century. Global temps are higher. The level of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has crossed the critical 400 parts per million threshold for the first time ever. Oceans are warmer. The overall snow cover across the planet has decreased. There are many other factors that support the conclusions of over 97 percent of scientists.

And the answers seem simple, but they are of course politically and economically unpopular: Burn fewer fuels based on hydrocarbons, expand the use of alternate energy sources such as wind and solar, and simply use less energy. All help reduce the emission of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Another solution involves fighting mass-scale deforestation. As  we know from high school science, the process of photosynthesis has plants giving off oxygen as they soak up carbon dioxide. Fewer trees in our forests means a smaller “carbon sink” that can help remove some carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

These are physical solutions that require some sacrifice. As a lifelong student of communication, I think another key factor is awareness and understanding. Great conferences (like the Nov. 10 event I attended at UAlbany, jointly sponsored by UAlbany and the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government) are important means by which more of our population can gain greater understanding of what is happening. The result, hopefully, is dragging the climate change discussion further away from the political arena and more into a world where acceptance of environmental issues becomes as common and important as taking care of one’s health.

Otherwise, as my attempt at humor in my blog headline suggests, owners of waterfront property who bought their homes during times of normal sea levels may face selling them — for a lot less — as sea levels rise.

 

 

(Editor’s note: there was more in the Nov. 10 conference from the National Weather Service – NOAA – itself. More on that in a future post)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descending Into Liverpool to Discover The Beatles’ Origins

By Mark Marchand

As Joe and I walk into the vestibule of a rather ordinary house, Phil follows quickly and closes the house door behind us. The front door is already shut, so we’re temporarily sealed in a confined space. Phil starts to lead us in an a cappella version of the early Beatles song, “I Saw Her Standing There.”

“Well, she was just 17
You know what I mean
And the way she looked was way beyond compare
So how could I dance with another (Ooh)
When I saw her standing there…”

We trail off around the words “my heart went boom,” and look at each other. “Not bad,” Phil says, for a trio of graying Beatles fans with rough voices. The sound had ricocheted around the wood and glass enclosure nicely. We were pleased with the acoustics.

In reality our crooning came nowhere near the beautiful harmonies Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr produced while recording or performing the collection of original songs that forever changed rock and roll. But we’re thrilled on that late August, 2016, day, for we fully realize the goose-bumpy significance of where we just sang the tune.

We weren’t in just any vestibule. We had traveled some 3,100 miles from Boston and were standing in the front entryway of the Liverpool, England, house where Lennon grew up with his Aunt Mimi and her husband George. Also known as “Mendips,” 251 Menlove Ave., Liverpool was Lennon’s home for about 17 years — from the age of 5 until he left when the success of the Beatles accelerated. Like McCartney’s childhood home at 20 Forthlin Road a few miles away, the small two-story attached home is now owned by England’s National Trust. The house has been restored to its original condition and preserved meticulously for visits by generations to come.

As he got involved with Beatles pre-cursor group The Quarrymen, Lennon (and sometimes new friend McCartney) was  often relegated to the vestibule when his rehearsals grew too loud for residents of the home. Thus, we sang where Lennon sang and strummed his guitar.

lennons-childhood-home

The vestibule in front of John Lennon’s childhood home in Liverpool, where we sang

***

Our unforgettable singing session in Lennon’s front porch was a brief but life-changing moment during an exhausting 10-day August tour of historical Beatles sites that started in London. We then moved on  to their hometown of Liverpool on the Irish Sea, about 180 miles northwest of London. Our stops ranged from Abbey Road studios in London, where we tried to re-create the famous Abbey Road album cover of the Fab Four crossing the street, to the crowded, sweltering clubs in Liverpool where the Beatles earned their first fans

Joe Lahiff, Phil Santoro, and Ed Torres (L-R in the cover photo above) — longtime friends from the Boston area — invited me along on what they called a “once in a lifetime” trip to trace the Beatles’ history in England. My friends are true Beatles fans and know far more about the Fab Four than I, a more average Beatles follower. Joe, we estimate, has read almost every word written about the Beatles and pretty much owns their entire recorded catalog. Phil and Ed are close behind. Throughout the trip, they often added to explanations from guides.

While I was thrilled to learn more about this fabulous rock group, for me the trip had a slightly different goal. I have spent much of my lifetime learning everything I can about the creative process that artists, writers, musicians and others use to turn out works that literally live forever. Most often, though, the magic remains elusive. I usually settle for a first-hand look at the environment in which their creations took place. I also place a special emphasis on early work that led to more memorable efforts and achievements. Finally, I try find some way to personally connect to their world by immersing myself in the surroundings in which they began their work.

