Science communication isn鈥檛 always easy, especially if you are trying to get across the mind-boggling complexity of immunology or climate change in a 10 minute video. But Philipp Dettmer, the founder of science YouTube channel, (German for 鈥渋n a nutshell鈥�), believes scientific topics don鈥檛 have to be hard to understand. 鈥淓verything complicated is only complicated because someone is bad at explaining it,鈥� he says. Kurzgesagt videos have received billions of views and now Dettmer has written his first book, , in which he brings to life one of our most complex biological systems.

Conrad Quilty-Harper: In a nutshell, what is Kurzgesagt?

Philipp Dettmer: It鈥檚 a big science YouTube channel trying to do stuff that makes science interesting. I started the channel after university because I didn鈥檛 want to get a real job. The idea was to make two videos [with German voiceover], and that was honestly supposed to be it. But I had a gut feeling to make the videos in English, too. And then it went viral.

Who are your videos aimed at?

I don鈥檛 want to have a target audience. I want to make the videos in a way where it works for everybody. Grandparents are supposed to be able to watch them with their grandkids. You know, my first and foremost goal is to spark curiosity. Learning how we actually work is breathtaking, it鈥檚 amazing. We just make the videos as well as we can, whatever that means at the time we鈥檙e making them.

Your book has some really amazing descriptions. In one part, when describing the actions of the C3 protein in your immune system, you write: 鈥淚magine you would go through the day minding your business and suddenly hundreds of thousands of flies, in unison, covered your skin head to toe. This would be a horrifying experience and not something you could just ignore.鈥� How do you come up with that stuff?

Everything complicated is only complicated because someone is bad at explaining it. I鈥檓 convinced that every single fact in every single field can be turned into a number of different short stories. We as a species, as a society, we should come together and make the decision to simplify the language of basically all scientific disciplines, as much as it makes sense, of course. It will always be more complex than regular human language. But I don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 a reason why it has to be as hard as it is now. Especially in immunology, which is a shame. Because as a science it is such an interesting field. People might have fun reading about it if it wasn鈥檛 so horrible. The human immune system is the most complex biological system we know after the human brain, and yet most of us never learn how it works or what it is.

And it鈥檚 important too, especially in the context of vaccines. Does that motivate you as well? Good information beating bad information?

With Kurzgesagt, my foremost goal is to spark curiosity. To make people interested in researching themselves. My main goal is to inspire people to do very, real research for themselves. We try very, very hard to not spread false narratives about science. We will publish a video about this in December where we talk a little bit about oversimplification and science. After doing it for so many years, it鈥檚 shocking how hard it is to do it properly because you need to make decisions about how and what to simplify, and you can鈥檛 escape [those decisions].

In your book, you also write about how being diagnosed and treated for cancer was a curious thing that motivated you to write your book. How so?

I know, you鈥檙e not supposed to say [things like this] but technically it was a super interesting time. Cancer is not pleasant and chemo is not pleasant. I can鈥檛 recommend that. But it was super interesting actually learning how medicine works on that level, how you work. I used that time to ask a bazillion questions and to learn more and read more. I mean, I had time. So in a sense, it was one of the most interesting times of my life.

At the time, it was another reason to learn. Like [I was] addressing my immune system and [thinking], hey, guys. What? How? You鈥檙e not supposed to miss this, why did you miss it? And I鈥檓 learning about that. And then again, not being angry at my body, but grateful that with a little bit of help from my doctors the [chemotherapy] melted and ate the tumours.

Good information can help you make better decisions in your life. Are there any things that make you optimistic for the future? What gets you excited rather than scared?

Immunology. What we now know today is breathtaking. It鈥檚 amazing. It鈥檚 learning how we actually work and the complex systems we are. Vaccines, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, all the stuff, that鈥檚 helping people to live longer, healthier lives. I think ending disease should, very firmly be one of the goals of humanity. And we are going in this direction. It鈥檚 just we have been going slowly, slowly, slowly and now super fast.

So that鈥檚 the positive side of the pandemic in a way?

Yeah, for sure. I鈥檓 pretty sure the pandemic will have done so much for virus research.

What鈥檚 the biggest misconception about the immune system?

I feel that it is a thing that most people don鈥檛 have any sort of mental image of. People feel confident about saying, 鈥淥h, my immune system does that, or my immune system is good or weak or whatever鈥�. It鈥檚 sort of a cloudy entity in our minds. But in reality, it鈥檚 not. It鈥檚 this super multifaceted organ system that runs through your whole body, interacts with every process that you have. [It鈥檚] an incredibly large army of many, and sadly, we don鈥檛 learn enough about the immune system to imagine a picture in our mind.

