First of all, henceforth, I will not publish any anonymous comments. If there is to be discourse here, it must be known who is making the comment.
Now ... back to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I've become very irritated by the constant harping from AGW deniers that the scientists involved in climate research are advocating the AGW position for reasons of personal gain. This is both absurd and insulting.
Right away, naturally, I have to say that scientists are human, and occasionally a tiny minority of scientists engage in various forms of unethical behavior. Hence, the odd example of someone in science who forfeits their integrity for some perceived personal gain can be found. But this is nothing more than a reflection of the fact that science is a human endeavor, not some sort of broad-brush that can be used to tar and feather the majority of scientists. It says nothing that can be applied to the whole collection of scientists who participated in creating the IPCC reports. At most, it might apply to a handful of individuals, but I have little doubt that the vast majority of those scientists are supporting the notion of AGW because that's what the research shows, not for personal gain. When an individual scientist is shown to have engaged in unethical activities, their career in science is, for all intents and purposes, over. They will pay a huge price for their misdeeds within the scientific community, because honesty is a paramount virtue in science -- without it, the whole endeavor collapses. Losing the opportunity to be a practicing scientist would be very harsh punishment for the typical scientist, very passionate about the subject of their research, to say nothing of civil punishments for criminal forms of ethical transgressions.
Misrepresenting climate science for personal gain? It's simply nonsense to believe that such a conspiracy could exist among so many scientists. The risks are far too high for any imaginable rewards and only a very rare person or two would ever take such risks, and such rare instances likely would be very much "disturbed" persons.
Of course, any scientist worth his/her salt is a forceful advocate for their research. Is this an indication of moral turpitude? No way!! Anyone not believing in the value of what research they do shouldn't be funded -- if you don't believe in it, why do it? When scientists seek support for their research, it's so that they can do the work, not to become wealthy. In some very twisted minds, of course, this could be interpreting as seeking personal gain (i.e., doing something you want to do, as opposed to, say, something you're forced to do). If anyone wants to do anything, it has this "selfish" aspect, but the IPCC consensus is light years from some vast conspiracy among climate scientists for personal gain.
Of course, public funds are being used to support climate research (as well as most other forms of scientific research). The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a primary supporter of climate and weather research, mostly through universities.
How do NSF research grants work? I can't speak for other disciplines, but in weather and climate science, the contract is not between the scientist and NSF but rather between the university and NSF. The money isn't a check written into a researcher's bank account to dispense as they see fit! Rather, the funding must be used to accomplish the research as developed in the grant's proposed budget, an effort done jointly by the researcher and the university staff. Among the budget items, a university scientist usually seeks salary support for a few months out of each year of the grant. The salary support from NSF is dispensed over the life of the grant by the university (not NSF) to the researcher, at a rate determined by the researcher's status within the university, and fixed by the budget proposal.
The rest of the money in the budget mostly goes to support student research assistants, pay for travel to conferences, pay the page charges for publications coming out of the research, pay for field data collection, pay for office computers and supercomputer services, and pay the university to support the university's infrastructure within which the research operates (buildings, offices, lights, phones, power, etc.). This latter item is called "overhead" and it adds about 50% of the research cost to the grant, such that a $100,000 research project must be funded for $150,000. The overhead rate varies among institutions - 50% is just a representative value.
The only truly personal gain by the researcher is that few months of salary support. Note that most research universities only pay their faculty for 9 months of salary, so the faculty have to obtain grant support for the other 3 months. This is not a formula for the enrichment of the researchers! No Rolls-Royce limousines, no condos in the Mediterranean, no exclusive country club memberships, no Lear jets for personal travel, unless those scientists are independently wealthy to begin with. No university-based climate researcher is getting rich from NSF grants. Publicly-funded money from NSF to the universities is by a large margin supporting the research, not the research scientist!
Government scientists are not allowed to obtain salary support from the NSF grants -- if government researchers participate in an NSF grant, they can receive the benefits associated with the research (data collection, student research assistants, travel support, page charges, etc.) and nothing else. They are paid a regular government full salary according to their status in the agency for which they work. Although government salaries for research scientists are reasonably good (comparable to intermediate-level university faculty), it's not going to make them wealthy unless they can invest some of their income in some high-yield investment opportunity on their own. Government climate researchers also are not getting rich as a result of these grants, or this research.
