Another great man passes ...

A sort of formal portrait of Walt.  He wore that gray suit a lot and his expression here reveals a mischievous smile that was seen often.

Today, I learned of the death of Prof. Walter J. Saucier - his obituary is all too brief, and doesn't begin to touch on the tremendous impact he has had on so many of us. I mentioned him here as one of those who were most influential on my career. Walt was an uncomproming scientist, who never let misconceptions and misstatements go unchallenged. He was an educator of the highest rank, who was more concerned with being an educator than he was with advancing his career. He founded 3 different meteorology programs (at Texas A&M, University of Oklahoma, and North Carolina State University).

But the very traits that made Walt such a compelling role model for me also served him poorly at the level of university bureaucrats. By not suffering foolishness gladly (or silently), he got into trouble with the coneheads and by not participating in the gamesmanship of being a university professor, he didn't have all his boxes checked when he was challenged by those bureaucrats. He was still bitter about what happened to him here at OU (leading to his departure to North Carolina) when I saw him at the 25th anniversary of the OU Meteorology department. I very much hope he gave up most of that bitterness in his final years, as the 50th anniversary looms on the horizon this year (2010) - it made me sad to see him still so unhappy about what happened.

Walt was a great teacher, who was so entertaining in the classroom, you had to discipline yourself not to be distracted by his delivery. The content of his lectures was thick with profound understanding and he conveyed it without any hint of ego, but rather with great enthusiasm. I feel sorry for anyone who may have read his textbook (Principles of Meteorological Analysis) without having also heard him lecture.

But he was much more than a teacher. Among other things, he was a great cook (appropriate, given his surname) and a great host at parties. Walt liked good food and drink, and enjoyed sharing his likes, even with lowly graduate students. And he was a good friend, who always wanted to discuss new ideas about kinematic analysis - one of his favorite topics.

For those of us he has left behind, we will always have the benefit of his tremendous professional legacy: the students he influenced and his incredible textbook. Our time with him was an enormous blessing. I offer my deepest sympathies to his family in their loss and want to let them know how much he meant to many, many people - we thank you for sharing him with us.

Blogging, bashing, backbiting, and disrespect

It's been my experience that most people believe that their jobs are difficult and underappreciated, whereas other people's jobs are easy and overrated. This relates to the notion of bias - a friend of mine has suggested that everyone is biased, and I agree with him. If you believe that your job is more challenging and, at the same time, more meaningful than what someone else does, you've implicitly admitted that you're biased. I suppose that this form of bias - disrespecting what other people do - is a direct result of knowing what we do, combined with ignorance of what others do.

Such implicit disrespect manifests itself in many ways (including bashing and backbiting), but most people shy away from saying (in a face-to-face conversation) the disrespectful things they may be thinking, most of the time. Today's "blogosphere" means folks can hide behind a screen name or vent their feelings without regard to how their rants might affect real people, with names and faces. They don't have to answer anyone's objections and responses, and certainly don't have to confront the possibility that they might be wrong! Avoiding interactions with the victims of your vitriol may be easy, but it's not effective communication, and it's not a very good way to learn.

If these critics of someone else actually could say what they think, face-to-face, directly to the people they're dissing, the responses might turn out to be enlightening, and the chance might exist (if their minds aren't completely closed!) that they'd have to admit to bias and even ignorance. I want to illustrate this with an example near and not-so-dear to most meteorologists: many people say that forecasting the weather is easy, because you can be wrong most of the time and still get paid. Clearly, this is simply a false proposition on at least two levels, but this view is widely held by non-meteorologists. That this is wrong should be apparent to most everyone with any serious knowledge of the science, but unfortunately I also find that many researchers have little or no respect for forecasters - and, not coincidentally, that lack of respect is reciprocated! Many years ago, a colleague told me that meteorologists were their own worst enemies, which I have seen to have more than a grain of truth during my years of experience trying to bridge the gulf between research and operational forecasting. Researchers and forecasters both are prone to letting their egos dominate their interpersonal interactions.

When I was in the Army, I found it distressingly common that I was asked to do things by people who evidently didn't respect me enough to explain why I was required to do what I was ordered to do. I understand the need for instant obedience in the military - in combat. Outside of combat (which was most of my military time), I would have appreciated having situations associated with my duties explained to me. Because I wasn't respected, it was natural for me to feel disrespect in return. Mutual disrespect is not a healthy relationship!