What鈥檚 your favourite bit of the immune system?

I think my favourite bit would be the neutrophil extracellular trap. Your soldier cells deciding to explode themselves in like a suicide bomber fashion. And, they do that by taking the whole genetic code, the DNA, and unfolding it and mixing it with all the deadly chemicals they have inside them and then just vomiting it out.

Imagine you took your brain out of your skull, spiked it with blades and then punched someone with that. You would expect to be dead then, right? But, neutrophils sometimes survive this process and they keep on fighting. What even are those cells? The immune system is mental, and there are so many stories like that.

For someone who鈥檚 never read anything about the immune system, what would you hope they come away with from your book?

I hope people come away from that with a really genuinely different appreciation of the body and what it means to be sick. So the next time they are sick, it鈥檚 less scary. It鈥檚 more concrete and they feel more in control. And the other big thing is to hopefully be amazed by biology and your body. And amazed by all the universes inside of universes inside of universes. And somehow all of it works.

Are there any topics that scare you?听

I think the topic that scares me most is climate change. I just could not research the topic without getting so depressed that I felt I can鈥檛 put this in a video. I thought, this is actually not helpful, this is counterproductive if I don鈥檛 find a way to spin it differently. But by talking to actual scientists, I got back from a climate change depression that was so bad.

What did they tell you?

That it鈥檚 not the apocalypse. And if it鈥檚 not the apocalypse, that means we can still do something. I feel like once you鈥檙e in this like doomerism mindset, it鈥檚 like a trap and it really traps you to, like, move forward or like back in any direction, really.

What would you say to scientists who are working in some abstract field to better spread their ideas and their findings?

Talk to science communicators. Make it easier for us to make your science approachable to other people. There鈥檚 a good relationship, I feel, between scientists and science communicators, at least on YouTube. Everybody is very open, very kind.

Philipp Dettmer鈥檚 book, , is out now, published by Hodder.

Boris Johnson鈥檚 first speech as prime minister on 24 July was notable for mentioning a sweep of scientific and technological advances that he sees as unique to Britain. These ranged from gene therapy treatments for blindness to satellites orbiting in space, but is Britain really 鈥渓eading the world鈥� in these areas, and how will they be affected by Brexit?

鈥淯sing gene therapy for the first time to treat the most common form of blindness鈥�

This is a reference to a genetic therapy treatment for age-related blindness which aims to preserve sight by halting the deterioration of cells in the eye鈥檚 retina. One of the most common forms of sight loss, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) affects about 600,000 people in the UK. In February, a woman from Oxford became the first person to receive this gene therapy treatment. If the trial is successful, it could preserve vision in people who would otherwise go blind.

The treatment was manufactured by Gyrocope Therapeutics which is funded by Syncona, an investment firm founded by the Wellcome Trust. In its most recent financial results, Syncona identified 鈥減olitical and economic uncertainty, including impacts from the EU referendum鈥� as one of the 鈥減otential risks to research funding and so the pipeline of attractive opportunities; to attracting talent and so the ability to build successful businesses [鈥 or to profitably commercialise new products.鈥�

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the chair of the Wellcome Trust (which owns about a third of Syncona), recently sent a letter to Boris Johnson warning that leaving the EU without a deal would threaten the 拢1 billion in funding that it provides to support research 鈥� like Syncona鈥檚 gene therapy treatments.

Robert MacLaren, the ophthalmologist who lead the team which is carrying out the AMD gene therapy trial, also lead another groundbreaking gene therapy trial at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London that has given hope to those with choroideremia, a degenerative genetic disease that causes blindness. People with the condition have a mutation in a gene called CHM 鈥� or are missing the gene altogether. After modifying a virus to deliver new DNA to the back of the retina, the cells adopt the material and are permanently changed. Everyone on the trial maintained or improved their vision for up to five years after the operation.

MacLaren did much of this work at Moorfields Eye Hospital, and like many scientific institutions, Moorfields has received grants and funding from the European Union 鈥� including more than 鈧�16 million to support research into treatments for the retina. It also employs many non-UK EU nationals, who constitute up to 20 per cent of the hospital鈥檚 entire staff. In a freedom of information request by campaign group Best for Britain, the hospital identified a 鈥減ossible negative impact to our workforce鈥� as one of Brexit鈥檚 risks to its operations.