On a 2009 trip to Italy, for example, I examined some of Leonardo Da Vinci’s early work displayed in Florence’s fabulous Uffizi Gallery. Some of the Italian master’s early brush strokes helped reveal the path that would take him to Mona Lisa and The Last Supper. On a long 2014 road trip, I climbed to the second floor of a small building behind Ernest Hemingway’s 1930s Key West home. I stood transfixed, staring at the office and typewriter from which “Papa” produced early career gems such as “A Farewell to Arms,” “Death in the Afternoon,” and “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” And I’ve spent hours examining some of Bruce Springsteen’s early 1970s hand-written lyrics for his first two albums: “Greetings From Asbury Park, N.J.,” and  “The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle.” Both were excellent records that drew little notice until “Born To Run” exploded onto the rock scene in 1975. The popularity of that album led many fans to go back to the first two albums in search of the artistry that fueled that historic third album.

***

I was thinking of those and other forays into studying the creative process when our group got to Liverpool in late August. It was here, in this gritty seaside port that fate conspired to first bring together McCartney and Lennon, and later Harrison and Starr.

The Liverpool of today is a mix of old and new. The seaport still thrives but is far more touristy than it likely was in the 1960s. The ferries on the River Mersey still operate, but mostly as an outing for visitors — the boats’ usefulness as commuter transport long having been replaced by two tunnels beneath the river. Downtown has witnessed significant changes, including a network of pedestrian-only pathways and malls surrounded by stores and restaurants that draw hordes of shoppers. The neighborhoods where the Beatles grew up, though (including much of the Penny Lane stretch), are largely unchanged. Some still bear scars from World War II bombing.

liverpool

A typical Liverpool neighborhood, up the hill from downtown Liverpool

Aside from the great walking tours, visits to the Beatles childhood homes, and a nearly endless procession of concerts by artists from around the globe, there were two moments during our six days in Liverpool that helped me understand the Beatles’ origins.

***

The first involved a direct personal link to the late 1950s Beatles days. Len Garry was the tea bass player for the Quarrymen. This crude instrument, common to local bands that played the type of “skiffle” music performed by many youth groups in Liverpool at that time, consisted of a wooden box with a broomstick and string rising upward. The player would strum the string, changing notes by tilting the stick.

Garry, now 73 with full head of pure white hair flowing from a near-center part, has become re-engaged in the Liverpool music scene after decades in other careers. He recently published a book on his early Quarrymen days: “John, Paul, and Me, Before the Beatles.”

We met Garry on one of the last days of our tour through Liverpool. He was selling and signing copies of his book at St. Peter’s Church Hall, where the Quarrymen often played. A soft-spoken, affable chap who wears sunglasses even when inside, Garry’s connection to the early Beatles is priceless. He was actually present when McCartney first met Lennon at a Quarrymen performance at the church. Garry probably didn’t know it at the time, but he witnessed one of the most historic meetings in rock history. His book contains details about that day, July, 6, 1957, and at Phil’s urging we sat with Garry and pressed him for some personal recollections.

“It was a friendly first meeting. We had a break between sets and Paul came in with his guitar strapped behind his back. He tried to impress John by reaching around and playing a few notes with the guitar still behind his back,” Garry remembered. “He then went on to play a few tunes and we could tell John, our leader, was pretty impressed…but he didn’t say too much. After Paul left and we got ready for the next set, we talked with John about how Paul’s guitar playing could help the group. We invited him to join a week or so later.”

We soaked it all in, hanging on every word. It seemed as if a lens had opened and given us a peak at the very beginnings of a movement that just a few short years later swept the globe.

len-garry

Original Quarrymen bass player Len Garry, with me

***

The second memorable moment on our Liverpool tour took place in a dark, steamy basement in the eastern neighborhood of West Derby. The Casbah Club is a tiny coffee shop/performance venue created in 1959 by local resident Mona Best (the last name might trigger a memory for Beatles fans) in the basement of her home. With a son involved in the local music scene, she wanted to provide a space that could be used by some of the local groups playing a new sound called the Merseybeat. In so doing, she gave birth to the small club where the Beatles — with her son and drummer Pete Best, Ringo’s famous predecessor — gave their first live performances, before moving to downtown Liverpool and playing at the famous, larger Cavern Club and other venues hundreds of times.

beatles-band-in-cavern-club

A Beatles tribute band in the famous Cavern Club in Liverpool

Our tour leader, Charles Rosenay, arranged for us to visit the Casbah for a special performance with none other than Pete Best. The silver-haired Best is now 75 but remains active in music and performs regularly with his own band. He’s often called the “unluckiest man alive” because the Beatles and manager Brian Epstein replaced him with Ringo in 1962 — a short time before the Beatles found success on the worldwide stage. There are many stories about how Best and the Beatles parted ways. Most experts agree it was simply a matter of producer George Martin and the Beatles searching for another drumming style.