Circumstances often require us to work together, to achieve something that cannot be achieved as individuals (e.g., scientific field observation campaigns like VORTEX2). I think everyone should discipline themselves to overcome the bias that leads them to exhibit disrespect for others. Leaders should communicate with followers in a way that shows respect for the people who will be doing the hard work. Followers should be informed about what they will be doing and understand what to expect rather than simply following orders, should know why they're being asked to make sacrifices for the good of the program, and shouldn't engage in second-guessing the decisions made by their leaders. People in diverse disciplines should assume that what others do is at least as difficult as what they do, and should work to overcome obstacles to cooperation for the common good. Backbiting and second-guessing decisions are poison to collaboration.

I'm not perfect, but I try very hard to avoid saying things in blogs or behind someone's back that I wouldn't be willing to say to their face. It's often challenging to separate criticism of what we say and do from criticism of us on a personal level. Criticism is not necessarily a personal attack! Many of my students have heard me say that your most severe critic is really your best friend. It's what people don't tell you that poses the biggest problem - you can't fix anything if you don't know it's a problem, and it may only be your friends who are willing to tell you about it. Be someone's friend. And be willing to listen to what your friends tell you.

What is it about sports? Part 3

A sad story is unfolding as I write this. Former Louisiana State University star quarterback JaMarcus Russell has been busted in Alabama for possession of codeine. This is but the latest blow to the career of this young man, whose talents displayed at LSU appeared to have the potential for him to become a star NFL quarterback. It has turned out very poorly for him, however, and with this arrest, his chances for fame and fortune as an NFL star appear now to have been lost forever. He has money from his contracts, but that may wind up being consumed in legal defense. And his fame is rapidly changing to infamy ...

His history at LSU was checkered - he was the MVP of the 2007 Sugar Bowl, but had been subjected to various disciplinary actions. After his junior year, he opted for early entry into the NFL draft. Since then, JaMarcus has been a stellar underperformer in the NFL and been involved in more off-the-field behavior problems, culminating in this recent arrest.

Like all human beings, this young man has both positive and negative character aspects, and because of his talents and positive performances as a collegiate player, the negative things he's done have been played out on a public stage. Unlike the rest of us, however, athletes playing at the professional level are being paid a fortune to play a kid's game. This means that their transgressions are not private - in exchange for the millions they're paid, athletes typically will lose their privacy. This is especially so when their negative character aspects manifest themselves in actions leading to them being revealed in the media - Tiger Woods, Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and others come to mind.

When we mere mortals commit such transgressions, they may be embarrassing to the point of humiliation and might make the local newspaper/TV, but the big-time media don't pick up such stories. We're not being pilloried in the tabloids, no paparazzi are stalking us, self-styled national pundits are not offering their opinions about us.

The reason for so much media attention is that professional athletes (and movie stars and famous musicians) are being very well-paid. They become public figures when they become rich and famous. There's a lesson here, if anyone bothers to look past all the media hype. Be careful what you wish for! Achieving fame and becoming wealthy in the process carries with it a price, that can be magnified enormously if your negative character traits are revealed.

One of my favorite quotes is from the movie Krull. When being asked to participate in a quest that involves considerable danger, one of the characters is encouraged to do so because he'd become famous in the process. His response:

Fame! It's an empty purse. Spend it ... and go broke. Eat it ... and go hungry. Seek it ... and go mad.

Many young people are motivated to seek fame (and fortune) via athletics. Only a tiny percentage ever become professional athletes, and only a fraction of them ever become rich and famous. In some cases, unfortunately, that very fame and fortune leads to utter disaster. I'm saddened by such stories, even as I admire the determination and effort that allows someone to achieve greatness in athletics. There are life lessons to be learned in sport, but some participants simply don't learn those lessons. They become stars who can't cope with the fame and squander their fortune on things like drugs, gambling, etc. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Just what makes one a racist?

What a surprise! Mel Gibson has committed yet another PR gaffe - this time he is quoted as having said to his girlfriend,

"You're an embarrassment to me. You look like a f---ing pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of n-------, it will be your fault."

Of course, everyone knows that "f---ing" means "fucking" and "n-------" stands for the infamous "N-word", nigger. But you can't use such words in the media because they offend many people.

It's my firm belief that no one can be offended by words without having chosen to be offended. When we were children, we were taught that "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Apparently, many people have forgotten that wise old saying. They choose to become incensed by the utterance (or printing) of mere words. Such words have the power to offend only if that power is granted to them by the listener/reader.

