What is inevitable and what's not inevitable ...

My often-underestimated spouse has offered an emotional tribute to the loss of a friend. This event, like others before it, makes me confront something both unpleasant and at the same time uplifting. In our relationships with others, it's inevitable that we'll be parted by the unrelenting reality of death. One of us will be first to go that way, and it's a harsh reality that we'll be parted in the process. Every human relationship is finite and will be terminated by the death of one.

Some of us cling to the forlorn hope that we'll be reunited in some mythical afterlife. I don't choose to accept that insubstantial promise of solace, that supposition of eternal life after an Earthly demise. Rather, what I choose to accept is that our interpersonal relationships will be severed by the inevitability of death. I've already had to accept the deaths of many friends and acquaintances. This is an unpleasant part of getting older. I miss them all, every day. But I have solace of a very different sort than the mythical promise of eternal life in some paradise of a supreme being.

Although separation is inevitable, what is not inevitable is the experience of having shared my time on Earth with someone who has brought joy into my life. This is indeed far from inevitable. My experiences with most people are fleeting and of little significance to me. Sorry, but that's the reality of life. However, some people leave an indelible and important impact on my life. These special relationships run a gamut of variety, but what they have in common is that I feel enriched and happy that I had some time to share my existence with these people. Losing them before I myself have passed means that my existence is impoverished by their absence -- but at the same time, I must acknowledge that my existence has been enhanced by the time I had to share with them. I choose to dwell on that, rather than my loss -- it's selfish to be absorbed by feelings of loss and bitterness over that loss. I prefer to be thankful for the joy these people brought into my life.

Laughter over light-hearted moments, empathy and understanding in times of sadness and loss, discussions that have enlightened me and enriched my time, love that we've shared, hobbies we've enjoyed together, wonder and awe at the natural world, arguments that have left me grateful for their willingness to give me their unadorned opinions of me and my thoughts, moments of profound connection as human beings that seem to go beyond normal communication. These and many more such are gifts that have flowed from the non-inevitability of the real relationships I've had and which continue to bless my Earthly existence virtually every day. I've welcomed many people into my life and been grateful for most of them. If they pass before I do, I refuse to submit to self-centered mourning for my losses. Rather, I exult in the times we shared and the connections we've made. Ultimately, we die alone, but the blessing of friends and family make our time here rich with experiences and shared humanity. At some point, my time will come and I don't fear that moment very much. Others have gone before me, and others will follow, inevitably. But the value we place on the time we spent with our friends and family is not mandatory -- it's a matter of choice. I choose not ever to regret that time nor to negate the joy of those times by my selfish sense of loss when those people have preceded me in the inevitability of death. And I embrace the principle that death is an inevitable part of life, not something evil or malevolent.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks

How appropriate that I'm inspired to make this entry on my blog on a Monday morning. Some chasers have been commenting on the excellent performance of the Storm Prediction Center regarding the 3-day outbreak of severe weather starting on 14 April. Most of the posts are appropriately supportive of the excellent job done by my colleagues there over the past several days. But there always seem to be some trolls who want to play Monday Morning Quarterback (MMQ). This is hardly the first time I've seen such comments -- today's were only the latest in a long line of such over the years. Many people, including some storm chasers, seem to delight in finding fault with the SPC. Thus, I want to take some time to make a few things clear:

1. SPC forecasts are not only concerned with events of interest to tornado chasers. They include all forms of NWS-recognized "severe thunderstorm events": not just tornadoes, but also convective wind gusts and large hail. The SPC forecasts are not tailored specifically to the needs and interests of tornado chasers. If you're going to criticize the SPC forecasts, please keep this in mind. If you think you make a better chase forecaster than the SPC forecasters, then by all means -- define your forecasting criteria, post your daily chase forecasts in advance for a whole year, make the whole data set public, and show us the verification results for your chase forecasting. Note that successful chases can be associated with what amount to busted forecasts, so your tornado videos are not evidence of your forecasting capabilities -- only of your chasing capabilities!

2. The task of putting out severe convective weather forecasts for the entire USA, 24/7, is not a simple job. It's quite challenging, and I challenge anyone to produce the suite of products the SPC produces during the day shift every day -- products issued several times per day and others as needed -- for a whole year. Lest anyone think that the advent of numerical models and other objective forecasting aids has made this task easier -- think again! All the SPC forecasters put their names on all the forecasts as a matter of public record. After you've published your forecasts, then do an objective, statistical verification of them along the lines of the SPC verification programs, and compare your results to those of the SPC for that year. If you can provide such evidence that yours are even close to their results, then I might give you some credibility. If you can't exceed their results, then my recommendation is to shut the hell up!

3. The SPC suite of products is, like all other forms of weather forecasting, not perfect. It's likely impossible to put out an indisputably perfect forecast, so that's not even a worthy topic of discussion. The Facebook troll I encountered today made the statement that SPC forecasts are "wrong as often as they are right" -- thereby establishing beyond doubt that he doesn't have a clue about the subject. He was a legend only in his own mind, incapable of backing up his claims, naturally.

I'm far from blind to the shortcomings of the NWS, as anyone who has read even a fraction of my Web content can determine for themselves. But for a few years, I sat in the hot seat of the forecasters at the SPC (back when it was known as the SELS Unit of the National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas City, MO) and, with all my education, I just managed to not embarrass myself as a severe weather forecaster. I wish I could convey the feeling of ignorance that swept over me as addressed a blank map of the US, onto which I had to produce my first ever convective outlook. Anyone who hasn't done this simply has no clue what it's like, or how challenging it can be. Even on those days when the SPC forecasts make significant errors, these forecasters are not just lollygagging around, spouting objective guidance-driven platitudes. They're doing a difficult job well every damned day! They're the best severe convective weather forecasters on the planet, so far as I'm concerned, until someone can step up and show me solid evidence that they're better than the SPC!

4. The fact that I respect the job being done by the SPC doesn't mean that I think they're perfect and metaphorically walk on water. They themselves would readily admit to shortcomings, I'm sure. When they make forecasting decisions, some of them turn out to be mistakes. The state of the science is far from complete and if you want to accomplish something useful to push forward the state of the science, I'm sure the SPC forecasters would be among the first to applaud your contributions. By all means, share your insights via conference presentations and publications in the formal meteorological literature. But if all you can contribute is after-the-fact MMQ'ing, then I suggest you shut the hell up!

A few folks with the capability to meet or exceed SPC forecasting standards might exist, but they're not doing the job right now that the SPC does. Until someone has done that job, they still have something to prove. If you can't produce the evidence, your claims to such capability remain undemonstrated and you have no qualifications to play MMQ!

Chasing has passed me by ...

This morning, in the wake of the news about deaths from tornadoes in Oklahoma and Arkansas, I found my FaceBook status messages filled with chasers crowing about their great chase days, shaky video showing chasers getting close to large tornadoes, and -- as an afterthought -- comments like "our thoughts and prayers are with CityXX."

Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of my very first serious storm chase (on 18 April 1972). In the time that's passed since then, chasing has grown far beyond anything I could have imagined back then. Unfortunately, I may have had something to do with that growth, in my youthful ignorance of the consequences of extolling the virtues of chasing during interviews for crockumentaries about tornadoes and chasers. It's quite evident to me that chasing as a "sport" has passed by me, on its way to whatever destiny the future holds for it. I've become a gripy old curmudgeon, well removed from the "cutting edge" of storm chasing. I can't say I have any wish whatsoever to seek to keep up with what chasing has become, however.

I look at the videos people claim are fantastic on FB but I see almost no quality video. Most of it is the "edgy" sort of "reality video" that's all the rage these days. People cheering and having "stormgasms" while they bounce down some road on the way to a close encounter. In those close encounters, for the most part, the video sucks (by my standards). In fact, it's my opinion that seeing a tornado up close is not the most dramatic or exciting visual content. What's so spectacular about dust and debris filling the viewfinder as it flies by? I could get that in a microburst or gust front! No, the standard for video is now to get the "dramatic" shot -- OMG! We're in the $%#@ing tornado! We're in the tornado! We're in the tornado! -- even when the video shows clearly that they're not in the tornado. Clearly, this reflects the fact that for most chasers today, it's about them and not about the storms. Look at me! I'm doing something fantastic! Pay attention to me!! Such chasers are quite evidently immature and have little or no real appreciation for the atmospheric spectacle they're ostensibly seeking.

