A question that occasionally surfaces in our lives, when we take the time to ponder such things, can be stated many ways, but they all boil down to "What does it all mean?" This question is particularly poignant to us when we confront our own mortality. For many people, the obvious answer is their religion, although I suspect that many believers secretly harbor some doubts when it comes to that. For some, like Monty Python or Douglas Adams, a humorous or even flippant answer serves to dispel the gloom such questions might stimulate. For the most part, we go on about our life routines without contemplating such deep issues, perhaps because when we do, they can cause us to be a bit frightened - after all, it's difficult to imagine or accept that when we're gone, the world will carry on without us.
So the question deserves some sort of answer. In what follows, most of which occurred to me several years ago now, I make no claim to have any profound insight or to know for certain that life has any meaning, much less the ideas I'm presenting in this blog. I'm simply presenting a way to think about this question that provides me with an "answer" - of sorts.
As a observer interested in most aspects of the natural world, it's evident that most living things have no capacity to ponder such questions. The birds, the ants, the bacteria, and the entire world of plants - none of them are tormented by such thoughts. They simply have a will to survive - to find sustenance, to escape predators, to give birth to another generation. Individual animals and plants know about and care nothing about the meaning of their existence. Existence and species survival are quite enough for them. All life on Earth, except us, exists simply to survive as part of a complex ecosystem of mutual interdependence.
We, on the other hand, seem compelled to infer that our existence is special, and privileged among other lifeforms on Earth. Mere survival and participation in the ecosystem just doesn't seem grand enough for us, with our ability to contemplate the Universe in which we exist. For many, religion reinforces the comforting thought of eternal life beyond our Earthly demise and a purpose defined by a mythical superbeing. But long ago, I rejected that path as illogical and clearly mythical.
If you disregard the pat answers provided by religion, which I do, then perhaps the ultimate answer is that there is no meaning to life. Life simply exists to survive and procreate, even for humans. Should the astronomers prove to be right, then our Earth is destined for some life-destroying fate in a few billion years - if humans haven't left the Earth and colonized other places, or become extinct by then, we will be utterly destroyed. And the cosmologists suggest that the entire Universe will come to some life-destroying end, so it seems the ultimate extinction of our species is inevitable. Everything we have built and struggled for will come to nothing in the cold calculus of the indifferent Universe. Without the myth of eternal life provided by religion, it seems that science offers no solace for our concerns - in the absence of a perpetual survival for humanity, our personal lives can have no meaning whatsoever.
So how do I deal with this apparently meaningless existence? What keeps me going? Why should I not kill myself, or indulge in all sorts of immoral behavior? If nothing matters, why not do these things? Well, like many other atheists, I don't need religion to have morals. Here's the deal: I have been given life by my parents. I didn't ask for it, but they evidently wanted someone like me in their lives. I'm thankful and grateful to them for that unrequested gift. I've found the Earth to be a wondrous place, full of beauty and grandeur, human kindness, wonderful people, and physical pleasures. Life is mostly a joy to me and for that joy to be maintained, I feel an obligation to make my joy known to others and to seek to bring joy to them, as well.
There are, of course, other ways to provide "meaning" to life - hateful, evil deeds that bring pain and suffering - even death - to others. For some religious believers, the meaning in their life is provided by immoral acts that inflict agony and death on others. What a sad life they've built for themselves, filled with anger and pain, perhaps to be terminated prematurely by suicide on the promise of an afterlife that is pure mythology. One also can achieve an immortality of sorts by extreme evil - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, mass murderers, etc. They become famous and that fame provides a sort of meaning for them, it seems, but what a terrible legacy they leave behind. Not fame, actually, but infamy.
But consider this, before you go on a rampage of immorality. Every person, even those conceived but not yet born, has an impact on at least some other people. It's impossible to be alive without having an impact on others. We often measure fame by how many people know of us - but Arlo Guthrie has said it correctly: "Famous people are not always important. Important people are not always famous." Because we inevitably affect at least those around us, we're important - to them. Whether or not we (or they) become famous is irrelevant. If we're all important, each and every one of us, then we should consider just what sort of impact we want to have on those around us.
If we attach value to our acquaintances, friends, and family, then it behooves us to have a positive influence on their lives, to whatever extent it's possible. We encourage them to pursue their dreams, we praise them for their accomplishments, and we let them know when they do something we believe to be wrong. We listen to them with attention and try to provide them with comfort when they're sad. If the world and humanity eventually will vanish, why should we do such things? Why does it matter? Because our minds have been programmed by evolution to feel good about ourselves when we do so. We're social creatures, who can only survive by cooperation with others of ours species. Cooperation requires morality. I have morals because it feels right to have them. Life is better when I feel good than when I feel ashamed and regretful of what I've done.
A life spent doing things you love is dominated by positive feelings, and when we do what we love, we usually do it well enough that it provides something of value to others - even others we may never meet. Our lives can be inspirational to many people we don't know. Our work can stimulate others to achievement. It's so easy to be happy and this can give meaning to my life in a very personal way. I have no need for fame or glory. Immortality is beyond my grasp, so it's pointless to seek it. I'm pretty sure that in 500 or 1000 years, no one will remember I existed, but during the time I've been granted, I know that I've been thrilled to the core with what the world has offered to me, and I've tried my best to give something of that joy and happiness to others. It simply feels good ... and right. That's how I find meaning in my time of existence. For me, it's more than enough. How about you?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
The EF-Scale Ratings Brouhaha
In the wake of upgrades to the EF-scale ratings based on mobile Doppler radar-measured windspeeds, there's been a lot of back and forth on the topic of (a) whether or not to use such measurements at all in the rating process, and (b) if mobile Doppler radar measurements are to be used, just how should this be done?
Item (a) is relevant since the NWS Director some time ago issued a directive to the field offices in which use of mobile Doppler radar windspeed measurements should not be used. The following is a recent directive from the NWS Director, Dr. Louis Uccellini:
The "consistency" argument is traditional within the NWS as a reaction to technological innovation. I could provide numerous examples of the wrong-headedness of this policy, but I'll try to keep this as concise as possible. For instance, should we degrade the data obtained by WSR-88D radars to that from WSR-57s simply to maintain consistency with the older data sets? Should we disregard the dual polarity information of the new upgrades to the WSR-88D radars just to maintain consistency with the old versions of the radar? When something new and exciting comes on line, its capabilities should be embraced by the agency, not rejected as inconsistent with older technology!
Turning to item (b), the primary concern is that the mobile Dopplers "measure" the winds within a sample volume well above the standard 10 m anemometer height, and the EF-Scale is supposed to be based on the virtually non-existent anemometer-based windspeeds at that height for a 3-second gust. By and large, this is a meaningless definition since anemometer measurements in tornadoes are very, very, very rare - a tornado is an anemometer-hostile environment! [I need to point out that no absolutely "direct" measurement of wind speed is ever possible. Anemometer output is electronic signals associated with its rotation rate, which must be calibrated to the wind speed. Any instrument, even in situ systems, are not direct measurements and entail a lot of issues (sensitivity, accuracy, response time, etc.) Doppler radar windspeed estimates are not absolutely direct, either of course, and are a form of remote sensing, which is why they can be used in tornadoes.]
So the issue becomes: what relationship exists between the Doppler radar wind measurements and the actual wind at the 10 m level averaged for three seconds [which is virtually never observed but must be inferred from a highly nonlinear relationship with damage]? As of this moment, research is underway to try to determine this as unambiguously as possible - it will never be completely unambiguous, of course. There are reasons to believe that windspeeds might actually increase at decreasing heights as we go downward from where the Doppler measurements are taken. The details of that windspeed profile remain to be established and there likely is variability from one tornado to another, or even from time to time during the life cycle of a single tornado. It's unlikely some single profile would actually be observed at all times for every tornado! Of course, theoretically, the wind must be zero at a height of 0 m but the winds just above that level must increase quite rapidly with height if they are to become capable of damage at 10 m.