鈥溾�� leading the world in battery technology鈥�

In 1980, John Goodenough discovered lithium cobalt oxide at the University of Oxford, and invented the technology necessary for lithium-ion batteries. Unfortunately for the UK economy, it was then Sony that commercialised the technology, and the UK saw very little direct commercial benefit.听This trend continues to be true of the impending shift to all-electric vehicles. The Telegraph, for which Boris Johnson is a columnist, , 鈥渢he UK is still very much in the slow lane in the race for next generation automotive technology鈥�.

The UK has been trying to turn this situation around for some time. Since 2011, the government has invested significant amounts to subsidise plug-in cars. In 2017, it announced an investment of听听for battery research and to create the yet-to-be-built UK Battery Industrialisation Centre in Coventry to provide testing facilities. The government has also spent 拢400 million on electric car charging infrastructure.

This investment is necessary to encourage investment in electric cars, which is needed if the government is to meet its pledge to ban internal combustion engine cars by 2040 and match its net-zero CO2 emissions target by 2050.

However, UK investment is dwarfed by state and private investment in battery technology projects in the US, China and elsewhere in Europe. The French government, for instance, has pledged 鈧�2.5 billion over 10 years. Investors have also poured more than , which has been supported by huge tax credits and hundreds of millions in taxpayer-funded subsidies for its cars.

Tesla is constructing a $4 billion 鈥済igafactory鈥� with Panasonic to manufacture batteries on a new and unprecedented scale, and China has similarly ambitious plans to maintain its 60 per cent share of global lithium-ion battery production. Volkwagen is spending 鈧�20 billion on batteries for its all-electric cars, and is involving companies in China and South Korea.

The UK, however, is home to like Nissan鈥檚 packing of Japanese cells for its all-electric Leaf, Jaguar Land Rover鈥檚 拢1 billion investment to produce hybrid and electric engines, and Aston Martin鈥檚 plans to produce its batteries for high-end luxury cars.

One of the biggest factors limiting the UK鈥檚 progress with battery technology and adoption of electric cars has been uncertainty over Brexit. External investment into the UK automotive sector, which includes petrol, diesel and electric technology, has dropped 80 per cent since the referendum result in 2016. As for听, , where he is working on an idea for a 鈥渟uper-battery鈥�.

鈥溾�� liberate the UK鈥檚 extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules鈥︹��

Current EU rules mean that the UK can grow and sell any genetically modified crop that has been shown to be safe for consumption. However, GM plants are only currently grown in the UK for research purposes, not for food. This isn鈥檛 down to EU rules 鈥� it鈥檚 more due to an unwillingness to market GM foods to a population that has been resistant to the idea in the past.

In the wake of Johnson鈥檚 speech, plant scientists have expressed concern over proposals to weaken the current EU rules, as these ensure safety. Any change to such rules would be unlikely to tackle the wider issue of anti-GM public opinion.

鈥溾�� let鈥檚 develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world鈥︹��

The UK has a relatively strong agricultural research base and, in 2014, a UK trial successfully cultivated GM blight-resistant potatoes. None of this has been done in opposition to the EU, which approved this and a subsequent trial, currently under way at the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norwich.

It has been estimated that growing a GM pest-resistant crop like this in the UK could save about听听in pesticide use, but there aren鈥檛 any specific EU regulations stopping this from happening. It remains to be seen if the UK really does come out in support of GM crops after Brexit, or whether we have been using the EU as an excuse all this time.

鈥淟et鈥檚 get going now on our own positioning, navigation and timing satellites, and Earth observation systems 鈥� UK assets, orbiting space with all the long-term strategic and commercial benefits for this country鈥�

Thanks to Brexit, UK suppliers have already been of the 鈧�10 billion Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System, a rival to the US Global Positioning System designed to provide positioning and navigation services to the military, commercial organisations and individuals with mobile phones.

The UK has , and it could ask for a rebate as part of Brexit negotiations. Suppliers to the project have already started moving their work to the European continent so they can continue working on the contract, taking expertise out of the country.

This is at odds to the UK鈥檚 aims to own 10 per cent of the global space market by 2030. There are plans to听 with 拢20 million of funding, and establish a launch site for small satellites. Theresa May announced in 2018 that the UK would build its own navigation system, but such a feat is likely to cost 拢3 billion to 拢5 billion.

In 1961, New 女生小视频 was calling for a halt to the moon race.

Indeed, our 8 June 1961 issue said that the superpowers were squandering resources better spent on earthbound problems. Today, on the eve of the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong鈥檚 first steps on the moon, it鈥檚 surprising to hear such a negative attitude to crewed spaceflight. Nevertheless, our opinion barely changed over the decades, and we maintained our opposition into the 1990s.