I've seen video from in tornadoes and -- no surprise here -- it shows little or nothing! Air filled with dust and debris in very dim light. Big whup! The desire to see inside a tornado may have its roots in some interviews with tornado survivors in the 1950s, whose accounts strike me today as likely to be pure fabrication, or at the very least, wildly exaggerated. Many of us have expected the view inside a tornado to be a disappointment, and what evidence exists seems to confirm this. It really has little point outside of those who are trying to gather scientific observations close to and within tornadoes. It's just a stunt, otherwise. But such stunts sell well in the media, of course. They make movies and "reality" series about pointless stunts, and there's fame and fortune to be had ...

A while ago, I posted some thoughts about my feelings after the 24 May 1973 Union City, Oklahoma tornado (see item #32 here). Doing the damage survey brought home the reality that tornadoes do devastating things to people. This feeling was reinforced after the 03 May 1999 tornadoes. If I'm going to be excited about seeing these, I had to come to terms with this aspect of tornado reality. Whatever excitement I feel about seeing a tornado needs to be kept to myself and never given voice in any medium where tornado victims might be present. Stormgasms on video aired publicly sullies the image of all storm chasers, reinforcing the impression that all chasers are thoughtless idiots. Come to think of it, this impression is apparently in the process of becoming more and more representative!

My feelings as an atheist are that prayers have essentially zero substance and can't be shown to have any effect. Offering your prayers for tornado victims is to offer them nothing! If you can't do anything more meaningful than offer prayers, I'd rather you kept your mouth shut. I suppose it amounts to an expression of sympathy, and if taken as that, it nevertheless remains valueless for the victims. Empathy (i.e., knowing how someone feels because you've experienced what they've experienced) is more meaningful, and might lead someone to do something more substantive than offer your "thoughts and prayers". Most chasers have not experienced the devastation brought about by a tornado, and so are incapable of empathy. I detest it when infantile chasers are bragging about their exciting chase day and then throw away a "thoughts and prayers" comment at the end of their exultation over seeing devastating storms. A statement of this sort at the end of a stormgasm in a public medium like FB or TV rings hollow and hypocritical. Chasers need to think this one through quite a bit more thoroughly.

Nowadays, some chasers attempt to get involved in search and rescue efforts after tornadoes pass through towns. If someone is injured and you're right there, by all means do whatever you can to help. But going into tornado-damaged areas to "help" is misguided. Most chasers are ill-equipped (both materially and in terms of training) to be of much assistance to first responders, so it's likely that those who do this are only going to get in the way of professionals (i.e., first responders) and are likely to cause more harm than good. Further, these amateurs may be injured themselves -- there's considerable danger in walking through piles of tornado debris, especially for untrained, ill-equipped folks -- thereby creating more work for the professionals. Chasers doing this may believe they're helping, but it's unlikely that they can be of much help. Think it through, people. Stay out of tornado damage tracks and let the professionals do their job. Personally, I think a lot of this is motivated by guilt feelings after a stormgasm, but whatever the motivation, I think it's an inappropriate response.

Yep -- chasing has passed me by -- and I pulled over and let it do so.

The Greatest Doswell ... updated

This is a short account of the greatest Doswell. It begins with a branch of my family that moved to and became established in Virginia during pre-revolutionary days. [I'm not a direct descendant of that line. My great-grandfather, John Indiana -- perhaps I'll have more on that story later.] The Virginia Doswells became landed gentry (no doubt with slaves) and moved in the same social circles with the truly famous Lees of Virginia. Many of these aristocrats had racing stables, and the Doswells were no exception. A Civil War skirmish was fought between Grant and Lee on Doswell land (near the North Anna River), during the interlude between major battles at Spotsylvania Court House and Cold Harbor -- a book I have about the skirmish (J.M. Miller, 1989: Even to Hell Itself, ISBN-0-919930-71-8) mentions "the celebrated horse breeder Major Doswell" on whose property part of the skirmish took place.

My friend David Hoadley sent me a story years ago that had appeared in a Virginia newspaper's Sunday supplement. The gist of the story is that the Virginia Doswells had a long history with horse racing, but fell on hard times and were forced to sell their stables at some point, presumably after the Civil War sometime. I can no longer find the article, and I can't remember the details regarding the date of the sale or to whom the stables were sold. Part of the arrangements associated with that sale, according to the story, was that any new owners would continue to race under the colors of the Doswell racing stables.

There recently was a movie about the great horse Secretariat and the horse breeding and racing operation under Penny Chenery Tweedy. The movie opens with a scene in Doswell, Virginia (a small town north of Richmond named for that branch of the Doswell family), home for Meadow Farm Stable. The star of that movie is undeniably the horse, Secretariat, a Triple Crown winner (the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont Stakes) in 1973. The most famous and greatest Doswell is the celebrated horse, Secretariat! [We can claim him because he raced under "our" colors.] I've seen a color photo of Secretariat with Ron Turcotte (the jockey who rode him to the triple crown) aboard, and they got the colors (blue and white checked) more or less right in the movie.

A few years ago, I had a chance to visit Doswell, Virginia. It’s not much of a town but has an amusement park of significance, and apparently has something of a timber industry, but is otherwise not impressive. It seems to be little more than a “whistle stop” on the CSX rail lines that run through the town. The pimply-faced teenager behind the counter in the local convenience store was unimpressed with the fact that my driver’s license proclaims me to be related to the family for which the town is named. Nevertheless, it’s the home of a line within my family that at one time were local aristocrats and can claim the proud heritage of arguably the greatest race horse that ever lived and raced -- from Doswell, Virginia and under the Doswell racing stable colors!

--------------------------
UPDATE: I recently located what appears to be a newspaper article by someone named John Markon that I hand-dated July 1982 from the Richmond, VA Times-Dispatch, where Markon was a staff writer. It makes no mention of the sale of the Doswell racing stables, but discusses the relationship one Major Thomas W. Doswell had with Capt. Richard Johnson Hancock. Major Doswell lived in the vicinity of Hanover Junction (later to be named Doswell) and had an estate called Bull Field, where apparently he put on some big horse races annually until his death. Doswell is recognized in the article to be the third in a line of horsemen. This is evidently the same Major Doswell mentioned in the book about the Civil War skirmish at the North Anna River. The article discusses a horse Major Doswell owned for a while, Eolus, which is claimed in the article to be the origin of an "equine empire" in the region.

According to the article, "By 1877. Doswell and Hancock had also begun a racing partnership with Hancock conditioning Bull Field colts and fillies in Albermarle and the horses later racing under the Doswell colors." The article goes on, "T.W. Doswell died in 1890 ... Eventually, Hancock gained ownership of much of the Bull Field stock, and race horses owned by the Hancocks have carried Doswell's orange silks, the first to be officially registered by the American Jockey Club, for the last 90 years." Apparently, it was the Hancock breeding operation at Claiborne Farm that's associated with Secretariat, who was born at Chenery's Meadow Stable .

Thus, it seems the memory I had that Secretariat ran under Doswell colors was mistaken. Christopher T. Chenery (father of Penny Chenery Tweedy, who bred and raced Secretariat) established his Meadow Stable on land adjacent to Bull Field. The article makes it clear that the Doswell colors were orange silks, not blue and white checks, so my recollection of the content of the material sent to me by Dave Hoadley was in error. We Doswells probably can't make much of a claim to Secretariat after all. The most famous Doswell is likely of lesser fame than Secretariat!

I also remember an article which ran in a Richmond Sunday supplement on this topic, but if that's still in my possession and not just another mistaken recollection, I can't locate it.

A pox on both houses ...

The mock trial and burning of the koran (or whatever is the preferred spelling for this 'sacred' document) has caused muslim violence, including the deaths of Americans. The christians responsible for this sequence of events, led by Florida cleric Terry Jones deny any responsibility for the consequences of their actions, naturally. If their actions had no consequence, wouldn't that be a failure for them? Provocateurs fail precisely when they can engender no response! Unfortunately the ignorant, delusional muslim fanatics know only one sort of response to provocation: violence. I certainly have no more love for the muslim version of religion than I do for the christian version.

In the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church is free to carry on their pseudo-protests (which are actually fund-raisers!) according to the doctrine of free speech here in the US, Terry Jones and his followers are free to burn a book as part of their protest. But, like the WBC crowd's protests at the funerals of American soldiers, or the marches of American nazis in Skokie in the mid-1970s, this is not the sort of activity that most people should support. No doubt exists that book-burning is a highly symbolic act -- and the symbolism is far more meaningful to most people than the act itself. The same is true for flag burning, etc. Responding to provocations with violence is precisely what the perpetrators of those provocations generally seek! The most compelling negative response is to ignore the provocateurs!!

