More on the EF-Scale controversy

I've already had to answer several questions regarding the EF-Scale, so I feel the need to say more on this topic.

It is true that mobile Doppler radar measurements typically are at heights well above the 'standard' anemometer height of 10 m.  In the case of hurricane recon flights, their winds are not measured at 10 m, either, but there is an 'established' procedure for converting those measurements to the standard height.  For tornadic winds, there is as yet no consensus for such a conversion.  There are some indications that in some cases, wind speeds might actually increase downward from where the radars are measuring the wind speed!  And there's little reason to believe that the winds in a tornado follow something like the conventional 'logarithmic law'.  Real tornadic winds are virtually certain to be quite complicated, with enormous changes in both space and time.  The notion of a tornado as a Rankine vortex is typically a grotesque oversimplification of what's going on.  Numerical model simulations, mobile Doppler radar observations, film/videos of tornadoes,  and laboratory vortex models have indicated that many tornadoes are much more complicated than a simple translating symmetric vortex.  Although we don't yet have the capability to map in great detail the winds in real tornadoes over the lifetime of the tornado, it's evident that the picture is mostly much more complex than any simple model can describe.

In the case of the El Reno tornado of 31 May 2013, it's my understanding that the individual subvortices within the large tornado were observed by mobile radars to be rotating at about 75 m s^-1 (more than 150 mph!  If the individual intravortex flow adds only 50 mph to that, the result would be 200 mph:  the threshold windspeed for EF-5.  This information doesn't require any extrapolation to a height of 10 m.

I note that a publication exists regarding the Spencer, SD tornado of 30 May 1998 and the relationship between radar-observed winds and damage.  It's only one study, but among the conclusions was that the radar-measured winds converted to F-scale (not EF-scale!) ratings typically exceeded the actual damage at the ground.  A number of hypotheses were offered to explain the discrepancies.  Clearly, much more such work needs to be done and perhaps a consensus may emerge on how to convert Doppler-measured winds to EF-scale ratings.

Another part of the criteria for wind measurements (besides reduction to a height of 10 m) is the use of a 3-second average.  This is a standard favored by engineers for reasons they might want to chime in and explain.  But consider the aforementioned subvortex moving at 75 m s^-1- such a vortex that is, say, 75 m in diameter would pass by a house in about one second.  Whatever damage such a vortex would cause to the home would be done mostly within that one second, not by a 3 s average wind!  Doppler radar wind velocities are quasi-instantaneous and extremely rapid changes in those velocities are seen even at sampling intervals of 2-s!  What meaning does the 3-s criterion have in the context of such rapid time changes in the wind speed?

After the Jarrell, TX tornado of 27 May 1997, which was rated F-5, some engineers argued that the slow movement of a large tornado magnified the damage beyond what one would expect from the winds alone - that is, winds blowing for a long time would be more damaging than winds sustained only briefly.  This seems reasonable, but what about a wind that accelerates extremely rapidly?  Could not that also enhance the damage potential?  The duration of the wind likely has some impact on the damage, but the real relationship of wind duration and damage isn't necessarily simple.  The aforementioned paper on the Spencer tornado discussed this, among other factors regarding the complex relationship between wind and damage.

Since I mentioned the diameter of a subvortex - just how does one measure the width of a tornado?  The El Reno tornado was claimed to be 2.6 miles in diameter, supposedly a record surpassing that of the tornado that hit Hallam, NE after sunset on the evening of 22 May 2004.  But how does one define the width of a tornado?  The damage doesn't have a hard edge to it, so even if you're driving at right angles to the track, how can you tell where tornado damage begins/ends?  Try it sometime.  It's not so easy as you might think!!  Debris is often centrifuged out of the tornado, so the presence of debris doesn't define the edge of the track.  Insofar as I can tell, tornado width estimates in Storm Data are probably even more inconsistent than F/EF-scale ratings.

So fast forward to a day when we can have continuous wind speed information all along the track of a tornado (not in my lifetime!) - imagine we can have a complete picture of the time-space history of the wind.  Still, where does the tornado begin and end?  Is there an arbitrary wind speed that defines a 'tornadic' wind?  How does one distinguish between winds in the rear flank downdraft (which usually is adjacent to the tornado) from the 'tornadic' winds?   One thing is for certain:  the edge of a tornado is not at the edge of the condensation funnel!  Remember - the tornado is the (invisible) wind, not the cloud. 

Given the complexity of comparing winds to damage, it seems to me that if we can obtain wind speeds from measurements, we should seek to find ways to use them, rather than to ignore them.

One final word:  there's a question about who 'owns' the EF-scale.  Who has the right to modify the rating criteria in light of new observational capability and/or new science?  At the moment, the EF-scale is something that was created by a process involving scientists and engineers, resulting in a document that forms the basis for how the scale is implemented within the National Weather Service (NWS).  But the NWS doesn't claim to 'own' the EF-scale and they should not.  No one does, at present.  It properly belongs to the whole scientific and engineering community.  Efforts are underway to establish a systematic, inclusive process for modifying the criteria as new science is available.  I can't say much about it, as it's still in the formative stages, but I sincerely hope it eventually can be recognized as the place wherein the EF-scale can become a 'living' process, rather than a set of criteria frozen into a document.  Hopefully, within such a process, many of these issues will be resolved and we can move forward to take advantage of new capabilities and new science/engineering.

Operations versus science - the case of Storm Data

Recently, something of a brouhaha developed over the rating of tornado intensity on the so-called EF-Scale.  But there have been some important new developments.  The massive, deadly tornado on 31 May 2013 in Oklahoma initially was rated an EF-5 tornado by the Norman office of the National Weather Service (NWS), largely owing to mobile Doppler radar data, because the tornado stayed mostly in open country, with a dearth of damage indicators.

The revised F-Scale, now known as the 'enhanced' F-Scale (or EF-scale) has become entirely focused on damage indicators, so the EF-Scale has become virtually completely a damage scale, not an intensity (windspeed) scale.  This is, in part, the doing of the structural engineers, who believed the upper end windspeeds on the EF-scale were too high - they succeeding in a downward revision of the windspeeds associated with structural damage on the revised rating scale:  e.g., EF-5 now begins at a lower bound of 200 mph, whereas the F-5 threshold was 261 mph.  There are some reasons to believe this is something of a problem - i.e., rating almost exclusively on damage (with the damage indicators biased in favor of US construction practices).

In an argument evidently based mostly on the notion of consistency, NWS management is basically saying mobile Doppler data should not be used to make tornado intensity ratings.  This is the ruling that dictated downgrading the rating of the El Reno tornado from EF-5 to EF-3, as well as some others. 

The 'consistency' argument is, in my opinion, not very compelling.  This argument is unfortunately all too common within the NWS as a reaction to technological innovation. I could provide numerous examples of the wrong-headedness of this policy, but I'll try to keep this as concise as possible. Resistance to new technology, and trying to force 'consistency' with older technology is just wrong.  Should we degrade the data obtained by WSR-88D radars to that from WSR-57s simply to maintain consistency with the older data sets? Should we disregard the dual polarity information of the new upgrades to the WSR-88D radars just to maintain consistency with the old versions of the radar? When something new and exciting comes on line, its capabilities should be embraced by the agency, not rejected as inconsistent with older technology!"