Despite New 女生小视频鈥檚 lonely protests, the Apollo missions got underway, and our harrumphing didn鈥檛 stop. In our Apollo 8 editorial of 19 December 1968 we said the mission was an 鈥渆mpty, obsessional quest鈥� and 鈥溾�he true scientific value of the Apollo project is virtually nil鈥�.

In the same issue we said: 鈥淲e are forced to the conclusion, time and time again, that the whole manned space business, if its relationship to reality is not of a more ominous nature, is mere prestigious prancing鈥�.

鈥溾�he true scientific value of the Apollo project is virtually nil鈥�

The thrust of our complaint was that uncrewed space probes would have done just as good a job for the fraction of the price, and that the vast amounts of money spent sending people into space would have been better spent on 鈥渃onstructive aid鈥� for 鈥渦nderprivileged nations.鈥� In the same issue, we published (wildly incorrect) predictions that there would be 5 billion people living in poverty in the year 2000, which perhaps gives us some context for this editorial line.

Our annoyance at the theatre of the occasion is slightly less forgivable.

Before Armstrong鈥檚 first steps we wrote: 鈥淚f previous missions are anything to by 鈥� the entire sequence of Apollo 11 will simply reel itself off like clockwork with an exactitude extending down to the smallest detail. Surely this entire approach is the very antithesis of adventure?鈥�

In the first New 女生小视频 edition after the Apollo 11 moon landing our leader article on 24 July 1969 was mostly worried that the astronauts might have been 鈥渋nfected by the show-biz bug.鈥�

Although we did deign to say the sight of a human being walking on a celestial object other than Earth for the first time in history had a 鈥渢ouching splendour鈥� and the 鈥渒angaroo hops of the astronauts had the same emotional potential as a baby鈥檚 first earnest, awkward attempts to walk,鈥� we also asked 鈥渉adn鈥檛 we seen this before?鈥� in movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and in cheap, rival magazines rapidly produced to cash in on the occasion (ahem).

The following month, we gave a voice to the 鈥淣ASA scientists grumbling as moon results roll in鈥�, featuring the complaints of scientists at Houston working on the Apollo project. We mentioned the plight of Eugene Shoemaker, principal investigator for lunar geology, who was 14th on the priority list to receive an official set of pictures from the moon, and who 鈥渨as eventually given a set by a reporter鈥�.

We also complained that 鈥渘o scientist astronauts have been named either for the prime or backup crews of the next three lunar landing missions, causing one of the few scientifically qualified astronauts to resign in despair.鈥�

Two years later on 28 January 1971 we published the words of Peter Stubbs, who questioned the true 鈥渞aison d鈥櫭猼re鈥� of this exceedingly costly undertaking: 鈥淭he Apollo programme has clearly generated a lot of scientific activity of interest to scientists, however secondary this may be to its primary purpose. But the usefulness of planetary science to the wider world is surely even more debatable than that of modern high-energy physics.鈥�

We got closer to the mark in another story quoting Brian O鈥橪eary, one of the 11 out of 1400 scientist-astronaut applicants selected by NASA. After budget cuts, astronaut chief Deke Slayton told him 鈥測ou may as well face the prospect of long delays and perhaps no flights. We don鈥檛 need you around here, at least for the time being.鈥� In response, the beleaguered recruits labelled themselves the 鈥淓xcess Eleven (XS-11).鈥�

O鈥橪eary said, 鈥淚 believe that the American space programme can be made worth what we are putting into it if the emphasis on manned flight can be curbed. We should encourage science looking for a mission rather than a mission looking for science.鈥� The story finished by saying 鈥淭he question on many scientists lips at Houston at the moment is: 鈥楬ow can anyone talk of sending men to Mars when we can鈥檛 get NASA to do the best possible science on the moon?'鈥�

You might laugh with us at the absurdity of our anti-Apollo campaigning, but perhaps make a note of 13 December 1972 in your calendar. That was the moment 47 years ago that听Eugene Cernan, and the rest of humanity, left the moon for the last time.

So did we have the last laugh, or will we see people step onto the moon again within our lifetime? Only time (and public opinion) will tell.

In his new book , James Lovelock says the creation of AlphaGo was the start of a new kingdom of life that will create and think for itself. He鈥檚 optimistic that this new kingdom of life will want to keep us around like we keep plants in gardens. In our interview at his house near Chesil Beach we discuss the future of Gaia, our new AI overlords and why Elon Musk鈥檚 Mars mission is crazy.