These researchers are doing this work because, for the most part, they believe passionately in the science to which they are contributing. To question their motives in supporting the AGW consensus is monumentally astounding rubbish!! I know a few of the people involved in this work, and I find it really aggravating to hear ignorant people casting very negative aspersions on the motives of my friends.
Anyone has a right to an opinion, and when it comes to the use of public funds, it's anyone's right to question the merit of that expenditure. NSF was founded after WWII because it was realized by far-seeing people that federal support of research would pay huge dividends to this nation in terms of new technology for the good of everyone, and jobs for those who worked to make those new technologies available to the public. This is the way it has turned out, although it seems that we as a nation are having trouble deciding where to put our priorities and research of all sorts is being questioned.
Now a cruel spotlight has been directed at the climate scientists not because of their misdeeds, but because their findings are not pleasing to certain wealthy, politically-powerful segments of our society. In an effort to negate those research findings for reasons having nothing to do with the science, an absurd conspiracy theory has been hatched to dispute the science by discrediting the scientists! Their collective integrity has been questioned because of political and politically-inspired media pressure, not because of any widespread, validated wrongdoing in their actual research activities. Media accusations, innuendo, personal attacks on blogs, and so forth are fomenting discontent in the public regarding the climate research funded by their taxes. If you want to look for a conspiracy, look to the AGW deniers, not to the scientists doing the climate research. These AGW-denying narcissists are using a familiar tactic -- accuse your opponents of the very misdeeds you yourself are committing.
I, for one, stand ready to defend my climate science colleagues from this unwarranted attack on their personal integrity. Of course, any actual, proven wrongdoing by individuals is unacceptable, but does not automatically validate any conspiracy hypothesis.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
The attack on "consensus" science
I've just concluded an "argument" with an enormously ignorant non-scientist who has cited various blogs about science in support of his conclusion that "faith in global warming consensus isn't science, it is anti-science." This person, like a surprising number of others (including those who should know better), has no comprehension of what scientific consensus really means.
Anthropogenic global warming deniers cite such notions as the "consensus in science (and religion) [was once] that the earth was the center of the universe" as "proof" that consensus science is just an argument by authority. That isn't the meaning of consensus science at all! It's not an argument by authority but rather is the core of the ideas that are currently accepted by the majority of those who are actually participating in that science. If we have no core of agreement, we can have no discussion at all!
By the way, these folks also talk glibly about "proof" in science. I've already discussed that here, and it's a clear indicator of ignorance about how science really works to hear someone talk about "scientific proof". Even more pathetic is their understanding of the so-called "scientific method" - as if some simple formulaic approach can constitute the "scientific method". Pitiful, indeed!
For people laboring under these ignorant delusions, I recommend they read my essay about how science works. In that essay, I state:
... it may come as something of a revelation to many that scientific consensus is the sole basis for scientific arguments. Most scientists accept certain principles and consequences of those basic principles as the starting point for their work. This large and pervasive consensus is the core of a science education curriculum - it takes years to be taught the fundamentals for a particular discipline and to know the acceptable rules for drawing deductions using those fundamentals. The "state of the art" in science is always on the margins of this dominant background consensus. Is the consensus always right? No. It's axiomatic that nothing in science is sacred, even elements that are widely accepted as fundamental and basic to all that scientists do. Most scientists understand this principle, but they don't act as if everything needs to be repeatedly validated. They simply accept the consensus - what T.S. Kuhn called the dominant paradigm. There are various levels of consensus on different topics - many scientists bristle at some of the consensus even as they accept the majority of its canons. Hence, on the whole, there's always an undercurrent of attack on the paradigms. Virtually all scientists accept another principle: if you take on something fundamental, you have to be prepared for a spirited response to your claims to have overthrown a paradigm. The saying goes (I know Carl Sagan said it in "Cosmos"), "If you make extraordinary claims, you have to be able to provide extraordinarily convincing evidence!" As already noted herein, someone with a talent for designing revealing experiments can go far in science. Some parts of the consensus understanding are always vulnerable, perhaps owing to their never having been tested sufficiently rigorously. Others may have seemed so obvious that they have hardly been tested at all, so there are always many targets for a young scientist seeking to make a contribution.