I'm by no means inclined to defend Mel Gibson, the man - whom I don't know personally, of course. He's demonstrated several times that he can't seem to keep his mouth in check and probably is indeed a racist and apparently may be a misogynist.

However, this occasion reminds me of something that's bothered me for a long time. If someone uses the word "nigger", does that mean they're racist? Then apparently a lot of black folks are racists - Chris Rock comes to mind, but many black people use the word "nigger" amongst themselves all the time. How can its capacity to offend be dependent on who utters it? Isn't that a racist perspective? Pardon the pun, but isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle ... black?

In my thankfully brief time in the military, I made friends with a fellow with whom I was stationed at Fort Gordon, GA. He happened to be a black man, and we established our friendship quickly - you have to do that in the military or you won't have many friends. We had many open, uninhibited conversations in our short time together and I found him to be witty, thoughtful, and articulate. At the time, I had grown up in a mostly lily-white world so this experience was quite an eye-opener: black men are not necessarily angry, thoughtless, and illiterate! Racism was exposed to be a flawed way of knowing real people. Since then, I've discovered the intellectual bankruptcy of racism over and over again.

Anyway, to make a long story shorter, our relationship evolved such that he could call me "honkey" and I could call him "nigger" without creating any ill-will or animosity. We understood that such pejorative names don't cause any real hurt (unless people choose to be hurt by them!) and don't necessarily provide a clear and direct association with racism. We used these words on each other mostly for the fun of seeing how other people reacted - we knew the person using the words and knew there was no racism behind the words. We chose not to be offended. I miss my friend and regret that we didn't stay in touch.

Given the apparent obsession with "politically correct" terminology in the USA, any use of the dreaded "N-word" is construed by nearly everyone as meaning the user is a racist. That word is historically associated with very real racism, of course, and, frankly, I now have no such close friends among black Americans with whom I would dare to use it. You have to be really good friends with someone to use such deliberately provocative words freely.

Mel Gibson may well be a racist - if so, I pity him more than being angered by his ignorance in choosing to believe that skin color tells him anything about the person - but I don't believe that his use of the word establishes that on its own. There has to be a pattern of actions tied to the use of the word to conclude that someone uttering it is a racist.

What is it about sports? Part 2

In an earlier blog, I talked about the "life lessons" associated with sports. To illustrate that, I want to use the amazing story of the National Championship wrestling match between Dan Gable (wrestling for Iowa State) and Larry Owings (wrestling for the University of Washington). Some information about it can be found here.

Achieving a national championship in any competition (athletic or otherwise) is a truly outstanding achievement. National championships aren't the result of an accident - they come from many, many hours of unseen hard work and the development of the mental toughness to work through pain and the boredom of practice, the discipline to do what it takes, and so on. Participation in sports is mostly for young persons, and most young people simply don't have the commitment and mental toughness to perform at the national championship level. But there are a few elite athletes who form a pool of those at or near the very pinnacle of their sport.

Dan Gable came into the NCAA final match in 1970 as an undefeated senior in college at 181-0. He already had won two NCAA championships - in his sophomore and junior years (he didn't wrestle on the varsity as a freshman) and was considered unbeatable going into the tournament. He wrestled in the 142 pound class. Potential opponents of comparable weight either went up or down a weight to avoid him in the tournament, he was such a heavy favorite.

But Larry Owings cut weight specifically to wrestle Gable and beat him! Clearly, Larry Owings was a reasonably good collegiate wrestler, but his record gave little hint of what he was about to accomplish in this legendary match. Rather than trying to avoid the "unbeatable" Dan Gable, Larry Owings had confidence that he could beat him and set out specifically to do so. It turned out in such a way that the two met in the 1969-70 NCAA finals. Gable was the heavy favorite, of course. This was to be the last match of Dan Gable's storied collegiate wrestling career, so he could be expected to give it his best effort. As it turned out, however, Larry Owings did beat Gable in that match to become that year's national champion, in what has to be the biggest upset in collegiate wrestling history.

So it demonstrates that if you set your mind on an achievement and work to accomplish your goal, seemingly impossible objectives can, in fact, be achieved. Larry Owings had achieved what virtually no one else expected he could do.

But the story doesn't end there. Essentially, that match was the final achievement of Larry Owings as a wrestler. But Dan Gable went on to win a World freestyle wrestling championship in 1971 and became an Olympic freestyle wrestling champion in 1972. It should be noted that the history of American wrestlers in the World and Olympic freestyle wrestling tournaments has never been one of dominance - generally, the best freestyle wrestlers in the world are not Americans.

