Perelman's articles on arXiv.Org

11/11/2002. The Entropy Formula for the Ricci Flow and its Geometric Applications

3/10/2003. Ricci Flow with Surgery on Three-Manifolds

7/17/2003. Finite Extinction Time for the Solutions to the Ricci Flow on Certain Three-Manifolds

Unit 10

Meeting with scientists

Dmitry Medvedev discussed developing Russian science’s technological base, grants, and social support measures with young scientists.

The meeting’s participants included the 2010 laureates of prizes for science and innovation, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yury Osipov, and Education Minister Andrei Fursenko.

The meeting took place at the Polytechnic Museum, where the First Russian National Science Festival began today. Dmitry Medvedev addressed brief welcoming remarks to the event’s participants.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Friends, I congratulate the laureates once again, and everyone here, on Russian Science Day. It is a pleasure to talk with you in an informal setting this time, not in the Kremlin, but at the Polytechnic Museum, which as we have seen, is about to be reborn. We all wish this work success, because this museum is a great support for everyone interested in science and technology. We need to ensure that it retains all of its former qualities, while at the same time moving forward and becoming a technologically advanced centre of interest to today’s youth.

Now to the issues before us, namely, the question of attracting talented young people into science and innovation. In December 2009, we discussed this subject in depth with the heads of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I hope that we will come back to it during our discussions today. Here, I am addressing Mr Osipov [Yury Osipov, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences]. Why, because I think that our decisions must be implemented. As far as I know, there is progress, including on the biggest problems, and the biggest problems, even in science, are the issues of everyday life. We said that we must start by resolving young scientists’ housing problems. I took the Government to task over this later. I think that did have some effect, and it seems that some apartments are ready now. How many, Mr Osipov?

PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES YURY OSIPOV:We have received 150 apartments so far. This was done over January alone. Now it is still February, and the Government is holding constant meetings on the issue.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV:So I don’t need to scold anyone anymore? I can take a softer line now?

YURY OSIPOV:Sometimes it can be useful to get a scolding from you, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV:Well, I will do so then, what choice do I have?

YURY OSIPOV:But things are moving now.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV:It’s good that things are moving, because I remember the bored looks on the faces of some of my colleagues when this was all being discussed, and I had to really make use of my power then. Let’s keep up the pace then and get this work finished.

YURY OSIPOV:Thank you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV:Another matter is that the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Youth Commission made available an additional 1,000 salaried positions at the end of last year. I was briefed on this today by the minister. I think this is very good. We are talking about almost half of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ existing 400 research centres, am I right?

YURY OSIPOV:Yes, the money has been distributed, and we have kept 70 positions in reserve with the idea that particularly interesting people could emerge, while the rest have been distributed between the different institutes on a tender basis. It is interesting to note that there is competition for these positions, more than two institutes for each position. This is good to see. The money has now been distributed, and the institutes are now organising tenders to select the people to whom it will go to.

Thank you very much for this, Mr President.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV:Good, so things are moving in this area too?

YURY OSIPOV:Yes, things are moving full steam ahead.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV:Good, I remind you that the size of the presidential grants for young Ph.D. and D.Sc. holders was increased substantially and now comes to 600,000 rubles for Ph.D. degree holders, and 1 million rubles for D.Sc. degree holders.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE MINISTER ANDREI FURSENKO: For a year.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV:For a year, of course.

But this is not all, of course, and we can keep discussing this. I think that the state authorities need to do more to put in place all of the best possible conditions. Of course, this will never be anything completely exceptional, but the authorities in the broad sense – the federal, regional, and even municipal authorities - do need to ensure the minimum essential conditions.

The global world and the world of science know no borders, and we understand this. We therefore invite not only our own scientists to take part in these projects, but foreigners too. I think this is the right approach, because this is what scientific competition is all about, all the more so as our scientists go abroad and also participate – on a competitive basis – in projects abroad. This is just the kind of full-blooded environment that will help us to resolve the more difficult tasks ahead.

We have young people here today, and I want them to take part too in discussing the various issues involved in developing science, and developing education in general in our country and improving the way science is managed. The Youth Coordination Council has already made a shortlist of projects competing for the presidential grants and prizes for young scientists. In the views of senior colleagues, these projects are of high quality, and we shall see what comes of them. It is important to develop the network of regional councils of young scientists and specialists that have been established now in 81 different regions, practically throughout the entire country.

I want you to tell me, of course, about how you see the future of Russian science, what, in your view, are our strong points and weak points. Of course, we all have a fair idea of where our weak points lie at the moment, and in which areas we need to give new impetus.