The basic notion here is that a consensus emerges when the majority of scientists active in some area of research accept "something", and this "something" is the consensus. No one is making any argument to the effect that the consensus is invariably and inevitably correct. This is simply what most scientists active in some field believe at any given moment. It's a provisional understanding that can be changed, but changing it will require evidence more substantive than just an opinion!
When it comes to the host of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers, they're dominated by those who are not actively engaged in global climate research, including my recent "opponent" in an argument. They have opinions about this topic but those opinions simply can't carry the same weight as those whose work has been consistently in the field of global climate. Anyone is allowed to have any opinion they want, for whatever reasons, but in science, opinions are nothing particularly noteworthy unless they're backed up by serious research that is published in scientific journals. Not everything in journals is "true" in some absolute sense, but it has met some important standards (associated with peer review).
Yes, it's an elitist argument. But whose opinion should mean the most? Those who have been engaged in the field for many years, publishing articles in refereed journals on their scholarly research, or those who have no data of their own to present, no track record of publishing articles in scientific journals, nothing at all that is the result of their own research? Surely the answer to that is obvious.
As I've stated elsewhere, I know a thing or two about how the atmosphere works, and I know several of those whose work is represented in the IPCC "consensus". Although I'm not a climate scientist myself, I trust those people and I trust the consensus simply because I'm not qualified to gainsay their findings. But I understand enough of their arguments to be reasonably convinced about the consensus in which their work is represented. In any case , I daresay I'm a hell of a lot more qualified than those deniers whose background in science is nonexistent. A few of the deniers are, like me, atmospheric scientists but not participants in climate science. They should understand, as I do, that their credentials as a scientist in another subfield don't necessarily qualify them to contravene the work of specialists in another discipline. By far the majority of the deniers have essentially no credentials that would support their ability to dispute the consensus, notably including the person with whom I recently had an "argument" - sort of like debating with a moron, that. His contributions to science are essentially negligible and his credentials as a meteorologist are not such that he can argue credibly against the climate scientists.
Sure, the deniers might be right. That is a logical possibility, of course. Science is not determined by majority vote and the consensus understanding is not inevitably correct, as history has shown repeatedly. Science works because it fits the evidence - there is no other standard. But do I trust these amateurs to be able to marshal a convincing argument by scientific standards for their extraordinary claims to overthrow the IPCC consensus? No. A thousand times NO!
The whole debate is a slur on the integrity of those whom I know to have impeccable integrity. I resent the very notion that the IPCC consensus represents some sort of cabal to defraud the public for the personal gain of those framing that consensus. The very idea of such a conspiracy is ludicrous in the extreme for anyone who knows anything about how science really works, and who knows the people involved in developing that consensus.
Anthropogenic global warming deniers cite such notions as the "consensus in science (and religion) [was once] that the earth was the center of the universe" as "proof" that consensus science is just an argument by authority. That isn't the meaning of consensus science at all! It's not an argument by authority but rather is the core of the ideas that are currently accepted by the majority of those who are actually participating in that science. If we have no core of agreement, we can have no discussion at all!
By the way, these folks also talk glibly about "proof" in science. I've already discussed that here, and it's a clear indicator of ignorance about how science really works to hear someone talk about "scientific proof". Even more pathetic is their understanding of the so-called "scientific method" - as if some simple formulaic approach can constitute the "scientific method". Pitiful, indeed!
