Chaser Convergence

Since my last post here, the blogs that I began have evolved into long essays that are more appropriate for my Website than here. But I do want to post something here about chaser convergence, which has been something of an e-drama since 19 May 2010, when vast crowds of chasers clogged the roads in Oklahoma. Some of those chasers engaged in various forms of irresponsible behavior, including passing the long lines of cars while going uphill. Among these irresponsible chasers was the Tornado Intercept Vehicle (TIV) of Sean Casey - famed for his place on the Discovery Channel crockumentary, Storm Chasers. His TIV was caught on tape engaging in this unsafe behavior - and he's done similar things in the past. He's become a poster child for irresponsible chasers.

There has been a lot of discussion about what it would take to rein in the irresponsible chasers, and various thoughts on the growing hordes of chasers. There doesn't seem to be much we can do, frankly. Eventually, I believe that law enforcement is going to urge the passage of laws restricting storm chasing - however difficult those laws might be to enforce consistently, I suspect that many places in the Plains eventually will respond to the mob scenes with a vengeance.

And we (including I) have brought this on ourselves, by going on in media interviews about the awesome beauty of storms, the adventure of chasing, and so on. With the growth of chasing into what amounts to a 'trash sport', more and more 'extreme' chasers have become active - people who sneer at the very thought of responsibility in their quest for attention, for glory, for cash. The media have glamorized storm chasing, even as they portray chasers as thrill-seeking lunatics. Perhaps that image appeals to certain chasers?

I'm about to commence my storm chase vacation for 2010 ... adding my vehicle to the hordes dashing about in the Plains this spring. I have a strategy for avoiding the worst chaser convergences that worked reasonably well last year, although no doubt I'll be caught up in them occasionally. I want to avoid being anywhere near a storm that Vortex2 is working - in part to stay out of their way, and in part to avoid the mobs of tag-alongs they attract. We'll be keeping a low profile, so I hope you don't see us!!

Are chasers saving lives?

In various storm chasing forums, from time to time, claims are made that storm chasing saves lives. This claim has been thrown out frequently as a blanket justification for storm chasing, typically when chasers begin to feel they're being persecuted for their behavior. I want to examine such claims and offer my thoughts on their validity.

I have no doubt that a few chasers over time have run across storm victims and rendered first aid, which certainly is the right thing to do. In fact, I mentioned that possibility in my essay on responsible storm chasing here. Most chasers, most of the time, are not tending to storm victims - that task is best carried out, imho, by first responders who are trained in first aid. Being a "good Samaritan" is fine, but it represents only a tiny contribution by storm chasers.

Next, we come to the issue of chasers reporting what they see, in time to influence the warnings. My observation is that most chasers, most of the time, do not report what they see in time to be of much use in warnings. They're too caught up in the excitement of the chase to be concerned about such things. Far more influential in the warning process than storm chasers are the storm spotters - a group made up mostly by volunteers who give of their time in order to be of service to their communities. Some spotters are chasers, and some chasers are spotters, but it's spotters rather than chasers who are contributing the most toward timely warnings for those in the path of hazardous weather. I admire storm spotters greatly precisely because they are unselfish contributors to the welfare of their communities. A few responsible chasers have contributed directly to life saving warnings occasionally, of course, and I mean them no disrespect by what I'm asserting here. If the shoe I'm describing doesn't fit you personally, I'm not about to make you wear it. Far from it, in fact - I salute your unselfish acts.

What I'm going to say next is bound to irritate some chasers, but the facts suggest strongly that storm chasing is basically selfish activity. We're indulging in our wish to experience powerful storms, especially tornadoes. We live in an age that allows us the luxury of uninhibited travel on public roads, as well as affordable vehicles and fuel costs, while our vocations permit us the financial resources to spend on this hobby. For myself, it's a great privilege we've been afforded by the luck of living in a time and place where such activities are even possible.

It's my observation that most chasers contribute little or nothing of the fruits of their chasing labors to others. For some chasers, of course, the lure of cash for "shock video" is a primary goal for their chases, and for a few, even fame (as well as fortune) can be the result of their chasing bravado. Some chasers seek to become known as the mythical "best chaser". Such motivations - fame, money, braggadocio - are all focused on the chaser, not on the storms. Irresponsibility is the norm amongst chasers, and a few even boast of their commitment to being irresponsible! They take pride in seeing themselves as outlaws, beyond the limits of responsibility. As foreseen decades ago by my friend Dave Hoadley, chasing has become a "trash sport" for many. I never imagined that this was possible ...

When I began chasing in 1972, it became evident from the start that the seeds of what chasing was to become were already present. Motives for chasing - and the actions pursuant to those motives - varied from one chaser to the next. As the number of chasers has grown, the variability of motives has remained constant, but the "wings" of the distribution have been reached, with a small number of "extreme" chasers. That tendency was there at the beginning but it took the expansion of chasing to plumb the depths to which chasing could sink.

There are two chasers whose actions spoke most loudly to me of unselfish responsibility: the aforementioned David Hoadley and Alan Moller. These two were the clear leaders among several chasers who went about contributing their chase results, toward I believe is the most important life-saving activity in which chasers can participate: spotter training. They began this work in the early 1970s, shortly after realizing that their photographs and films (later videos, of course) can be valuable in spotter training. Al spearheaded several spotter training programs in the National Weather Service (with the help of many others, of course). Dave gave liberally of his labors to those who needed them for training. I have absolutely no doubt that many lives have been saved as a result of those spotter training programs.

Unfortunately, there's no ledger book that contains the names of those saved. We have no tally of those whose survival depended - in part - on the contributions of responsible chasers. But this is where chasers definitely and proudly can claim to have saved lives. For most self-centered chasers, such is not enough, of course - they want personal glory and recognition. It's not enough for these chasers to be simply a contributor to complex programs that have resulted in an integrated warning system that protects people in the U.S. from dangerous weather.

Responsible chasers like Dave and Al didn't do what they did for glory or cash or for bragging rights - they weren't after recognition in any form. Recognition isn't why they chased and had nothing to do with their acceptance of responsibility. Rather, they engaged in these actions because it was a way to give something back to a society that allowed them the great privilege to be storm chasers. They did it because they could, and it was the right, responsible thing to do.

Finally, I hope that contributions to the science of meteorology by storm chasers have been, and will continue to be the basis for life-saving efforts. I believe scientific storm chasing already has had an effect on storm spotter training and on severe storm forecasting (both public and private). Even as I write this, VORTEX2 is underway and I wish them great success in the upcoming storm season. Responsible storm chasers share the results of their chases with scientists. Moreover, even late storm reports - that is, too late to affect the warning process - still are important in documenting what happened. The science of meteorology depends on knowing, as well as possible, what weather events occurred, as well as where, when, and (if possible) how intense those events were. Irresponsible chasers share nothing with anyone.

If I felt that science didn't offer us the chance to return something to society for its investment in us and our professional careers (which are basically fun, not work!), then I'd be ashamed to be a meteorologist. Storm chasing has given me many things, including the great honor of knowing wonderful people like Al and Dave, and I've tried to represent storm chasing to my scientific colleagues in the best way possible, to establish the credibility of storm chasing as an important component of the science. I'm proud to see that programs like VORTEX2 implicitly recognize the value of storm chasing and, ultimately, the development of applications of our scientific understanding toward saving lives.

Totalitarian regimes as religions

This is a follow-up to my previous blog post ... inspired in part by some conversations with a friend, and in part by a book I recently read. In a thorough demolition of any attempt at developing a rational basis for belief in a god, Smith (1989) concludes with a devastating critique of Christian ethics:

Jesus … is only interested in obedience, not in presenting rational arguments. … We are not to judge others, Jesus says, which is merely another facet of suspending one’s critical faculties. We are to tolerate injustice, we are to refrain from passing value judgments of other people – such precepts require the obliteration of one’s capacity to distinguish the good from the evil; they require the kind of intellectual and moral passivity that generates a mentality of obedience. The man who is incapable of passing independent value judgments will be the least critical when given orders. And he will be unlikely to evaluate the moral worth of the man, or the supposed god, from whence those orders come.