But in any case, I can say that the situation has started to change of late. It has not changed radically, but things are improving. This is true of education and of science too. As someone who worked for quite a long time in the university system, I will not hide that I am very pleased to see these changes, because everyone who remembers the 1990s, remembers that they were very difficult years and the mood was very pessimistic back then. It was difficult to be optimistic. But this is all changing now.

There are problems. I have been discussing these problems not just here, not just with our young people working in science, but abroad too, with people working there. The last time was in Silicon Valley. That was an interesting discussion. There are very successful people working there, some of them left quite a long time ago, and some only recently. Some of them see their future in America, and others do not. But the conversation was very illustrative.

We should probably look at some additional incentives too. I think these could include the introduction of presidential scholarships for young people, who show promise in terms of developing priority modernisation areas. We will discuss the size of these scholarships, but they should provide decent sums of money for the chosen young people.

So, if you have similar ideas, I am willing to support them, though within reasonable limits. Let’s discuss all of this now.

Check your comprehension

~ Where did this meeting take place?

~ What is the size of presidential grants for young Ph.D. and D.Sc. holders?

http://eng.special.kremlin.ru/news/1742

Unit 11

Climate changes

Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown.

Global talks on climate change opened in Cancún, Mexico, in late 2010 with the toughest issues unresolved, and the conference produced modest agreements. But while the measures adopted in Cancún are likely to have scant near-term impact on the warming of the planet, the international process for dealing with the issue got a significant vote of confidence.

The agreement fell well short of the broad changes scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change in coming decades. But it laid the groundwork for stronger measures in the future, if nations are able to overcome the emotional arguments that have crippled climate change negotiations in recent years. The package, known as the Cancún Agreements, gives the more than 190 countries participating in the conference another year to decide whether to extend the frayed Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement that requires most wealthy nations to trim their emissions while providing assistance to developing countries to pursue a cleaner energy future.

At the heart of the international debate is a momentous tussle between rich and poor countries over who steps up first and who pays most for changed energy menus.

In the United States, on Jan. 2, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency imposed its first regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions. The immediate effect on utilities, refiners and major manufacturers will be small, with the new rules applying only to those planning to build large new facilities or make major modifications to existing plants. Over the next decade, however, the agency plans to regulate virtually all sources of greenhouse gases, imposing efficiency and emissions requirements on nearly every industry and every region.

President Obama vowed as a candidate that he would put the United States on a path to addressing climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants. He offered Congress wide latitude to pass climate change legislation, but held in reserve the threat of E.P.A. regulation if it failed to act. The deeply polarized Senate’s refusal to enact climate change legislation essentially called his bluff.

Scientists learned long ago that the earth's climate has powerfully shaped the history of the human species — biologically, culturally and geographically. But only in the last few decades has research revealed that humans can be a powerful influence on the climate as well.

A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world's climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests. Such activity adds to the atmosphere's invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which flows from landfills, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide in impact on the atmosphere.

That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as glaciology, the study of glacial formations, and palynology, the study of the distribution of pollen grains in lake mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the world's leading organizations of climate and earth scientists.

In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust.

Some fluctuations in the Earth's temperature are inevitable regardless of human activity — because of decades-long ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if the release of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation continues unabated, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for alerting the world to warming's risks.

Despite the scientific consensus on these basic conclusions, enormously important details remain murky. That reality has been seized upon by some groups and scientists disputing the overall consensus and opposing changes in energy policies.

For example, estimates of the amount of warming that would result from a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations (compared to the level just before the Industrial Revolution got under way in the early 19th century) range from 3.6 degrees to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The intergovernmental climate panel said it could not rule out even higher temperatures. While the low end could probably be tolerated, the high end would almost certainly result in calamitous, long-lasting disruptions of ecosystems and economies, a host of studies have concluded. A wide range of economists and earth scientists say that level of risk justifies an aggressive response.

Other questions have persisted despite a century-long accumulation of studies pointing to human-driven warming. The rate and extent at which sea levels will rise in this century as ice sheets erode remains highly uncertain, even as the long-term forecast of centuries of retreating shorelines remains intact. Scientists are struggling more than ever to disentangle how the heat building in the seas and atmosphere will affect the strength and number of tropical cyclones. The latest science suggests there will be more hurricanes and typhoons that reach the most dangerous categories of intensity, but fewer storms over all.

Government figures for the global climate show that 2010 was the wettest year in the historical record, and it tied 2005 as the hottest year since record-keeping began in 1880.

Check your comprehension

~ Can you name any key points of Cancún Agreements?

~ What is palynology?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

Unit 12