We arrived at the Casbah on the evening of August 27. Our cab driver had trouble finding the club since most don’t know it’s tucked beneath a home in a suburban neighborhood. Rosenay guided us down a few steep steps to enter the basement club. We had to duck our heads as we descended to avoid low ceilings. He led us through two small rooms before we passed through a small door hewn into a brick wall. As we entered the primary performance area, the four of us were shocked by how small and confining the room is. We could touch the ceiling and quickly discovered there is only one way in and out for performers and the audience: the tiny door through which we just passed. I estimated the room can only hold 30-40 spectators. We were squeezed in tightly among the audience listening to the warmup group. The atmosphere was nearly suffocating. There is no air conditioning. But the acoustics are amazing. The overall scene was surreal.

We watched the warmup band for a few minutes before heading off to a few smaller rooms to buy beers and chat with Rosenay. Later, we abandoned the cellar for fresh air and sat at one of the tables on the back lawn. We relaxed over beers and cigars and met some of the locals while Rosenay entertained us with stories. We decided that when Best came on later, we’d remain outside and try to listen to some of the music from the lawn. We’d settle for being able to say we visited the Casbah. We were wary of returning to the cramped, claustrophobic scene.

That changed when Ed and I heard music again. We descended back into the venue as Best and his bandmates launched into their first set. As we expected, it was crowded and tight, but we tried to move forward. Ed slithered to the front and pulled me behind him. It was a wild scene. The heat, humidity, and closeness of the crowd were frightening, and I kept looking for an exit route to the small door. Sweat poured into my eyes. We got caught up in the tremendous music being produced by Best and his group, though, and some of our fear dissipated. We could barely see Best tucked away in the right corner of the small stage. He looked every bit his age, but he pounded his drums and cymbals expertly as he kept up with his fellow musicians. I often touched the ceiling to help maintain my balance as I stretched forward to see the group.

pete-best

Original Beatles drummer Pete Best plays in the tiny but historic underground Casbah Club in Liverpool

It was some of the best live music I’ve ever heard. Whether it was the historic setting, the acoustics, or the talents of the musicians, the 45-minute set was astounding. My favorite piece was “My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean,”  an old Scottish folk song and a favorite cover for the Beatles in their early days. Best and his band delivered a hard-driving, loud, electric-guitar-heavy version of the tune, driving the crowd insane. We yelled ourselves hoarse singing along. Near the end of the song I tried to imagine myself there in 1960, listening to the young Beatles as they whipped their young fans into a frenzy in that small, smoke-filled venue — honing an act that a short time later would propel them to concerts before screaming thousands across the world.

Encouraged by our experience, Phil and Joe joined us for Best’s second set. The four of us reveled in not only seeing an original Beatle but also experiencing sharp rock and roll music in a tiny facility that had an enormous role in popular music history. When it was over, we stumbled back up the steps to breathe some cool, dry air around midnight…and to ruminate on what we had just experienced. Ed kept saying, “Do you realize we just saw and heard this music in Pete Best’s house — and it was Pete Best playing?”

We couldn’t stop talking about it on the cab ride back downtown. I know that years from now we’ll gather and talk about what we experienced. Personally, I felt I had gained that sought-after peek into where The Beatles came from.

***

I would like to thank Charles Rosenay and his fabulous Liverpool Tours team for putting together an itinerary —called the “Magical History Tour” — that thrilled us while exhausting our small group. Also, Rene van Haarlem of the Netherlands, our personal guide on walking tours of Beatles sites in London and Liverpool, was a patient, informative Beatles expert who opened our eyes to so much Beatles history it was overwhelming. Rosenay knew what he was doing when he invited Rene to be our walking tour guide.