Given that the research is not yet complete (and when is research ever truly complete?), it could be argued that it's premature to use the Doppler measurements and the suggestion to keep them but not use them is at least not entirely ridiculous. However, all the anxiety about the consistency of the EF-Scale ratings strikes me as rather silly. The existing record is laced with numerous inconsistencies for a host of reasons. Denying the value of the most direct measurements of windspeed in tornadoes in order to maintain consistency with an inconsistent data set strikes me as silly. You can argue we shouldn't introduce yet another source of inconsistency but I say we should take advantage of new techology as soon as possible and not get trapped into the "consistency argument" I discussed earlier.
Many years ago, earthquake intensity was "measured" with a damage scale that had many of the same problems as the original F-Scale. It eventually was replaced with various objective measures of earthquake intensity and has passed into the dustbin of history. No one ever suggested degrading the Richter Scale to match the old intensity scale for the sake of "consistency" with the older system. The extent to which Doppler radar measurements will be able eventually to supercede damage estimate is unknown, but it's likely they never will become capable of being used for every tornado to map out the detailed space-time distribution of windspeeds. Nor will the relationship of their measurements to the mostly hypothetical 3-second gust from an anemometer at 10 m ever be known perfectly. But to ignore them or defer their use in EF-Scale assessment just for consistency's sake makes absolutely no sense to me.
Item (a) is relevant since the NWS Director some time ago issued a directive to the field offices in which use of mobile Doppler radar windspeed measurements should not be used. The following is a recent directive from the NWS Director, Dr. Louis Uccellini:
This is essentially a management directive from the agency head to the field offices, and it naturally must be obeyed by the NWS employees, without regard to the scientific merits for such a choice. Personally, I find it absurd to force the offices to ignore the only "direct" measurements of wind speed in a tornado they're ever likely to have. I'll have more to say about "direct" shortly. The EF-Scale was never intended to be a damage scale, but rather is a windspeed scale. The problem always has been that we have so few actual windspeed observations we must use damage to infer the windspeed - otherwise, only a tiny number of events could be rated. That was Fujita's contribution to the science of tornadoes, and it has been useful (albeit controversial) ever since it was introduced in 1971.
The "consistency" argument is traditional within the NWS as a reaction to technological innovation. I could provide numerous examples of the wrong-headedness of this policy, but I'll try to keep this as concise as possible. For instance, should we degrade the data obtained by WSR-88D radars to that from WSR-57s simply to maintain consistency with the older data sets? Should we disregard the dual polarity information of the new upgrades to the WSR-88D radars just to maintain consistency with the old versions of the radar? When something new and exciting comes on line, its capabilities should be embraced by the agency, not rejected as inconsistent with older technology!
Turning to item (b), the primary concern is that the mobile Dopplers "measure" the winds within a sample volume well above the standard 10 m anemometer height, and the EF-Scale is supposed to be based on the virtually non-existent anemometer-based windspeeds at that height for a 3-second gust. By and large, this is a meaningless definition since anemometer measurements in tornadoes are very, very, very rare - a tornado is an anemometer-hostile environment! [I need to point out that no absolutely "direct" measurement of wind speed is ever possible. Anemometer output is electronic signals associated with its rotation rate, which must be calibrated to the wind speed. Any instrument, even in situ systems, are not direct measurements and entail a lot of issues (sensitivity, accuracy, response time, etc.) Doppler radar windspeed estimates are not absolutely direct, either of course, and are a form of remote sensing, which is why they can be used in tornadoes.]
So the issue becomes: what relationship exists between the Doppler radar wind measurements and the actual wind at the 10 m level averaged for three seconds [which is virtually never observed but must be inferred from a highly nonlinear relationship with damage]? As of this moment, research is underway to try to determine this as unambiguously as possible - it will never be completely unambiguous, of course. There are reasons to believe that windspeeds might actually increase at decreasing heights as we go downward from where the Doppler measurements are taken. The details of that windspeed profile remain to be established and there likely is variability from one tornado to another, or even from time to time during the life cycle of a single tornado. It's unlikely some single profile would actually be observed at all times for every tornado! Of course, theoretically, the wind must be zero at a height of 0 m but the winds just above that level must increase quite rapidly with height if they are to become capable of damage at 10 m.
Given that the research is not yet complete (and when is research ever truly complete?), it could be argued that it's premature to use the Doppler measurements and the suggestion to keep them but not use them is at least not entirely ridiculous. However, all the anxiety about the consistency of the EF-Scale ratings strikes me as rather silly. The existing record is laced with numerous inconsistencies for a host of reasons. Denying the value of the most direct measurements of windspeed in tornadoes in order to maintain consistency with an inconsistent data set strikes me as silly. You can argue we shouldn't introduce yet another source of inconsistency but I say we should take advantage of new techology as soon as possible and not get trapped into the "consistency argument" I discussed earlier.
Many years ago, earthquake intensity was "measured" with a damage scale that had many of the same problems as the original F-Scale. It eventually was replaced with various objective measures of earthquake intensity and has passed into the dustbin of history. No one ever suggested degrading the Richter Scale to match the old intensity scale for the sake of "consistency" with the older system. The extent to which Doppler radar measurements will be able eventually to supercede damage estimate is unknown, but it's likely they never will become capable of being used for every tornado to map out the detailed space-time distribution of windspeeds. Nor will the relationship of their measurements to the mostly hypothetical 3-second gust from an anemometer at 10 m ever be known perfectly. But to ignore them or defer their use in EF-Scale assessment just for consistency's sake makes absolutely no sense to me.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
When Being Right About a Forecast Brings No Joy
Recent events in Oklahoma have validated something I have been saying for many years. Specifically, the gridlock to the south and east of the deadly tornado of 31 May 2013 verifies comments I've made many times - escaping a tornado in your vehicle is very much dependent on the specific situation. You need to be "situation aware" if you choose to attempt to escape a tornado by driving away. I'm far from the only one who's said such things, of course.
Out in the open country or in a small town, driving away is generally feasible, assuming road conditions permit it. But in a metropolitan area, this can go tragically wrong. On 31 May 2013, many people were told a falsehood - that there was no chance they would survive "above ground". This falsehood owes its origins to Gary England during his coverage of the 03 May 1999 tornado. His statement, unfortunately, garnered much positive attention and was credited with saving lives. But the statment is simply not true, as has been demonstrated many times over. Even in homes hit by the EF4/EF5 winds in EF-4/EF-5 ("violent") tornadoes (Those extreme winds occupy only a tiny fraction of the damage path in such tornadoes.), most people will survive! Dispensing such misinformation creates unnecessary fear and such fear can induce bad decisions like people in urban areas trying to escape by driving away since they have no underground shelter, rather than seek to shelter in place. Spreading misinformation via media broadcasts is irresponsible!
The gridlock of 31 May 2013 resulted from a combination of factors, including the recent EF5 killer tornado that struck Moore, OK on 20 May 2013. But when media weather broadcasters directly or indirectly encourage people living in a metropolitan area to drive away from tornadoes, the potential loss of life skyrockets. On 10 April 1979, the F4 tornado that struck Wichita Falls, TX killed 44 people, with many of the fatalities occurring in vehicles, including people who left homes that were undamaged, only to drive into situations where they were caught in their cars and killed.
The gridlock of 31 May 2013 didn't involve a tornado tracking over all those immobilized vehicles, but many of us have been worried about such a scenario for a long time. We have predicted a potential disaster. As of today, such a disaster hasn't occurred, although the 1979 Wichita Falls event provides a foretaste. But if we do little or nothing to prevent it, such a tragedy will occur eventually. Should things work out that way, none of us making this prediction will be exultant! We may or may not say "I told you so!" but whether we do so or not, none of us will gain any pleasure from saying it.
When I saw the infamous "overpass video" from 26 April 1991 in Kansas, many of us agreed that this video eventually will cause unnecessary deaths in tornadoes. On 03 May 1999, that prediction came to pass - 3 people died sheltering under overpasses. We still see people gathering under overpasses to this day, despite the continuing repetition of the message "Do NOT seek shelter under overpasses!" by everyone involved in tornado preparedness. There will be more such fatalities unless we can change that behavior. I hope the producers of that video are finding it difficult to live with the consequences of their irresponsibility. I know it brings me no joy to have made that prediction and live to see it verified.
Because the long-term trends in tornado fatalities have been steadily downward, a level of complacency has emerged. The evidence seemed to suggest that big numbers of fatalities had become a thing of the past. Tornado forecasts and various preparedness efforts had removed the potential for tornado disasters in the modern era. But some of us knew that this complacency was not based on reality. The threat was still there - the relatively low fatality counts were as much a matter of good luck as they were the result of casualty mitigation efforts. Survivors often feel they've experienced the worst (e.g., on 03 May 1999), but the reality is that things to come can always be worse! Then came 2011 and the good luck ran out - the most fatalities since 1925 - the year of the massive death toll associated with the "Tri-State" tornado of 18 March 1925. Many of us knew something of the sort was still possible, and said so. Again, being right is no consolation for the huge losses of 2011, mostly on 27 April (Mostly in MS and AL) and 22 May (Joplin, MO).
Another item that causes concern for many of us in severe storm research and operations - large venue event disasters. Eventually, at some crowded venue for some large entertainment event, a tornado will strike with insufficient warning to evacuate. With tens of thousands caught essentially in the open, the casualty figures could be enormous. Some efforts are underway to try to do something about this potential nightmare, but in at least a few cases, it seems nearly impossible to do anything about the threat. Something of this sort inevitably will happen. The fact that I can say that, without specifying where and when, of course, doesn't alter the awful feeling that will ensue when this prediction is verified.
No sane person wants tragedies to happen. Science gives us the capacity to make predictions of disasters, and we can try our best to convince others to take our predictions seriously enough to induce them to seek ways to reduce the disaster potential. Sadly, we can get out our message, but there's usually little or nothing done to prevent tragedy until people die. It seems we need a body count if we're to have any hope of changing things for the better. The only solace we can offer to the victims is that their loss might mean gain for people in the future. Might. That prospect is what we cling to when sad events we've predicted come to pass.
Out in the open country or in a small town, driving away is generally feasible, assuming road conditions permit it. But in a metropolitan area, this can go tragically wrong. On 31 May 2013, many people were told a falsehood - that there was no chance they would survive "above ground". This falsehood owes its origins to Gary England during his coverage of the 03 May 1999 tornado. His statement, unfortunately, garnered much positive attention and was credited with saving lives. But the statment is simply not true, as has been demonstrated many times over. Even in homes hit by the EF4/EF5 winds in EF-4/EF-5 ("violent") tornadoes (Those extreme winds occupy only a tiny fraction of the damage path in such tornadoes.), most people will survive! Dispensing such misinformation creates unnecessary fear and such fear can induce bad decisions like people in urban areas trying to escape by driving away since they have no underground shelter, rather than seek to shelter in place. Spreading misinformation via media broadcasts is irresponsible!
The gridlock of 31 May 2013 resulted from a combination of factors, including the recent EF5 killer tornado that struck Moore, OK on 20 May 2013. But when media weather broadcasters directly or indirectly encourage people living in a metropolitan area to drive away from tornadoes, the potential loss of life skyrockets. On 10 April 1979, the F4 tornado that struck Wichita Falls, TX killed 44 people, with many of the fatalities occurring in vehicles, including people who left homes that were undamaged, only to drive into situations where they were caught in their cars and killed.
The gridlock of 31 May 2013 didn't involve a tornado tracking over all those immobilized vehicles, but many of us have been worried about such a scenario for a long time. We have predicted a potential disaster. As of today, such a disaster hasn't occurred, although the 1979 Wichita Falls event provides a foretaste. But if we do little or nothing to prevent it, such a tragedy will occur eventually. Should things work out that way, none of us making this prediction will be exultant! We may or may not say "I told you so!" but whether we do so or not, none of us will gain any pleasure from saying it.
When I saw the infamous "overpass video" from 26 April 1991 in Kansas, many of us agreed that this video eventually will cause unnecessary deaths in tornadoes. On 03 May 1999, that prediction came to pass - 3 people died sheltering under overpasses. We still see people gathering under overpasses to this day, despite the continuing repetition of the message "Do NOT seek shelter under overpasses!" by everyone involved in tornado preparedness. There will be more such fatalities unless we can change that behavior. I hope the producers of that video are finding it difficult to live with the consequences of their irresponsibility. I know it brings me no joy to have made that prediction and live to see it verified.
Because the long-term trends in tornado fatalities have been steadily downward, a level of complacency has emerged. The evidence seemed to suggest that big numbers of fatalities had become a thing of the past. Tornado forecasts and various preparedness efforts had removed the potential for tornado disasters in the modern era. But some of us knew that this complacency was not based on reality. The threat was still there - the relatively low fatality counts were as much a matter of good luck as they were the result of casualty mitigation efforts. Survivors often feel they've experienced the worst (e.g., on 03 May 1999), but the reality is that things to come can always be worse! Then came 2011 and the good luck ran out - the most fatalities since 1925 - the year of the massive death toll associated with the "Tri-State" tornado of 18 March 1925. Many of us knew something of the sort was still possible, and said so. Again, being right is no consolation for the huge losses of 2011, mostly on 27 April (Mostly in MS and AL) and 22 May (Joplin, MO).
Another item that causes concern for many of us in severe storm research and operations - large venue event disasters. Eventually, at some crowded venue for some large entertainment event, a tornado will strike with insufficient warning to evacuate. With tens of thousands caught essentially in the open, the casualty figures could be enormous. Some efforts are underway to try to do something about this potential nightmare, but in at least a few cases, it seems nearly impossible to do anything about the threat. Something of this sort inevitably will happen. The fact that I can say that, without specifying where and when, of course, doesn't alter the awful feeling that will ensue when this prediction is verified.
No sane person wants tragedies to happen. Science gives us the capacity to make predictions of disasters, and we can try our best to convince others to take our predictions seriously enough to induce them to seek ways to reduce the disaster potential. Sadly, we can get out our message, but there's usually little or nothing done to prevent tragedy until people die. It seems we need a body count if we're to have any hope of changing things for the better. The only solace we can offer to the victims is that their loss might mean gain for people in the future. Might. That prospect is what we cling to when sad events we've predicted come to pass.
Storm Chasing's Day of Infamy
The day some of us have long foreseen has finally come to pass - a tornado has killed storm chasers. 31 May 2013 will live forever in chasing history as a day of infamy. This has triggered a torrent of op-ed media articles, blog posts, and considerable traffic on social media - including this blog post, of course.
The biggest shock for me is not that it finally happened, but that it happened to my friend Tim Samaras (and his son Paul, as well as colleague Carl Young). Further, there was another chaser killed by the tornado - Richard Charles Henderson - whom I don't know but suspect that he more closely fit the "profile" of what I expected would be the first chaser killed by a tornado. More on him shortly. The particular challenge Tim's death creates for responsible, knowledgeable chasers is obvious: being a safety-conscious, responsible chaser is no guarantee of safety from the storms. Tim was killed doing what he loved. But his activities were inherently more dangerous than those pursued by most responsible chasers. To achieve his goal of placing "probes" so that tornadoes would pass over them necessarily put him at great risk. Before Tim's successes, getting tornadoes to hit purpose-built and deployed instrument packages had basically proven to be nearly impossible. To be successful, you have to take substantially greater risks than most chasers. Storm chasing is inherently dangerous and none of us are completely immune from that danger. Including me.
I'm proud to say that I wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of Tim in his pursuit of his first National Geographic grant. I gave him the strongest possible recommendation. He clearly had the technical expertise to do the project, the chasing experience to put him in the right place at the right time, and the level of responsibility to carry out his work in the safest possible fashion, given the high danger of doing so. Tim was not about fame and fortune - he was dedicated to learning about tornadoes using his engineering expertise to create a practical design to accomplish his goals. It was a pleasure to be of some help in getting his work started properly.
Tim's death reminds me of David A. Johnston's tragic death - the USGS scientist killed by the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption in 1980. The science was robbed of work he would have done by his premature loss, just as we have been robbed of Tim's work way too soon - to say nothing of the loss to his family and friends. News of that 1980 tragedy affected me deeply and personally at that time, since there were some obvious parallels to the danger associated with storm chasing. Although I didn't know Johnston in any way prior to hearing about his death, I felt I understood him and his motives. He was killed pursuing his passion. His was not a feat of great bravery, but rather was driven by the same need to understand the natural world that some storm chasers have. I had been intrigued with vulcanology when I was a boy - I could have wound up as a vulcanologist. That very well could have been me that infamous day in 1980. I would have wanted to be at the volcano, where the knowledge was to be gained. This is what we scientists do - it's got nothing to do at all with bravery. Nothing at all!
Tim's death, like David Johnston's, is an act neither of bravery or bravado. Tim wasn't killed pursuing fame and fortune, or indulging in an "extreme sport" for the sake of drawing attention to himself. He was killed doing what he had to do in order to leave the world with a legacy of greater knowledge. I honor that goal and I honor the lives of Tim and his colleagues. He brought great credit to storm chasing. Moreover, there's no shame in becoming the first victim of a tornado while storm chasing. If it happened to Tim and his team, it could happen to anyone engaging in that danger. The atmosphere cares nothing about its victims - at most, it's indifferent.
Although the fourth victim was not a science professional, it seems he had some interest in storms and simply blundered into a situation he was unprepared to handle. He leaves behind mourning family and friends, too. This sort of victim is what I had anticipated the first deaths by tornado chasing to be - people who had some interest in storms but neither the experience nor the knowledge to avoid the danger if it came upon them suddenly. Had Richard Charles Henderson been the first and only storm chasing victim of the tornado on 31 May 2013, I wouldn't have been pleased about having my expectations fulfilled. Instead, I'd have been very unhappy that all the media publicity had finally led to what we all feared it could lead non-professionals to do! I could not, and will not exult in the death of any chaser, no matter who it might be!
Storm chasing's day of infamy has arrived. As we mourn our recent losses and gather some solace from thoughts of the good times that we had with the victims, we chasers should draw insight from what this tragedy has revealed. I had my personal revelation about tornadoes on 24 May 1973 - now a tad more than 40 years ago. See item #32 here. Specifically, the spectacular atmospheric phenomena I so much hoped to see could cause great sorrow and pain. It took me some time afterward to arrive at a moral accommodation with my passion for storms. First, I recalled that the atmosphere doesn't do my bidding - what happens is not under my control and so I have no responsibility for the storm. However, I also realized that by being there, and learning about storms, and sharing that knowledge with society, we could mitigate the toll from such events.
I can chase with a clear conscience because I serve a purpose beyond myself in doing so. How many of today's "extreme" chasers can make such a claim and be credible in doing so? I hope they'll use this occasion to reconsider just why they chase and decide to spend little or no time focused on themselves, but rather seek to achieve some more worthy goal than self-aggrandizement and boastful bravado. Let them become more sensitive to the anguish of tornado victims. Let their cameras be turned away from them and remain on the phenomena they claim to seek. Let them take pains to give something meaningful back for all their fun and excitement. Let this day of infamy mean more chasing with safety, responsibility, and courtesy.
The biggest shock for me is not that it finally happened, but that it happened to my friend Tim Samaras (and his son Paul, as well as colleague Carl Young). Further, there was another chaser killed by the tornado - Richard Charles Henderson - whom I don't know but suspect that he more closely fit the "profile" of what I expected would be the first chaser killed by a tornado. More on him shortly. The particular challenge Tim's death creates for responsible, knowledgeable chasers is obvious: being a safety-conscious, responsible chaser is no guarantee of safety from the storms. Tim was killed doing what he loved. But his activities were inherently more dangerous than those pursued by most responsible chasers. To achieve his goal of placing "probes" so that tornadoes would pass over them necessarily put him at great risk. Before Tim's successes, getting tornadoes to hit purpose-built and deployed instrument packages had basically proven to be nearly impossible. To be successful, you have to take substantially greater risks than most chasers. Storm chasing is inherently dangerous and none of us are completely immune from that danger. Including me.
I'm proud to say that I wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of Tim in his pursuit of his first National Geographic grant. I gave him the strongest possible recommendation. He clearly had the technical expertise to do the project, the chasing experience to put him in the right place at the right time, and the level of responsibility to carry out his work in the safest possible fashion, given the high danger of doing so. Tim was not about fame and fortune - he was dedicated to learning about tornadoes using his engineering expertise to create a practical design to accomplish his goals. It was a pleasure to be of some help in getting his work started properly.
Tim's death reminds me of David A. Johnston's tragic death - the USGS scientist killed by the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption in 1980. The science was robbed of work he would have done by his premature loss, just as we have been robbed of Tim's work way too soon - to say nothing of the loss to his family and friends. News of that 1980 tragedy affected me deeply and personally at that time, since there were some obvious parallels to the danger associated with storm chasing. Although I didn't know Johnston in any way prior to hearing about his death, I felt I understood him and his motives. He was killed pursuing his passion. His was not a feat of great bravery, but rather was driven by the same need to understand the natural world that some storm chasers have. I had been intrigued with vulcanology when I was a boy - I could have wound up as a vulcanologist. That very well could have been me that infamous day in 1980. I would have wanted to be at the volcano, where the knowledge was to be gained. This is what we scientists do - it's got nothing to do at all with bravery. Nothing at all!
Tim's death, like David Johnston's, is an act neither of bravery or bravado. Tim wasn't killed pursuing fame and fortune, or indulging in an "extreme sport" for the sake of drawing attention to himself. He was killed doing what he had to do in order to leave the world with a legacy of greater knowledge. I honor that goal and I honor the lives of Tim and his colleagues. He brought great credit to storm chasing. Moreover, there's no shame in becoming the first victim of a tornado while storm chasing. If it happened to Tim and his team, it could happen to anyone engaging in that danger. The atmosphere cares nothing about its victims - at most, it's indifferent.
Although the fourth victim was not a science professional, it seems he had some interest in storms and simply blundered into a situation he was unprepared to handle. He leaves behind mourning family and friends, too. This sort of victim is what I had anticipated the first deaths by tornado chasing to be - people who had some interest in storms but neither the experience nor the knowledge to avoid the danger if it came upon them suddenly. Had Richard Charles Henderson been the first and only storm chasing victim of the tornado on 31 May 2013, I wouldn't have been pleased about having my expectations fulfilled. Instead, I'd have been very unhappy that all the media publicity had finally led to what we all feared it could lead non-professionals to do! I could not, and will not exult in the death of any chaser, no matter who it might be!
Storm chasing's day of infamy has arrived. As we mourn our recent losses and gather some solace from thoughts of the good times that we had with the victims, we chasers should draw insight from what this tragedy has revealed. I had my personal revelation about tornadoes on 24 May 1973 - now a tad more than 40 years ago. See item #32 here. Specifically, the spectacular atmospheric phenomena I so much hoped to see could cause great sorrow and pain. It took me some time afterward to arrive at a moral accommodation with my passion for storms. First, I recalled that the atmosphere doesn't do my bidding - what happens is not under my control and so I have no responsibility for the storm. However, I also realized that by being there, and learning about storms, and sharing that knowledge with society, we could mitigate the toll from such events.
I can chase with a clear conscience because I serve a purpose beyond myself in doing so. How many of today's "extreme" chasers can make such a claim and be credible in doing so? I hope they'll use this occasion to reconsider just why they chase and decide to spend little or no time focused on themselves, but rather seek to achieve some more worthy goal than self-aggrandizement and boastful bravado. Let them become more sensitive to the anguish of tornado victims. Let their cameras be turned away from them and remain on the phenomena they claim to seek. Let them take pains to give something meaningful back for all their fun and excitement. Let this day of infamy mean more chasing with safety, responsibility, and courtesy.
Monday, May 20, 2013
God: The Supernatual Watchmaker?
I've discussed this topic before, but I'm stimulated by various things to consider this again. To begin, the believer line of reasoning goes something like the following:
When you see a building, you know it had a builder. When you see a painting, you know it had a painter. When you see the Universe, you know it had a creator. This is God. It's impossible for something to just come from nothing!
One rational response goes:
A builder takes existing materials such as bricks and concrete and re-arranges these to make a building. A painter takes existing materials such as paints and canvas and re-arranges these to make a painting. What existing materials did God use to make a Universe? You mean he made a Universe out of nothing? Didn't you just say "It's impossible for something to just come from nothing!"?
This response negates the argument by showing its internal inconsistency.
A typical response to such a negation is that "God" can in fact create something from nothing. The believer following this line of "reasoning" is implicitly assuming that the deity is supernatural - that is, s/he/it doesn't have to follow the very laws of the Universe that s/he/it (pronounced 'shee-it') created! I've encountered pushback from some believers on the notion that the deity is supernatural (for various reasons), but if you make this argument - that is, the so-called watchmaker analogy - then s/he/it must be capable of supernatural (i.e., outside of the natural laws of the Universe) deeds. S/he/it is capable of doing what nature cannot do. Indeed, if you also accept the omnipotence of the deity, then there simply can be no limits on what s/he/it can do.
I've argued in the past that the imposition of the God Hypothesis to explain the complexities of the Universe is both unnecessary and fundamentally useless, as it explains precisely nothing! What value does it provide for understanding the origins of a watch to "explain" its existence by invoking nothing more than the name of the putative watchmaker (say, Rolex)? Even if the hypothesis were true (i.e., the watch was made by Rolex), this manages to say nothing of how the watch came into existence from raw materials or upon what physical principles it operates to keep time. This form of mythical, supernatural 'explanation' is just what primitive people used to try to understand what we now know are entirely natural processes (thunderstorms, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). We now use science to explain many of those processes, and the gaps left for the s/he/it as an 'explanation' keep shrinking with time.
A key flaw in this fallacious builder (or watchmaker) argument for the existence of the deity is that if a deity created the Universe, who or what created the deity? This is related to the notion (above) regarding the supernatural capabilities of said deity. A common response is to claim that s/he/it exists entirely independently of space and time - the ultimate in universality. A convenient escape hatch, this one, as it's utterly unverifiable and, if accepted, negates the possibility of any counter-argument. This is an example of a deus ex machina - generally regarded as about as weak an argument as is possible to make, reminiscent of the famous cartoon by Sidney Harris in the New Yorker magazine.
Invoking a deity to explain the complexity of the Universe (or anything else) ignores the evident reality that the laws of the Universe permit certain forms of self-organization. As a meteorologist, for instance, I know that weather doesn't happen randomly, but organizes itself into weather systems at various scales. Such weather systems are governed by natural laws pertaining to the atmosphere. Other examples in other sciences can be cited, of course. Complexity "emerges" from simplicity precisely because of those laws of nature! It happens all the time, so there's no obvious need to infer the existence of a deity to explain all the complexity we see. Science can't explain everything, and makes no effort to deny that - whereas believers in a universal, supernatural deity think they can 'explain' everything by attributing it all to their chosen (mythical) entity.
Finally, another discipline of which the believers in the God Hypothesis seem to know little or nothing is quantum physics. I'm no expert, but I know that it's entirely consistent with the laws of quantum mechanics for something to appear out of nothing. In fact, it happens all the time, all around us. Although such quantum fluctuations generally have little impact on the macroscale world we sense with our human senses, this doesn't preclude that quantum fluctuations could have had a huge impact at the time of, say, the so-called Big Bang.
At this point, such an explanation for the origin of the cosmos as a quantum fluctuation remains unverifiable and so is just speculation, but it's at least not inconsistent with the natural laws of the universe (as we now know them). A supernatural deity is, virtually by definition, inconsistent with those natural laws! Claims for the existence of such a deity are, in fact, utterly inconsistent with science.
When you see a building, you know it had a builder. When you see a painting, you know it had a painter. When you see the Universe, you know it had a creator. This is God. It's impossible for something to just come from nothing!
One rational response goes:
A builder takes existing materials such as bricks and concrete and re-arranges these to make a building. A painter takes existing materials such as paints and canvas and re-arranges these to make a painting. What existing materials did God use to make a Universe? You mean he made a Universe out of nothing? Didn't you just say "It's impossible for something to just come from nothing!"?
This response negates the argument by showing its internal inconsistency.
A typical response to such a negation is that "God" can in fact create something from nothing. The believer following this line of "reasoning" is implicitly assuming that the deity is supernatural - that is, s/he/it doesn't have to follow the very laws of the Universe that s/he/it (pronounced 'shee-it') created! I've encountered pushback from some believers on the notion that the deity is supernatural (for various reasons), but if you make this argument - that is, the so-called watchmaker analogy - then s/he/it must be capable of supernatural (i.e., outside of the natural laws of the Universe) deeds. S/he/it is capable of doing what nature cannot do. Indeed, if you also accept the omnipotence of the deity, then there simply can be no limits on what s/he/it can do.
I've argued in the past that the imposition of the God Hypothesis to explain the complexities of the Universe is both unnecessary and fundamentally useless, as it explains precisely nothing! What value does it provide for understanding the origins of a watch to "explain" its existence by invoking nothing more than the name of the putative watchmaker (say, Rolex)? Even if the hypothesis were true (i.e., the watch was made by Rolex), this manages to say nothing of how the watch came into existence from raw materials or upon what physical principles it operates to keep time. This form of mythical, supernatural 'explanation' is just what primitive people used to try to understand what we now know are entirely natural processes (thunderstorms, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). We now use science to explain many of those processes, and the gaps left for the s/he/it as an 'explanation' keep shrinking with time.
A key flaw in this fallacious builder (or watchmaker) argument for the existence of the deity is that if a deity created the Universe, who or what created the deity? This is related to the notion (above) regarding the supernatural capabilities of said deity. A common response is to claim that s/he/it exists entirely independently of space and time - the ultimate in universality. A convenient escape hatch, this one, as it's utterly unverifiable and, if accepted, negates the possibility of any counter-argument. This is an example of a deus ex machina - generally regarded as about as weak an argument as is possible to make, reminiscent of the famous cartoon by Sidney Harris in the New Yorker magazine.
Invoking a deity to explain the complexity of the Universe (or anything else) ignores the evident reality that the laws of the Universe permit certain forms of self-organization. As a meteorologist, for instance, I know that weather doesn't happen randomly, but organizes itself into weather systems at various scales. Such weather systems are governed by natural laws pertaining to the atmosphere. Other examples in other sciences can be cited, of course. Complexity "emerges" from simplicity precisely because of those laws of nature! It happens all the time, so there's no obvious need to infer the existence of a deity to explain all the complexity we see. Science can't explain everything, and makes no effort to deny that - whereas believers in a universal, supernatural deity think they can 'explain' everything by attributing it all to their chosen (mythical) entity.
Finally, another discipline of which the believers in the God Hypothesis seem to know little or nothing is quantum physics. I'm no expert, but I know that it's entirely consistent with the laws of quantum mechanics for something to appear out of nothing. In fact, it happens all the time, all around us. Although such quantum fluctuations generally have little impact on the macroscale world we sense with our human senses, this doesn't preclude that quantum fluctuations could have had a huge impact at the time of, say, the so-called Big Bang.
At this point, such an explanation for the origin of the cosmos as a quantum fluctuation remains unverifiable and so is just speculation, but it's at least not inconsistent with the natural laws of the universe (as we now know them). A supernatural deity is, virtually by definition, inconsistent with those natural laws! Claims for the existence of such a deity are, in fact, utterly inconsistent with science.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Oh, the Agony of It All!
The self-righteousness, piteous wailing, conspiracy theorizing, and gnashing of teeth being put forth by certain teabagger conservatives in the media and the blogosphere has reached epic proportions. This agony - of the Obama Presidency - is apparently unbearable to them.
Let me state from the outset that I'm no longer much of supporter of the current President, who has reneged on most of his promises to change the political landscape. Whatever might have motivated his spineless inability to overturn many of the bad decisions made by his predecessor, the result has been a "business, as usual" administration. The banking/corporate one-percenters continue to escape prosecution (for the most part) for their crimes and to enrich themselves on the backs of the American workers and middle class. American constitutional liberties still are being eroded in the name of security. American warfighters continue to die (and kill) in foreign interventions that can't possibly be ended by a battlefield victory (or loss). The stock market prospers but the real economy continues to stagger toward potential collapse. Many serious issues remain unresolved and mostly unconsidered in the political arena - violent crime, a disastrous "war" on drugs, climate change, genetic engineering controversies, intrusion of religion into public institutions, Guantanamo Bay, a crumbling infrastructure, etc. Rather, we're spinning our wheels fighting about meaningless, partisan nonsense. No, this has not become the best of all possible times. Or even changed much.
The right-wing extremists continue to howl about the national debt, as they conveniently ignore the reality that their conservative GOP administrations have been the biggest contributors to that debt since WWII. Their contributions to the deficit have come mainly through jingoist foreign policies that have embroiled us in pointless, unwinnable wars on foreign soil. The mantra of "raise taxes and spend" Democrats is a mainstay of the conservative liturgy, whereas it seems the evidence favors a "cut taxes (for political gain) and spend" policy for the Republicans, which is a marvelous way to drive up the deficit. The tax cuts have a trivial impact on the incomes of most Americans and haven't proven to be effective in stimulating the economy, despite the promises. What this policy shows is the modern GOP wraps itself in patriotism by supporting the very military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of, even as they run up the deficit. If the Democrats truly were "tax and spend" then at least they would be honest about having the public support the favorite government programs of the Democrats (social welfare) through taxation. The GOP drives up the deficit through spending on their favorite government programs (the military and corporate welfare) while cutting taxes (thereby increasing the deficit rapidly), and somehow claims the right to call themselves fiscally responsible! A masterful job of propaganda "spin", but not very good for the nation.
Apart from the continuing crazed howls of "birthers" and those claiming the President is secretly a muslim, there is now the "He's coming to take away our guns, so we should barricade ourselves in our homes and fight it out with the police!" crowd of intransigent gun advocates. Some of them see themselves as valiant soldiers, readying themselves to fight a treasonous civil war against the very same military most of them have been so eager to arm with modern weaponry of almost unimaginable firepower. In their eyes, they're comparable to the patriotic militias of the Revolutionary War (who, by the way, were notorious for skedaddling as soon as the first shots were fired!). Would you really not surrender your guns until they're taken from your cold, dead hands? Really?
Yes, it's so painful for these teabaggers to go on through the remaining years of agony left to us by the existing President and his administration, some are willing to go to war against the elected government! Curiously, the voters inexplicably seem unable to discern that the conservatives they're voting for are the very same folks responsible for so much that makes them unhappy at a personal level. The GOP has admitted freely they want the President to fail as President. So much so, they're willing to vote against the will of the majority of voters time and again. They always claim that it's the riders and amendments that prevent them from voting for what the public deems appropriate legislation - but there are ways to overcome that. No, this is a systematic policy of opposing most anything the President proposes, so that the administration can't succeed in accomplishing anything. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's fact to which the GOP politicians have admitted! Yet conservatives complain the President has accomplished little or nothing during his time in office! I don't believe the existing no-compromise policies of the GOP have any precedent in American history. Perhaps a stronger leader than the existing President somehow could work miracles despite an uncompromising opposition, but it would have to be someone with so much 'clout' he could force things through by strongarm tactics (of the LBJ sort).
I have my doubts the current administration will be viewed very kindly by history, primarily because it's done little or nothing substantial to alter the miserable policies of the administration that preceded it. Where was all the weeping and teeth-gnashing about the national debt by the teabaggers when the GOP held the Presidency and ran up huge deficits? Where were all the conservatives complaining about the erosion of American freedoms under the excuse of a bogus "war on terrorism"? When liberals complained about GWB and Crime, Inc., the conservatives accused them of not being loyal to the nation by failing to support the President - so how is their whining about the current President and their lack of support anything other than a failure to be loyal to the nation? Just how well has the conservative keystone of "trickle down" economics via giving the "job creators" a tax-sheltered free hand worked for the middle class? As my friend RJ Evans says, "The hypocrisy always reveals the lies!"
Look, liberals survived 8 years of GWB and Crime, Inc., the teabaggers will survive 8 years of Obama. The issue is ... what comes after? More of the same from our two major political parties? More divisive, inflammatory rhetoric, full of lies, smokescreens, hypocrisy, and misrepresentation? More partisanship, scandals, finger-pointing, and business as usual? Voters have a chance to make a substantial change, despite the overwhelming dominance of lobbyists, PACs, corporate influence, and the like. We can insist on real choice in the coming elections, rather than the miserable "lesser of two evils" vote, or the irresponsible "Why bother?" non-vote. We can make ourselves heard by routing out the incumbents! All of them! That simply couldn't be ignored!
Let me state from the outset that I'm no longer much of supporter of the current President, who has reneged on most of his promises to change the political landscape. Whatever might have motivated his spineless inability to overturn many of the bad decisions made by his predecessor, the result has been a "business, as usual" administration. The banking/corporate one-percenters continue to escape prosecution (for the most part) for their crimes and to enrich themselves on the backs of the American workers and middle class. American constitutional liberties still are being eroded in the name of security. American warfighters continue to die (and kill) in foreign interventions that can't possibly be ended by a battlefield victory (or loss). The stock market prospers but the real economy continues to stagger toward potential collapse. Many serious issues remain unresolved and mostly unconsidered in the political arena - violent crime, a disastrous "war" on drugs, climate change, genetic engineering controversies, intrusion of religion into public institutions, Guantanamo Bay, a crumbling infrastructure, etc. Rather, we're spinning our wheels fighting about meaningless, partisan nonsense. No, this has not become the best of all possible times. Or even changed much.
The right-wing extremists continue to howl about the national debt, as they conveniently ignore the reality that their conservative GOP administrations have been the biggest contributors to that debt since WWII. Their contributions to the deficit have come mainly through jingoist foreign policies that have embroiled us in pointless, unwinnable wars on foreign soil. The mantra of "raise taxes and spend" Democrats is a mainstay of the conservative liturgy, whereas it seems the evidence favors a "cut taxes (for political gain) and spend" policy for the Republicans, which is a marvelous way to drive up the deficit. The tax cuts have a trivial impact on the incomes of most Americans and haven't proven to be effective in stimulating the economy, despite the promises. What this policy shows is the modern GOP wraps itself in patriotism by supporting the very military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of, even as they run up the deficit. If the Democrats truly were "tax and spend" then at least they would be honest about having the public support the favorite government programs of the Democrats (social welfare) through taxation. The GOP drives up the deficit through spending on their favorite government programs (the military and corporate welfare) while cutting taxes (thereby increasing the deficit rapidly), and somehow claims the right to call themselves fiscally responsible! A masterful job of propaganda "spin", but not very good for the nation.
Apart from the continuing crazed howls of "birthers" and those claiming the President is secretly a muslim, there is now the "He's coming to take away our guns, so we should barricade ourselves in our homes and fight it out with the police!" crowd of intransigent gun advocates. Some of them see themselves as valiant soldiers, readying themselves to fight a treasonous civil war against the very same military most of them have been so eager to arm with modern weaponry of almost unimaginable firepower. In their eyes, they're comparable to the patriotic militias of the Revolutionary War (who, by the way, were notorious for skedaddling as soon as the first shots were fired!). Would you really not surrender your guns until they're taken from your cold, dead hands? Really?
Yes, it's so painful for these teabaggers to go on through the remaining years of agony left to us by the existing President and his administration, some are willing to go to war against the elected government! Curiously, the voters inexplicably seem unable to discern that the conservatives they're voting for are the very same folks responsible for so much that makes them unhappy at a personal level. The GOP has admitted freely they want the President to fail as President. So much so, they're willing to vote against the will of the majority of voters time and again. They always claim that it's the riders and amendments that prevent them from voting for what the public deems appropriate legislation - but there are ways to overcome that. No, this is a systematic policy of opposing most anything the President proposes, so that the administration can't succeed in accomplishing anything. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's fact to which the GOP politicians have admitted! Yet conservatives complain the President has accomplished little or nothing during his time in office! I don't believe the existing no-compromise policies of the GOP have any precedent in American history. Perhaps a stronger leader than the existing President somehow could work miracles despite an uncompromising opposition, but it would have to be someone with so much 'clout' he could force things through by strongarm tactics (of the LBJ sort).
I have my doubts the current administration will be viewed very kindly by history, primarily because it's done little or nothing substantial to alter the miserable policies of the administration that preceded it. Where was all the weeping and teeth-gnashing about the national debt by the teabaggers when the GOP held the Presidency and ran up huge deficits? Where were all the conservatives complaining about the erosion of American freedoms under the excuse of a bogus "war on terrorism"? When liberals complained about GWB and Crime, Inc., the conservatives accused them of not being loyal to the nation by failing to support the President - so how is their whining about the current President and their lack of support anything other than a failure to be loyal to the nation? Just how well has the conservative keystone of "trickle down" economics via giving the "job creators" a tax-sheltered free hand worked for the middle class? As my friend RJ Evans says, "The hypocrisy always reveals the lies!"
Look, liberals survived 8 years of GWB and Crime, Inc., the teabaggers will survive 8 years of Obama. The issue is ... what comes after? More of the same from our two major political parties? More divisive, inflammatory rhetoric, full of lies, smokescreens, hypocrisy, and misrepresentation? More partisanship, scandals, finger-pointing, and business as usual? Voters have a chance to make a substantial change, despite the overwhelming dominance of lobbyists, PACs, corporate influence, and the like. We can insist on real choice in the coming elections, rather than the miserable "lesser of two evils" vote, or the irresponsible "Why bother?" non-vote. We can make ourselves heard by routing out the incumbents! All of them! That simply couldn't be ignored!
Thursday, May 9, 2013
How Much Longer?
The news these days is filled with incidents of tragedy. A teenager hangs herself in despair after being bullied. Athletes commit gang rape and are given minimal punishment, if any, while the victim is demonized as a whore. A group of men beats up a homosexual for no reason other than he was gay. Sexual assaults in the military seem to be on the rise. We lose 30,000 people to guns in the USA every year. These are all violent acts.
Most all of us have learned that certain things are simply unacceptable. We no longer have much tolerance for racially-motivated violence. We no longer think it reasonable that some people can enslave others. There is no tolerance for violent religious persecution. So far as I know, pedophilia has been rejected as acceptable behavior for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
I suppose at some point in history, it was felt that institutional slavery, and attacks on other races or religions were just part of "human nature". That nothing could ever be done about those things because we humans are flawed and beyond any redemption. So there would be no point to trying to eliminate such evil acts.
Nevertheless, a horrible civil war was waged in the USA that ultimately eliminated overt slavery as an acceptable institution in this nation. Most nations around the world have, indeed, outlawed slavery - how well this is enforced is another issue. Here in the USA, numerous laws to eradicate racial discrimination have been enacted, and the descendants of the freed slaves are now protected by law from the sorts of evil that had been perpetrated on them during the post-Civil War period. Again, enforcement of these laws can be problematic, but the vast majority of Americans now reject racism as an institution. Persecution and discrimination against jews (and other minority faiths) have been rejected by most reasonable people in the USA. Atheist continue to be vilified and hated by many Americans, so there is work to do on that score.
My main point here is that the "human nature" argument is fundamentally flawed. Humans are not entirely driven by self-centered instincts. We can choose to disengage from those behaviors we see as immoral and evil. But such choices must be made one person at a time. Events might stimulate large numbers of people to repudiate a particular immoral action, but each individual human being still must come to conclude that some aspect of their character must change. Laws can be passed (usually when most people already have accepted some change) but no one other than the person can change his/her own mind. We often resist changing our mind just because someone else thinks we should, in fact! This can be considered "legislating morality" - a notoriously unsuccessful thing to try.
The key is our collective attitude toward something. If most people feel that some behavior is unacceptable, then legislation can be passed by majority rule, subject to scrutiny regarding its constitutionality. So you have to ask - do most Americans actually favor bullying, gang rape, violence on the basic of sexual orientation, sexual assault in the military, etc.? Is that who we really are?
When it comes to bullying, gang rape by athletes, or violence against people because of their sexual orientation, these will continue to occur so long as people continue to believe that such acts are more or less "harmless". Yes, the victims of bullying, gang rape, or discriminatory violence can survive and may even go on to prosper. But ask the victims what they think about such things, and I'm pretty sure they don't consider what happened to them harmless. For some victims of such things, their lives are damaged forever and perhaps even destroyed, and a few of them commit suicide eventually. Is that harmless?
So when are we going to start doing something serious about bullying, gang rapes, and other evil violence? Spineless, willfully ignorant school administrators don't want to get involved in battles between families (the bullies, the rapist jocks, they have parents, too, who always believe their children are veritable saints). There seems to be a "let things work themselves out" attitude, and that such violence is inevitable.
If pedophilia is inevitable, does that suggest we should ignore it? Should we ignore religious and racial discrimination? Should we ignore slavery, if it were to arise again? If you give up a just cause using the "human nature" argument, you're simply allowing the evil to continue unabated! You become part of the problem! How much longer will we continue to tolerate these things? Are we willing simply to let immoral, evil behavior go unchallenged? Remember the words of Edmund Burke:
Most all of us have learned that certain things are simply unacceptable. We no longer have much tolerance for racially-motivated violence. We no longer think it reasonable that some people can enslave others. There is no tolerance for violent religious persecution. So far as I know, pedophilia has been rejected as acceptable behavior for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
I suppose at some point in history, it was felt that institutional slavery, and attacks on other races or religions were just part of "human nature". That nothing could ever be done about those things because we humans are flawed and beyond any redemption. So there would be no point to trying to eliminate such evil acts.
Nevertheless, a horrible civil war was waged in the USA that ultimately eliminated overt slavery as an acceptable institution in this nation. Most nations around the world have, indeed, outlawed slavery - how well this is enforced is another issue. Here in the USA, numerous laws to eradicate racial discrimination have been enacted, and the descendants of the freed slaves are now protected by law from the sorts of evil that had been perpetrated on them during the post-Civil War period. Again, enforcement of these laws can be problematic, but the vast majority of Americans now reject racism as an institution. Persecution and discrimination against jews (and other minority faiths) have been rejected by most reasonable people in the USA. Atheist continue to be vilified and hated by many Americans, so there is work to do on that score.
My main point here is that the "human nature" argument is fundamentally flawed. Humans are not entirely driven by self-centered instincts. We can choose to disengage from those behaviors we see as immoral and evil. But such choices must be made one person at a time. Events might stimulate large numbers of people to repudiate a particular immoral action, but each individual human being still must come to conclude that some aspect of their character must change. Laws can be passed (usually when most people already have accepted some change) but no one other than the person can change his/her own mind. We often resist changing our mind just because someone else thinks we should, in fact! This can be considered "legislating morality" - a notoriously unsuccessful thing to try.
The key is our collective attitude toward something. If most people feel that some behavior is unacceptable, then legislation can be passed by majority rule, subject to scrutiny regarding its constitutionality. So you have to ask - do most Americans actually favor bullying, gang rape, violence on the basic of sexual orientation, sexual assault in the military, etc.? Is that who we really are?
When it comes to bullying, gang rape by athletes, or violence against people because of their sexual orientation, these will continue to occur so long as people continue to believe that such acts are more or less "harmless". Yes, the victims of bullying, gang rape, or discriminatory violence can survive and may even go on to prosper. But ask the victims what they think about such things, and I'm pretty sure they don't consider what happened to them harmless. For some victims of such things, their lives are damaged forever and perhaps even destroyed, and a few of them commit suicide eventually. Is that harmless?
So when are we going to start doing something serious about bullying, gang rapes, and other evil violence? Spineless, willfully ignorant school administrators don't want to get involved in battles between families (the bullies, the rapist jocks, they have parents, too, who always believe their children are veritable saints). There seems to be a "let things work themselves out" attitude, and that such violence is inevitable.