Authoritarian regimes require the passivity of their minions. Unquestioning obedience is the only option they allow. So long as large numbers of followers are willing to do the bidding of their leader(s) without question or concern for the morality of their actions, such regimes can maintain their dominance. When the followers question the orders of their leaders, doubt the morality of such orders, and require a rational basis for such deeds, such a regime cannot endure. Most ordinary Germans and Russians obeyed without much in the way of resistance, and the rest, as is commonly said, is history. Will that history repeat itself in the near future?

I don't believe it's coincidental that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia emerged from nations with long traditions of Christian belief. Imperial Germany was a mixture of Catholics and Protestants, whereas Imperial Russia was predominantly Orthodox Christians (with a Patriarch instead of a Pope, but similar in spirit to Catholicism). These religious traditions in both countries were indeed characterized by an anti-intellectual undercurrent, a deep-seated hatred of Jews (whose cultural traditions, independent of their religious doctrine, encouraged skepticism and intellectual pursuits), and authoritarian regimes.

It’s no stretch of the imagination that Hitler simply replaced the Kaiser and Lenin (later, Stalin) replaced the Tsar. The Nazi and Bolshevik oligarchies replaced the royal oligarchies without missing a beat in those societies. And the cults of personality that developed around Hitler and Lenin/Stalin effectively replaced those of the Pope/Patriarch/Jesus. Much of the agony inflicted by the Bolsheviks and the Nazis flows directly from the tenets of unquestioned obedience, similar to what is demanded by Christian morality. The warrior celebrated in the hymn “Onward Christian Soldiers” is a thinly-veiled threat that lies behind the supposed love and benevolence of Jesus in comparison with the Old Testament Jehovah. If you actually read the New Testament, you’ll find numerous examples of Christ talking of the same vengeance to be wreaked on unbelievers as is found in the Old Testament. And if you buy the odd paradox of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – they are one and the same, so this consistency is to be expected! Jesus isn’t some feel-good, kindly, updated version of the Old Testament jealous God, according to this doctrine. Jesus is supposed to be the very same deity, in human form!!

The growth of religious influence in the United States, the increasing intrusion of church into state and federal institutions (religious slogans on currency, the intrusion of religion into the Pledge of Allegiance, the presence of the Ten Commandments on state government property, etc.) all point toward a disturbing trend. The infiltration of Christian ethics of obedience and acceptance on faith, without a demand for rational basis, seem to presage a shift toward a faith-based totalitarian regime.

We as a nation are already clashing with religious zealots in another form: the Islamic faith. Of course, Islam is another example of a religion demanding unquestioning obedience, but it happens not to be Christian. The apparent response here in the United States is to rally behind our traditional religious faiths – the Christian version of Jehovah.

The terrible specter of an unfettered confrontation between Judeo-Christians and Islamists is becoming more likely. Some people think it is a sign of Christ's second coming!! Like all religious conflicts of the past, the 'enemy' is demonized, and all actions necessary for a Holy War, including abrogation of human rights we long have held dear, seem not that far away. The prospect of our democracy being swept aside in a wave of religious and patriotic zeal, and the rise of a totalitarian regime that is the Christian counterpart of the Islamic theocracies seems disturbingly possible.

We are far from unlikely to be vulnerable to this sort of catastrophic evolution - what swept Hitler and Lenin into power was the economic struggles of their nations. As we devote hundreds of billions to pointless foreign interventions, our economy teeters on the brink of disaster. Should western economies collapse, it will grease the way for a slide into a totalitarian state that likely will wrap itself in the robes of Judeo-Christianity. And it could even drift toward anti-Semitism, which long has seethed under the surface veneer of tolerance in the United States. Israeli Jews and the Middle Eastern Islamic theocracies are both Semites, after all!

The ground had been broken for Nazi and Bolshevik authoritarian regimes with their personality cults and privileged oligarchies by the dominance of Christian ethics so clearly revealed for the vicious, irrational ideas they truly represent by Smith (1989). It was relatively easy to require unquestioning obedience to the Nazi or Communist parties after they came to power. The mindset had already been established by the dominance of Christianity. The history of the United States traditionally has been one of separation of church and state, and protection of the rights of minorities. With economic decline and the appearance of Islamic jihadists as an external threat to our security, we have a formula for the suppression of human rights and the emergence of an authoritarian Christian theocracy here. I don’t know for sure it will happen, but to assume it can’t happen would be to ignore the lessons of history.
___________
Smith, G.H., 1989: Atheism: The Case Against God. Prometheus Books, 355 pp. [ISBN 0-87975-124-X

What does “Freedom of Speech” mean to you?

Note: This was written just before I went to China - it's ironic that my access to my own blog is blocked there, so I couldn't post this until I arrived home!!

In the wake of Westboro Baptist Church’s decisions to protest at military funerals because of their vitriolic hatred of homosexuals, there has been a suggestion that an amendment be passed to make it illegal to protest at military funerals.

In this case, we have a clash between competing elements of the so-called conservative agenda, which opposes any support for homosexuality, but also claims to be supportive of American warfighters.

Although I personally find the protests at military funerals to be despicable in the extreme, we must remember that the Constitutional guarantee of the right to free speech is not limited to causes with which we agree. Historically, this right has been extended to those advocating a host of minority causes, including Nazis, Communists, and even (dare I say it?) fundamentalist Islamists. Whenever such extremist groups come to power, they immediately abrogate the right to free speech as part of their program of staying in power – just as the Nazis did in Germany, the Fascists in Italy, the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Communists in China, the Islamists of Iran, and so on.

Nevertheless, the right to free speech is extended in the USA even to those who would deny that free speech to others if they were to come to power in the USA. Even to those who say and do things that are repugnant to most Americans, including such acts as burning the American flag. Why would the founders of the United States of American deem it necessary to allow such things? Because they understood that the most fundamental characteristic of a democracy is not the rule of the majority, but the protection of the rights of all minorities. So long as what one says or does is not in direct violation of any constitutionally-approved law, you are free to say or do it to your heart’s content. Even if your program involves advocacy of things too terrible for a decent human being to embrace.

If you have any confidence in the principles embodied within the Bill of Rights, then you’re duty bound to accept as protected even the vile actions of the Westboro "Baptist Church". Such activities are indeed unworthy of protection in the eyes of most Americans, but they’re protected nonetheless. Our democratic system survives only because most Americans understand the need for free speech protection, even when they disagree strongly with the free expressions by someone else. Minority opinions are the most important litmus test for the freedoms we claim to support. Once we sanction the suppression of minority ideas that the majority agrees are repulsive, we’ve taken the first step down the road leading toward losing our freedom!

Climategate ... an update

Today (5 April), I was asked by a colleague:

The "climategate" emails and the recent responses to them have been generating a lot of discussion on the environmental anthropology listserve. ... Do you have any thoughts on this ... - who can speak for or against the science? Who is legitimate?

My first reaction to this is that anyone can speak for or against the science - it's a free country. But not all opinions are equal! I've already posted a blog about "climategate" - see here for my take. I see no reason to discredit the IPCC consensus because a few participants engaged in some questionable behavior. With the microscope of media scrutiny comes the very real risk of losing sight of the forest in focusing on only a few trees within that forest.

But considering the issue from a broader perspective, I offer the following thoughts:

In any specialized subdomain within the broad spectrum of meteorologists (a category within which I would put climatologists), the number of folks whose work is within that subdomain can vary considerably, depending on the topic. Given the obvious importance of global climate change and its funding situation over the past 15 years or so, I suspect there's a fairly large number of folks who would be considered the global climate change science "illuminati" regarding the topic. At least large in comparison to the topics in which I specialize.

People in research tend to migrate toward where the money is allocated. Those who migrate into a subdomain from somewhere else might be considered "carpetbaggers" by the illuminati. This may be unfairly derogatory - it's quite possible that someone coming in from outside eventually can make important contributions, despite having not started within the field. However, I know of no one who has become rich by being a carpetbagger in some research subdomain. It's difficult to become rich via science research grants, which typically earmark most of the funds for "overhead" paid to the research institution housing the researcher(s), supporting students, buying necessary research tools, travel support, page charges for publications, etc. And scientist-invesigator salaries are determined by the housing institution. Research grants mostly are not a big bag of money placed in the hands of a researcher without any strings; no-strings cash awards are prizes (e.g., the Nobel prize) for important research accomplishments, not grants for work yet to be done.