Rather than continuing to dwell on a very bitter defeat at the end of his collegiate competition, Dan Gable re-dedicated himself to his sport, achieving at the highest possible level (the world) before retiring from participation as a wrestler. Then, he went on to coach the Iowa wrestling team to several national championships and national dominance. Thus, he didn't allow what had to be a devastating setback prevent him from going on to even greater accomplishments. He didn't give up on his dreams beyond college, just because he was upset in that famous match.

If you can't find useful life lessons in this (abbreviated) story, then I give up!

Crackpots and scientific journals

I've been hearing from folks with diverse ideas about tornadoes for decades - by phone, by snail-mail, and now by email. Tornadoes seem to attract more than their fair share of attention from non-meteorologists. Some of these are people who have some serious issues - for example, those who make various claims about having special mental powers to control the weather. Others are technical professionals in other fields, including those who may actually know quite a bit of math and physics, but are blissfully ignorant of the relevant science. For example, I've been dealing with papers making wild claims about electromagnetic forces in tornadoes for decades - see here for a discussion (item #38).

Recently, I corresponded via email with a person who had some idea or another about tornadoes. It was evident from the beginning that I didn't want to know anything about his idea because I was pretty certain it was something off the wall, as evidenced by his verbiage. If I can avoid becoming involved in a discussion about someone's bogus notions regarding the atmosphere, I'll do so. Anyway, I told him to submit his ideas to a scientific journal and see what happened.

As it turned out, he sent it to the American Meteorological Society's Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (the 'premier' science journal for the AMS). The outcome was quite predictable - rejection. However, the editor chose not to provide detailed reviews of the manuscript, contrary to standard procedure for journal submissions. I suspect the editor probably decided, as I did, that the ideas contained in the manuscript were without any redeeming value, and may not even have sent it out for external peer review. The author received what amounted to a one-line review (probably from the editor) rejecting the paper for containing 'dynamical statement errors'. I understand that editors wouldn't want to waste the time and effort of reviewers for a paper that's evidently without much merit.

However, I find this abrupt dismissal of a person's ideas to be disturbing, arguably to the point of being unethical. No matter how bizarre someone's concepts might seem to be to an experienced scientist, I believe that even a crackpot deserves something more than a one-line dismissal. This brusque treatment looks to me to be something of an ethical lapse on the part of the JAS editor.

If I were in the editor's shoes, I'd feel obligated to try to point out at least the primary important shortcomings of such a submission. I believe a journal editor can and should screen manuscripts to avoid wasting the time of reviewers with obviously unworthy submissions. However, that editor should be willing to give something substantial to the author(s) to let them know what they need to do to offer a revised manuscript that might meet minimal standards. Even a crackpot deserves that much respect.

Given all the brouhaha about global climate change skeptics, it seems to me that those of us who support consensus science have an ethical obligation to avoid summarily dismissing ideas that run counter to the mainstream. If they contain major errors, then the author(s) of those ideas should be informed of those reasons for rejection in a reasonably detailed way. One-line rejections are clearly patronizing and insulting, unworthy of the science we represent.

A bureaucratic mistake

All large organizations tend to become top-down driven. Decisions of all sorts get made at some level of administration, sometimes even by relatively minor functionaries within the system, and then are imposed on those who must live with and/or implement those decisions. It takes a huge effort to reverse those decisions, despite the ease with which they get made in the first place. The National Weather Service is, of course, such an organization.

Sometime back, a decision was made, for some reason, to take down the the upper air sounding system at Dodge City, KS in mid-June of this year for some sort of system change. Once that decision was made, no argument was permitted to change the target date, no matter what. The foolishness of this decision is tied to the fact that this date is just past the peak in the severe weather season for the Dodge City area (and surrounding countryside) and those soundings are critical information for forecasting the occurrence of severe weather. The soundings also are important for documenting atmospheric structure, which is an important element in severe weather science (including for the Vortex2 field campaign). The absence of the Dodge City sounding was keenly felt by some of us on 13 June 2010, when supercells, some with tornadoes, occurred in the Oklahoma panhandle - within a huge data void in the operational upper air data created by said absence.