[video_player id=鈥漀PWpJvfD鈥� access_level=鈥漞veryone鈥漖

听

James Lovelock on when the 鈥楴ovacene鈥� began

鈥淚t was really kicked off by AlphaGo, the application of mathematical modelling in a much more constructive way than had been done previously. It鈥檚 not a logical cause and effect thing. The programme is in a sense choosing its own bits and pieces. If that is not the start of life I would like to know what is. And I see Mr Darwin hovering in the background there, thinking, 鈥楻ight, yeah, now that鈥檚 going to evolve.鈥� [鈥 The artificial intelligence today can think for itself. They will create themselves.鈥�

On why humanity won鈥檛 ever move to Mars

鈥淚 know a fair amount about Mars. I don鈥檛 think we鈥檒l start colonies on Mars. I cannot think of a much more inhospitable place. I think Elon Musk is a very clever man, he must be, [otherwise] he wouldn鈥檛 be so rich. But to want to go and live on Mars is just about as crazy as you could be. He must hate people even more than I do.鈥�

You said it would be better for Elon Musk to crash on impact

鈥渊别蝉.鈥�

What James Lovelock thinks about astronauts who call Earth 鈥榝ragile鈥欌�μ�

鈥淲hy fragile? It鈥檚 as tough as old boots. It鈥檚 been here billions of years. It can鈥檛 be very fragile. There, see, that鈥檚 a word that slips in, until it becomes a truth that isn鈥檛 a truth. They just don鈥檛 understand it. They like the look of it. It looks good, it鈥檚 like the view outside here [of Chesil Beach]. It鈥檚 beautiful.鈥�

鈥nd a helicopter journey with Apollo 13 mission commander Jim Lovell

鈥淪andy and I travelled on a helicopter at Cape Canaveral with [Apollo 13 mission commander] Jim Lovell. He told us about his experience on Apollo 13, you know the one that had an explosion of the oxygen generator. They had sheer misery. I didn鈥檛 realise that most of the journey for him and his fellow crewman that the cabin was minus 30 degrees. There was no heating at all. It was just the temperature of space. He said that it was absolute hell, and it was the most moving story. I doubt whether he felt very strongly about the sight of the Earth coming in from space.鈥�

On inventing the microwave oven

鈥淎mong the many varied, weird jobs I had was assisting biologists to freeze hamsters and bring them back to life. I thought we better use high-tech methods of freezing and warming, so that the animal had the best chance. I had a friend in the Navy on that strange laboratory at the top of the hill above Portsmouth, and I said, 鈥業s there any chance I could borrow a continuous wave magnetron from you?鈥� And he said, 鈥極h yes. It鈥檚 a secret but you can borrow it.鈥欌��

The simple device that I used was a bit box-like, and there was a timer, there were all the essential parts of a microwave oven. And we put these hamsters in it, and turned the switch and wait to see what happened. I put my lunch in on several occasions.鈥�

We found that if you irradiated frozen [hamsters] 鈥� and when I say frozen they were like that wood 鈥� with 10cm microwaves, it wasn鈥檛 long before it was scurrying around. I think I had the first microwave oven ever. I never patented it.鈥�

James Lovelock鈥檚 new book Novacene is available now, published by Penguin

Artificial intelligence lets programmers control Barack Obama鈥檚 face, replicate the styles of painting greats and even turn a picture of a . Now you can do the same.

Launched this week, a new desktop application called makes it is easy for anyone to run their own AI experiments. The code for many AI projects is already freely available on the internet, but using it normally requires a knowledge of programming and access to听powerful and expensive computers.

Runway is like an App Store for a type of AI called a听generative adversarial network (GAN), which is often used to make and manipulate text, images, or videos. No technical knowledge is needed to use the program.

Once you鈥檝e downloaded the app, which is still undergoing testing, it lets you select which tool you鈥檇 like to try with only a few mouse clicks. For example, you could choose to play around with StyleGAN, a GAN that is used by the website听鈥溾�� for generating believable images of people who don鈥檛 actually exist.听With just a couple of clicks you can create your own artificial face and tweak how similar or different each new face it generates should be. You can also guide the algorithm towards different effects, colours or themes.

Running a GAN is power hungry, so Runway does all of its processing on servers hosted in the cloud, which users pay 5 cents per minute for.