Moreover, all the bureaucratic concern about the 'consistency' of the EF-Scale ratings strikes me as rather silly. The existing record is laced with numerous inconsistencies for a host of reasons - too numerous to mention in detail. Denying the value of the most direct and objective measurements of wind speed in tornadoes (apart from the extremely infrequent occasions when an anemometer record survives) in order to maintain consistency with an inconsistent data set strikes me as silly. You can argue we shouldn't introduce yet another source of inconsistency, but I say we should take advantage of new technology as soon as possible and not get trapped into this foot-dragging argument.  Actually, the Doppler data are a source that can reduce inconsistency!  I agree we need to develop a consensus on how to use the new data, but that shouldn't be an excuse to ignore the data until that consensus emerges.   At the very least, the rating of the El Reno tornado should be EF-3+, with the + sign indicating it's a lower bound based on the limited damage indicators, so the actual rating might well be higher.

The NWS bureaucracy can, of course, make up any rules they wish to impose on the process.  Their subordinates do the actual work when it comes to the 'official' record in Storm Data, and those people are subject to the dictates of their organizational managers.  However, here's the rub - much is made of the records in Storm Data, and those data form a critical part of many scientific investigations.  This is true of a lot of the data collected by the NWS - it's collected largely to serve immediate operational needs, but is the basis for a lot of scientific research, as well.  Any decisions by the agency about data collection have impacts on science.  The NWS is an agency almost totally focused on the operational application of science, not scientific research.  Although some forecasters are by their own choice, involved directly in research, their agency is not very much interested in it and offers them little or no support.  NWS decisions about Storm Data affect the science, but those decisions aren't necessarily made in the interest of science!

Photo contests - a license to steal your photos

Various and sundry photo (and/or video) contests pop up from time to time on the Web and elsewhere.  Many of them with which I'm familiar are associated with media - TV weather broadcasters, private weather companies, and such.  If you read the fine print in the agreement you sign when you submit your photos, you'll typically find something like this (an actual agreement):

By submitting your photo or media to AccuWeather for use, publication on its websites, or in its photo gallery, you hereby grant AccuWeather the perpetual, world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free right and license to use, reproduce, distribute and create customized versions, derivative works, and ancillaries of the photo or media in all forms of media now known or hereafter developed, including print, non-print, internet transmission, film, electronic media, advertising, and broadcasting, in all editions and in any language or technical format, for any commercial or non-commercial purpose." This effectively gives them unlimited use of your images for all time for any purpose whatsover ... let the submitter beware!!

Let's go through this carefully:

perpetual = the agreement lasts indefinitely - it never ends
world-wide = they can use your photo anywhere in the world
non-exclusive = [from here] they can resell your photo to anyone
royalty-free = they can use your photo as much as they want without paying you anything for that use
license to use, reproduce, distribute, and create customized versions, derivative works, and ancillaries of the photo = they can do whatever they want with your photo
in all forms of media now known or hereafter developed, including ... = they can use your photo in any medium existing now or in the future
for any commercial and non-commercial purpose = they can make money by using your photo 

Your photo could appear thousands of times without your express permission, thereby rendering your photo copyright effectively useless.  You may retain the copyright, but it will be of no value to you in protecting your copyright privilege.  For all intents and purposes, your photo can become "public domain" through widespread usage, rendering your copyright protection completely impotent.  You can't go after anyone for using your photo if they obtained it from the folks running your contest, and I doubt seriously that the contest folks are giving your work away for free.

The prizes in such contests are usually not all that lucrative, even for "winning" images.  Just getting your work on TV or whatever is meaningless to you if you no longer control how those photos are used. You should weigh any perceived benefit to you carefully in relation to what you're giving up just to have your photo considered.

Potential photo submitters should read the fine print associated with any such contest if they have any image good enough to win a 'prize'.  The people running such contests do not have your best interests at heart.  The image "industry" has evolved to become very unfriendly to photographers and that rapaciousness has spread far and wide.  The fact that terms like the above are widespread doesn't mean that you have to give in to them. 

Much of the same applies to video submitted to media for re-broadcast - they may pay you a modest license fee, but if you sign a license for them to broadcast your video, read the fine print and be aware of what rights you're granting. They may own it forever and have the right to use it for anything, including selling it to others ...

I strongly recommend negotiating a license only for one-time use for a specific purpose, that includes a reasonable licensing fee for you.  If they don't agree to that, don't give them license to steal your work!!  If you really don't understand the terms of a licensing agreement offered to you, don't sign anything until you search out some help in translating the legalese of the contract.  Develop your own licensing agreement and counter-offer yours to theirs.  If they won't compromise, don't let them have your work!

Thoughts on: MLK and "I have a dream ..."

Today (28 August) is the anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King - the day is almost over as I type this ... if there was a time in my life when I understood something important about racism in this nation, this speech touched me very deeply.  I grew up in the lily-white neighborhoods of Dupage County - west suburban Chicago.  I knew nothing of ethnic minorities - they had been systematically and intentionally excluded from my village - my communities were so predominantly white Anglo-Saxon protestant (WASP) that the very idea of a black person was an alien concept.  I literally knew no black Americans all the way through high school. It was something I knew only as an abstraction.  I grew up knowing nothing about black people except what was taught to me in classes about history.  The 1963 MLK speech (50 years ago!) was the summer of the year I graduated from high school. That he would be assassinated 5 years later was, of course, not known at the time.  His speech concerned things that meant little to me at the time because I knew nothing about black America.  Nevertheless, the speech made a lot of sense to me!

Time passed, as it always does, and I was in graduate school when he was shot and killed on that awful day.  The real impact of that on me was more than a year later, when I was drafted into the Army.  My time in the Army was a revelation, when I was thrown into the company of black Americans for the first time ever.  Angry blacks from the ghettos of America, blacks who were simply trying to cope with the shock of being in the military, and blacks who I could call my friends because of our shared experience of being thrown into the melting pot that was the military.  These people were no longer abstractions - they were real people whom I knew and interacted with on a daily basis.  Some were my friends, and some were not.  My service in Vietnam only added to the realization that blacks were not some shadowy figures in an abstract world - they were real people.  with all the foibles of real people, some good and and some bad.  Skin color was only skin deep and what really mattered was the person behind the skin ... imagine that!

Since then, I have found many Arrican-Americans that I can call friends, and those with whom I've not been able to connect.   But if there's anything that connects all of the black folks I've known over the years since my military service, it's been the realization that we're all in the same boat - hoping for a day when race is irrelevant, as Martin's speech describes.  We look forward to the day when the color of one's skin is not even remotely relevant and the character of the soul within the skin is what matters most.  I find the obvious racist paranoia of some of my conservative friends to be most disconcerting - do they not see the vile nature of their comments about black Americans?  It's a terrible legacy we've inherited to be prejudiced by something as meaningless as skin color, and one that deserves only rejection and disdain.  Make whatever judgments you must about a real person on the basis of what they have said and done, not on their enthnicity.   You attack some of those I love and respect in your misdirected hatred.  Listen to the words of one of the greatest Americans that ever walked the Earth: Martin Luther King!  Be ashamed that he met a premature fate at the hands of an ignorant bigot!  Let us come together under the benevolent banner of his dream.  Let us work together to make his dream a reality!

Security and Justice

In my career as a meteorologist, I've become very familiar with the history of storms, at least as well as it's known - mostly in the USA, but to some limited extent, around the world.  What that knowledge gives me is an insight into the future.  And I can say with some certainty that more storm-related disasters are going to occur - unfortunately, I'm not even close to being able to say where or when.  The history of storms tells us important things about how secure we really are from such disasters:  no one is absolutely secure!