For people laboring under these ignorant delusions, I recommend they read my essay about how science works. In that essay, I state:
... it may come as something of a revelation to many that scientific consensus is the sole basis for scientific arguments. Most scientists accept certain principles and consequences of those basic principles as the starting point for their work. This large and pervasive consensus is the core of a science education curriculum - it takes years to be taught the fundamentals for a particular discipline and to know the acceptable rules for drawing deductions using those fundamentals. The "state of the art" in science is always on the margins of this dominant background consensus. Is the consensus always right? No. It's axiomatic that nothing in science is sacred, even elements that are widely accepted as fundamental and basic to all that scientists do. Most scientists understand this principle, but they don't act as if everything needs to be repeatedly validated. They simply accept the consensus - what T.S. Kuhn called the dominant paradigm. There are various levels of consensus on different topics - many scientists bristle at some of the consensus even as they accept the majority of its canons. Hence, on the whole, there's always an undercurrent of attack on the paradigms. Virtually all scientists accept another principle: if you take on something fundamental, you have to be prepared for a spirited response to your claims to have overthrown a paradigm. The saying goes (I know Carl Sagan said it in "Cosmos"), "If you make extraordinary claims, you have to be able to provide extraordinarily convincing evidence!" As already noted herein, someone with a talent for designing revealing experiments can go far in science. Some parts of the consensus understanding are always vulnerable, perhaps owing to their never having been tested sufficiently rigorously. Others may have seemed so obvious that they have hardly been tested at all, so there are always many targets for a young scientist seeking to make a contribution.
The basic notion here is that a consensus emerges when the majority of scientists active in some area of research accept "something", and this "something" is the consensus. No one is making any argument to the effect that the consensus is invariably and inevitably correct. This is simply what most scientists active in some field believe at any given moment. It's a provisional understanding that can be changed, but changing it will require evidence more substantive than just an opinion!
When it comes to the host of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers, they're dominated by those who are not actively engaged in global climate research, including my recent "opponent" in an argument. They have opinions about this topic but those opinions simply can't carry the same weight as those whose work has been consistently in the field of global climate. Anyone is allowed to have any opinion they want, for whatever reasons, but in science, opinions are nothing particularly noteworthy unless they're backed up by serious research that is published in scientific journals. Not everything in journals is "true" in some absolute sense, but it has met some important standards (associated with peer review).
Yes, it's an elitist argument. But whose opinion should mean the most? Those who have been engaged in the field for many years, publishing articles in refereed journals on their scholarly research, or those who have no data of their own to present, no track record of publishing articles in scientific journals, nothing at all that is the result of their own research? Surely the answer to that is obvious.
As I've stated elsewhere, I know a thing or two about how the atmosphere works, and I know several of those whose work is represented in the IPCC "consensus". Although I'm not a climate scientist myself, I trust those people and I trust the consensus simply because I'm not qualified to gainsay their findings. But I understand enough of their arguments to be reasonably convinced about the consensus in which their work is represented. In any case , I daresay I'm a hell of a lot more qualified than those deniers whose background in science is nonexistent. A few of the deniers are, like me, atmospheric scientists but not participants in climate science. They should understand, as I do, that their credentials as a scientist in another subfield don't necessarily qualify them to contravene the work of specialists in another discipline. By far the majority of the deniers have essentially no credentials that would support their ability to dispute the consensus, notably including the person with whom I recently had an "argument" - sort of like debating with a moron, that. His contributions to science are essentially negligible and his credentials as a meteorologist are not such that he can argue credibly against the climate scientists.
Sure, the deniers might be right. That is a logical possibility, of course. Science is not determined by majority vote and the consensus understanding is not inevitably correct, as history has shown repeatedly. Science works because it fits the evidence - there is no other standard. But do I trust these amateurs to be able to marshal a convincing argument by scientific standards for their extraordinary claims to overthrow the IPCC consensus? No. A thousand times NO!
The whole debate is a slur on the integrity of those whom I know to have impeccable integrity. I resent the very notion that the IPCC consensus represents some sort of cabal to defraud the public for the personal gain of those framing that consensus. The very idea of such a conspiracy is ludicrous in the extreme for anyone who knows anything about how science really works, and who knows the people involved in developing that consensus.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
A tribute to Nancy Knight
Dr. Nancy Knight with an egg and the famous Coffeyville, KS, world record hailstone.
Today I learned the sad news that my friend and colleague, Dr. Nancy Knight died on 26 June. Nancy spent her career studying hail alongside her husband, Charlie, at the National Center for Atmospheric Reseach in Boulder, CO. Her body of work is large and very meaningful, quite evidently a labor of love reflecting a lifelong fascination with the topic of her studies. Nancy Knight was one of the world's leading hail scientists and that simple statement needs no embellishment or clarification. When I first met her, while I was a graduate student at OU, she was pioneering the use of storm chasing in hail research, driving a specially-designed hail collection vehicle into hail shafts. I instantly fell in love with her!! How could anyone not like someone so evidently enthusiastic as to drive deliberately into hail shafts?
With time, I came to know more about Nancy and her husband and their research. They made a great team, but make no mistake -- Nancy was not riding on Charlie's coattails!! She was fiercely independent and that was another trait I found endearing. But she was also gentle and thoughtful of others when the occasion warranted it. Nancy was unselfconsciously kind and caring, although this side of her personality might not always reveal itself. My wife and I had occasion to see it from time to time. Nancy was the sort of person who could make friends quickly because she was an open book -- no one had to struggle to know what she thought about something. Yet another endearing trait!
Although all of us who knew her will miss her terribly, the fact is that she leaves this world a much better place for her having been with us for a time. I'm very grateful to have been her friend and I treasure her memory. Her scientific legacy will live on, of course. I know she was an inspiration to many young scientists, perhaps especially so to aspiring young women for whom role models historically have been scarce.
My deepest condolences go to Charlie in his grief over his loss. I trust he knows what a blessing it was to have shared this life with Nancy. My sincere thanks to Charlie for sharing Nancy and her irrepressible spirit with the rest of us!!
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A tribute to Charlie Chappell
Charlie Chappell when he was a lead forecaster in SELS. He taught me his methods of surface analysis in my years there as a student trainee. This was shot in the mid-1960s, when Don House was the Director of SELS.
This is not the first time I've posted about the incredible gift of friendship. It likely won't be the last. Last Tuesday evening, my friend Charles (Charlie) F. Chappell died. Unfortunately, it's an example of an opportunity I missed - to thank Charlie for the inspiration he provided me during the occasions we spent time together. Fortunately, my friend Mike Fritsch expressed his gratitude to Charlie for all that he gave to Mike in a very eloquent way in a letter before Charlie died. Mike has been an inspiration to me, in no small measure because he has done so much with the opportunities he was given. Mike is a brilliant meteorologist and was no doubt a source of great pride for Charlie. Charlie managed to inspire (directly or indirectly) five people who have received the Clarence Leroy Meisinger Award from the American Meteorological Society: Mike Fritsch, Bob Maddox, Da Lin Zhang, Dave Stensrud, and George Bryan. This is an amazing achievement for an amazing man. If you know these people, you must realize how important Charlie's legacy is! These people represent what Charlie was about - dedication to advancing our understanding of the science - and who have used what they were given to advance everyone's understanding. I'm proud to say I'm friends with all of them!
Mike Fritsch is an amazing man in his own rights, as is another "hero" of mine, Bob Maddox. Charlie inspired many of us, indirectly or directly, to achievements of substance. And it's been my privilege to know and admire many such people in my profession. I've known some amazing colleagues (living and dead) who have influenced me to achieve well beyond my own meager capabilities: Bob Maddox, Mike Fritsh, Fernando Caracena, Charlie Chappell, Fernando Caracena, Stan Barnes, Harold Brooks, Chad Shafer, Alan Moller, Ronnie Alberty, Yoshi Sasaki, Walt Saucier, Dave Barber, Barry Schwartz, Werner Schwerdtfeger ... the list is long and I have left out some here who certainly deserve recognition.
I often have said that the biggest regrets in my life are sins of omission: not having expressed my thanks to those who have helped me become what I wanted to be. Charlie Chappell's recent passing is one that bothers me because I never took the time to tell him how much he meant to me. For your own sake, please take that time to say "Thank You!" to those who played a positive role in your life. It probably means more to you than it does to them - they have been rewarded with seeing your success, whether you said anything or not. But to have expressed your gratitude helps a great deal when they've passed beyond your gratitude. Take the time now, while the opportunity still exists! Friendship with inspirational friends is important. Be grateful for it, as friendships inevitably end even as we live on.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
What has happened to our national priorities?
It's becoming very clear to me that we as a nation have allowed ourselves to be bamboozled by those presuming to be our "leaders" (religious, political, media-based, etc.) into becoming obsessive about a number of issues that are pretty much irrelevant.