I know a few of the global climate change science illuminati - they include Drs. David Karoly and Susan Solomon. Because I know these people, it is inconceivable to me that they would have been participants in some sort of cabal designed to line their pockets with gold and/or to deceive the public into supporting political actions based on that science that are not in the public interest.

I also know several folks who would not be considered as members of the global climate change science illuminati, but are contributing via their expertise in other specialties that are relevant to the general topic of global (and regional) climate change - such as severe storms, tropical cyclones, etc. In fact, some of them are contributors to the development of the IPCC consensus but would not be considered specialists in global climate change science, per se. They likely work with those who are amongst the illuminati, naturally, and so might be privy to more information than those of us who are directly working the global climate change specialists. Our own Dr. Harold Brooks falls within this group. To suggest that he is becoming rich or seeking to gain power for some evil purpose is preposterous in the extreme!!

The question is not one of black-and-white legitimacy, although it's pretty evident to me that many of the more vocal (in public) "deniers" have at most only a limited basis for claiming any credibility in the topic. For example, Dr. Bill Gray, a notable denier, is a tropical cyclone specialist. His opinion is roughly comparable to mine: not a specialist in global climate change, but a respected contributor in a domain that is at least connected with global climate change.

It's both puzzling and disturbing to me that Dr. Gray would choose to seek to discredit the work and reputations of those who are specialists in global climate change. Frankly, I see his expressed views as bordering on becoming unethical, in part because he has chosen to carry on his criticisms via the media, and because he questions their motives for supporting the IPCC consensus. To suggest that the scientists associated with the IPCC reports are misrepresenting the science for personal gain or to foster some political agenda is getting uncomfortably close to slander/libel, unless it can be proven (presumably in a court of law) that an individual engaged in a conspiracy to defraud or mislead the public, or misspent public funds. Dr. Gray has a professional obligation to avoid seeking to discredit his colleagues in the way he has been doing so, in my opinion. It's one thing for some media demagogue to engage in such things - it's quite another for a science professional to do so, in the absence of compelling evidence for misconduct.

I note that although I'm questioning the legitimacy of Dr. Gray's methods via a public medium, I have not impugned his motives (which are unknown to me), nor am I suggesting that he actually has engaged in slander/libel. I'm simply expressing my concern about the actions of a respected colleague, in the context of discussing what is and what is not appropriate for a science professional to do.

The public side of this debate obviously is horribly polarized, with posturing and propaganda on both sides, unfortunately. The debates of substance are being carried on at scientific conferences, workshops, and in the refereed journals, away from the public eye and typically opaque to the media. What goes on that is visible to the public is simply a grotesque caricature of the real scientific process, for the most part. Scientists tend not to be very good at PR because they're too busy doing science. This is an unfortunate by-product of being passionate about something - you tend to neglect other things. Those participating in the scientific process are those who have a legitimate claim to having their statements be regarded as most substantial.

For instance, I believe that my opinions on this matter have considerably less substance than those of the global climate change illuminati, but considerably more substance than those of media demagogues, the general public, and non-meteorologists. I know a thing or two about atmospheric physics and have had at least some contact with real global climate change scientists, who have enlightened me regarding some parts of the argument. I have no logical claim to seek to overthrow the IPCC consensus until such time as I become a participant in the process and have established my credibility in that domain, via the process of publishing research results in refereed journals. Since that's not likely to happen, I will defer to the experts. I believe most of the critics of global climate change science should do the same.

Political commentators on TV - Pundits?

Of late, I've heard television media commentators referred to as pundits, so I went to dictionary.com to track down the definition:

pundit - noun
1. a learned person, expert, or authority.
2. a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.

My reaction to this, especially definition #1, is that most, if not all of these commentators (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and that ilk) have no evident claim to being learned, experts, or authoritative with regard to their topics. They have no qualifications to back up their rhetoric. Rather, I believe that another noun needs to be used in reference to them:

demagogue - noun
1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

Feel free to consult dictionary.com for yourself if you suspect I might be misleading you with these quoted definitions.

It's pretty obvious to me that today's commentators are demagogues, not pundits. They certainly have gained power and popularity by appealing to emotions rather than evidence. What evidence they provide is typically distorted, out of context, and misleading, with the clear goal of such misrepresentations being that of inflaming the public. They take advantage of their positions in television to imply status as journalists, but they are not journalists in any meaningful sense of the term. Their political biases are up front for anyone to see.

If you agree with them, of course, you probably see them as speaking sacred truth. If you disagree with them, and do so effectively (thereby gaining their attention), they'll assassinate you from their rostrum. Anyone who disagrees is labeled ignorant, stupid, or a demagogue in return. Anyone on their program who fails to live up to their 'standards' (i.e., disagrees with them about anything) is cut off and/or ridiculed. No effective spokesperson for any cause that these folks oppose is allowed a level playing field for an open discussion of any issue.

These are master spinmasters, who've parlayed pandering to their constituency into fame and fortune, as well as claiming to be pundits. And they clearly have colossal egos, to boot. Don't be deceived into letting such demagogues do your thinking for you ... history is replete with examples of the dangers associated with demagoguery. Inflammatory rhetoric can easily go down a road toward polarization and even violence.

Moisture return - chaos amidst regularity

As the spring routinely replaces the winter, all storm chasers find themselves caught up in what we see as the drama of "moisture return" on the US plains. Winter seasonal cold fronts drive relentlessly through the plains and on into the Gulf of Mexico, pushing tropical moisture repeatedly southward, away from the plains. But as the spring beckons, each new weather system begins to have the potential to bring copious low-level moisture into its "warm sector". This is "moisture return". We chasers find ourselves thinking about such things when the winds swing from southward to northward in the more or less regular passage of weather systems. In the winter, it's hopeless, but as the seasonal transition arrives, hope begins to return with each new system. As temperatures rise, the cold frontal passages trend toward not driving so far southward. With the arrival of the next system, hopefully, the moisture has less distance to cover if it is to intrude into the plains in advance of the next weather system.

As the spring advances, those southerly flows eventually will begin to return enough moisture into the plains to promote and sustain severe thunderstorms. The strong southerly winds are induced by falling pressures over the plains, caused by the advancing weather systems in a complex dance of dynamics - the winds respond to those falling pressures and as the southerly winds in the plains begin their siren song, that sound is not only the harbinger of the passage of yet another weather system. It begins to include the promise of supercells and severe convection. Hope "springs" eternal! Those winds are beautiful music to a storm chaser, and there's nothing better than waking - after a night of howling winds rattling the house and rustling through the trees - to the sight of "Gulf stratus": low clouds racing northward in the low-level jet stream that are a visible signature of the arrival of that long-anticipated moisture return off the Gulf of Mexico.

Years ago, my friend Al Moller and I were on a storm chase. We were younger and had less disposable income, so from time to time we actually spent the night in a tent, rather than a motel, to save money. That spring, in the latter part of May, we pitched our tent in the "scenic turnout" at the south end of the Palo Duro Canyon on Texas Highway 207. It's not a formal "campground" but we used it for that, anyway. We were hoping for moisture return in advance of a storm system that provided the potential for a chase day on the following day.

That night, as it turned out, the south wind screamed and howled all night long. The tent was continuously flapping in that wind, and the racket of that flapping virtually guaranteed us little sleep during the long night. Although we both tossed and turned in sleepless frustration, we also silently rejoiced in that damned wind that was keeping us awake, because we knew what it meant: the next day would dawn ripe with the promise of severe storms. No words were spoken, but we both knew what that wind meant!

And so it developed, as the day dawned (25 May 1977), we rose earlier than we otherwise would have. Sleep had been elusive that night but our anticipation was at a fever pitch. And the day that followed was rewarded with an explosion of supercells in the TX panhandle (see image from that day, above). We chased the whole day without letup - but we went to bed in a motel the following night. It had been a great chase day, albeit without a tornado to cap off the chase. We slept soundly and happily that next night, of course.