I'm sure that some minor bureaucrat in the NWS hierarchy had a reason for choosing this time to take down the Dodge City sounding system. But I'd be willing to bet that if that same functionary were forecasting the weather in the vicinity of Dodge City, s/he'd be howling bloody murder about the stupidity of this decision. Therein lies the problem, of course. Bureaucrats make decisions, all right, but without any concern for the practical, working-level consequences of those decisions. Why? Because if any of these same system functionaries ever had to do an honest day's work forecasting (which is, after all, the only productive activity of the National Weather Service), they've long ago forgotten what it's like to dirty their hands on the forecasting bench. I've met enough of these administrative coneheads to know that many of them have never been forecasters and so have no idea what impacts their decisions have, and couldn't care less what those impacts are. They're simply selfish careerists who don't give a damn about the productive operations of the agency for which they "work".

So the operational forecasters and the science are made to suffer, simply because some bureaucrat made a stupid, but apparently irrevocable, decision. Oh yeah - top-down bureaucracy at its finest!

Rusting farm implements

Driving about during storm chases gives one a fair amount of time to ponder. Yesterday (03 June 2010), I noticed a lot of farm equipment sitting in people's yards, much of it showing signs of rust and other neglect. I couldn't help but think of my Uncle Irving - he was a farmer who held some strong feelings of pride when it came to his farm. When a farm implement's duties for the season were complete, he didn't leave it higgledy-piggledy somewhere outside to rust until it was needed next year. It was cleaned up and prepared for its off-season (repainting, covering unfinished metal areas with a rust-resistant coating, etc.) in a barn, out of sight and protected from the elements. He always got a special break from the implements dealers because when he brought something back for a trade-in, it was always in great condition! Moreover, his farmstead was never cluttered with rusting equipment.

In this society, which treats everything as disposable, I have to say that I was raised to be more respectful of the tools I use. And to not clutter up my yard with them.

And he didn't tolerate the unchecked growth of weeds anywhere on his property. When the weeds got bad, it was our job (my cousin and I) to go take care of that. No, sir! No weeds. He took pride in the appearance of the farmstead, and my Aunt Fran always maintained flowers and other adornments, as well. Driving into the farmstead made one feel the pride of ownership and the responsibility of stewardship for the property (and the land).

Dashing about the plains makes me realize how special my aunt and uncle were. I still miss them ...

The loss of a great man ...

Enjoying some pre-dinner wine with Nikolai and his family in his home at Gilching, near Munich.

I'll post a more substantial tribute to Dr. Nikolai Dotzek on my website when I get a chance to adjust to the shock of his loss, and return from my storm chase trip. [update: that tribute is now posted here] Over the Memorial Day weekend, my good friends Johannes Dahl and Harold Brooks told me about the devastating loss of one of my best friends, Dr. Nikolai Dotzek.

This is a man whose greatness will only become more obvious with time. He was a passionate and dedicated scientist, whose role in bringing Europe into the sphere of severe storms meteorology cannot be underestimated. He was truly a leader in his chosen field, and people gladly followed his lead because he never hesitated to roll up his sleeves and pitch in wherever it was needed. A towering figure among scientists of his time, truly - certainly not limited to his physical stature (he was an imposing physical figure, exceeded only by his many important scientific accomplishments).

But Nikolai wasn't some 2-dimensional, cardboard cut-out version of a human being. He relished the good things in his life: the love of his wife, Birgit, and his two boys, Gregor and Armin; a good German beer: a tasty meal grilled on the patio outside his flat; his bonsai trees; AC/DC music; and so on. His love of life is all the more poignant for all of us who knew him, with its loss.

There can be no words of comfort to explain the inexplicable death of a man in his prime, with so much that he (and we) had to look forward to. It's a mystery of life I simply don't understand - why a good man is cut down well before his potential is fulfilled. I should not be mourning his loss - that's just wrong in so many ways. Death is a part of life, but Nikolai's was too soon! Too soon!!!

Nevertheless, I want to make sure that we all appreciate the vast happiness he brought to so many and the numerous contributions of this great man, and not to spend too much time dwelling over his loss. Rather, we should be grateful to Providence for allowing us the time we had with him. He enriched the lives of so many, it would be selfish to dwell on the negative part - losing him prematurely. Instead, we need to pick up the pieces of his dreams and work to make them real, as he would have wanted us to do. His dreams were great, and so was he. We would be remiss if we let his dreams die with him.

And we should each do whatever we can to comfort his family, in their anguish. We all share in their grief. It breaks my heart to think about Birgit and the boys ... who will be struggling to deal with this tragedy.

Thoughtless people ...