Until the next Beatles venture …

Social Media and Web Ramblings; Part Deux

Website and Social Media Ramblings, Part Deux

By Mark Marchand

Several months ago I posted some personal observations of “worst practices” when it comes to using social media and the World Wide Web. I try to keep up with trends in this space as part of my overall writing/consulting work, and teaching as an adjunct professor in the Journalism Department at the University at Albany (SUNY). Social media and use of the Web has moved front and center when it comes to communication in a 21st century world filled with myriad ways to instantly send and obtain information. My first post tried to answer this question: “Why do I lose followers or friends, or why doesn’t anyone ‘like’ my stuff or post comments?” Since then, I’ve collected a few more thoughts. Without further ado…

Pay to play

I love social media as a news aggregator. I pre-program my Twitter and Facebook pages to find and show me news that might interest me. But many newspapers and other online news sources now charge a subscription fee. As the printed newspaper and magazine business has withered, many companies require readers to pay a fee to read articles on their websites. That’s certainly understandable since the economic model of the news business shifts almost daily. But please don’t share, post, or Tweet a link to a news article located on a site that requires a fee to read the article. You’ll only spark frustration among your friends and followers. You might even lose some of them in the process. I certainly won’t be moved to subscribe to read an article, and I suspect most others won’t either. If you feel you must share a link to one of these so-called “paywall” sites, tell us up front it requires a subscription. And don’t even think of this mechanism as a way to build online subscriptions to a site. It’s not happening. Coda: A local newspaper with a mixed paywall site has a section on the homepage entitled “premium content free to subscribers.” Perhaps better to delete the word “free” since that content isn’t really free?

Which “next” button do I press?

As I stated in my previous post on the topic, I abhor clicking on an interesting link on Twitter or Facebook only to find I must click “next” 20-30 times to see a list of compelling items. Best cities for retirement, top colleges and universities, most popular dogs, etc. The intent is clear: Generate more “clicks” and views to show advertisers. There’s a new wrinkle: I’ve visited dozens of sites recently where I’m presented with two or three sets of “next” buttons or arrows. I’m not sure which one will take me to the next item. If I select the wrong one, I’m taken to a new page that’s just advertising and has nothing to do with the list I wanted to see. This is irritating and it’s hard to find your way back to the original site. Most times I abandon my visit to the list after one or two attempts to hit the correct button or arrow, and I suspect that’s true for most. Don’t fall for this and, even better, don’t send your social media buddies to these sites.

 

Boring people in business suits

I see this almost daily on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Someone I follow posts a picture of a special lecture or panel discussion, showing people talking in front of a room. Boring. At its worst, the folks who do this don’t even supply names. Instead they say something like “…group of experts on panning for gold speaks to our group…” How is this interesting? If I want to look at pictures like this, I’ll pull out the latest Macy’s flyer and flip through for new business attire. If you must do this, supply me with some names, interesting details, and maybe even a link where I can read more about these people. Maybe you could even show these experts interacting with members of your group afterward, when they might be smiling and gesticulating while talking to attendees. Ask a newspaper editor sometime what he or she thinks of “grip and grin” photos. The same applies here.

Leave the trolling to monsters under the bridge

I recently posted a Facebook comment on a New York Times article about a famous actor pulling a controversial film from a movie festival in lower Manhattan. It was a film that advanced the long-discredited notion that vaccines that save millions of lives are responsible for poisoning us or causing severe brain development conditions such as autism in children. My post simply said I would take advice on the topic from the thousands of doctors and scientists who developed and recommend vaccines vs. an actor suggesting the so-called “documentary” raised “important questions” we should all consider. That horse left the barn years ago when the one allegedly scientific study that fueled all the anti-vaxx nonsense was retracted by the British journal that published the study. The doctor who wrote the faked paper lost his license.  One person who commented on my comment accused me of being heartless and suggested I would feel differently if I talked to the parent of an autistic child. I actually have. He did his best to make me feel guilty, but as police officers advise in cases of road rage, move on. So move on I did. I am well read on the topic and I know autism is a cruel disorder that heartlessly robs children of their ability to develop normally and to interact effectively with their family and others. One of the most touching treatments of the topic was a 60 Minutes piece on award-winning journalist Ron Suskind and the book he wrote about his own autistic son. In his book, Suskind shows how his son’s love of Disney movie characters lead to a breakthrough that changed all their lives. Wonderful story. Please do post comments, but make sure your commentary is well-grounded and advances the discussion instead of steering it toward the bottomless pit of ugly commentary known as politics and elections. Trolls thrive there.

Hitting a moving target

We’ve all been there. We land on a newspaper page and scroll through, looking for interesting articles. Just as you’re about to click on a headline, the page moves and you end up clicking on a (gasp) advertisement. When this happens 2-3 times on a site, I bail. Think “whack-a-mole.” One local daily where I live does this so much I have stopped visiting their site. This apparently happens when, after a few seconds on the newspaper’s home page, a new ad appears on the top and pushes content down. This always seems to occur just when I’m hovering my mouse arrow over something interesting. It’s a bad practice. I’m generally okay with it because I know it helps pay for the content I’m reading. But vote with your feet: Avoid sites that do this frequently. If you are someone who helps maintain such a site, stop it and you’ll discover more people like me staying for longer periods of time. Finally, don’t send your social media followers and friends to these sites.

Friend, foe, or retailer?

Where I live in upstate New York we have a new neighborhood email exchange board and Facebook page. People swap information and alerts on everything from lost dogs and cats to recommendations on plumbers, contractors, and lawn services. What a wonderful use of the Internet! Lately, though, we’ve seen some small but disturbing trends that have caused me to reflect on whether I will still participate. First, on the neighborhood email exchange, a sort of electronic bulletin board, a few members started to sell things. Initially it was used stuff hanging around the garage. That’s fine. But then we started to see some members advertising their businesses, services, or new goods. That’s not useful information — that’s taking advantage of a free forum to advertise. The community Facebook page has grown fast too, but on a few occasions lately I wondered if we’d see things devolve into disparaging political rants. One person posted a notice about free tickets to a campaign rally for a Republican whose name starts with “T.” That was sort of okay (the post, not the candidate), but then someone else replied by making ugly comments about our 44th president. Fortunately most participants ignored the rant and swapped notes on how to pick up the tickets, etc. If you want to maintain these mechanisms as useful neighborhoods sites, don’t turn them into commercial ventures or, worse, ugly political diatribes. In case you haven’t noticed, we have enough of that these days.

Reminders and updates from my first post on the topic

  • Check out the new AP Stylebook changes on references to the Internet and World Wide Web. There’s some important changes there.
  • The problem of “serial tweets” rages on. Please stop it. This occurs when a journalist or a blogger you follow on Twitter is reporting on a live event. They crank out dozens and dozens of updates on what people at the event are saying and doing. Given the 140-character limit for tweets, most of us plodding through our Twitter feeds have no idea about the topic. We’d have to scroll all the way back to the original tweet to discover the subject. Find a way to add a hashtag or phrase that reminds the reader in each tweet what you’re talking about. And acronyms you made up just for the event don’t count.
  • Stop swearing on social media. Each time you press the “post” or “send” button, think about future employers, friends, family members, or perhaps even spouses who might read it. A newly discovered online F-bomb or crude sexual reference can easily wreck career or wedding plans.
  • Finally, please give me a caption and names when you post photos. I’m interested, but when I don’t know who I’m looking at I move on. Worse, I (and I suspect many others) might even unfollow you because without detailed captions your photos aren’t interesting, entertaining, or informative. Whether you’re doing the posting for your employer or yourself, you’re creating a useful historical record that you can use years from now. Add some detail. Tagging people on Facebook too really helps.

Comments, thoughts, suggestions? Please pass them on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science: Ruminating on “Particles”

 

The 21st Century Particle Principle

By Mark Marchand

I’m not much of a fan of car racing, but demolition derbies amuse me. The intent of these events is straightforward: Keep smashing cars into one another and see what happens. The lone survivor steers his or her car around the arena at the end, usually with parts of the body hanging off and smoke and steam billowing from both ends.

I was thinking of those derbies recently as I watched a PBS documentary about the launch of experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) straddling the France-Switzerland border. Built and operated by CERN (The European Organization for Experimental Research), the 17-mile underground tunnel and associated equipment is generally accepted as one of the most complex experimental facilities ever built by man. The scientists call it a particle accelerator, or collider. But at its core the mission is simple (sort of like the demolition derbies): Smash stuff together and see what happens.

Since one of the theories behind creating this huge machine was recreating the conditions that existed at the time of the Big Bang, I was amused by stories that circulated as the LHC neared opening in 2008. Some bloggers and journalists suggested that scientists there could accidentally create a black hole, causing all of us to be swallowed up into some infinite corner of the universe. I was relieved when that didn’t happen.

The work that takes place at the LHC is a serious matter. I was delighted to watch usually staid LHC scientists on the PBS show smile broadly as they talked about their work, often using their hands to show the types of reactions that might result from their work. They were breathless and, usually, smiling and laughing. They described in complex terms what they hoped to see as a result of their experiments. Some were nervous, admitting they were not quite sure what the experiments would reveal — which is, I guess, expected when one conducts experiments at this level. If we knew the answer, we wouldn’t need the experiment.