Although storm systems pass more or less regularly through the US plains, the quantity and quality of the moisture return is a key factor in the potential for severe storms. Uncertainty is a product of nonlinear dynamics and its sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Every weather system is different and there are no guarantees. Any chaser worthy of the label always is willing to sacrifice comfort for the promise of a big chase day - return flow is a common issue of concern for a chaser, and that night's loss of sleep in late May turned out to be a small price to pay its contribution to our experiencing great storms the next day. The gusty, throbbing beat of sustained return flow that night was a joy to our ears, despite its prevention of a restful night. If you're a storm chaser, you know what I mean. And if you're not a storm chaser, this will make little sense to you.

Our side .. right or wrong?

As something of a footnote to my most recent blog posts, it occurs to me that a very real sign of the polarization in American society is the growing dominance of the "our side is always right" perspective, on both sides of the political spectrum. History shows that any group that concedes they aren't infallible is likely to be pushed aside and crushed in any confrontation between polarized opponents. The G.W. Bush Crime, Inc. administration made no bones about their position - "If you're not with us in everything, you're against us and therefore ripe for marginalization and suppression. We have God on our side and our view is, therefore, beyond dispute." As of this moment, the religious right-wing is seeking to return to such a government.

I find myself consistently in the position of saying that I'm not always correct and the ideas I cherish are not inevitably and infallibly correct. Therefore, I'm in the position of a "moderate" or "centrist". However, the polarized opposites in our society indicate that such a position is untenable. In their view, I must agree with one extremist view or the other. Agreement is the only option they're willing to recognize! In those times when polar opposites are in direct, violent confrontation (as in Weimar Germany between the two World Wars, or the time of the Provisional Government in Russia after the abdication of the Tsar during WWI), moderates are simply swept aside, crushed by both sides in a polarized conflict for hegemony. Moderation and centrism is simply unacceptable when both sides have dehumanized their opponents, and the opposition is defined as those who disagree with any aspect of their policies. Opponents are simply intolerable trash to be dumped in the dustbin of history, on the march toward some Utopian vision of the future where everyone thinks the same and toes the party line. Criticism is tantamount to subversion and worthy only of being crushed and suppressed. The Orwellian regime envisioned in 1984 is the dominant theme.

Lest we think we here in the United States are immune to all of the excesses of 1984, I beg to disagree. We Americans are not immune to sliding into totalitarianism of either end of the political spectrum! There's nothing inherent in our society that precludes the tyranny of the majority, save the constitutional protection of the Bill of Rights. Look around you at what is going on. I see the Bill of Rights being eroded by the siren call of the need for "national security". That's what the so-called Patriot Act is about. Fear is being exploited to subvert our personal liberties - including, among other things, the freedom to be free of religion. Curiously, the religious right supports wholeheartedly only the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms within the Bill of Rights ... an ominous indication for their opponents in a political struggle for dominance!

The religious right-wing is pushing our nation toward irrationality and religious tyranny, and there are those on the left willing to confront them in a direct power struggle for dominance. By the way, the Obama administration is not a part of any radical left-wing agenda. They are too timid and too weak by far to represent any serious threat!

My position is that tyrannies from the right or from the left are indistinguishable. They are two sides of the same coin! Both come cloaked in patriotism and boast of their eventual victory as historical inevitability. Tyrants from the left or right have far more in common than might first seem apparent. In today's America, the notion of "liberal" has been corrupted to equate with the "radical left-wing" - see my essay for my take on this interpretation. I'm a centrist liberal, through and through. I dread equally any tyranny from the left or the right - tyranny, no matter what the ideology, is still tyranny! As of this moment, I see the religious right as our biggest threat to democracy - and I re-iterate a position I've made clear many times. Democracy is not simply the will of the majority. Its most fundamental characteristic is a concern for the rights of minorities! When minority rights are trampled upon, the majority imposes its will without dissent or opposition - and the moderates are forced to go along, or be swept aside for the sake of ideological purity!

On disagreement in science

As part of my essay on how science works, I described the notion that science operates on two important principles.

1. At any given time, those who engage in scientific research on a particular topic will have developed a consensus that represents a core of agreement regarding that topic among the majority of researchers. This consensus isn't some immutable truth - it's simply the view of the majority at that time. Nor is this consensus typically voted upon and approved by some sanctioning body.

2. At any given time, there may be one or more (perhaps many more) of those engaged in that research who disagree with the consensus. They're seeking to modify that consensus, changing it to one consistent with their dissenting understanding. Such disagreements are a natural part of the scientific process, not some sort of unfortunate conflict that signals a problem for the science.

Scientific consensus is the basis for how science proceeds in a systematic search for understanding. We proceed from the consensus, we teach the consensus, and the consensus is our guide for how to proceed. Overthrowing that consensus (so-called "paradigm shifts") is properly seen as the result of requiring the advocate(s) of some proposed new vision to provide extraordinarily convincing evidence. This process is logically and necessarily a "conservative" one. If our scientific understanding can be swept aside on flimsy evidence at the whim of an individual or subgroup, then it wouldn't represent anything substantial at all. This conservative character of scientific consensus sometimes makes those who wish to change that consensus angry and they may resort to all sorts of tricks to get their opinions heard, including airing their views in the media rather than engaging in the discourse associated with refereed scientific journals. Scientists are human and many of us have large egos - some without much basis for that large ego, of course.

Consider three scientific topics out of many: Global Climate Change, Tornadogenesis, and Evolutionary Biology. In each topic, I'll discuss different aspects of the debate about the consensus.

1. Global Climate Change. The overwhelming majority of those engaging in global climate change research is represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a rare example of a consensus arrived at with a vote of the participants. No doubt that step is needed to make it clear to non-scientists that this is indeed a consensus.

The "deniers" within the group of those actually engaged in climate change research (a larger group than the IPCC representatives) represent a very small minority, and most of them accept most of the IPCC's conclusions, only arguing for what amount to minor changes. Most of the "deniers" come from outside of the climate change research community, and many are quite far from being scientists at all (e.g., "pundits" such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc.). Some are scientists in other fields. My point here is not to go into all of this debate once again, but to indicate that most of the public debate is between those not actually engaged in climate change research with those who are so engaged in and publishing papers in that particular field. If one were going to characterize the intra-science debate on this topic, it would necessarily be very one-sided, with the overwhelming majority supporting the IPCC. A "fair and balanced" argument between a real global climate change research and some skeptic from outside the field is a meaningless argument. It's not "fair and balanced", like some journalistic notion of "equal time" for the two viewpoints. The two viewpoints are inherently unequal. One represents the science of global climate change and the other represents ... whatever.

The reason for all of the uproar is that if global climate change has a large anthropogenic component and if the climate change processes we believe are underway continue to accelerate as a result of what we humans are doing, then any remedial actions could have negative consequences for certain elements of our society who have a strong pecuniary interest in the status quo. It's to their financial and/or political advantage to portray the science of global climate change as either some vast conspiracy against our society or as a scientific topic that needs to be "settled" once and for all before we actually do anything - that might threaten their particular special interests. [As discussed in my essay, scientific issues generally are not settled once and for all, ever! To expect so is a major misunderstanding of the scientific process.]

2. Tornadogenesis. There exist several different "factions" within the community of scientists regarding the topic of tornadogenesis. There is, of course, a considerable foundation of consensus in which they all operate, but folks don't necessarily agree about the details of the processes by which tornadoes are formed. If we were to write a textbook that would include a discussion of tornadoes, would it be appropriate to include the arguments currently ongoing about tornadogenesis? For the most part, the issues that divide tornado researchers are esoteric and operating at a level that would require an understanding of the consensus to even begin to grasp those arguments. Hence, a textbook for those learning about tornadoes shouldn't necessarily include a "fair and balanced" presentation of all those various viewpoints! Rather, it should summarize the scientific consensus - the bedrock of the science at any given moment. The fact that that consensus changes from time to time is reflected in the need for new textbooks from time to time. No big deal here.

Note that tornadogenesis researchers are not engaging in a bitter, protracted public debate within the media - they're not appearing on talk shows and engaging in videotaped verbal clashes with outsiders who have some contrary opinion regarding how tornadoes form. Crackpots email me from time to time to share their wild ideas on tornadogenesis. Would a debate between me and such a crackpot represent a meaningful and informative piece of journalism on the evening news? Such a debate would be silly and meaningless in the extreme, of course.

Furthermore, the "Horatio Alger" story of outsiders coming into a branch of science (perhaps from some other science, or perhaps not) and contributing revolutionary and important new ideas is mostly a myth. It happens, but only very rarely. When it does happen, the evidence must meet the criterion of being extraordinarily convincing - as was the case for the notion of continental drift proposed by the meteorologist Alfred Wegener. His story is significant in part because such an enormous paradigm shift from an "outsider" is so rare! And the convincing evidence came well after his death.

As of this time, there are no large economic issues tied to our scientific understanding of tornadoes. No political or religious group is objecting to the use of the vorticity equation (and other tools of research) as a means of illuminating tornadogenesis. There's no "creationist" or "political" version of tornadogenesis demanding "equal time" in the scientific journals, TV, and textbooks. To have a version of "God created tornadoes" advanced as a scientific hypothesis comparable to current tornadogenesis ideas is so laughable as to not deserve a nanosecond's worth of attention. In fact, of course, no one is advancing such a silly idea ... yet. I offer this absence of public debate regarding tornadogenesis as something for the global climate change deniers and creationists to ponder.

3. Evolutionary biology. In this "debate" being waged in various places throughout our society (legislative bodies, school boards, town meetings, etc.), the science of evolutionary biology is being assailed almost totally by non-scientists, seeking to inject their religious views in our schools and elsewhere. The representation of the "creationist" viewpoint as science is completely without foundation, as I've explained elsewhere (and many others have done so, of course). The notion of this being a "fair and balanced" representation of science is so utterly without substance that it would laughable, were it not being taken seriously by religious right-wing politicians, school board members, and textbook publishers. The points of debate here are not the equivalent of those between adherents of the scientific consensus and those minority scientists seeking to modify that consensus. This debate is almost completely between science and non-science. Scientific consensus is virtually unanimously in support of evolutionary biology. Any opinion outside of that consensus has yet to offer any meaningful evidence to gainsay evolution. To represent the two viewpoints in a textbook as equal elements of a scientific debate is absolutely without any basis. A potential outcome from representing this as a scientific argument is to expand on the already expanding ignorance of science resulting from the failures of our K-12 education process.

Science is arguably the most preeminently rational kind of thought. Logic is an essential element of the process and there's no place for politics and religion in science. To see it being misrepresented is both infuriating and depressing. We as a nation seem to be descending away from enlightenment toward the demon-haunted world of mythology and irrationality. Our nation's "Founding Fathers" were overwhelmingly a product of the Enlightenment, who had hopes that the United States of America could become a haven for rational thought and democratic principles, free from an imposed state religion, where dissent would be cherished for its ability to keep the tyranny of the majority in check. We seem steadily to be moving away from that vision. The choice remains ours, for the time being, but if we continue down this path of irrationality and "our side is always right", who knows what choices we will come to have? See the theocratic governments of the Islamist Middle East for a preview of what may be in store for us.

Three Cultures? Or one?

Of late, I’ve been slowly working through a book: "The Three Cultures" by Jerome Kagan. This is a work that pays homage in its title to C.P. Snow’s classic work, "The Two Cultures", in which Snow described and attempted a reconciliation between the seemingly very different cultures of science and the humanities. In Kagan's book, the author (a social scientist) adds a third culture by distinguishing between “natural” sciences and social sciences, the latter of which focus on human beings and their activities in various ways (political science, economics, sociology, psychology, etc.). Kagan divides the "science" culture into two ...

I’m not going to delve into this book’s notions - maybe later. But reading it has forced me to mull over the divisions among the diverse human “cultures”. Of particular significance is that being a physical scientist has given me a broad perspective - in a position to grasp challenging scientific concepts based on a knowledge of advanced mathematics. Those in this position are relatively rare. I don’t know the numbers, but I’m guessing that simply knowing Calculus puts me into a very tiny minority (of order 1% or less) of humans in my country, to say nothing of those in other nations (“worlds” apart, in nations where most people have little chance to pursue a career in science, regardless of their talent and interest).

And I'm also human, with all the same feelings and perspectives that those pursuing careers in the humanities have. Science inevitably colors those aspects of my perspective, naturally - nevertheless, I see the beauty of a rose as well as the next human. I also see deeper than that, to the processes allowing that rose to happen in my world. It's my privilege to live at a time and place where science has added considerable understanding about the world for all of us who choose to gain that understanding.

I know many scientists who dabble in other fields of endeavor, including many who are artists of various sorts – visual arts, performing arts, etc. Some of them are reasonably well-accomplished in their hobbies. Not full-time professionals certainly, but serious enough about those hobbies to develop considerably their talents in those directions. Most good scientists are far from one-dimensional geeks, despite the widespread myth that all scientists are one-dimensional.

Unfortunately, I know very few folks who are the inverse of my colleagues - that is, professionals in the humanities but simultaneously pursuing some scientific interest at a serious level. [Many of the exceptions to this rule amongst those I know are storm chasers!] This means that scientists well may be more than able to grasp non-science concepts, but few of those pursuing careers outside of science have much of a clue about how science really works. Their bias against science comes, perhaps, from hated science courses in K-12 education, which they rejected as of no interest and boring in the extreme. Math phobia also takes a toll of the potentially interested. Unfortunately ignorance of how science works perpetuates myths about, say, the conflict between evolutionary biology and creationism. Myths fill the vacuum created by rejected understanding.

It’s my hope that this essay won’t come across as encouraging or perpetuating a divide between science and the humanities. My experience suggests that the concept advanced by C.P. Snow is true - that the two cultures have some elements in common and could viably interact, to the benefit of everyone. But it’s been my perception that most non-scientists have erected a barrier in their own minds to the value and excitement of learning about the natural world in a scientific way. To them, knowing a rose’s biology somehow detracts from our appreciation of the rose as an object of beauty or a symbol of something relating to the human condition. I couldn’t disagree more with that thesis, but it’s impossible to change the mind of someone who has chosen to remain ignorant of the inherently beautiful perspective associated with knowing how things work.

I can’t imagine how the modern Western world of today, with its deep roots in science and technology, must appear to someone who has trouble understanding the information content of a graph. As I suggested earlier, that ignorance breeds the growth of faith-based mythology. In today's world, where important social decisions ride on scientific issues, the growth of that mythology as a means of making societal decisions is inherently dangerous.

Whatever their world view, folks ignorant of science and how it works are separated by a vast gulf from the world as I know it. That saddens me, because I enjoy discourse with people who are informed enough to have a substantive understanding of some topic. Finding myself "preaching to the choir" is a less than satisfactory experience - I'm not seeking affirmation of my ideas by murmured agreement in a crowd of the faithful. Rather, I welcome challenges to my understanding, provided they're intelligent challenges, and not simple bashing. By the same token, a clash of ideas that results in no one changing their minds still can be useful and stimulating, provided the discourse remains civil (see my earlier blog about civil discourse).

C.P. Snow bemoaned the division of our society into two apparently different "cultures". Today, the fractionation of our society is rolling forward at an accelerating pace. We're mostly talking past each other, not engaging in a search for understanding and reconciliation where possible. Dehumanizing those with opposing views is rampant on all sides. If we're to survive the storm we're creating for ourselves, I think we need to welcome dissent in the way that our nation's "Founding Fathers" hoped would happen - in the way expressed so eloquently on a plaque affixed to Bascom Hall at the University of Wisconsin.

Dr. Joanne Simpson, 1923-2010

Joanne Simpson looking over a weather conference poster presentation of which she is the lead author, in1985.  

Yesterday - 4 March 2010 - Dr. Joanne Simpson died. Dr. Simpson had a long and very productive career as a meteorologist, with a vast array of professional accomplishments to her credit. It's somewhat unfortunate that she may be most widely recognized as the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in meteorology (University of Chicago, 1949). Although I didn't know Dr. Simpson very well, we met a few times and I was honored by some remarks she made about me to a colleague - I have to paraphrase her comment as I can't vouch for a verbatim quote: "He's just a crazy cowboy, but he does good science." Coming from someone of her scientific stature, that was high praise, indeed! I was honored that she saw me in those terms.


Today (5 March), I feel some considerable sadness over her passing, but this is tempered by the knowledge that Dr. Simpson left us a huge legacy of accomplishments. Her triumphs were our triumphs (i.e., we meteorologists), and our profession is by far the better for her long and distinguished career. That limits any sorrow I might otherwise feel over her loss.

Dr. Simpson was a formidable figure. If you crossed paths with her, you would be in for a tussle and she'd neither give nor ask for any quarter in the argument. She wanted to get at correct answers to scientific questions, whatever it took. On the other hand, my limited experiences with her showed her to be warm and compassionate. Moreover, I'm confident that when she interacted with students and young admirers, she was full of encouragement and support - although I can't say so by direct experience, I've heard this from others. I admire both qualities in professionals, and I believe she had them both, in abundance.

Hence, I will speculate that Dr. Simpson would not embrace being labeled as a "female meteorologist" - rather, she likely would be want to be recognized simply as a meteorologist. Not that she was ashamed to be a woman - no, not hardly! She was justifiably proud of her success after all the negativity expressed simply because she was a woman. Nor would she wish to ignore or downplay the travails she experienced at the hands of her exclusively male professional peers early in her career. And I use the term "peer" intentionally - she was their equal (or, in many cases, their superior!), even if they chose not to recognize or acknowledge that.

Her determination to pursue her career goals no matter what challenges it might entail is yet another character trait I admire greatly. I've seen the attitudes in meteorology toward women become distinctly better in the last 20 years than they were at the time Joanne Simpson completed her doctorate (those attitudes hadn't changed by much yet, when I began college in 1963). No doubt that many women in the profession today see her as a role model, and have her to thank for breaking down those barriers. Times have changed, although I believe they are yet to be where they should be - meteorology is still learning how to accept women as professionals.

Although I never had the chance to interact much with her, Dr. Joanne Simpson is a hero of mine. I'm proud that our profession managed to produce a figure of her capabilities, who had the strength of character to succeed in the face of considerable disrespect from those nominally charged with nurturing people toward careers in our profession. But mostly, I'm proud of her accomplishments, which need no qualification regarding her gender. She did excellent science and became a well-recognized leader whose body of work made a compelling case for her acceptance in any role she chose to assume in the profession. The fact that she was a woman is irrelevant to all that, but if you take her gender into account, it makes her accomplishments stand out even more.

This profession mourns her loss today, but we should be thankful and happy that Providence saw fit to share such a person with us for such a long time.

Does anyone have the right to be free from criticism?

In American society, where media scrutiny is intense and 'political correctness' has become the mantra within the media, it seems to me that there's been a backlash against subjecting people to criticism for their words and actions. Unless I'm mistaken, and so far it doesn't seem so, this is still a country that guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Anyone, any action, any word is fair game, and with blogs as well as the traditional media, criticism is everywhere. You may not agree with the need for such criticism, and you're free to say so, of course. I contribute my share of criticism from time to time and in various venues. When I do so, I don't feel the need to issue some pansy-ass disclaimer, either. What I say is my opinion and I have the constitutional right to express it, even it's unpopular in some circles. I try to make my actions match my words, although I may fall short of that goal occasionally. I make no apologies about having an opinion, and I'm both willing (nay, eager) to discuss that topic with anyone who disagrees with my views and able to change my opinion if their counter-argument is sufficiently convincing.

People who do things like posing for titillating photographs in magazines, or having extramarital affairs, or espousing unpopular causes, or taking unnecessary risks, or distributing propaganda on behalf of their causes -- such folks need to appreciate that they might well be on the receiving end of criticism from those who are (a) offended by such actions, or (b) simply object to such things. My response to people who're offended by what I say or do is simple: you being offended is your choice, not mine. Hence, it's not necessarily my problem. Nevertheless, I support anyone's right to express their objections to the words or deeds of someone else, so long as their objections don't escalate to physical attacks or even threats of physical attacks (otherwise referred to as assault*) on the offending person. At that point, their own actions are illegal and no longer protected by the right to free speech.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no constitutional guarantee of freedom from criticism. If you're willing to say controversial things, or do controversial deeds, then you're likely to be the target of criticism. If you didn't know that going in ... well, too bad. Hopefully, you've learned what's in store for being controversial. I may or may not agree with your choices, but unless you break the law in the process, you'll have my support with regard to your right to make such choices. There will be no sympathy for you from me, however, if you get subjected to criticism. Deal with it.

On a somewhat tangential note, a firmly established method for expressing your concern for bad laws is to break the law, suffer whatever legal consequences befall you as a result, and make such a public spectacle of it that the problems with the law are brought to everyone's attention. This is the time-honored principle of non-violent protest used by Ghandi and M.L. King to draw attention to bad laws. But they not only had no intention of complaining about being arrested and jailed for their deeds, their tactics would have been useless had they not been arrested and jailed! The injustice of the law was propelled to the headlines where everyone could see it. If there's a bad law on the books and you're victimized by it, then you should not only be prepared to accept the consequences, you should embrace the consequences as an opportunity to attack the law! If you're unwilling to do the time, then don't break the law, okay?
___________
* Assault is the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim.

Life's Gift: Friends

Recent events have made me think a lot about my friends. No, not my Facebook "friends" (although there's considerable overlap there) - I mean the people I've come to know in reality, rather than the cyber-world. Your family is important, of course, but their presence in your life is more or less mandatory. Your friends have chosen voluntarily to be with you, and not simply because they have to put up with you. They enjoy being in your presence and do so whenever circumstances permit. They overlook things about you that they may not like because, for them, the pleasure you bring into their world outweighs whatever annoyance they might feel about what you say and do about some things.

Some of my younger acquaintances seem too prone to say "Life sucks!" when things go wrong in their lives. I suppose I may be a bit impatient when I hear such things from younger folks - many of their problems are pretty small in comparison to the really tragic things that have befallen some of my other friends. I want to tell them that life may have much worse things to dish out for them in the future. And they should be more willing to count their blessings than to focus on their problems. Further, no matter how bad things seem to be, they can always be worse! And so things have become bad for some of my friends. I feel so helpless when terrible things happen to them. In so many cases, there's little or nothing I can do. I try my best to do whatever I'm able to do, but it seems so inadequate.

And I ask myself, "Why have I been so lucky compared to some of my friends?" Evidently, there's no reason for it. I don't pretend to understand why bad things happen to good people - it's one of many things about this world I don't understand. "Why them?" I ask. "What have they done to deserve such anguish and pain?" But there's no answer for these questions, either. And, to quote Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven ... "Deservin's got nothing to do with it!"

Nevertheless, I'm grateful for my good fortune, regardless of the reasons for it, if any. And my friends are one of the most treasured parts of that good fortune. If I fail to serve our friendship as often and as much as I should, please bear with me. I think of you often, my friends. Your presence in my life has made it so good, I'm almost ashamed to admit how good it's been. Life has its ups and downs, but friendships are a great way to both ride out the downs and to celebrate the ups.

Science - a human endeavor

Science is a creative human activity that it's been my privilege to participate in for the majority of my adult life. I've had to work at the actual process and gain understanding (as well as knowledge of my limitations) in my chosen field - but a bigger challenge has been to understand science as a human activity. This blog is no place to go into this in detail, but I want to comment about one small part of the process, using a particular example.

In order to be a contributor to science, each individual has to have a unique perspective and use that vantage point as a take-off point for exploration of ideas. In the process, the practitioner inevitably comes to ideas that either break entirely new ground (quite rare) or challenge existing concepts. If you do anything at all in science, your ideas will challenge those of other scientists. Confrontation is virtually inevitable so long as the science is alive and active (see here for an extended discussion). And when those whose ideas you're challenging learn of your new ideas, they'll have strong motivation to find fault with what you've done. In other words, they'll be in a defensive mode, fighting your ideas with those of their own, and seeking to discredit your version in order to protect theirs. This amounts to a sort of "marketplace of ideas" in which each of us becomes a salesman for their scientific creations. The market determines the survivor by a process of reaching a consensus about new ideas, although the process can unfold over a long time. The poster child for this process is Wegener's ideas about continental drift, which when introduced were summarily dismissed in that marketplace, only to emerge many decades later when new technologies provided the evidence that Wegener lacked to buttress his hypothesis.

Recently, I've been encouraging the National Hurricane Center (NHC) to review their assessment of the intensification of the tropical storm known as Erin in 2007, which reintensified over land. It's pretty evident that the system by which NHC classifies storms has the usual problems that any taxonomy does - reality often fails to fit into neatly organized categories with arbitrary boundaries. Because this storm had declined in intensity after landfall, as hurricanes usually do, it passed a threshold whereby it fell out of their purview. In effect, NHC had washed their hands of it before it reached Oklahoma, and when it re-intensified over Oklahoma, it must have been something they must have wished would just go away. As discussed below, their assessment seems to reflect this wish.

Of course, most landfalling tropical storms have a life that continues for a time after landfall but they typically don't reinvigorate over land because science has shown that such storms derive their energy from heat flux out of warm ocean waters. How could such a storm intensify over land? If it's intensifying, then that process must be by some mechanism that would disqualify it from tropical storm status. This is essentially the argument cited by the NHC authors in their assessment.

In this case, prior heavy rainfall had transformed most of central Oklahoma into a warm, shallow sea - standing water was everywhere. The process by which tropical cyclones can intensify over land has been described in a recent paper by Prof. Kerry Emanuel and his collaborators* - who gave such events their own unique name: agukabam. The name is derived from the Australian aboriginal language, because they had only been documented in Australia - until Erin in 2007.

Recently, a group of NHC authors published a review of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season** and concluded that Erin's overland intensification didn't meet their criteria for a tropical storm and so had deemed it simply to be a "low" - which is roughly comparable to calling a tornado a "low" - it's true that the system involved reduced pressure at its core, of course. But the vast majority of the scientific community has agreed that this was not just any old low pressure system. It had once again become a tropical cyclone, with all the earmarks of such a system: a warm core, spiral bands, increased winds (not to hurricane force, though), and even an eye. So why does NHC wish to avoid calling a spade a spade, in opposition to the meteorological consensus? I can't answer that, of course. I wasn't involved in the discussion.

I've recently learned from a source at NHC that if such an event were to happen again, it would likely be considered as a tropical cyclone by NHC. Thus, they seem to have adopted a new policy that amounts to a revision of their concept of what qualifies as a tropical cyclone. So why would they insist on continuing to defend their published assessment of Erin? I can only speculate about their reasons. There's an easy solution to this dilemma: I believe the best and most honorable thing to do is for NHC to publish a retraction of those conclusions from their recently-published paper. This retraction would, in fact, be consistent with their new policies regarding such events and with the scientific consensus about the issue of what constitutes a tropical cyclone. Otherwise, the erroneous assessment will remain in the scientific literature as a very public example of a process gone wrong.

Perhaps someone will publish a 'comment' about that misclassification, of course. Unfortunately, the usual 'comment - reply' process carries with it a sort of adversarial overtone that could result in a defensive response by the NHC authors. Such a reply by NHC would be unfortunate and could convey the impression that the NHC is engaging in defensive rationalization rather than participating in meteorological science. I would hope it wouldn't have to come to someone submitting comments about this mistake - it would be a credit to NHC for them to submit on their own a retraction to the journal (Monthly Weather Review) that published their 2007 storm season summary.

But science is done by humans, with egos and positions to defend, and who often struggle to make public admission of error, as if it's some sort of disgrace in science to have been wrong. In our marketplace of ideas, mistakes are common and easily forgiven if admitted to and repaired when they become known. It seems to me that the time has come for NHC to admit they made a mistake and move on. And tropical storm science will show by this example that it's mature enough to learn from its mistakes.

---------------
* Emanuel, K., J. Callaghan, and P. Otto, 2008: A hypothesis for the redevelopment of warm-core cyclones over northern Australia. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 3863-3872.
** Brennan, M.J., R.D. Knabb, M. Mainelli, and T.B. Kimberlain, 2009: Atlantic hurricane season of 2007. Mon. Wea. Rev., 135, 4061-4088.

Dribs and Drabs ...

It's been a while since I've posted a blog. Many things have come to mind, but not managed to intrude strongly enough to merit a full-blown discussion here. Thus, I simply offer some random, brief thoughts:

1. Storm chasers come in a whole spectrum of flavors ... don't believe that what you see on the Discovery Channel is representative of that spectrum. Reed Timmer has achieved fame and fortune. beyond doubt, but has yet to establish that he's contributed to science.

2. The science of meteorology offers few definitive answers. Forecasting is what justifies paying our salaries, but we're plagued with uncertainties as a natural outgrowth of the science as we understand it. If you want certainty, consult the arrogant or the ignorant (sometimes it's hard to distinguish between them). We can't predict the future with certainty. Can you, in your world?

3. Politics is a poor mechanism for dealing with reality. You're free to accept whatever you choose in the political spectrum, but to label your opposition with apostasy is not reality ... it's simply a mechanism for feeding your paranoia.

4. Formal religion is the haven for those who've stopped thinking and retreated into blind faith. And blind faith is a formula for persecution without hesitation, delusions about reality, and the acceptance of suppression of the rights of minorities.

5. If we praise God for touchdowns, shouldn't we give him credit for fumbles and interceptions, as well?

6. Perhaps we find predictions of apocalypse in 2012 based on Mayan notions of deep time (> 5,ooo years) to be amusing. If we apply the same skepticism to Christian predictions of the Second Coming, might it not be equally amusing? What are you doing to prepare for the winter solstice of 2012?

7. If global warming is about what you've personally experienced, do you have any idea of what a tiny sample of the climate you've actually sampled? From the perspective of climate change, a human lifetime is comparable to that of a mayfly.

8. Are your opinions about global climate change based on an equal foundation to those of the IPCC consensus?

Free advice ...

Next April, Vickie and I will have been married for 35 years. Not bad for a marriage that many predicted would never last! I've been thinking about this for a while and I've distilled some things I've learned into some free advice ... if you're thinking about being married or are just recently married, here are some thoughts that might be of some help. At least I can put them down and you can mull them over. These are not in any particular order.

1. Commitment to the relationship - if you've said 'yes' to the marriage vows, were you just mouthing the words so you could get to the honeymoon, or did you actually mean them? Assuming you at least thought you meant them, consider this: if you leave yourself an escape hatch, then the odds are quite high that the first rough patch in your relationship will see you using your escape hatch. Commitment means you are determined to make things work even when it's hard. A marriage that hasn't been tested yet, will eventually be tested! And successful tests in the past are not a guarantee about future tests.

2. It takes two to tango - no matter how much one partner in the marriage wants it to endure, if the other is seeking to escape, there's very little prospect of that relationship enduring. Only when you both want it to last will you figure out ways to get past the inevitable storms. Each must be individually committed, but it always requires an equal commitment.

3. Infidelity is generally fatal - a marriage is something that you begin to build from day 1. It's not just the wedding day and done. Each day, each experience, each trial, each triumph adds bricks to that structure. When you've been building that marriage, brick by brick, for a long time, then how important is that orgasm you're going to get with your 'touch of strange'? Can that even begin to match the value of what you've built over the years? Can you really do that and hurt your partner that badly? Is it worth it? If it is, then your relationship was built on sand. Or you're a jerk.

4. Trust is critical - you have to be able to trust your spouse, and I don't just mean about sex. I mean everything. If you don't trust your partner, then it's not much of a relationship. Funny thing about trust - it takes a long time to build but you can throw it away in a stupid, thoughtless instant. Lies and deceit are not part of a healthy relationship. You can lie to others if you choose, but not to your spouse - ever!

5. If you don't grow together, you'll inevitably grow apart - I don't mean by this that you have to stay in each other's hip pocket all the time. You can have different interests and do things independently of your spouse, but you need to share something together. Find that something and put time and effort into it if for no other reason than because it involves your partner in your life.

6. Accept your spouse completely - the things that your partner does that piss you off are probably never going to change. If you can't accept the 'imperfections' of your spouse, then either don't marry that person, or get out of that relationship as soon as possible. There many 'imperfections' that are quite understandable reasons for terminating a marriage: physical and/or mental abuse, infidelity, drug abuse, etc. You have to decide how to react in such instances. But don't let their merely annoying habits become a big deal with you. You don't have to like them, but you do have to accept them if the marriage is to survive. It never hurts to consider that you might have some annoying habits yourself!

If you and your spouse are fortunate enough to be able to keep your relationship alive and well through good times and bad for several decades, then I'm pretty confident you're using these concepts. I thank my lucky stars on a regular basis that I found a woman who'd accept me for what I am and put up with my foibles. She's the best thing that ever happened to me, by a huge margin, so I don't take anything for granted. Some say that love is never having to say you're sorry. Well, I'm not that perfect and I've made my share of mistakes - for which I've been sorry and said so. Vickie is the light of my life - without her, most of the rest of it would not have been possible. I hope your relationships can be as wonderful as our marriage has been!

Two gripes: Simplified solutions and Obvious political bias

This blog has covered a diverse array of topics. Tonight, I'm frustrated about two things: I'm calling them "Simplified solutions" and "Obvious political bias". My right-leaning friends no doubt see me as a knee-jerk "liberal" whereas I see many of them as knee-jerk "believers in the religious right wing". Whatever labels we choose to use to vilify each other don't really matter.

1. Simplified solutions. If we lived in a totally rational world (which, by the way, would necessarily have to exclude religious faith, since it is by definition irrational - i.e., based on faith rather than evidence!), then solutions to many problems would be trivial. Moral dilemmas over abortion and adultery, as well as concern for STDs would vanish completely and instantly if everyone lived by the rule of having sex only within the context of wedlock (apparently, an option that doesn't include homosexuals, so they must abstain entirely!). That's obviously the right thing to do and, as a side benefit, it takes care of all those nasty side-effects of sex outside of the institution of marriage. What a terrific solution! Now why didn't I think of that? It solves everything and keeps everyone inside the lines regarding sexual mores. O.K. - those troubling issues are solved! On to the next problem.

We as a nation are dealing with the consequences of drug use in this country, which involves the expenditure of billions of dollars and the tragic destruction of many, many lives through the use of drugs. A logical solution? Simple. "Just say no!" We needn't bother with all of the complex issues associated with prohibition of some drugs while at the same time permitting the free and legal use of others. If everyone just looked over the situation and decided not to use any drugs of any sort, then our problems with that would disappear. O.K. - another problem solved! Let's move on.

Got a war somewhere that's turned into a morass of complexity? Americans dying in the fight and billions being spent without any results? Simple. Just nuke the shit out of them! To heck with the concerns for "collateral damage" - let the missiles fly and leave it to God to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. When our enemies are cowed into surrender by the prospect of their nation being turned into a nuclear slag heap, that'll fix it! We can do it. Problem solved! Next!

Dealing with environmental issues is another thorny problem. O.K. - before we get involved in saving the world, or some stupid endangered fish or bird somewhere at the price of changing human lifestyles, let's just put it to a vote. Us or the bird/fish/lizard? Whattya know? I guess we prefer us over that critter. The future is someone else's problem. We have to deal with the threats in the "here and now". Oilfields in a protected area? What's more important - your right to cheap gas or some caribou or whatever? No problem. Trample on those nature preserves - just keep our gas prices down, thanks! That was easy. Environmental problems vanish when we put it to a vote! On to the next problem!

I could go on, but hopefully, I don't need to. These "solutions" are grotesque oversimplifications. The real world is complex and nonlinear. Simple ideas fail to grasp the subtleties - but subtleties are lost in a politically polarized world. Slogans and simplicity are preferred. Please, don't ask me to think!

2. Obvious political bias. The right-wing dominated media - yes, that's correct, the media are now dominated by right-wing "pundits" who use the guise of journalism to transmit their political agenda - these guys (notably, the Fox "news" folks) are currently suggesting that the Obama administration has been slow to respond to the recent (failed) attempt by a Nigerian terrorist trained in Yemen to blow up a plane. This righteous (pun intended) indignation by these anti-Obama politicians is deliciously absurd, given that the Bush administration ignored numerous warnings from their own intelligence community regarding the impending 11 September 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. These slip-ups by the GWB administration are forgotten in their haste to condemn the Obama administration. Hypocrisy is rampant, but apparently unrecognized by the right-wing apologists.

Incompetence is incompetence. I don't care who's responsible. But the notion of these folks being indignant over the shortcomings of the Obama administration actuallyis quite amusing in light of the shortcomings of the GW Bush Crime, Inc. administration. These right-wing pundits seem to be pining away for the ecstacy of a neocon in the Oval Office, the memory of a happier time (for them!). The notion that roughly half the nation is repulsed by the very notion of the GWB administration is lost on them. It is indeed a checkerboard world (see my earlier blog)!

We are a nation totally divided. Half the nation sees the world through the biased eyes of the apologists for GWB and his cohorts in crime. Half the nation sees the world through the lens of unabated hatred for everything that GWB and Cheney stood for. America is mired in a multitude of problems defying simple solutions and all we (the two halves of America) can seem to do is pour vitriol on each other. We stand still, paralyzed by bitter political bias, unable to act at a time when action seems especially important. The right-wing pundits, during the GWB administration, supposed that we should be united in support of a "wartime president" and then pour derision and act to prevent any actions by his successor, who has inherited wars initiated by his predecessor. Do they see the hypocrisy in this? I doubt it.

I mourn for our nation, which is more divided than ever at a time when action is most needed, but is prevented by political opposition. I don't see Obama as the savior of our nation - he is, however, our President, at a time of great crisis. Should he be given carte blanche? No. But neither should his every effort to take action be blocked along purely political lines.

Sad, sad, sad ...

Human communication - Iffy, at its best

Recent events have made it evident to me that it borders on miraculous that we humans are successful at communicating via the spoken word to any meaningful extent. Human language carries with it so little direct information about our actual intended meaning, that it becomes very easy for misinterpretation of our words. So easy, in fact, that misunderstandings are pretty common. It takes considerable effort and some honest, civil discourse to determine that what may appear to be disagreements are simply misunderstandings.

That many misunderstandings occur as a result of Internet-based typed communications is both evident and legendary. Without the nonverbal cues that accompany face-to-face conversation, people can get so upset by someone's typed words that they react in a very negative way, often stimulating a similar reaction - culminating in the classical "flame war" so common on message boards. It seems that nonverbal cues can reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation. Nevertheless, even face-to-face conversation can be misinterpreted. I think most all of us recognize this.

Since we have no telepathic powers (outside of science fiction), we humans find it challenging to understand the intentions of those with whom we interact via the spoken (and written) word. Obviously, the barriers between people who are native speakers in different languages are even higher, even when they are both reasonably fluent in a common language. In addition to the language barrier as a direct impediment to communication, the cultural contexts put a level of subtlety on the spoken word that can be quite difficult to communicate. Verbatim, word-for-word translations between languages are notoriously bad at conveying meaning. I wonder how many wars between nations speaking different languages have begun because of a misunderstanding that has its origins in such communication barriers.

Even when considering only native speakers of the same language, the spoken word can convey impressions that are inconsistent with the intentions of the speakers. Some recent experience makes that very clear to me - and it's something that concerns me. How easy it is to assume that you've been understood in all aspects, when the reality is that your message was lost because the hearer heard something in your words that you never intended to say.

I can only suggest that when your blood is boiling because of what someone has said to you, perhaps it's a good time to slow down that reactionary response, and consider what the speaker's intended meaning might have been. Rather than a direct response to a perceived insult or provocation, you should consider a more measured response, seeking clarification about their intended meaning. Yes, this is probably more easily said than done, but it might prevent you from having the conversation descend into a tit-for-tat exchange of angry verbal grenades, or worse. Don't respond to what you think you heard; instead, seek a clarified understanding of the speaker's intentions.

Human language is reknowned for its capacity to convey subtle shades of meaning. But that subtlety includes the potential for ambiguity of intention. Certain words can stimulate a particular reaction, whereas different, but similar, words might engender a radically different reaction. When you think carefully about it, it's remarkable that we're as successful at communication via language as we are. The subtleties conveyed through the spoken word can be lost if the recipient doesn't grasp them, for some reason. It's dangerous to assume that the recipients of your words have understood your intended meanings.