When it comes to tornadoes, what I know of the odds of being hit by the violent winds in a violent tornado here in my home are pretty small, despite the fact that central OK is more or less the violent tornado capitol of the world.  If I do nothing to prepare for such an event, it's quite likely that not being prepared will be of little consequence.  Of course, there are different levels of being prepared, and some of them are neither difficult or expensive, so why not do at least that much?  Anyway, I don't live where I do without realizing that the chances of being hit badly are not zero!  My understanding of tornado climatology tells me that I am not 'secure' from this threat.

After tornado disasters, I often hear people interviewed after a tornado saying that their sense of security has been swept away, just as their homes were.  When it comes to geophysical hazards, there can be no one immune from them, anywhere on the planet:  floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, landslides, wildfires, tsunamis, drought, bitter cold, heavy snow, ice storms, tropical storms, lightning, lahars, pyroclastic flows, ... the list of geophysical hazards is long and scary.  No one is secure from geophysical hazards no matter where they live.  This says nothing about asteriod and comet impacts, nearby supernovae, and other astronomical hazards.  And there are various and sundry biological hazards, as well:  plagues, infections, molds, biological threats to our food and water supplies, parasites, venomous animals and plants, large predatory animals, etc.  We survive on this planet only by the consent of natural processes, and that's subject to withdrawal at any time with little or no warning.  No, we're not secure and if we feel secure, we should have some appreciation for the fact that such a feeling is simply an illusion.  Some of the hazards that threaten us can be prepared for - others, not so much.  I repeat; there is no security!

As if that's not enough, there are hazards inflicted by our fellow humans:  murder, robbery, rape, character assassination, identity theft, physical and mental abuse, torture, bombs, etc.  We in modern societies like to think that our laws and police give us security from these threats, but it's obvious that some people are committing immoral acts on others all the time (sometimes, even the police!).  My house has been burglarized, I was molested as a boy (by a non-relative), my car has been broken into and things taken.  Although I clearly can't believe I'm secure from such things and have the evidence to confirm that, when these things happened to me, I found myself feeling both angry and violated, hoping to find justice, somehow.  In a formal sense, not one of these crimes has been prosecuted by the law.

After our house was burglarized, I was pretty sure I knew who had done it (and so did the police), but the police told us there was little chance of seeing justice served to him.  That fed my anger and I was considering all sorts of measures, such as putting bars on the windows.  But I concluded that I would be putting myself behind bars, while the criminal was footloose and fancy-free.  The more I thought, I realized that the material things he stole would be converted to cash at much less than their actual value, and that cash wouldn't last him long.  He'd live his whole life as a petty thief, unless he escalated to something serious, in which case he'd probably end up dead or in prison for a long time.  If I did nothing to him, his life was his own form of self-inflicted justice, whereas my life was one of happiness and privilege.  His miserable life was much more effective than any vengeance I might visit upon him (and possibly commit a crime in doing so).  No, it was simply best to let go of my anger, and not worry about my material possessions so much that I would become their prisoner.

Some other things have happened I won't go into but my general feeling is that I no longer feel the need to see justice in action.  Although I'm an atheist and so have no belief in an afterlife where bad people are punished, I do have a rational belief that at least some form of justice will be served even when I don't see it.  I refuse to let bad people ruin my life.

A Weather Ready City/Nation? - Round 2

In an earlier blog, I mentioned some of the issues regarding what it would take to be truly 'weather ready' but I need to return to this topic and bring up some other topics.  In that blog, I was mostly focused on how the public has to accept some share of the responsibility to be ready for weather disasters.  However, I think the whole notion of 'weather readiness' has been seriously diluted in the NOAA criteria for a community to be deemed 'weather ready'

It's clear that having a plan is not the equivalent of being prepared.  That is, one might well have a plan, but if its components are analyzed, it may well be flawed, even to the extent that it's wholly inadequate.  I've seen examples of local school plans for tornado preparedness that involve evacuating the children to 'shelter' locations that actually are quite vulnerable.  In such plans, they may have an inadequate shelter location and at the same time, have an adequate shelter that's not being used for that purpose.  A 'trained spotter' is not necessarily a reliable spotter - in fact, from what I've seen, the majority of spotters are probably not reliable.  Having attended a slide show or having seen a video doesn't mean the spotter is fully prepared to do the difficult and thankless task of storm spotting.  Some folks just never seem to be available when it counts the most.  I've been storm chasing for 40 years and I still encounter things I've never seen before - just how much actual spotting experience with real storms do spotters have?

I could go on at length providing examples of deficiencies, but my point is that having a plan is just a single step above not having any plan at all.  Preparedness plans and shelter locations need to be reviewed and vetted by someone who knows enough to detect flaws and inadequacies.  Civil engineers may need to become involved in evaluation of structural integrity. 

The NWS is currently in the process of trying to make their warnings more effective.  This necessarily can't be done by NWS bureaucrats and weather forecasters - they lack the education and training to do such things properly.  Partnerships with social scientists need to be established (and funded!) to develop collaborative programs for incorporating social science into the process of developing effective forecasts.  And it can't be done with a token social scientist sitting in some cubicle in an NWS building.  Furthermore, such an effort isn't of the sort that it can be done once and then it's done - it has to be an ongoing process indefinitely.  As our society and its technology change, the questions need to be asked over and over again:  Is the current system as effective as it needs to be?  What do we have to do to maintain and improve its effectiveness?  It's not at all clear to me that the NWS comprehends what will be necessary if they truly want to involve social sciences in a meaningful way.

Communities need to review and if necessary, create and/or revise severe weather plans for every business, school, church, shopping center, theater, hospital, day-care center, retirement home, etc. in their domain.  The people doing such reviews, as noted above, need to know what they're doing, and not be some functionary who's only doing it as an 'additional duty' on top of their full-time job responsibilities.  Communities need to review their spotter programs, and kick unreliable spotters off their rolls - an undependable spotter is no help at all.  Media weather broadcasters need to live up to their community service obligations and put the ratings battle aside when severe weather breaks, providing meaningful information rather than disseminating falsehoods such as "If you're not underground, you won't survive this!".  In large metropolitan areas with many communities, they need to foster a spirit of cooperation for the benefit of all, and not let petty egos and local political squabbles keep them from this ideal.

The pitiful level of structural integrity in American homes is exacerbated by the widespread absence of adequate storm shelters - i.e., capable of protecting the occupants in even and EF-5 tornado with some high confidence level.  Building codes in the tornado-prone areas of the nation (at least everything east of the continental divide!) should uniformly be equal to the standards imposed on buildings along hurricane-prone coastlines.  Enforcement of building codes is presently pathetic.  In walking tornado damage paths, it's depressingly common to see blatant code violations even with the very lenient codes now in effect.  These structural weaknesses increase the debris load in tornadoes moving through populated areas, thereby increasing the hazards to life and property.

I could go on, and perhaps will in later blogs, but the main message here is that having a 'storm ready' designation doesn't mean your community is truly prepared for storms!  It's a nice certificate you can hang in city hall or your local EOC, but it's no guarantee that everyone in the community is truly ready and safe.  If there's some consensus that we should seek to be a weather ready nation, as more and more weather-related disasters occur, this goal will not be achieved in reality when every community has such a plaque on the wall.  It's going to take a lot more resources and a lot more time than most people realize.  Including many of those pushing the 'weather ready' agenda.

What is the intent of a Facebook 'meme'

Facebook includes a great many 'memes' - which are usually photos with some text superimposed on them, making some point about something.  Topics run the gamut, from one end of a spectrum to another.  All sides on any issue make use of them on Facebook.

Whenever I post a meme, usually a re-posting from someone else - I've only originated a handful of them - I'm constantly bombarded by complaints from people who castigate me for posting such a meme.  There comments typically fall in one of several categories:

• The meme overgeneralizes - not everyone in some category mentioned by the meme engages in the evidently silly behavior mentioned in the meme.
• The meme is incomplete - it omits/ignores certain facts, or it fails to include mitigating circumstances
• The meme is biased - it's not consistent with a wholly objective analysis of the situation it claims to represent
• The meme can be interpreted to imply that certain groups are always responsible for bad behavior while other groups are never responsible for that behavior

These incessant complaints about memes, it seems to me, are missing the point of posting the memes.  A meme is not capable of nuanced analysis.  Its capabilities for a full 'fair and balanced' presentation are sufficiently limited that such a requirement can't ever be achieved by a meme.  It's not quite so limited as a simple slogan, but it's not far from it.  The basic characteristic of Facebook memes is their one-sidedness.  Of course they're biased!  Is anything that anyone says ever wholly unbiased?  Of course they don't comprise a comprehensive analysis - the medium simply precludes that.  How one interprets a meme depends on the individual - you may read something into it that's not actually explicitly in the meme - implications can be quite subjective.  We may not agree on how to interpret the meme, after all.

So just what is the intent of a meme?  I certainly can't answer that in a wholly comprehensive way - I can't speak for everyone who posts them.  But it seems to me that the intent is to provoke a discussion.  I know when I repost memes, I'm often interested in hearing how the "targets" of the meme would respond to what the meme says.  Whining that the meme isn't comprehensive, or overgeneralizes, or fails to be 'fair and balanced' is simply avoiding the issue that the meme presents.  Is this true? Is it accurate?  If not, what can you present that shows that?  If the information is inaccurate or misleading, in what way is it so?  What are your sources that you believe validate your dispute of what it says?  If you're concerned about what it implies, rather than what it states explicitly, are you willing to accept that your interpretation of what it says might be different from my interpretation?  If our interpretations are different, which of us is 'right'?  Is it possible for us to decide that?  On what basis?

A meme is not a debate - it's a statement.  Such a statement might stimulate a discussion/debate, but it isn't a self-contained presentation of all sides - it is not a self-contained presentation of all conceivable sides.  Please let us discuss the merits or demerits of the meme's content without whining about it not being what a meme cannot be.  I enjoy the opportunity to learn how other people, who think differently from me, see the issues contained in the meme.  But please don't bitch to me about the meme on the basis of some criterion it can't possibly achieve!

The perils of whistle-blowing

As I write this, Bradley Manning has been sentenced to 35 years in military prison for passing classified documents to Wikileaks containing information about military atrocities going on in Iraq.  The extent to which the revelations actually caused the military any harm, other than to its reputation, isn't known with certainty, but seems to be negligible.  And Edward Snowden is a fugitive after he leaked classified information about the National Security Agency's massive eavesdropping policies.  What these two cases have in common is that the whistle-blowers revealed classified information, which is clearly illegal and represents a compromise of security.

But the problem with the 'security' classification of this information is that it was, effectively, being used to cover up what amounts to illegal activities.  We have seen this many times during my life.  Politicians like Richard Nixon used a similar tactic ('executive privilege') to deny access to information that would be embarrassing or even criminal.  Yes, those who reveal classified information usually have broken laws - laws that are necessary for national security, but laws that also allow unscrupulous people to cover up their misdeeds.  I have mixed feelings about both Manning and Snowden - no question they broke laws - laws that are necessary for national security.  But the deeds being covered up also are illegal.  Should someone be tried, convicted, and sentenced harshly for revealing the truth about criminal activities?  Why are not those committing those revealed crimes also on trial for their actions? 

Any whistle-blower must confront the reality that revealing what truths they have is not going to be well-received by the unscrupulous.  The target of whistle-blowing is quite likely to fight back with accusations of their own, teams of lawyers, and the tacit support of government, including judges!  For instance, we now have laws in several states that make it illegal to film agricultural practices (e.g., industrial production of foodstuffs from livestock) that might reveal extreme cruelty to the animals.  The agricultural corporations and other big producers don't want anyone to know how the food they buy is produced, and they have the explicit support of state governments in their wish to maintain secrecy about their practices.

Several years back, my wife and I were photographing some thistle flowers in the Texas panhandle, when an unmarked car drove up and an armed security guard told us that we could not photograph the chemical plant several miles away.  We explained what we were doing and he admonished us to be sure not to shoot towards the plant, and we agreed not to do so.  After he drove away, we noticed that many of the thistles were malformed in ways that suggested the toxicity of the conditions in which they were growing - no doubt something the company operating the plant would not want to be known.  No, I didn't know the identity of that company at the time, so I can't name them now.  If I could, I would.

Choosing to be a whistle-blower is quite likely to result in loss of your job, and may well lead to your arrest and conviction for various reasons, often seemingly unrelated to the deeds you revealed by blowing the whistle.  Your reputation can be smeared, your life destroyed, and the people whose criminal activities you exposed are likely to escape scot-free.  Is this really the sort of justice system we want in America?  Are we not becoming a crypto-fascist police state where the rich call the shots, backed up by government police power, and the rest of us have to toe the line?  The 4th Amendment to the Constitution is becoming irrelevant in our so-called justice system, where "probable cause" is no longer required for many searches and seizures.  I repeat:  is this the sort of America we want?

Intellectual arrogance?

Recently, in some FB 'discussions' I was subjected to some scathing accusations of intellectual arrogance.  According to my detractors, I was wrongly criticizing and even ridiculing certain people - those who claim supernatural 'explanations' for ordinary events.  The crux of my intent in the thread was to indicate that defaulting immediately to a supernatural 'explanation' comes readily to certain (initially unnamed) folks.  An unstated but still justifiably implied aspect of this is that many folks who accept supernatural 'explanations' are not very intelligent. Of course, FB discussions are characterized by ignorance on all sides of who and what one's 'opponent' really is.  This is unfortunate, as people become alienated by a single post or comment in a 'discussion'.  But moving on ...

The whole domain of "intelligence" is a minefield.  Just what precisely does one mean when discussing the topic of intelligence?  There are many different types of intelligence - in a recent scientific paper, the authors defined intelligence, for their purposes, to be the "ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience".  Other definitions are possible.  The authors used the intelligence quotient (IQ) as the metric.  Yes, there are issues with IQ, including knowing just precisely what it actually measures, but I'm in no position to enter into such discussions.  The paper was published in a refereed journal, which gives it some credibility but is not an absolute guarantee that the work is flawless.  Pursuant to that, the authors went to some length to summarize ther perceived limitations on the work, as any good scientific paper should do.  No single scientific paper can ever provide absolute proof of anything, nor can a single paper provide perfectly accurate, comprehensive understanding of the topic.  This manuscript simply provides evidence in support of the hypothesis that a negative relationship exists between intelligence and "religiosity" - according to the authors

The religiosity measures included belief scales that assessed various themes related to religiosity (e.g., belief in God and/or the importance of church). In addition, we included studies that measured frequency of religious behaviors (e.g., church attendance, prayer), participation in religious
organizations, and membership in denominations.