Ever since I took a high school physics class, I’ve been fascinated with the particles that make up everything around us, and, even ourselves. All forms of matter, I learned, are made up of these fascinating, microscopic particles called atoms, which link together to form molecules, which then make up everything that’s solid, liquid, or gaseous. What piqued my curiosity was how these tiny atoms — comprised of even smaller protons and neutrons in a nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons — could form materials so solid that I could smash a hammer against, say, a metal wall and the tool would just bounce off. Why, I questioned, wouldn’t the hammer sink into that swirling collection of atoms that were orbiting and connecting out of the range of normal eyesight?

The answer is complex, but the easiest way to describe it is that the different atoms “share” some of their electrons, forming a range of “bonds” between atoms and molecules — bonds that in some cases are so strong (like those in a diamond) literally nothing can tear them apart. Others, like the bonds between atoms and molecules in tissue paper, are not so strong.

Once I understood how that worked, I continued to study particles through college, mostly in chemistry classes. I grew to love organic chemistry, which involved all carbon-based matter — otherwise known as the foundation for living things on Earth. I was captivated by the story of how 19th-century German scientist Friedrich August Kekulé envisioned the so-called “ring” structure common to many molecular compounds formed by bonds between carbon atoms. The vision came to him, he says, during a daydream as he thought about a snake circling around and attempting to swallow its own tail. That’s heavy stuff, and it’s true.

Throughout my studies, I continued to base my understanding of physical matter on the fundamental structure of the atom, as first suggested by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. While the model he developed in the early 20th century has been tweaked over time, the essential components of an atom have remained the same: a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and electrons weaving and bobbing around the core.

It was sometime after I finished college and during my early career as a journalist that my safe, sound image of that most fundamental particle, the atom, was shattered. It seems there are more sub-atomic particles responsible for how matter forms and behaves. It was hard for me to accept, but there was an entirely new atomic underworld made up of particles known as  quarks, neutrinos, leptons, bosons, gluons, and more. Some are easy to find while others only exist for a short time or can only be found using the most extreme, complex scientific exploration.

And thus (you were hoping I’d get back here, right?) we come all the way back to our brand new LHC over in Europe. The mission of this multifarious machine is to find and study new subatomic particles, helping us better understand the matter around us and why it does what it does. And perhaps we’ll learn new ways to do innovative things with matter. World-changing discoveries ranging from new materials in construction and transportation to new medicines await.

After years of research during the 20th century, scientists found the only way to unearth these new particles was to take apart the atom. You’ve heard of “splitting the atom” as part of the process to get to atomic explosions, right? It turns out that breaking those bonds releases an enormous amount of energy, hence the resulting blasts. The work of colliders takes things a lot further than the lower-tech chain reactions that spark nuclear detonations, or are used to produce energy in nuclear plants.

The LHC works like this: Scientists put together two high-energy beams of protons and shoot them in opposite directions through the LHC tunnels, on a collision course. The dominant force that pushes these beams along comes from huge magnets that constantly accelerate the particles. Think about the force you feel when you hold opposing ends of two magnets together, and multiply that by a factor of thousands. These magnets, powered by high-voltage electricity, get so hot they have to be super-cooled to keep working and prevent melting. Some scientists suggest the low magnet temperatures rival that of the cold in outer space. And, as I noted earlier, to achieve the best collision possible, the particle beams are pushed along at nearly the speed of light.

Once the particles smash together, a set of four different and very sensitive equipment arrays try to detect the different sub-atomic particles and forces that might emerge. These sensors gather so much data it can take weeks or months to determine what just happened.

It was after one of the first real experiments at LHC in 2012 that we heard of the initially tentative and later confirmed discovery of the so-called “God particle,” also known as the Higgs boson. It’s existence was suggested a half century ago by British physicist Peter Higgs and several others. But without a machine like the LHC, they couldn’t prove it — until now. This unstable particle will eventually help us unlock more of the mysteries around why matter behaves the way it does.

There’s much more work to be done, and discoveries to be made, at LHC. It’s been shut down a few times already for re-tooling and repairs, but we’ve only scraped the surface, I suspect. Last month, scientists turned the LHC back on and began circulating the first new protons beams in over a year.

But sub-atomic particles are not the only key to better understanding our world. There’s the relatively new topics of dark matter, and dark energy — which experimental physicists now suggest make up a large percentage of the mass in the universe. The race to find them and prove it is on…but more on that in the future.