But when people commit acts of violence in the face of provocation, they must be given the same punishment for that violence that we would administer in the absence of provocation. The muslim fanatics have learned that we in the US cannot ignore violence, and so they know we will retaliate with the very violence that the provocations are designed to produce. As I said sometime back, we're losing the so-called 'war on terrorism' by responding more or less exactly as the terrorists have hoped for with their despicable acts. We seem unable to come up with any response short of violence of our own.

The real problem here with this instance of violence in response for 'sacred' book-burning isn't insensitivity, or political correctness, or even the right to free speech. The most important aspect of this is the nature of religion itself. Christianity (in all its tens of thousands of forms) and Islam (also divided into multiple sects) share traits common to all the main monotheistic religions: they are convinced that their path is the only true path, and all those not with them are against them. Unbelievers, in the versions of righteousness common to both islam and christianity, are fit only to die and be consigned to eternal damnation. The bible and the koran are steeped in the blood of unbelievers resulting from these exclusionary principles common to both. Christian and muslim fanatics actually have a great deal of common ground, though both would be outraged at the very notion that they share anything at all.

So long as church and state remain separated, the fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist muslims can be seen quite clearly as what they truly are: fanatics, driven by their own delusions to be willing to commit any act to support their faith. It's where religion and government become intertwined and the state reinforces religious dogma that the 'moderate' believers, who might otherwise not be inclined toward violence, may have the binary choice: with us ... or against us (with all the consequences of the latter being pretty apparent!) forced on them with state power as well as that of their religion.

The very principle of free speech that figures in the book-burning by Terry Jones and his delusional followers surely would be at risk should the christians in this nation succeed in making the US a christian theocracy. The conflict with the muslim world would be amplified into Orwellian proportions -- a jihad on both sides -- and take on an ever-growing stridency when voices of moderation are forced to choose: us ... or them.

It's the widespread delusion of religion that's to blame for this series of events leading to violent deaths in Afghanistan. The pointless christian provocation and the inevitable, predictable response by muslim fanatics are the logical outcome of the exclusionary principles characterizing most religions. These actions threaten the freedom here in the US that has been the grand experiment envisioned by the framers of our Constitution, and that we've enjoyed since the end of the 18th century here. If a US citizen can't see why the separation of church and state is so important, I'm at a loss for understanding how such a person could have failed so utterly, so completely to grasp the essence of democracy: protection of the rights of minorities, especially when we find minorities disagreeable. Of course, Afghani muslims know little of respect for the expression of minority opinions. But neither would US residents if a christian theocracy is established here!

A different sort of tsunami?

Today, when the power of the Earth has been demonstrated dramatically and tragically by the devastating earthquake near Japan and its powerful tsunami, another sort of tsunami is looming on the horizon here in the USA. We're a deeply divided nation in the midst of a number of economic and societal crises, in this case largely of our own making.

We're reaping the harvest of the policies planted by the GWB administration -- allowed to flourish and ripen by the ineffectual Obama administration. In GWB's haste to deregulate our financial system (which cashed in on the housing boom and then bailed out of the resulting disaster), to maintain the lavish luxury of the elite few who sit atop the oil and financial industries, and to exploit bigotry and ignorance for political gain, we're now seeing signs of an impending societal tsunami. As the haves distance themselves ever farther from the have-nots, the stampede to push the corporate agenda on the American public has reached new levels of aggression.

The Wisconsin GOP governor has used a legislative loophole to push through the policy he wanted that limits severely the collective bargaining rights of public employees, including teachers in public schools. In the process, he demonized public school teachers as the sort of bloodsucking "fat cats" that he himself is representing so well! Democrats have been rendered irrelevant by such tactics and they can only stand powerless and amazed at this affront to the legislative process. The Michigan GOP governor has declared "financial martial law," replacing elected local officials with his own appointed minions. These are tactics familiar to those who would become dictators (Hitler and Stalin come immediately to mind, of course). When the elected representatives are able to block your agenda, simply sweep them aside in favor of your own followers and push through whatever you want. Who cares what the "other side" supports? They're irrelevant!

The true nature of the conservative right wing (as represented by the Christian Nationalist Party -- CNP, aka the GOP) in this nation is becoming ever more clear. Despite wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming the right to be the standard-bearer of American democracy (as well as legislating our national morality), they now are showing themselves to be crypto-fascists, quite willing to do anything to have their way, despite whatever opposition might come from roughly half the population of this nation. Why compromise when you simply run roughshod over your opposition? The sad part of this is that many politically conservative working people are being victimized by the very politicians they've voted into office. The CNP somehow has convinced their supporters that they are the champions of the working class, but the policies they impose on the body politic (by any means necessary, it seems) only favor the corporations and their fabulously wealthy executives.

How can anyone be so naive as to believe that public school teachers are to bear the lion's share of the blame for bankrupting the states? Apparently, someone even less well off than teachers, with less education and less marketable skills. Did schoolteachers cause the credit default swap disaster that has bankrupted so many and resulted in massive numbers of foreclosures? Did schoolteachers cause the failure of energy companies like Enron, with all the financial reverberations of those failures? Was it the schoolteachers who engaged our nation once again in pointless, unwinnable, expensive foreign wars? Did schoolteachers outsource vast numbers of American jobs in favor of cheap labor in other countries? Was it schoolteachers who mismanaged state and federal funds, resulting in massive debts? If the CNP is doing this to teachers, the CNP's working class supporters remain in the crosshairs of the very crypto-fascists for whom they're voting. When the teachers have been tarred and feathered, who's next? Evidently, not the corporations and their executives!

The left wing ("liberals") in this country have shown themselves to be astonishingly incompetent and impotent in the face of this tsunami of lies, distortions, and high-handed actions that are eroding the very system that the crypto-fascists claim for their own banners. Like political liberals in the eras before the ascendancy of fascism and communism, they're being swept into the dustbin of history, standing open-mouthed and paralyzed by the shock and awe attacks from the CNP. In the face of opponents who are willing to do virtually anything to have their way (including trampling on the rights of the minorities), they wilt -- because to oppose the radicals with similar tactics is to surrender the moral high ground. The problem is that the crypto-fascists don't have the same morals! They do whatever it takes to win the day and don't care about the rules of representative democracy.

When revolution becomes the only way for the oppressed people of a nation to have any hope, then revolution will follow. Remove the hope for incremental change and respect for the rights of minorities, and eventually those people have nothing left to lose. We're seeing that demonstrated dramatically right now in the Middle East -- Egypt, Tunisia, Libya -- with other revolutions only simmering just beneath the surface in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and elsewhere. Revolutions naturally tend to follow a course toward radicalization, and the outcome of a revolution need not be good for the people who began it. Revolutionaries tend to become more radical with time. In many cases, revolutions install a new boss who's practically the same as the old boss, rendering the revolution pointless in the end. Since no one knows how revolutions will turn out, if you've lost any hope for incremental change, why not foment a revolution?

Here in the USA, we had one successful revolution that threw off British colonial rule and installed our existing constitutional democracy, an amazing outcome, even in hindsight. Another revolution here in the USA became The Civil War, wherein Americans slaughtered each other for four years before the rebellion finally was defeated militarily. The South still smolders with resentment over that defeat nearly 150 years ago, despite now waving the American flag in CNP-dominated state governments -- the very political party that was responsible for their defeat in the Civil War! The liberal, pro-human rights agenda of the 19th-century GOP has been revised by the crypto-fascists and now embraces ignorance and bigotry as the means for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Are we setting the table for another home-grown revolution? The CNP seems determined to make it happen.

Being involved with Earth science

I've been deeply committed to "Earth Science" for more than 50 years, now. I can't explain the origins of my fascination with various aspects of this world, except to say that I've found the world in which I live to be a source of constant wonder. I understand an interest in such extraterrestrial topics as astronomy, but largely because I find it amazing to contemplate how we here on Earth have come to be here -- the debris of stellar supernovae come to self-awareness and a need to understand our roots in the physical universe. Extraterrestrial concepts are interesting to me in large part because of their comparison and contrast with what is going on here on Earth!

Anyway, the science of the Earth has been near and dear to me since I was a small boy. Not only is it a puzzle of monumental complexity that's quite capable of challenging the strongest intellects of our world, but the ramifications of Earth sciences have a clear relevance to everyone on the planet, whether they realize it or not! It pains me to see how aggressively ignorant so many humans are, willing to discard rationality in favor of cherished superstition or political agendas and unwilling to spend any time trying seriously to understand the grandeur of the physical processes upon which our very existence depends! Being ignorant is not a particularly good strategy for survival, but it seems to be quite popular these days. We ignore the contributions of Earth science at our peril.

Being a scientist necessarily involves the possibility of being wrong. As I've emphasized many times, being wrong is implicit in being a scientist. Fortunately for us, science is mostly self-correcting, including the occasional ethical transgressions of those whose ambitions exceed their commitment to the inherently honest work of science. Bad science is typically found out sooner or later, to the detriment of those who may have committed ethical transgressions in the process. If an idea is advanced that ultimately is inconsistent with the evidence, this will be noted and corrected eventually. Science is not a discovery of absolute truth, but an exploration of ideas created by fallible humans -- ideas in constant need of reconsideration in light of new evidence. We're often wrong in science, but we trust the process to correct our misunderstandings eventually.

Recently, I've seen some examples where some of my colleagues seem to be trapped inside the confines of what they've been taught. We're taught our science via the application of traditionally-accepted methods, that have been successful in the past. Those methods have been developed to deal with the particular challenges of our science, but it's disappointing to me when some of my colleagues feel that those methods define the processes. If science is to make progress, we need to avoid being trapped by traditional modes of thought that have worked in the past. We all should be prepared to be willing to embrace new ideas, even as we remain skeptical of all of them. It's a difficult road to walk, as it follows a narrow line between being blinded by old methods and being too willing to accept new methods.

Those seeking absolute truth must look to something other than science. Science simply does not deal in absolute truths! Skepticism about ideas that question the consensus is fine, but we must be able to recognize which of these new ideas is worth pursuing versus those that clearly are not. If we consider a hypothesis that goes against scientific consensus that involves, say, supernatural influences, this is simply not a meaningful path for the science to follow. If we wish to overthrow the consensus about something, it seems reasonable to ask for extraordinarily compelling evidence. An idea challenging the consensus that cannot provide compelling evidence is not acceptable, even if that idea ultimately turns out to be correct! The classic example of this is continental drift (proposed by Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist), the compelling evidence for which was lacking when Wegener proposed it, but was found many decades later. Science eventually came to embrace this notion, despite rejecting it when it first was proposed. This is a wonderful example of how science really works, but is misunderstood by most people.

Science is a marketplace of ideas. Good ideas eventually survive and bad ideas are discarded. Being a part of this is a lot of fun!

Dire threats to the National Weather Service?

As I write this, there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth regarding the possibility of massive cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS), including a possible shutdown of the whole Federal government. I'm going to avoid any purely political aspects of this current situation. Instead, I want to offer some perspective on the existing financial 'crisis'.

First of all, during all my 30+ years of working for the Federal Government, I don't recall a single moment when the budget wasn't under pressure. I never experienced a time when everyone was satisfied with, and grateful for, their fiscal support -- it was only a matter of episodic fluctuations in the depth of the continuous 'crisis'! Somehow, we managed to muddle through all those crises, although I must say the long-term trend has been one of declining budgets relative to their buying power (thanks to inflation, among other things). Slowly, but surely, things have deteriorated relative to what they were -- see my essay here for an interpretation of this.

Second, let me begin by saying I'm not an enemy of the NWS! I have no vested interest in seeing them suffer. I have too many NWS friends for that, and though I have no illusions about its management, I believe sincerely that the NWS more than pays for society's investment in its services (perhaps many, many times over!), although it's difficult to put numbers on the return on investment. However -- given that we have only sketchy understanding, at best, of how valuable the NWS products are, it becomes difficult to justify the expense when we have yet another fiscal 'crisis'.

I've suggested via another medium that the cessation of products from the NWS might provide an interesting test of just how valuable their products are to the public they purport to serve. To what extent would an interruption in those services result in major problems for the broad range of public users of weather forecasts? Although I have no evidence to back up what I'm about to say, it seems clear to me that the biggest challenge to the NWS is that there might not be any noticeable effect, as perceived by the majority of the the public!!

Since the NWS has abdicated any meaningful role in product dissemination, preferring instead to leave that for the private sector, that same private sector could (and would) take up a lot of the duties abandoned by the NWS during a financial crisis. And they would do so more than a little gleefully! And it's likely that the products seen by the public would remain at some level close to what they now experience!! This could lead to some embarrassing questions, such as, "If there was so little impact, perhaps it's time for the government to divest itself of this enterprise and allow the private sector to do it?" There have been several attempts by certain political sectors to do just this in the past. Although those attempts were unsuccessful then, the time might be ripe for them finally to win this war. And those pressures will not go away even if they fail once again.

While the annual per capita cost to individual taxpayers for all the NWS services amounts to about the price of a meal at a fast-food restaurant (a huge bargain!), the biggest cost driver for the NWS operation is personnel. If you want to reduce the NWS budget to skeletal levels (e.g., only collecting observations, which the private sector doesn't want to pay for), the fastest way to do so is to cut staffing. Closing offices may be politically difficult, but it's possible that this 'crisis' or the next will see the draconian cuts that everyone in the system fears.

I don't know how to set national priorities (Does anyone?), but I believe that most people aren't particularly concerned about the weather most of the time. They want to know about when it will affect them personally, and they seem to expect perfect forecasts for those occasions when it does affect them, but -- for the majority of the time -- they have other things that concern them. Will there be a groundswell of support for the NWS this time? Maybe. Or maybe not.

Some of us have been anticipating the demise of the human forecaster in the public sector for some time, now. The economics of it are all against the humans. Automated systems run for pennies a day, never go on vacation, and don't get paid after they 'retire'. What's worse is tha human forecasters have, for the most part, chosen to allow the metastasis of meteorological cancer by not doing what it takes to add significant value to automated guidance, which only hastens the day when the economics of this will become so compelling as to result in the loss of those public sector forecaster jobs. I'm pretty confident that NWS managers aren't going to pour gasoline over their heads to help with the budget crisis, despite the bloated NOAA/NWS bureaucracy!

We may yet "weather" this crisis with minimal damage. But there is always another on the horizon. The words of the prophets are written on the Beltway walls and academic halls ... the sounds of silence may yet characterize NWS offices in the future.

Research, travel, and training are easy targets for budget cuts. The NWS does no meaningful training, of course, and they're already stingy with travel (except for bureaucrats). Cutting research will have no short-term impact, of course, but will have devastating results in the future. NWS forecasters argue that they are "essential" personnel (see above), but have little empathy for their research colleagues: when the pie shrinks, the immediate 'family' gets more pie than distant relatives.

Incompatible: Science and superstition

I was watching "How the Universe Works" on the Science Channel today -- a relatively infrequent occasion when the so-called Science Channel actually aired a program about science! -- and it got me to thinking:

If we go back to the time of ancient Greece, the first glimmerings of science began as "Natural Philosophy" with Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Pythagoras, and Eratosthenes, among others. This was the beginnings of a different approach to understanding the world around us, built on logic and empirical evidence, rather than superstition, mythology, and blind faith. Greek natural philosophers were something very new!

During and after the Renaissance, in fact, the increasingly empirical science being done ran headlong into those entrenched followers of superstition. Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Bruno, and many other scientists in Europe suffered persecution and even death at the hands of the Catholic Church because their findings were seen as heretical -- they were incompatible with biblical scriptures. Of course, many famous scientists of the time were faithful christians, as well, including such luminaries and Newton, Leibniz, and Kepler.

Today, we see the same conflicts wherever science offers an interpretation of the way the world works that contradicts cherished scriptural superstitions (and no conflicts where science fails to intersect with scripture). Fortunately, the power of the church (in nontheocracies) has declined to the point where it can't enforce its teaching with torture, imprisonment, and death! Wherever religion and politics are deeply intertwined, of course, the church continues to show its claws when it comes to doubters and unbelievers!

Evolution, deep geological time, modern cosmology -- they all clash with various religious writings and teachings, so we have the growth of a profoundly anti-science movement that coincides with the growing acceptance of religious beliefs here in the USA. That this religious revival is associated with an anti-science movement is not an accident of history. And, as in the past, we have scientists who somehow manage to embrace both science and religion (although they represent a minority among scientists), which I maintain are so diametrically opposed as to deny any rational acceptance of both. I take it as a given that as the stature of the scientist grows, the fraction accepting deistic religious belief declines. The question becomes -- how to explain those scientists who do embrace belief in a deity!

Many aspects of science seem mysterious to non-scientists -- in particular, some say that science requires the same sort of faith that is embodied in religion. This is nothing less than a profound misunderstanding of science. Science offers hypotheses about the natural world that can be tested against evidence, not unsubstantiated claims. The acceptance of a hypothesis requires that it be consistent with the evidence, but its acceptance is always provisional, never final. New evidence may require a revision of the hypothesis, or it may re-affirm the acceptability of an existing hypothesis. The more tests a scientific idea can pass, the more highly regarded that idea becomes, but never to the point of becoming dogma, to be accepted on faith. And, contrary to the claims of some believers, science is never arrogant in its claims to understanding -- good science always is associated with humility in the face of all that scientists have learned we don't yet understand in the very process of gaining new understanding! We labor long and hard to learn the limits to our understanding, and typically resent those who come by their ignorance the easy way!

Religion (at least the major monotheistic faiths that dominate the western and middle eastern world) demands blind faith. Its highest ideal is absolute, child-like obedience and unquestioning faith. Doubt is not permitted, and considered heretical, to say nothing of pointing out religious contradictions with reality. Religion claims sole possession of truth for itself and its self-appointed leaders. When science and religion happen to clash on a subject, the faithful are required to reject science.

Consider what science has given us:

1. We now know that stars are suns, powered by thermonuclear fusion
2. We now know that all the matter of the Universe is the condensed energy from the 14 billion year-old "Big Bang" and that the Universe is not at all static and unchanging
3. We now know that our solar system, with the Sun at its heart, is about 5 billion years old, and includes a host of objects besides the Earth: planets (that are not stars at all, but other worlds), asteroids, comets. etc.
   
4. We now know that life has evolved from its earliest beginnings (as yet unexplained) into complex life forms, including we humans, during the existence of the Earth
5. We now know that volcanoes and earthquakes result from plate tectonics and the processes driven by the heat within the Earth's interior
6. We now know that storms are the result of processes associated with unequal heating

Many of the gaps in our scientific understanding have been filled, no longer requiring a role for a deity as an "explanation" for that phenomenon. At points in the past, all these things (and more) were not known, and various myths were proposed to "explain" such things, many of which revolved around some deity (many have been postulated!) whose wrath at our lack of belief was responsible for these natural events. Most human beings over the history of our species have lived out their entire lives with only superstition and mythology to explain what they saw around them. They never knew what stars are, they had no idea how we humans came to be here on Earth, and they had no clue as to why they experienced geological and meteorological hazards. Myths were an early, unscientific way, to try to explain things, but science has no place for the "God Hypothesis" as it offers no explanation at all. Gods are the ultimate deus ex machina.

It seems very strange to me to embrace both science and religion, since they involve such contradictory methods regarding knowledge of the world around us. It's at best a monument to the ability of humans to compartmentalize their thinking. The lifelong habits of successful science should disallow the very notion of accepting someone's ideas on faith, without question or doubt.

Living and dying with the models

Oklahoma has experienced some dramatic weather events the past several days - we had a major snow event preceded by thundersleet (and some hail!) last week that was quite well forecast by the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models and so was well-anticipated. The confidence in the forecast was high enough that many schools and businesses actually announced they were going to be shut down the next day, well before the first precipitation even began! Given Norman's pathetic snow and ice removal capabilities, many schools and businesses stayed closed for the rest of the week thanks to an extended period of bitter cold (i.e., below melting temperatures).

Another significant event was anticipated for this week, but it turned out to have missed Norman, for the most part. We experienced considerably less than the forecast snow amounts. Of course, schools and businesses had again announced they were going to shut down before a flake had fallen. This time, it seems, such precaution was unnecessary, given the modest snowfall. In such situations, many folks want to blame the forecasters for "hyping" the event into "Snowmageddon" or a "Snopocalypse" and causing unnecessary alarm. I have a couple of things to say about this. I'm not the only one - see here and here for some thoughts by a colleague.

First of all, let me say that weather forecasting continues to be an uncertain business. If you want the weather forecasters to make your decisions for you, there inevitably are going to be times when they're wrong. If snow falls on a 10% probability of snow, that should be expected one time out of ten times they forecast snow with a 10% probability! And if snow doesn't fall on a 90% probability, that's to be expected one time out of ten when they forecast snow with a 90% probability! There is no prospect that forecasting will ever be so good as to be absolutely correct 100% of the time.

What is your cost associated with taking unnecessary precautions? How does that compare to the loss associated with the failure to take precautions when you should have? It can be shown that the ratio of cost over loss is important in deciding at what level of confidence in some event you should take precautions. If your costs tied to taking precautions are higher than the losses for not taking precautions, you should never take precautions! If your costs are very low compared to your losses, it makes sense to take those precautions at a low confidence threshold. Cost/loss ratios vary among decision-makers, so different forecast users should make different decisions in situations where the forecast probabilities are the same. Decision-makers should understand this, but many don't. That's their problem, not that of the forecasters. Ignorance is not always blissful.

Having said that, it's also clear that the NWP models were a major factor in the degree of confidence the forecasters had in their forecasts. As explained by my colleague, we now run ensembles of forecasts in order to establish how likely an event might be. The assumption is that the variability among the ensemble members is wide enough that, for the most part, the actual observed weather will fall somewhere within the range of possibilities revealed by the ensemble. As shown by this week's event, that isn't always true, however. Quantitative precipitation forecasting (QPF) is one of the most challenging things that forecasters attempt, and it's becoming clear with time that forecasters are relying heavily on the information provided by NWP models (including ensembles of model runs) to guide their QPF products. If you live by the models, however, there will be times when they lead you astray, and you will "die" (metaphorically) by them.

I'm not a forecaster and I make no pretense of being one. But there are times when I wonder about what their logic might be when they make their choices. I don't like to be a "Monday morning quarterback" when it comes to specific forecasts, of course. Nevertheless, I was nowhere near as confident about this week's event being a significant one here in Norman as were most of those folks paid to forecast the weather. Of course, I didn't put out my own forecast, so I have no way to validate that I'm not simply using 20-20 hindsight. You'll just have to take my word for that. Or not.

Way back in 1977, Len Snellman introduced the notion of "meteorological cancer" wherein forecasters would come simply to pass on the NWP model guidance without any further consideration. It seems that Len Snellman was much better at forecasting the process of weather forecasting than we are at forecasting the actual weather!

Redefining Rape? You're kidding me, right?

This past week, it seems that some members of the christian nationalist party (aka, the GOP) have been suggesting that we need to revisit the definition of rape - it seems that they want to limit it to purely "forcible" rape, and eradicate the term "rape" when it's committed on people who are drugged or drunk (date rape), or on underage children (statutory rape). This campaign isn't about rape, actually - it's about abortion. But now an idiot in Georgia wants those who identify rapists to be called "accusers" rather than victims, until the rapist is convicted of rape in a court.

For the vast majority of rapes, it's not a matter of sex - it's an act of violence. Since the majority of rapists are men and the majority of rape victims are women, it seems that violence by men against women is something of a lesser crime to these predominantly male "lawmakers." Rape victims are reluctant to accuse their rapist perpetrators because society chooses to see many of the victims as having "asked for it," and so are treated like prostitutes instead of victims. The shame and humiliation of it (which are essential elements of this violent act for the rapist) can keep victims from coming forth to accuse their rapist. We have seen repeatedly that those who accuse someone of rape are, in turn, accused of being wanton harlots, and testimony about their personal lives is used to discredit them as victims deserving of our sympathy and support.

Yes, there are false accusations from time to time, and having one's reputation sullied in this way can be an awful thing when the accusations aren't justified. But is the chance of that so important on our priority scale that we prefer to see rapists get off scot free, time and again, while their accusers are discredited and humiliated beyond the act itself? Our justice system provides the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law, but we don't treat most victims of theft this way. We don't treat most victims of assault this way. Why should we treat rape victims this way?

Maybe these lawmakers should experience rape for themselves. Perhaps then they might be able to muster some empathy for rape victims and quit trying to turn victims into villains.

As it turns out, I know something about this on a very personal level. When I was a young teenager, I was raped by an older "friend" who had bought alcohol for me. I was horribly drunk when it happened, and totally unconscious when he began. I woke up in pain and surprise ... it went on an on forever, it seemed. Then he finally finished and left. I was so ashamed of the situation afterward that I never told anyone about it, including my parents. To have accused him surely would have implicated me in the illegal consumption of alcohol, as well. This incident from my past isn't something that makes me proud - far from it! - but it has forever made me a champion for victim's rights in rape cases.

I prefer that no one ever have to experience this act of violence, but no one should be made to feel like they somehow were at fault, either, when it happens to them. This is one situation where I can honestly say that I understand what female victims are going through and I'm entirely in their corner! Rape is a despicable crime and its perpetrators should be given serious punishment for it! This shameful political campaign to redefine rape needs to end and those supporting it need to be run out of public office, as soon as possible!

How much warning of danger is too much?

As I write this (Monday afternoon - 31 Jan 2011), the midwestern US is under the threat of a major winter storm. This event has been anticipated for several days, thanks to the increasingly accurate numerical weather prediction (NWP) models that are the major foundation of weather forecasting these days. Amongst my meteorological acquaintances, there's been widespread grumbling about the "hype" associated with public statements regarding this impending event. Recent history shows a number of events that were "hyped" that turned out to be not much. A colleague has already written an extensive blog regarding the challenges associated with forecasting such situations. I have little to add to his excellent and detailed assessments of this situation.

However, I do want to comment about the issue of "hype" associated with weather warnings (which are forecasts, of course). First, I'll offer some background.

The local TV stations here in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area have been engaging in a decades-long "weather war" for ratings supremacy in this weather-conscious market. TV broadcasters here get much more air time than in most (if not all) other TV markets and it's been demonstrated (in the OKC market) that the most popular forecaster helps his station get the best ratings, on the average. One mechanism for this is their efforts to outdo each other to show how they're helping the public, which includes making almost any reasonably strong thunderstorm approaching the metro area sound like the imminent apocalypse. I've long felt that they have used the weather in this region as a mechanism for self-promotion in the battle for ratings, with service to the public a distant second in their priorities. In fact, I long ago quit watching the local stations (except when they're airing live tornado videos!), out of sheer disgust at their vacuous self-promotion. Of course, that's the industry standard in the media - ratings always trump service.

So much for the background. Now, I hear from some meteorologists I know that the warnings about the potentially serious impacts of this impending winter storm have been contributing to the "hype" associated with forecasting. I have two problems with such comments:

1) Any winter storm carries with it some significant hazards to human life (and property). That simply cannot be denied. Now, if we could forecast the weather perfectly (i.e., with absolute certainty) then the issue of what people choose to do (or not do) in response to those forecasts would be entirely in the hands of the users of the forecast information. I recall seeing news coverage in the past of, say, large numbers of cars abandoned on Interstate highways in a blizzard, even when the storms producing the blizzard were well-forecast. Apparently, those travelers either didn't receive the message, didn't understand the message, didn't know what to do about the message, or simply ignored the message for some reason (including not believing it, or not believing it applied to them). None of those options are in the hands of the forecasters, who are just trying to put out the best forecast they can. Perhaps some might blame the forecasters for these stranded travelers because the forecasters didn't word their forecast products strongly enough! Apparently, some forecast users need more than just a winter storm warning to take the threat seriously!! Forecasters are not to blame for this, however.

2) The seriousness of the wording in a forecast is likely related to forecaster confidence in the possibility for a major weather event. Some forecasters are more confident than others in any given situation, and disagreements about the confidence one might want to put into a forecast intended for public users of weather information are common. In the best of all possible worlds, forecasters would be "calibrated" so that their uncertainties wouldn't be widely different in a given weather situation. But we don't live in that best of all possible worlds - opinions about the likelihood of a given event will vary. If a forecaster is overconfident frequently, then s/he needs to re-calibrate, which necessarily involves doing a meaningful verification of the forecasts and learning how to use that feedback to achieve proper "calibration". Having said all this, if a forecaster is confident that, say, a major winter storm event is likely, why not spread the word about that in advance? Is that "hype" or just being honest about one's meteorological assessment of the situation? Should a forecaster suppress information just for the sake of not being accused of contributing to weather anxiety? It might not happen as forecast, but isn't it better to have prepared for the potential and have it turn out you didn't need it, than to make no preparations and then discover you should have? Better safe than sorry, it seems to me!! Err on the side of caution, if erring is inevitable. [I'm avoiding the subject of expressing uncertainty in the form of probabilistic forecasts. See here for some discussion.]

This brings up the subject of "panic" in relation to weather forecasts. For many decades, tornado forecasting was forbidden because some bureaucrats decided that the public would panic at the mere mention of the word "tornado" in a weather forecast. When the bureaucrats in the Weather Bureau were forced to being issuing tornado forecasts, no panic ever ensued. The notion that panic will result from telling the honest truth about weather expectations has no factual basis whatsoever. If foreknowledge of an impending winter storm causes people to rush to stores in order to stock up on items they might need for a period of paralysis in the wake of a storm, that isn't "panic" - it's common sense!!

As I write this, there's a debate ongoing about the need to add qualifiers to winter storm warnings - something along the lines of adding the "particularly dangerous situation" phrase to a winter storm warning. Personally, I see no reason for, or value to, such a step. If someone doesn't already know that a winter storm can be dangerous, it's not at all evident that adding such a phrase is going to make a difference for them. Of course, no one knows much about how the public sees such things because we have yet to do the hard work to validate some of these ideas. I could be all wet about this - adding such a phrase might make a huge difference. But I want to be shown some solid evidence before I change my mind.

We can never prevent some people from doing stupid things. There always will be those who will put themselves in danger deliberately, for reasons of their own. There always will be those who choose not to accept any personal responsibility for their own safety. There always will be those who refuse to make any preparations for weather hazards, under any circumstances. And I agree that we meteorologists can't simply put our best forecast out there and hope for the best when it comes to people being able to use our forecasts successfully. I've talked about this elsewhere. Public sector weather forecasts (including those by media forecasters) should be crafted to be of the greatest possible value to the greatest number of users, but we meteorologists are not knowledgeable about how to do that. We need factual information if we are to re-formulate forecast products to match that goal. Not guesswork, not opinions, and not speculation (without evidence).

Science, Public Policy, and James Hansen

I've been carrying on somewhat reluctantly an extended argument for some time with a non-scientist friend of mine, who happens to be a skeptic regarding anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) global warming (AGW). He's a very smart person and is quite passionate in his belief that AGW is some sort of scandalous conspiracy perpetrated by, among others, the majority of global climate change scientists. He's constantly bombarding me with the little nuggets he searches out on the Web that seem to support his position and challenging me to enter into this argument. For the most part, I prefer not to get sucked into such arguments, largely because I see them as a waste of time (see my discussion of civility in discourse). But like a stone in your shoe, sometimes you just have to respond. I've touched on the AGW topic in other blogs and essays, of course.

The latest thing to stir him up has been the rather intemperate remarks by Dr. James Hansen (head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science), who was paraphrased by the Washington Times:

According to Mr. Hansen, compared to China, we are "the barbarians" with a "fossil-money- 'democracy' that now rules the roost," making it impossible to legislate effectively on climate change. Unlike us, the Chinese are enlightened, unfettered by pesky elections.

Democracies are infamous for being a poor and inefficient form of government. However, democracy is widely accepted by many of us (including me) as being better than any other known form of government. I'm certainly no fan of the current Chinese government - it's an oligarchical Communist autocracy coupled to corporate greed. However, pure majority rule is something the so-called founding fathers of the US feared, because the majority can be convinced easily to trample on the rights of minorities, which is the main reason for the Bill of Rights. The public apparently can be led down paths that might not be very good for their societies, and what is right and best for a society may not be popular enough at a given time to carry the day. I'm sure if the German public had been allowed to vote in 1914 when they were on the brink of WWI, they would have voted heavily in favor of the coming war. WWI turned out to be disastrous for them, of course.

Who knows what's best for a society? That can be a tough question. Opinions will vary but, to my knowledge, no one can be certain. When it comes to scientific issues, though, it seems logical to me to trust the scientists who study those topics. Science, like anything else done by humans, is not perfect. Individual scientists can stray from scientific ethics in disturbing ways (see here and here for examples). And consensus science is not inevitably correct (more on that later). Nevertheless (not unlike democracy), science is the best we have, in this case to answer questions regarding the natural world and how it affects society. We choose to disregard what science has to offer at our peril.

Hence, I think I understand Dr. Hansen's remarks as being a reflection of his passion about trying to do something substantial about AGW in the face of all the vocal and influential opposition marshaled by those who have something to lose if something is done to mitigate AGW. No doubt Dr. Hansen's comments will be spun by right-wing media "pundits" (who speak for and also influence the position of many political conservatives) as Dr. Hansen advocating Communism, of course. It wouldn't surprise me if his remarks will become the catalyst for a witch hunt aimed at removing him from his Federal position!

What bothers me most about all of this is the continuing powerful influence of people who are not global change scientists in the public discourse about AGW. The scientific debate on AGW is effectively over, at least for the moment - the vast majority of climate change scientists have accepted the consensus position represented by the IPCC Reports. I'm not going to discuss the particulars of that debate in this blog, but if science is to be the basis for making public policy decisions in certain situations, the scientific part of the AGW argument is no longer in much doubt.

What puzzles me is how AGW skeptics who are non-participants in global climate science have so much to say and have so much influence on the AGW public policy debate. From the point of view of a democracy, they're simply exercising their right to take a position favoring their own interests. They're equal to anyone in regard to the functioning of a democracy. No responsible scientist truly wants to take that right away, but when the continuing debate hampers efforts to mitigate a serious danger to our society's well-being, it's understandable how some scientists could become frustrated enough to make intemperate remarks. On the scientific side, the playing ground is far from level; it's highly tilted one way by the preponderance of evidence and our current understanding of how the atmosphere works. Those skeptics who aren't global climate change scientists are not equal partners in the scientific debate, regardless of their equality in a political debate!

The skeptics generally have chosen not to present their views in scientific journals or at scientific conferences where their peers can judge the validity of their evidence - that is, the appropriate venues for a scientific debate. Rather, some of them loudly proclaim themselves in the media to be the victims of a vast conspiracy to silence their point of view and routinely impugn the motives of the vast majority of climate change scientists. They represent the IPCC reports as political propaganda for a left-wing conspiracy to destroy capitalism (or whatever). In fact, their tactics are precisely those of a politician trying to stir up public support by using propaganda on behalf of the self-interests of the skeptics. I know of no global change scientists who are enriching themselves by doing their science (although I don't know them all), but I certainly can see the hand of powerful corporate interests behind the brouhaha associated with AGW skeptics. Some of them may be getting support from corporations who have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the debate over public policy. Remember the scientists who proclaimed in the media that no one had 'proven' a connection between smoking and health?

Science is not inherently democratic. Scientific issues are not decided by majority vote, but on the basis of evidence. The consensus (i.e., the majority) interpretation of that evidence can be wrong, of course. In fact, it has been wrong about some things in the past, is wrong about some things now, and will be wrong about some things again in the future. But this is the way science works! Don't be asking for definitive "scientific proof"! Science never provides absolute "proof" of anything. New ideas replace the old ones in science all the time by a well-established process that is described loosely by the 'scientific method' phrase.

The current situation regarding the AGW debate isn't a scientific argument at all - that's been settled, for the time being, as already noted - rather, it's been transformed into a political conflict. It's about winning the hearts and minds of the American public. If science is supposed to be the basis for deciding public policy issues that involve science, then this endless back and forth is simply using up precious time, delaying meaningful responses to what has been established by science to be a problem. I can see how Dr. Hansen might wish to command American society to start moving toward mitigation of AGW, but I don't agree with allowing scientists become our society's oligarchical dictatorship. I don't seek that power and don't believe any scientist should. However frustrating it might be, grasping for the power to move society in directions we want it to go is not about science - it's ultimately only about power. That's what many of the skeptics are seeking, it seems to me, since they're not engaged in the scientific process.

Scientific "proof"?

I've had many occasions to take issue with the notion of scientific "proof" and how that notion is understood by non-scientists. In particular, non-scientists have trouble accepting that scientific proof is, in fact, impossible!

Perhaps if one thinks back to one's happy days learning geometry in high school, the notion of mathematical "proof" will be recalled with fond memories! Or perhaps not. In any case, in mathematics, "proof" of a theorem is accomplished when one follows the laws of mathematical logic, beginning with some premise, say X, and then asserting that Y follows from X. If that theorem can be shown to be derivable from the axioms of the mathematical system in question (e.g., Euclidean geometric axioms) according to the laws of mathematical logic, proof is obtained. Once established, a proof cannot be contravened. No one disputes the Pythagorean Theorem of Euclidean geometry, for instance. Once proven, it remains proven for all time. There might be a different proof that's more "elegant" in some way, but the theorem has been established beyond doubt in any case. You can dispute the premises associated with a theorem (theorems typically involve an "if X, then Y" statement, so X might be disputed, but if you grant X, then a proof of the theorem makes Y inevitable), or you might see that in a different axiom system, that proof isn't valid, but within the constraints of the exercise, there can be no further dispute regarding that theorem. A proof in mathematics is forever, and has no qualifications whatsoever, other than the aforementioned possibilities: dispute the premise or consider a different set of axioms.

What about science? Many people believe that such a thing as "scientific proof" exists. For instance, one might argue that the Law of Gravity has been proven beyond any question. A large number of experiments (and common experience) suggests that it might be very difficult to come up with an example where the Law of Gravity has been shown to be invalid. However, "absolute proof" is tricky. No number of experiments can ever establish absolute proof, although they certainly can make a compelling case for those scientific hypotheses that survive a large number of rigorous experimental tests. Nevertheless, from a purely logical standpoint, it might be the case that we simply haven't done the right experiments to test the hypothesis in question adequately. In fact, it's impossible to "prove" that no experiment exists that would be capable of invalidating any scientific hypothesis. So we are entitled in certain cases to behave as if absolute proof has been obtained, since the hypotheses in question have survived some tough tests, but we must submit to the logical possibility that a counter-example might someday be found, even though we have yet to find any.

Scientific hypotheses are always provisional and can never be subjected to absolute proof! Einstein has, in fact, created a new version of the Law of Gravity that differs in very interesting and subtle ways from that first formulated by Isaac Newton. Thus, in this sense, Newton's Law of Gravity has been "disproven" and replaced by Einstein's Law of Gravity, even though for centuries no one ever dreamed of looking at the circumstances associated with what Einstein figured out regarding gravity. So far, Einstein's version has survived every test, as did Newton's version for centuries. There can be no logical guarantees for Einstein's version, however. Our understanding of gravity is limited and our hypotheses about it are always subject to re-examination, new tests, and possible revision. The putative Law of Gravity has nothing like the rock-solid standing of the Pythagorean Theorem, and never will.

It's the very nature of the scientific enterprise that we test our ideas against evidence. This is the fundamental basis of the so-called "scientific method." There is no simple formulaic way to describe the "scientific method," however. Hypothesis testing is dependent on the nature of the evidence available to use to test our ideas, and is a source for considerable creativity in science. It is by no means a simple algorithm to be applied to all scientific ideas. In some sciences (including meteorology, geology, and astronomy), it's impossible to run controlled experiments to test our ideas. Hence, such sciences depend on how to use and interpret whatever observational evidence is available, rather than running tightly controlled experiments (as in a laboratory). This doesn't diminish the scientific standing of those disciplines, however. They just have to be more creative in how to test their ideas and more cautious in their interpretations of the results of their tests.

To the extent that we can conduct experiments that can give our ideas a rigorous test, we can have some faith in accepting our current understanding as "not yet invalidated" hypotheses. But no scientific experiments can provide the sort of logical inevitability that mathematical logic offers. "Scientific proof" is not a valid understanding of how science actually works!

Hence, whenever you hear someone talk of "scientific proof," you can be assured that this person has an incorrect understanding of science!

Scientific scandal

A colleague of mine has recently posted an excellent blog regarding the recent scandal arising out of the putative relationship between vaccinations and autism. Public views about science vary a lot but there are those who would point to this scandal (and others) to support an anti-science viewpoint. They might conclude that by being less than 100% perfect, science loses all credibility. Those holding such a 'holier than thou' position should perhaps examine their own lives and consider how perfect their behavior has been. Anyway, I have some comments regarding my colleague's blog:

Lest a gratuitous co-author (i.e., someone insisting on being added to the author list, or accepting an invitation to be a co-author on a paper about which they know little or nothing) choose to deny any responsibility for the content of any paper on which they are a co-author, they should realize that if they have any positive scientific reputation, they're lending their credibility to that paper. If they're co-authors on a fraudulent paper that gets published, they'll inevitably suffer a significant loss of credibility among their peers. No amount of rationalizing can wash their reputation fully clean after that.

That said, however, there has to be an element of trust in a scientific partnership. It's an ideal, but for the most part, individual scientists on a paper with multiple authors don't actually review and replicate everything in every paper. That's simply not a realistic obligation. Nor is it plausible to add a "statement of work" for each author to the paper. In the real world of scientific collaboration, individual authors bring different skills and efforts to the whole, and individual scientists legitimately may have only a superficial understanding of the specialty knowledge brought to the project by their collaborators. If don't trust your colleagues, you'd have to know everything about everything and do everything yourself. Why bother with collaborators in that case?

Funny thing about trust: it can be hard to gain and easy to lose, but as I see it, the default position should be to trust until something happens to violate that. If you trust no one until they've proven their trustworthiness in some sort of a crucible, you'll have a very limited set of colleagues. Anyone can be victimized by a collaborator who turns out to be untrustworthy. It's not fair that some scientist would take a serious hit to their credibility if they were so victimized, but the world isn't necessarily fair! You only have control over things that you do, so it behooves any scientist to behave with integrity, irrespective of what anyone else does.

It's unfortunate that science has such scandals, but it simply reflects the undeniable fact that science is a human endeavor, with all that that implies. Not everyone will always choose to abide by its standards. Science as a whole isn't tarnished by the scandals perpetrated by the deeds of an unethical few. But as my colleague has said, we all feel a collective revulsion and sadness when such things come to light. And there are those who will seize on such events to attempt to discredit science as a whole.

The scandal does underscore the risk you take as a "gratuitous" co-author, and I believe, like my colleague, that the benefit of adding another paper to your CV doesn't outweigh that risk. I always trust my collaborators to do their work with high integrity and I'd be shocked and ashamed to find that a co-author had done something so contemptible. But there's always a finite possibility it could happen to me. If something like this happened to some scientist I know, then my default assumption would be they weren't truly responsible for the ethical lapse of another. This doesn't contradict with my assertion that they're formally responsible for the content of a paper on which they're a co-author, however. Real life can be complicated ...

Aggravations - part 1

I haven't had a whole lot to post of late. I pity those who have to crank out some content on a regular basis ... Anyway, what follows is me being gripy about certain things. There may be more of these in the future, so I'm labeling this the first installment of whining and complaining about things that annoy me.

1. I've come to really detest the combination dog tag/key card that gives me access to the Intergalactic Weather Center and my office therein. I dislike having to wear security "dog tags" in our building, anyway, but that's not why I'm griping about it. For the umpteenth time today, I set out to go to the office and realized after going about two miles that I didn't have my key card.* Sometimes I make it all the way to the office before realizing I've left the blasted thing at home! There's no point trying to enter the building without it, so I have no choice but to turn around and go back home, where I'll find it precisely where I've left it (e.g., next to my desk). In bygone days, we used a physical key to get into a building after hours, and perhaps another such key to open our office space. The key(s) would be safely and permanently on the same key ring that holds my car keys, so if I got into the car and was able to operate it, I'd be able to get into my office. With this damned thingy, if I forget to take it off before I leave the car, I'll have to take it off sometime in the house, and in doing so, there's a good chance I'll forget to bring it on my way out the door to get in my car next time. And, by the way, when the battery in my office lock goes dead, my key card won't open my office door. I dislike key cards!! Bring back physical keys!!

2. A common gripe of mine has been the extreme rarity with which other drivers use their turn signals here in AbNorman. However, of late, this gripe is being displaced by those who pull out of side streets into my traffic lane, at times in such a way that causes me to have to brake to prevent a collision, and then just poke-assing along. If you clowns were in such a hurry that you couldn't wait for me to pass before pulling out, why are you just dawdling along after you pull out? I would think you'd be accelerating like John Force and roaring down the road to get to your destination, so that I'd be left in your dust. Instead, after you force your way into traffic in front of me, it's the old helium foot on the accelerator! It's become almost laughable how many times this happens to me as I drive about AbNorman these days. I'm coming to expect it (and driving accordingly), just as I have to expect people to fail to signal their intentions to turn.

3. Some years ago, a colleague of mine used to amaze me by the vehemence of his reactions to certain stupid questions and comments that people would make. He was one of the true giants in my field and I admired his work but was always somewhat put off by his acerbic responses to certain questions regarding his work. I thought it was counter-productive to become upset with ignorance. Now, as time has passed, I find myself similarly put off by comparable stupid questions and/or comments. Although I'm still trying (sometimes unsuccessfully) to avoid my tendency for sarcasm as a way to respond to ignorant remarks, I have to admit that having to address the very same ignorant questions and/or comments about a subject over... and over... and over... for decades can become a serious source of aggravation. I think I now appreciate why this great man had this particular "flaw" in his demeanor. It seems that no matter how many times you show someone the errors in their interpretation, those errors never seem to go away. Someone new will express them, even if you've somehow managed to convince those who expressed them to you earlier. Of course, there's no guarantee that you will convince anyone to change their way of thinking. Ignorance is never in short supply, it seems. I still maintain it's counter-productive to become upset with ignorance, but experience continues to show me that my mentor blazed a path for me in this regard, as well.

__________
* Now some of you (you know who you are!) might be tempted to go off about my increasing absent-mindedness as a function of my "advanced age." Balderdash - I've been absent-minded all my life, so it's not at all evident that this is a sign of anything!

Chasing mythology - 2

My next storm chasing mythology target is the often-repeated notion that storm chasing saves lives. Chasers rationalize their chasing in this way by claiming that they provide information about ongoing storms, including identifying when and where tornadoes are occurring. It may or may not be the case that an individual making such a claim actually takes the time to report what they're seeing in real time.

In any case, the fact is that it's only the National Weather Service (NWS) and civil authorities who can claim legitimately to save lives through the storm warnings they issue by using information that might (or might not) be provided by chasers. Chasing, per se, saves no lives, ever! In my experience, many chasers are too busy pursuing their hobby to be bothered with calling in their observations. In 1999, in a famous chaser convergence near Almena, KS, my wife and I were the only chasers amongst a multitude to call the NWS to report the development of a tornado. There were dozens of vehicles scurrying about in typical chaser convergence chaos, and no one apparently had called the NWS, even though a funnel cloud that would become a tornado was in progress! It was astonishing to me when we called the NWS to learn we had been the first to call!

The technology of chasing has made huge strides - now it's become possible for the NWS to follow the GPS locations of chasers and to call the chaser, rather than waiting for the chaser to call them. Live video streaming allows the NWS to see what some chasers see through their windshields. This is all well and good - it allows chasers the luxury of not having to bother with actively reporting what they see and to maintain the illusion that they're "contributing" information in this passive way. But it remains true that it's still not the chasers who are saving lives. That's the responsibility of the NWS and civil authorities (first responders, emergency managers, storm spotters, TV broadcasters, etc.) .

I know of no chasers who chase in order to save lives. Chasers chase because seeing storms is a passion, or because they want to become rich and/or famous people (drawing attention to themselves), or any of a host of other reasons, including science. Storm chasing is a basically selfish activity. Note that storm spotting can and does save lives, but spotting and chasing are very distinct activities! Spotters are volunteers serving their communities - chasers are simply pursuing their own interests.

Scientific storm chasers also like to use the "saving lives" card, arguing that their science will be put to use to increase warning lead times (an argument I've disputed here and here), or whatever. This argument is simply not valid - storm chasers working on a scientific project are also not chasing to save lives, although their scientific findings might someday be used successfully by someone who is responsible for saving lives. They're out there to do science, not to save lives. Their passion is for learning about the atmosphere. The new understanding they can derive from chasing might or might not have an impact on reducing storm-related fatalities. Life-saving isn't on their agenda when they go out on a chase.

Some storm chasers, myself included, have been involved in helping the NWS develop spotter training programs. I support this because I believe it's an important way for chasers to give something back to the society that supports the programs (like the NWS data) they use to intercept storms. In fact, I'm proud of having contributed to spotter training - but I make no claim that I saved lives by doing so. I give the credit for life-saving to the NWS and the civil authorities!!

The fact is that only the NWS and civil authorities save lives when tornadoes and severe storms threaten. Storm chasers are simply hoping to clean up their image by claiming that role for themselves. But no one has given them that responsibility (with the arguable exception of those chasers who chase for media broadcasters, a group that's been known to exceed their authority at times).

There is one way in which storm chasers might save lives - by stopping to render medical assistance to people injured by a storm. I know of no storm chaser who can say, however, that they've ever saved a victim's life. Perhaps a few such exist and I'm just unaware of their life-saving contributions. If so, I honor their unselfish actions. The number of lives saved via the direct first aid of storm chasers must be pretty small, though. Moreover, in order to save a life by this process, a storm chaser must stop chasing! In other words, it's not the chasing that has saved a life in such a case! The most such a chaser could say was that chasing brought him/her to a place where they could render life-saving aid. But saving a life wasn't on their agenda when they began the chase.