At least as defined by the metrics used in the study, the more religious the person, the lower the intelligence, on average.  The reason I'm spending this much effort with this recent scientific publication should be clear.  There's scientific evidence to back up my implication that defaulting to a supernatural 'explanation' for something is an indicator of lower intelligence than what would be implied when a rational evidence-based explanation is sought for something.

Note that the relationship between intelligence and religiosity is not a perfect one-for-one relationship.  I know many people who are undeniably intelligent and yet maintain strong religious beliefs.  Although I find such a position to be untenable and inexplicable by logic and evidence, I must accept the reality that religious believers are not inevitably low down on the IQ scale.  But believers are much less common in, say, the scientific community wherein intelligence tends to be much higher (on the average) than in the general population.

I've also been accused by these detractors as "arrogant" and "narcissistic" when I question the beliefs of people who seek comfort in supernatural beliefs.  Why should I deny those people the comfort they derive from their beliefs?  Who gave me the right to say their beliefs are wrong or stupid?  My detractors fail to see the arrogance and narcissim implied in their questions - they're claiming for themselves the right to tell me I'm wrong and they're confident in their superiority to me when they call me narcissistic.  In other words, my detractors are projecting their own flaws onto me, which is one indicator of narcissism (i.e., "Problems distinguishing the self from others") - what they see in me is what exists within themselves.  When confronted with that possibility (that they themselves are guilty of the accusations leveled at me), of course they denied it vehemently.  One even denied that calling me a narcissist was name-calling!  Evidently, by this pitiful logic, calling someone a name is not name-calling when you believe the name has been applied correctly to the recipient.  I rest my case, in this example.

As for the putative right to say someone's reasoning is right or wrong - no one had to give it to me at all.  Like my detractors, I have no moral or legal restriction in the USA on what I can say about someone's reasoning.  Someone's beliefs are not morally or Constitutionally-protected from criticism or even ridicule.  I see no reason to withhold my questions and criticisms about someone's beliefs - there's also no Constitutional protection from being offended by free speech.  I certainly don't ask for any restrictions on someone's right to question my reasoning or even to ridicule my atheism - but I'd prefer it be done with some modicum of logic and/or evidence, so that I might actually learn something from it!

The reason I challenge the beliefs of the religious (and other supernatural elements such as UFO mythology) is that we're living in dangerous times.  It might be comforting to delude yourself about such things as the afterlife, but those beliefs come with a high price.  Carl Sagan has said "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."  To choose voluntarily to eschew the use of rationality and instead to promote the notion of accepting doctrine on faith alone is to encourage what I see as a sort of modern insanity, whereby ordinary people become fanatics - terrorists, bombers, arsonists, or mass murderers - all in the name of a belief in the supernatural.  This was barbaric even in the times when the Abrahamic religious 'sacred' texts were written, but it's intolerable in the present.  Such irrationality endangers us all.  Consider the belief held by many christians that when the "rapture" comes, all the believers will be "saved" and live forever in paradise.  Do you want someone who seriously accepts that doctrine to be at the controls of a thermonuclear war?  In their irrational view, they have only gain to anticipate in their afterlife ... that should bother people!  Same for the suicide bombers and their supposed 72 virgins - we have direct evidence of what those believers are willing to do in the name of religion.

Yes, I know that not every religious believer is a terrorist - many so-called 'moderates' deny any violent intentions and I'm sure most of them never will commit violent deeds.  But when those moderates fail to stand up in opposition to violence and evils such as bigotry sanctioned by their religions, they implicitly sanction those acts.   By the way, atheism has no doctrine, no 'sacred' texts approving of murder, genocide, misogyny, slavery, abuse and selling of children, etc.  Atheism has no clergy or prophets or sacred authority figures to urge atheists to say or do anything.  There are no examples I know about of atheist violence in the name of atheism (Please don't waste time telling me about communist atrocities)!

What is the "new atheism" about?

Recently, the famous Noam Chomsky has taken on the famous Richard Dawkins, a person widely recognized to be a leader of the aggressive 'new atheism' - here is an excerpt from Chomsky on this topic:

...  I haven't been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington's most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush's current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)? If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time. Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time. Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs. Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don't have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not.

" The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds. Who, in fact, is the audience?

" Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the "new atheism" should focus its concerns on the ***virulent secular religions of state worship***, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim -- arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the "new atheism" should begin by looking in the mirror.

Without going on, I haven't found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.

So what exactly is the new atheism about?  I certainly can't speak for Richard Dawkins and, while I like many (not all) of the things he says, I have no intention of defending him here.  He can take care of himself.  There are no real leaders of atheism, because atheists as a group are inherently incapable of being lead.  Atheists, for the most part, are freethinkers and don't have anything remotely resembling a unified agenda.  The only thing they all agree on is their shared disbelief in a deity.  Because they form their own ideas and question even the prominent atheists, like Dawkins, they resist being told what to think and what to do.  At least not in the sense of blindly following some authority figure.  When a group of atheists gets together, you can count on constant bickering, back-stabbing, ad hominem insults, and hateful remarks directed at each other.  A herd of cats is docile and subservient compared with a group of atheists.  It's a handicap in defending ourselves that we get along so poorly, I suppose.

Chomsky apparently thinks, like many believers, that atheists are mostly trying to convert others to atheism.  The challenge facing the 'new atheism' is not to convert believers to atheism, at least not for all atheists.  What we confront collectively is an aggressive move by many religions to merge government and religion - to create a theocracy.  Despite revisionist historical claims by christians, the US is not a christian nation - it was established as a secular nation, with a wall of separation between church and state.  The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because it was deemed important by the founders to prevent tyranny of the majority (If two wolves and a lamb are together, guess which one gets voted to be dinner!), including the majority christians. 
 
Atheists are widely despised in the US, as several recent polls have shown.  There's a lot about atheism that's not understood by the believer majority - there are many myths that perpetuate discrimination against atheists.  In the US today, it's easier to come out of the homosexual closet than it is to come out as an atheist (e.g., Barney Frank).  Families and friends turn their backs on you, you could be fired from your job, you're essentially unelectable as a public official, you can receive death threats, various forms of discrimination, etc.

We atheists are asked often "Why are you so aggressive?  Why not just let people practice whatever religion they wish and keep your ideas to yourself?"   I think most atheists would be just fine with that ... if believers would stop their aggressive proselytizing and pushing their agenda into local, state, and federal government.  If you find comfort in your beliefs, we have no issue with that, even though we see it as a form of the placebo effect - if it works for you, great!  However, the christian majority has gone so far as to claim we're inhibiting their religious freedom when we protest their intrusion into politics, legislation, and public education!  The only 'freedom' we atheists are inhibiting is the nonexistent 'right' to impose your religious ideas on everyone!

'Aggressive' atheists frequently are accused of intellectual snobbery, because they criticize believers for not being rational in their beliefs, or because they ridicule those beliefs.  Believer claims can be so absurd, it's difficult not to make fun of them.  And there does indeed seem to be a strong correlation between IQ and an absence of belief in a deity (For instance, unlike the general population of the US, only a minority of scientists are religious.).  But the ridicule and the criticism from atheists is aimed at the beliefs, not the people.  I realize that for many believers, their beliefs are inextricably linked to who they think themselves to be, so I can understand that criticizing their beliefs can be offensive to them.  But there's no legal or moral protection for one's beliefs - they're all open to criticism, parody, satire, and other forms of ridicule.  If you're offended by that, that's your choice and your problem, because there's no constitutional right to not be offended.  Constitutional freedom of speech is not limited to that speech you find to be non-offensive.  We'll shut up when believers do.