Dozens of other different GANs are available on Runway, including facial recognition, image labelling, and OpenAI鈥檚 super-trolling text-generating AI. The team say they aim to let people create their own training datasets and even combine the inputs and outputs of different models.

鈥淭he idea was to create tools that we want to use,鈥� says Cristobal Valenzuela, who co-created the app. To access machine learning before Runway you had to go to a code-hosting website and find a way to access powerful computer chips, he says.

Artist, illustrator and journalist describes herself as the 鈥淭MI QUEEN.鈥� If you鈥檙e unaware of her 鈥渢oo much information鈥� style, at her first private view at the Zari Gallery in London earlier in May, the first thing you saw was a making-of video for her 2016 artwork about pubic hair grooming injuries.

A blitz of Photoshop work that flies by in a few minutes, the time-lapse video shows how she took a journal entry picture and turned it into a colourful and eye-catching graphic with bright colours, elegant cursive titles and a scientifically accurate heatmap of the most common places where people injure themselves when they groom their pubic hair. Here鈥檚 the link to Mona鈥檚 story that accompanies the graphic if you听.

Guardian readers and her 133,000 followers on Instagram will be used to enjoying Chalabi鈥檚 in-your-face illustrations, but this isn鈥檛 the kind of thing you will usually see at a West London gallery. 鈥淲ho Are You Here To See?鈥� was mostly dedicated to a retrospective of her illustrative work published in the Guardian and on her Instagram account between 2014 and 2019, but like most of her witty graphics about topics as diverse as the pay gap, endangered species or the rarity of redheads, this opening party had a point. Visit a major art gallery, and you probably won鈥檛 encounter work from people like Chalabi. That鈥檚 to say, a woman. Or a person of an ethnic background that鈥檚 not white.

To reflect this, Chalabi created an artwork especially for the event. As her caption says, 鈥淚f all the artists in major US museums were represented by 100 people, 88 of them would be men.鈥� To show this stark fact, she beautifully illustrated this with a huge canvas showing a typical art space filled with those 88 men and 12 women artists. Behind this on the same canvas, it showed what the art world might look like if it represented reality. As you might expect, it鈥檚 a very different picture.

On another wall Chalabi created a 鈥渄rip painting鈥� showing the dire historical record of the Tate galleries in representing work by women. Since 2014, things have improved, but there鈥檚 still a long way to go. This work, a 鈥減ainting about the Tate鈥檚 paintings鈥� was based on a to show that the Tate still has 5.5 men for every 1 woman in their collection.

Chalabi鈥檚 work is compelling not just because she combines a journalistic work ethic with illustrative and artistic techniques. It鈥檚 also because underpinning it all is a rigorous approach to statistics, and a fearless campaigning style. Where else in the art world can you encounter artists who employ fact checkers?

There鈥檚 also a lot that scientists can learn from her approachable and understandable graphics. There鈥檚 no reason that the Jama Dermatology journal, which was the basis of her excellent pubic injuries illustration, shouldn鈥檛 or couldn鈥檛 employ Mona, or someone like her, to communicate its findings. In our opinion, the world鈥檚 not even close to getting too much of this TMI Queen.

鈥溾�� was on display at the . Follow for more of her work

It may not look like much, but this听orangey brown puff of smoke high听is the aftermath of the听third largest meteor explosion to have听impacted Earth in modern times.

The huge meteor explosion hit Earth in December but听was听only spotted by researchers last week, and now we have visual evidence thanks to the camera of the geostationary听.

The meteor鈥檚 smoke cloud was recorded听at 2350 GMT in the same location over the Bering Sea that was recorded by NASA鈥檚 monitoring sensors.

The smoke trail is almost vertical, showing that it entered the atmosphere very steeply, and it鈥檚听possible to see a long, thin shadow cast by the smoke cloud against the Earth鈥檚 cloud layer below.

Simon Proud, an aviation safety fellow and meteorologist at the University of Oxford, who , said, 鈥淚鈥檓 sure it鈥檚 the meteor trace.鈥�

He said, 鈥淚t appears in the images at the right time, it is in the right location, the smoke column is almost vertical, and the smoke is very high.听Much higher than any clouds in that region and too high to be a contrail.鈥�

The giant fireball hit the atmosphere with the force of听173 kilotons of TNT, ten times the force of the atomic bomb which the US dropped on Hiroshima at听the end of the second world war.

The explosion is the third-largest听in modern times, after an explosion over the Russian Chelyabinsk region in 2013 and a massive explosion that occurred in Siberia, Russia, in 1908, known as the Tunguska event.听That air burst was so powerful that it flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres.