It was fascinating to hear divergent perspectives on the future of human exploration in space. In week 11, Lord Martin Rees argued that robot exploration is likely to become the primary mode of space exploration, citing the difficulties associated with maintaining human life in space. In contrast, Jill Tarter expressed her belief that a select group of intrepid humans (including herself) would still venture out into space, albeit with a significant reliance on robotic technology. I was particularly intrigued by SETI's methods for detecting signals of intelligent life. Given the limited number of instruments and resources available to scan the vast expanse of the galaxy, I am curious to know what strategies SETI employs to maximize the likelihood of detecting an extraterrestrial signal.

One statement made by Lord Martin Rees that was surprising to me is that we currently possess both the financial and technological capacity to address the issues plaguing our world, yet we fail to do so due to political and wealth consolidation reasons. It would be intriguing to learn more about the specific technological tools available to combat climate change and how much capital is required, as well as the uncertainties or risks associated with such a strategy. Although initiatives such as providing aid to the underprivileged and becoming an activist to effect policy changes are excellent ways to effect change, after the interview, I am still left wondering if we can do enough to combat climate change or if it is too late and the effects are irreversible.

I was surprised to learn that clouds create the most uncertainty when it comes to forecasting future climates, due to the interaction between clouds and CO2 particles in the air being highly complex. Before, I assumed that Africa would become increasingly dry, and the Sahara would continue to expand. However, I found it fascinating that Africa's future climate can become either wetter or drier depending on different models and interactions of clouds with CO2. This discussion also made me think about how clouds, which are distributed differently in the same location over time, can influence and potentially create a bias for calculating grid boxes. During the interview, Professor Palmer explained that the assumptions for grid boxes are based on the assumption that the fluid being measured is completely homogeneous. However, I wonder if clouds are the biggest or only factor that changes the homogeneity of these grid boxes. Is there a way to account for different sheets of grid boxes, corresponding to different altitudes, to further homogenize different portions of the sky? Alternatively, is it too challenging to measure these differences with the current technology we have available?