Many atheists, including me, are aggressive in supporting freedom and liberty for all, not just the majority.  We're fine if you want to accept as reality some dusty old myths from the late Bronze Age.  We're fine if you want to buy into fairy tales told by some guy who had figured out a way to parlay religion into an endless supply of women for himself.  We think you have the right to believe entirely as you wish ... provided you don't push your beliefs on us, either by proselytizing or by enacting legislation that establishes your beliefs on everyone, and especially not at the threat of violence.  Do those things and we'll push back appropriately.  Many of us are committed to not letting you force your beliefs on us, and so we fight such things aggressively.  And I'm not about to apologize to anyone about that.
 
We don't understand how otherwise intelligent people accept mythology as reality, with no credible evidence to support those myths.  People who allow themselves to accept doctrine solely on faith (in the absence of credible evidence) are a bit scary to us.  After all, religious persecution of agnostics and atheists has a long, bloody history.  When 'moderates' fail to protest, in the strongest possible terms, violence committed in the name of religion, that's a worrisome issue for us.  I hope you can understand that.

The Power of Racial Epithets

When I was a boy, my cousin learned that I really disliked a name my father had given me:  Charley-boy.  Surely my father had no malicious intent with what was simply a term of endearment, but it really bothered me, as often happens between children and parents.  So of course, my cousin picked up on its effect over me, and used it as a way to tease me.  The more I reacted to it, the more he used it.

Eventually, I found a way to stop the teasing.  I would pretend that it no longer bothered me, and any anger I felt over the use of "Charley-boy" I kept strictly to myself.  I had to learn how to show indifference with no trace of any concern in my words or in my body language.  And it worked!  After a while, he stopped using it because it no longer had any effect on me (that he could detect).  And even more interesting, the name eventually lost its power over my emotional responses.  I didn't have to pretend anymore because the name actually no longer bothered me.  I can tell the story and everyone on the planet can call me that, if they wish, and it simply wouldn't have any effect on me, apart from losing the use of my chosen nickname, Chuck, which I prefer.

The point of this bit of nostalgia in the context of this blog is simply this:  the use of ethnic slurs (spick, wop, nigger, kike, mick, raghead, camel jock, blanket-ass, frog, kraut, elephant jock, chink, jap, limey) can engender an emotional response from its targets only if they choose to grant a simple word that sort of power over them.  It's strictly voluntary!  The people who would use a racial epithet intending it as an insult take advantage of that power you have granted to the word in order to create an emotional response from you.  Words have no inherent power - they have only whatever power that we give them.  Otherwise, they're nothing more than arbitrary sounds and arbitrary letters in arbitrary combinations.  Are you insulted by 'cusquet'?  Seems unlikely - to the best of my knowledge it's not even a word that means anything.  It's just another arbitrary combination of English letters.  What inherent power could it possibly have?

Clearly, the historical abuses of bigotry, including demeaning words as ethnic insults, can't simply be wiped away.  But we can choose to render them impotent in the future.  We've tried to legislate against the use of such words, considering them to be indicators of hate and bigotry.  Perhaps they are indicators of that, but the use of, say, 'nigger' among African-Americans is clear evidence that it's not the word itself that is the problem.  It's the perceived intent.  Racial slurs have become politically incorrect and public figures who are caught using them are castigated as racists solely on the basis of using a word (as in the "Paula Dean affair").  I see this as a pointless tactic - real racists have no qualms about being politically incorrect, and non-racists are already mostly censoring themselves.  By creating sanctions for using such words, we actually are reinforcing their power over their targets.  Bigots use those words precisely because of the effect they have on the target, after all!

What I would like to see happen is that the whole set of words originally used to reflect contempt and bigotry simply become powerless.  If the words have power over your emotions, you have the capability to rescind that power.  The word that bothered you would cease to have any value to bigots because it would no longer have the effect it once did.

Feel free to use any racial epithet for white people in my presence - it never bothered me and never will, even if its use is intended to be mean-spirited.  I learned from experience that you can truly become immune to such things and defeat the intent.  Relax and let the ugly intent dissipate uselessly in the air.  If the user has bad intentions, you've defeated them by simply not allowing the emotional response.  If the user has no such bad intentions, then there was no problem in the first place. 

Sometimes, I feel ashamed of my gender!

I was born into and raised within a home without violence.  My father was a man who never came close to perpetrating any violence on any of us - he was a man, no doubt, but one without the need to assert his physical dominance.  He worked for a full career to support his family at a time when it was possible to do so without having both partners working to make ends meet.  He was a man of an earlier time, and some of his views about women were becoming seriously outdated even as I was still living at home.  But he loved my mother, my sister, and me, and my parents stood together for the rest of their lives.  Not without conflict, but never with violence.  Never!!  It truly was inconceivable in our household, never even surfacing as an item to be considered.  With the standard naivete of a child, I just assumed that everyone lived in such a household.  I had no notion of how blessed I truly was!!

Imagine my surprise when I found that not everyone, even in my lily-white circle of Chicago-style Republican suburbia, had such good fortune as I.  Behind the seemingly peaceful facades of those suburban homes were some genuinely awful things.  Pedophiles, mental and physical abuse, adultery, drug and alcohol abuse (to say nothing of bigotry), and so on.  Some of those men were leading double lives - serial rapists, polygamists, etc. - even as they masqueraded as upstanding members of the community.  And somehow, we never heard much about such things.  Revelations of this sort were rare - perhaps those alleging such incidents were ignored or considered somehow to have deserved what happened to them.   Perhaps the victims were too ashamed over being victimized to say anything.  Perhaps no one wanted to admit the reality that existed.

I had a lot of difficulty assimilating the activities behind the facades around me and, to this day, I simply cannot begin to imagine what lurks inside such men that compels them to do terrible, hurtful things to other humans.  Unless I'm being deceived, which is always a possibility, it's difficult to imagine most of the men I know to be capable of this evil.  What drives Anthony Weiner to his pathetic sexual pecadillos, despite it clearly being against his own self-interest?  What drove John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton to have sordid affairs even as they sat in the White House?  What drives San Diego's mayor Bob Filner to harass the women around him?  What mental state drives pedophilia and child/spousal abuse?  Over and over, we hear about the despicable deeds of athletes and even coaches, involving physical abuse of all sorts.  It seems rape and abuse (mostly, but not completely, perpetrated by men on women) are constantly in the news today.  Likely this has been going on all along, but now we're hearing more about it, evidently.

Life has, among other things, shattered to pieces any illusions I might once have had about such things.  And when I read about the terrible things that men do, I can only shake my head and feel shame for my gender.  Is our brutal evolutionary heritage so compelling that we simply can't control it?  Are we so vulnerable to our sexual urges that we're completely unable to resist them?  Is our proclivity to violence so utterly compelling, it always is waiting to enter at the drop of a hat?  I just don't believe that.  I think our society pays lip service to detesting that side of men, but in many ways looks the other way.  Boys will be boys, right?