Even though I'm on the road in our annual chase vacation, I have a "down" day and thought I'd put this one out, because it's fresh on my mind. We recently stayed at a Super-8 motel in Dodge City, KS our first night out. The next morning, I went to check out and when I completed that task, I discovered that we couldn't go out the way we wanted to because of some self-centered prick. "Why not?" you might ask. You know those covered entrances in front of the lobby doors at many of the yuppie motels ? They typically have room for two vehicles side-by-side, right? This thoughtless shithead had parked his fat-ass SUV right in the middle, so that no one else could get by on either side! Outside of this covered thingy, there was another lane and a half - but dipshit #2 in his fat-ass pickup had blocked that passage, as well.

Asshole #1 then came out and got into his vehicle ... and proceeded to sit there motionless for several minutes while we waited for him to remove his mobile roadblock. We finally gave up and backed out through the parking lot the way we came, and went out the other end. Only to see brainless bozo #1 finally pulling out!! It sure seemed as if this bastard sat there and waited, to force us to back out of there. He certainly never seemed to care that we were waiting for him to get out of the way.

I recently returned from China, and I have to say that I love the Chinese people, for the most part. But I was astounded at the frequency I encountered folks who would want to have a conversation while blocking the aisles in a crowded Beijing store. Or would stop suddenly on a crowded sidewalk and start gabbing with a friend. Or would walk 3-4 abreast, making it necessary to detour around them. Perhaps this is not uniquely Chinese (You think?), but it just seemed as if I encountered it way more frequently there than at home. Perhaps big city people are just more thoughtless, in general. I was raised differently ... to think about someone besides myself from time to time.

It's a pet peeve of mine that I see people acting as if there's no one else in the world other than them. Their needs, their convenience, their concerns simply trump those of everyone around them. If they even notice anyone else!! Never a thought to get out of the way. Never a moment spent worrying about how their actions might create difficulties for someone else. Is this self-centeredness a learned behavior, or is it something some people are born with and never seem to outgrow?

They're the same dickheads who leave shopping carts right in the middle of parking spots throughout the Wal-Mart parking lot. They're the same careless assholes who deposit their trash everywhere in a state or national park. They're the same mindless idiots who watch blankly from inside the elevator as the doors close right in front you as you're obviously hurrying to get there.

If there's an afterlife with something resembling hell, I hope there's an especially hot place reserved for these M-Fers!!

Thoughts as Memorial Day approaches

I just watched a program on PBS Frontline - The Wounded Platoon. I was galvanized to start a blog, but it turned into a project: I'm working on a full-blown essay that I hope to post to my Website soon. [Update: that essay is done and has been posted here] What I'm posting here is the short version.

This PBS program revealed how the horrors of war have ravaged some of our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Life is all about choices, and our soldiers are responsible for the choices they make, even in wartime and certainly afterward. But they didn't necessarily choose to experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). That happened because they were doing their duty in a terrible situation: combat is always terrible. And they're suffering the consequences of PTSD in awful ways: rage, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, murder, suicide. If we're going to make our young people suffer such things, one would hope that it would be for a good reason (e.g., WWII) rather than bad ones (Vietnam, Iraq).

Although I was in Vietnam, I only experienced a shadow of what real combat troops went through. You couldn't call me a PTSD victim. But still I was horrified by the casual acceptance of terrible things in war, even in the relative quiet of Phu Bai in 1970. I suppose becoming numb or indifferent to horror is a coping mechanism. What was really difficult to accept when I returned to my civilian life in 1972 was that civilians who've never served have no grasp of what war can be for the soldiers. Only another soldier can understand.

As Memorial Day nears, I hope our nation will honor their warriors, even though they may hate the war. After Vietnam, our nation generally has improved its support for our 'war fighters' but there still seems to be little understanding for PTSD victims. We as a nation need to help support them. While I don't condone the choices some of them make, I'm saddened by the way our nation has used them and then discarded them. We collectively are responsible for what happened to them, and for the military simply to give them bad discharges and turn them loose is just not right. The first Rambo movie, First Blood, was about this - however bogus and stupid Hollywood can be, at least this was an attempt at a sympathetic treatment of PTSD victims when they return home to find themselves to be strangers in a strange land.

Think that over this Memorial Day weekend ...

Chaser Convergence

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

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

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

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

Are chasers saving lives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Totalitarian regimes as religions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does “Freedom of Speech” mean to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climategate ... an update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political commentators on TV - Pundits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moisture return - chaos amidst regularity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our side .. right or wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

On disagreement in science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Cultures? Or one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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