If pedophilia is inevitable, does that suggest we should ignore it? Should we ignore religious and racial discrimination? Should we ignore slavery, if it were to arise again? If you give up a just cause using the "human nature" argument, you're simply allowing the evil to continue unabated! You become part of the problem! How much longer will we continue to tolerate these things? Are we willing simply to let immoral, evil behavior go unchallenged? Remember the words of Edmund Burke:
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Storm Chasing - Hobby or Profession?
In the years following the end of my university education, I've mostly done my storm chasing in a 2- or 3-week "chase vacation" mode, with only a very few "spot" chases (one noteworthy spot chase was on 03 May 1999!). This essentially means that I have a fixed window for chasing, and if little or nothing happens during that window, or if I screw up the opportunities (which happens frequently) within that window, then my chase year could be seen as pretty much a dud. I've gone entire years without seeing a tornado, and even a few years without seeing a good supercell storm!
The chase season for me sometimes boils down to one really dramatic experience, tornadic or non-tornadic, that can last only about 20 min or so. For me, it only takes one such experience to "make" the whole chase season! Other chasers may set a much higher bar for themselves, of course. That's their choice, but putting myself under that much pressure to achieve a particular chase experience detracts from my enjoyment of all other aspects of the chase.
Consider my 1995 storm chase season: it was a year when my cup ran over with powerful chase experiences. Among those experiences was 08 June, when my chase partner Alan Moller and I witnessed the tornado in Pampa, TX. The video I shot during that single event has earned me a great deal of money over the years since, right up to the present.
But it also has taught me an important lesson. Be careful when you sign a licensing agreement for the use of your images or video footage. There are some things you should avoid in any such agreement:
1. A licensing agreement should never be "in perpetuity" unless they are willing to pay an enormous licensing fee for that privilege. An acceptable "in perpetuity" license for my Pampa footage should have been $50,000! What The Weather Channel paid me was a little over $1000!! The safest way to do this is via "one-time use" contracts for each specific use of the work, rather than long-term contracts. The user might well prefer a long-term contract, but they should be willing to pay you properly for the value it represents. At the most, the agreement should be for no more than two years. Contracts for "in perpetuity" use should always command an extremely high price. You can never know when (or if) the opportunity for that really dramatic image or video will ever happen again.
2. The wording in the licensing agreement should never grant the licensee the right to use the footage "to produce, exhibit, perform, transmit, license, sublicense, sell, market, promote, distribute, and exploit in any and all media throughout the universe" (key wording in italics). This wording makes my registered copyright protection virtually useless for anything The Weather Channel might choose to do with my Pampa footage, including charging a third party for a license to use the footage from The Weather Channel. A proper licensing fee for such an outrageous freedom to exploit my video should have been $100,000 (in addition to the "in perpetuity" charge)! Obviously, they would not have paid that price, and my video would never have become theirs to use as they see fit.
Potential customers for the images and video from chasers usually have legal teams who help them to exploit eager, naive chasers hoping to make some income from seeing their images and video on TV. Read the details of any licensing agreement very carefully, and remember that any contract is negotiable. If they're not willing to abide by what you believe are reasonable terms, then don't license your work to them! Don't agree to be exploited!
It's not that the money means so much to me, at this point in my life. I'm simply embarrassed by how easily I was duped by The Weather Channel to allow them to use my Pampa video with virtually complete freedom. They're still showing it. I wonder how many other chasers have been duped similarly. Be wary of your dealings with The Weather Channel and other media.
It's because of the hope to make large amounts of money that chasers impose pressure on themselves to have multiple "successes" and, for most chasers, success is that "money shot" - dramatic tornado footage, with debris swirling around the tornado. That's what sells, but represents only a tiny fraction of the range of chasing experiences. If your goal is to be supported by earnings from your chasing, then you'll put a lot of pressure on yourself, and may become a very unhappy, bitter person. I've seen this very thing happen to former friends of mine, who alienated themselves from the people who knew and liked them in an obsessive effort to turn their hobby into their profession. This is literally the "dark side" of storm chasing. You'll be exploited by the media, who are experts in exploitation, and likely wind up alienated and unhappy.
The market for storm chase images and video was always a niche market. The opportunity to make good money selling images and video hasn't vanished completely but the market now is flooded with the work of the now-numerous chasers with good quality digital cameras. Making a life-supporting income from storm chasing is an unrealistic expectation, so I recommend chasers abandon that goal. It's possible you can earn enough from chasing to pay for your chasing, which therefore is a reasonable objective. Relax and enjoy the experience ... it should be about the storms, not about you and your financial solvency!
The chase season for me sometimes boils down to one really dramatic experience, tornadic or non-tornadic, that can last only about 20 min or so. For me, it only takes one such experience to "make" the whole chase season! Other chasers may set a much higher bar for themselves, of course. That's their choice, but putting myself under that much pressure to achieve a particular chase experience detracts from my enjoyment of all other aspects of the chase.
Consider my 1995 storm chase season: it was a year when my cup ran over with powerful chase experiences. Among those experiences was 08 June, when my chase partner Alan Moller and I witnessed the tornado in Pampa, TX. The video I shot during that single event has earned me a great deal of money over the years since, right up to the present.
But it also has taught me an important lesson. Be careful when you sign a licensing agreement for the use of your images or video footage. There are some things you should avoid in any such agreement:
1. A licensing agreement should never be "in perpetuity" unless they are willing to pay an enormous licensing fee for that privilege. An acceptable "in perpetuity" license for my Pampa footage should have been $50,000! What The Weather Channel paid me was a little over $1000!! The safest way to do this is via "one-time use" contracts for each specific use of the work, rather than long-term contracts. The user might well prefer a long-term contract, but they should be willing to pay you properly for the value it represents. At the most, the agreement should be for no more than two years. Contracts for "in perpetuity" use should always command an extremely high price. You can never know when (or if) the opportunity for that really dramatic image or video will ever happen again.
2. The wording in the licensing agreement should never grant the licensee the right to use the footage "to produce, exhibit, perform, transmit, license, sublicense, sell, market, promote, distribute, and exploit in any and all media throughout the universe" (key wording in italics). This wording makes my registered copyright protection virtually useless for anything The Weather Channel might choose to do with my Pampa footage, including charging a third party for a license to use the footage from The Weather Channel. A proper licensing fee for such an outrageous freedom to exploit my video should have been $100,000 (in addition to the "in perpetuity" charge)! Obviously, they would not have paid that price, and my video would never have become theirs to use as they see fit.
Potential customers for the images and video from chasers usually have legal teams who help them to exploit eager, naive chasers hoping to make some income from seeing their images and video on TV. Read the details of any licensing agreement very carefully, and remember that any contract is negotiable. If they're not willing to abide by what you believe are reasonable terms, then don't license your work to them! Don't agree to be exploited!
It's not that the money means so much to me, at this point in my life. I'm simply embarrassed by how easily I was duped by The Weather Channel to allow them to use my Pampa video with virtually complete freedom. They're still showing it. I wonder how many other chasers have been duped similarly. Be wary of your dealings with The Weather Channel and other media.
It's because of the hope to make large amounts of money that chasers impose pressure on themselves to have multiple "successes" and, for most chasers, success is that "money shot" - dramatic tornado footage, with debris swirling around the tornado. That's what sells, but represents only a tiny fraction of the range of chasing experiences. If your goal is to be supported by earnings from your chasing, then you'll put a lot of pressure on yourself, and may become a very unhappy, bitter person. I've seen this very thing happen to former friends of mine, who alienated themselves from the people who knew and liked them in an obsessive effort to turn their hobby into their profession. This is literally the "dark side" of storm chasing. You'll be exploited by the media, who are experts in exploitation, and likely wind up alienated and unhappy.
The market for storm chase images and video was always a niche market. The opportunity to make good money selling images and video hasn't vanished completely but the market now is flooded with the work of the now-numerous chasers with good quality digital cameras. Making a life-supporting income from storm chasing is an unrealistic expectation, so I recommend chasers abandon that goal. It's possible you can earn enough from chasing to pay for your chasing, which therefore is a reasonable objective. Relax and enjoy the experience ... it should be about the storms, not about you and your financial solvency!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