A wonderful friend of mine was fond of saying "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree!"  If we have this continuing problem, then surely we must accept at least some part of the responsibility for what sort of men our boys grow up to be.  Yes, of course everyone is responsible for their personal choices (and the consequences), but those decisions may well be influenced by the tacit approval given to boys (and men) for their evil deeds.   I don't know if it's as easy as telling boys "Don't rape!" but the idea that we do not and will not approve of any violence against women and children (and even other men) would be a great thing for our society to seek to make into a living reality.  Instead of keeping these things hushed up, we should make certain they don't go on hiding behind the facade, unpunished.  I have another friend who grew up in an abusive family and he clearly chose to repudiate that sort of behavior, rather than perpetuating it.  I so much admire him for rejecting his own awful past and not allowing it to overcome his innately gentle and loving character.

There's no way to legislate morality, unfortunately.  We each must confront the choices that life presents us with, and make moral decisions.  This is done only one person at a time.  I can offer no real solutions to this problem, but if our society in any way is tolerating (and thereby implicitly encouraging) men to such acts, then we need to fix that!  One does not demonstrate manhood by acts of abuse and violence!

Target Fixation - A Tornado Danger

There have been a host of videos making the rounds in the past few years showing people evidently so fascinated with tornadoes, they seem not to notice the tornado is coming towards them!  I've shaken my head over such videos - how could people be so stupid?  But a recent conversation with a friend reminded me of an incident on 05 June 1995 near Dougherty, TX when I was so fascinated by what I was seeing in my camcorder viewfinder, I was oblivious to the reality that the tornado was coming right at us!  Thanks to the insistence of my chase partner - my most excellent friend, Al Moller - I was alerted to the situation in plenty of time for us to move to a position well out of the path, and we were able safely to capture some dramatic images and video of the storm.  A similar thing happened to me this year, on 31 May with the El Reno tornado - this time, I was roused from my trance by Tempest Tours tour director Bill Reid.  Again, I was brought back to reality in plenty of time for us to escape.  Perhaps coincidentally, there were a lot of similarities between those storms. 

I mention these incidents in my chasing experience because I believe that anyone can become 'target fixated' - specifically, even me.  Somehow, seeing things unfold through a viewfinder can create a loss of situation awareness.  What we see on our camera screens has a sort of unreality that detaches us from what's actually happening.  Rather than making smug comments about how stupid the people are who fall victim to this, I need to remind myself that I too can behave stupidly when mesmerized by an unfolding tornado event.

The expression 'target fixation' apparently has its roots in WWII, where fighter pilots became so focused on their targets, they literally would fly into the ground!  There can be little doubt that some of the most dramatic tornado videos going around the Internet are a direct result of this, so it behooves all of us to be aware that none of us are immune and we need to look away from our viewfinders from time to time, in order to assess the situation - to ensure we haven't lost our situational awareness to a dangerous extent. 

As a sidebar to this, the ready availability of near real-time radar in a chase vehicle can create something similar to target fixation.  There have been some incidents where people in the vehicles had their heads down staring at their laptop radar displays, without paying much attention to the reality unfolding around them.  When you're in or near the "bear's cage" you need to pop your head up out of your laptop screen frequently and look at what's actually going on around you!  The radar data you're using to make navigational safety decisions may be several minutes old, and your safety margins may be less than what the laptop screen is suggesting.

Part of being a responsible storm chaser is accepting the responsibility for your personal safety!

Once again, for the record

This blog is likely going to piss off some folks, but I feel I have to say it anyway.  Actually, I've already said most of this in other blogs and web essays, so this is somewhat redundant, but I continue to grow weary of the same old mythology being repeated endlessly.

Storm chasers and real scientists (some of whom are also storm chasers, including me) have something in common.  They cling to the myth that they're out in the field to help save lives - that their primary motivation is for the good of society.  They risk life and limb while doing so, as recently demonstrated in the most compelling way with the deaths of Tim and Paul Samaras, and Carl Young, as well as one (or possibly more) non-scientist chaser(s) on 31 May 2013.  It's a fair question for someone to ask what they died for.  Was Tim's really gathering data inside tornadoes in order save lives?  Does that really justify the risks that Tim took to obtain his unprecedented observations?

In some long-term perspective, it might be that somewhere down the road, the data that Tim obtained might help fill a gap that will somehow lead to saving lives.  I certainly can't rule out that possibility.  Tim's observations are so pioneering, at this point in the history of tornado science, it's really hard to say just what impact the data might eventually have.  Saying that his work was directly tied to life-saving is, in my opinion, simply not justified.  His work was tied to a single element of a complicated topic - tornadoes - that might someday lead to an improved understanding of internal tornado dynamics, and so is important in the way that all basic science is important.  We're pushing forward the frontiers of our understanding, certainly.  But a greater understanding of tornado dynamics doesn't do anything to save lives at present.  Why do I make such a statement?

Let me summarize as briefly as possible where I believe we stand when it comes to saving lives.  Since 1925, the fatality rates from tornadoes have been declining pretty steadily.  This is, I believe, the result of several factors, including growing public awareness, the development of infrastructure to spread tornado warnings ahead of dangerous storms, the re-emergence of tornado forecasting in the late 1940s, and probably a number of things I should have mentioned but have not, perhaps out of ignorance but certainly in the interest of brevity.  Tornado science in the USA began to be serious as a direct result of the resumption of tornado forecasting - the basic science originally was being driven by a need to learn more about how to forecast tornadoes.  That basic research now has a life of its own, mostly independent of forecasting needs.  But tornado scientists still feel obligated to say their research, no matter how abstract or unconnected to the real world it might be, is justified because of its potential to save lives.  They may even believe that to be the case - but I don't.

As it stands right now, most tornado fatalities are the result of long-track violent tornadoes that hit populated areas.  For such storms, virtually all of which are associated with supercells, the forecasts and the warnings are already pretty darned good.  Not many people are dying in tornadoes for the lack of adequate warnings.  The warning lead times for long-track violent tornadoes average much larger than for lesser events that are much less likely to cause multiple fatalities.  I've estimated that since the mid-1950s, the NWS outlook/watch/warning system is responsible for saving perhaps 10,000 lives.  Yes, the system isn't perfect and there are many things we can and should do to improve it.  Nevertheless, it's neither the absence of warnings nor the inadequacy of lead times that cause by far the majority of most deaths in tornadoes today!

People still are dying when violent tornadoes hit populated areas because, for one thing, most of the people in the tornado-prone areas have nowhere to go for adequate shelter from such a violent tornado.  Basements are good, but not adequate by themselves, and many American homes have no basements.  Typical frame home construction in the US is pathetically flimsy, even when built to code.  The structural integrity of most homes in the plains is limited to winds of 90 mph or less, when built to code.  Sadly, building codes are widely violated, even in expensive homes, reducing their structural integrity still more.  Flying debris from flimsy homes add to the fatality counts.  More than half of the annual tornado fatalities are now tied to mobile homes.  Poor people can't afford even a flimsy frame home and so mobile homes are a cheap way to have the American dream at an affordable cost - until they're in the path of a tornado!  And many people have done little or nothing to prepare for a tornado;  they don't even have a proper plan for what to do at home or at school/work.

Very few scientists do their research specifically to save lives.  They do it because they love what they do!  It may ultimately be practical, but that's not why they do what they do in the here and now.    Storm chasers don't chase to save lives.  They do it because of a passion for storms!  Tim Samaras was a scientist/engineer and a storm chaser.  I know and understand his real motivations better than most people, not just because we were friends but because I have the same motivations, and I honor his memory in no small part because he was doing what he loved.  Tim wasn't really doing it to save lives.  And neither are virtually all the other scientists and storm chasers.  If what they do might eventually lead to saving lives - and they choose to spend some extra time and effort specifically for doing that - I'm confident they'll have a right to feel good about that.

My friend Al Moller helped me to find ways to give some of what I'd learned in my chasing and in my research back to the National Weather Service and to the many storm spotters whose real role is to save lives.  I do feel proud that I learned how to do that with Al's help and I choose to believe that some lives indeed were spared through our efforts.  But saving lives wasn't why I became a scientist and a storm chaser.  It's time to put that myth to rest and be honest with ourselves and the public!

The 'Crockumentary' Beat Goes On ..

Today, I visited the PBS website and watched the NOVA program "Oklahoma's Deadliest Tornadoes" (also including the record year of 2011 events), and was prepared for what I saw - another 'crockumentary' - a science program containing very little science, rehashing things that have been presented numerous times in other programs, making annoying technical errors, showing typical disaster porn, offering weepy interviews with tornado survivors, and presenting speculation instead of substance.  They did the very same thing with the very first tornado program NOVA did in 1985. The real science concerning the 20 May 2013 tornado is far from complete, so how can this program be anything more than superficial?  Simple answer:  it can't and it isn't.

Gary England is a TV personality, who recently announced his retirement from weather broadcasting to become an executive.  He is not a scientist, has never contributed a single shred of meaningful science, and has no qualifications to discuss the science of severe storms.  Nevertheless, he is featured on the show, and interviewed (for several sound bites).  Why is he on a science program?  Answer:  it wasn't really a science program!

The scientists they interviewed for the show - Howie Bluestein, Chris Weiss, Tim Marshall - must deal with the inevitable characteristic of crockumentaries:  they're only allowed to answer the questions posed by the program producers (Pioneer Productions - I've had several experiences with them, and they are consistently incompetent at producing substantive science shows).  The scientists sometimes say things for the camera that are really errors or sound stupid, at least in part owing to issues with the interview process.  I've experienced it enough to make me feel less inclined to get upset by the things real scientists say on camera in these crockumentaries.  In any case, those real scientists represent a minority of the content of these programs.  Real scientists never get a chance to tell a coherent story about the science, but are only there for a smattering of sound bites in the midst of a flurry of meaningless unscientific fluff.

Such programs do the public a disservice and the NOVA series in particular should be ashamed of these terrible crockumentaries.  It would be helpful for PBS to develop a real tornado science documentary that told a science-oriented narrative:  the history of the science (how did we get to the present status in the science?), the current consensus about the science, the topics that are being investigated actively at present, the tools that have been and are being used currently to advance the science, the application of the abstract science to the practical world, and so on.  If that were to require more than one NOVA episode, then make longer!

But it seems that even PBS is more about ratings and glitzy flash than real substance.  If they are so evidently disinclined to produce a real science program, then you can only imagine how resistant commercial TV is to scientific substance (e.g., the Discovery Channel).  Some people are inclined to tell me to 'chill out' about this sort of crap.  Why get upset about what is apparently never going to change?  My response is that if you care about the science, then it should be presented properly and substantively, instead of as mere 'entertainment' for the sake of ratings.  I care about getting things right, and I always will.  Anyone who suggests I do otherwise can take their advice and shove it!  You have a right to accept superficial, error-filled content if you wish, but don't ask me to take it!

The Arrogance of Believers

An item recently popped up on my FB newsfeed .. an item posted here:

It seems that the relatively young man pictured is prepared to say that "sports nuts" and "money lovers" (among a host of other types of "sinners") are going to be consigned to eternal damnation when judgment day arrives.  He's sublimely confident in his own moral superiority and has decided to try to help you get over your sinful ways and join him in his arrogance.  Is he wise?  Or is he merely a twerp?  I vote for twerp!!

If there's any single trait among believers that riles me up, it's this arrogant condescension - they're saved, and you're damned unless you buy into their beliefs.  They exchange their favorite bible verses on social media, congratulating each other for being on the winning side and, apparently, expecting non-believers to be so inspired as to join them, utterly convinced by their quotations from the late Bronze Age, as translated over many generations.  They have the gall to say, "We'll pray for you." even though it's easy to show that nothing fails like prayer.  Prayer is a way to do nothing (except perhaps offer a sort of placebo effect 'comfort') and yet convince yourself you're doing something effective.  Personally, I see the statement "I'll pray for you." to be insulting, condescending, and very aggravating.

Believers demand that everyone respect their beliefs, even when those beliefs have the identical logical and empirical support as do UFO abduction fanatics and flat Earth diehards.  Apparently, believers think we must quietly accept the putatively inferior role of not having a book written by barbarians thousands of years ago to inform our morality.  They seem quick to ignore (or may be mostly ignorant of) the bible's sanctioned misogyny, genocide, infanticide, bigotry, religious intolerance, and a host of other behaviors that today we would call immoral, to say nothing of the now-irrelevant dietary rules, contractions and logical dilemmas.  And of course, the koran (or whatever spelling is now in vogue) is even more immoral than the bible!  In comparison to islam, christianity is in some sort of mellow old age.  But its past will forever be soaked in blood, and it still embraces fundamentalists quite willing to kill and destroy in the name of christianity.  Oh yes, christians have their terrorists, too.

Is this a meaningful foundation from which to command the lofty heights of ultimate moral superiority?  I think not.  Befuddled by the god virus, believers have the temerity to ask non-believers what keeps them from descending into utter moral degradation!  The very question suggests strongly that the believers are admitting they need both the carrot of entry into eternal bliss and the stick of eternal damnation to keep them from going on immoral rampages.  Apparently, like a common criminal, they can only be moral if the omniscient policeman is ever on the watch, with his hellfires stoked and ready for transgressors.  They can't admit the notion of a valid secular morality, or their lofty position could be forfeit.

But wait - no matter what massive evils you may have engaged in during your life, if you buy into the bullshit of christian belief on your deathbed - bingo!  Instant entrance into all the fruits of eternal happiness!  Hallelujah!!  Any of your victims who may not believe as you do are consigned to the flames and torture forever.  Now there's an important lesson in believer morality!  Reminds me of the deathbed conversion of Darth Vader - apparently all the evil for which he was responsible was wiped off the slate when he killed the Emperor to save his own son!  He may have been pretty evil for a long time - still, that little bit of good in him triumphed at the end!  Now he can pal around in the ghostly Force-world as Anikan Skywalker with Obi-Wan and Yoda for all time.  All is forgiven!  Sound familiar?  That is your morality, believers!  Your arrogance and delusions of moral superiority have as much substance as the mythical Force in a Hollywood movie/morality play.  I'm supposed to respect that?  No way!!

If you can accept the notion that the myths (more often than not inherited from your parents' efforts to indoctrinate you) of your religion are a collection of absolute truths that put you as a believer in a position of ultimate moral superiority - well, you have the right to such beliefs.  But that doesn't make you right and your confidence in your beliefs doesn't give you any right to claim moral superiority.  You need to stop looking down your nose at those who don't swallow your bullshit, or have the gall to prefer a different brand of bullshit.  You're not morally superior as a direct or even indirect consequence of your beliefs and have no call to force your morality on everyone around you.  Your only justification for doing so comes only from within your religion (spreading the god virus), and is not yet sanctioned by the laws of this secular nation.  I don't care what morality guides you or how you choose to behave - unless your beliefs are used to justify doing harm to, or interfering with the lives of, other people.  I respect your rights as Americans but I do not respect your beliefs!