Our nation faces a number of really important problems that will have devastating consequences in the future:
Even more worrisome, we find our attention called to issues that are divisive, inciting passionate reactions, but which are diversions from what ails us as a nation. I find religion to be one of the most egregious of these diversions. Discussions about the separation of church and state are pointless -- it's the law of the land -- until we collectively choose to become a theocracy (of one flavor or another). Should we choose to become a theocracy, we will have repudiated the intentions of the nation's founders, embracing in the process another form of tyranny (which includes fascism and communism, as well as other despotic governmental forms) that our founders hoped desperately to avoid. Any discussion of this topic serves only to generate entropy (i.e., a disordered state) and waste our time. I consider the topic of "separation of church and state" to include all such related controversies as prayers in public schools, abortion rights, stem cell research, creationism versus evolution in public schools, religious icons on governmental property, and so on. Why would political "leaders" choose to involve themselves in this useless discussion that is outside the framework of the government created by the Constitution? The only plausible explanation I can think of is that it serves to position them for political power gain. Religion has become a litmus test for political candidates, despite the clear evidence in the Constitution forbidding such tests. Everyone in this nation (as it stands) is entitled to their religious beliefs (including to be free of any religious beliefs) - live and let live - let's move on to something useful.
In the name of responding to terrorism, we've embarked on pointless foreign wars that are bankrupting us, even as their pursuit leads to the loss of constitutional rights for American citizens. This is a political act right out of Orwell's 1984 - foreign wars to divert the attention of the public from more meaningful problems inside our nation. The number of Americans killed by terrorists now is considerably smaller than the number of Americans killed fighting in wars ostensibly intended to fight terrorism. Does this make any sense at all? The mistakes of Vietnam are being made again - having our warfighters as an occupying force on foreign soil without any clear military objective is a familiar formula that has inevitable failure written into its core.
And in the name of responding to the important national problem of drug dependency (and the crime it fosters), we've undertaken yet another unwinnable war - the national "war on drugs" - comparable to the absurd effort of national alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933. We've criminalized many Americans for a victimless crime - the use of drugs - warehousing many thousands of them in prisons and destroying their lives. We should be seeking to understand and do something about the reasons for why so many people become drug-dependent. Sending drug users to prison doesn't prevent other people from using drugs, clearly. As with national Prohibition, this "war" encourages the growth of massively organized crime. Going after the drug dealers just creates new opportunities for aspiring drug dealers. Going after the supply side doesn't stop people from becoming drug-dependent, and new suppliers will always step in to meet the demand, replacing those sent to prison for drug dealing. The same goes for other "wars" on other vices. Legislating morality by criminalizing various victimless acts is pointless and never works.
Our public education system, from elementary school right on through to universities, is in deep financial trouble. Federal, state, and local governments seek to "control" the educational content rather than letting educators do their jobs - to challenge students to learn how to think for themselves and to learn the concepts they'll need in an ever more complicated world. Governments exercise this control in various ways, including budget cuts, persecution of unorthodox educators, and mandates regarding standardized tests that are diluting the kind of things that can be taught. They apparently see public schools as indoctrination centers rather than educational institutions. At a time in our history when the demands on our citizens to learn about and understand the issues confronting us are becoming critically important, our public education is losing its ability to inform the electorate. A tragic "dumbing down" is underway, leading to increased vulnerability to demagoguery.
We as a nation seem obsessed by the private sexual choices made by some of our citizens. Do we really have the luxury of vast amounts of spare time to concern ourselves with such things? Can't we find more productive ways to use that time than to worry about what other people are doing behind closed doors? Many right-wing religious folks seem to be convinced that the failure to persecute homosexuals somehow will lead to the downfall of all sorts of things, including all of American society. I just don't see how homosexuality matters much in the scheme of things. It's been some part of all human societies for all time, but our nation has been whipped up into a frenzy over this issue, at a time when I believe we need to use our time to begin acting upon really important issues (see above).
I could go on - I'm under no illusion that writing a blog will change the world, but I wanted to make my position clear about what I see as real problems versus those problems manufactured by various "leaders" who I see as only leading our nation astray.
Our nation faces a number of really important problems that will have devastating consequences in the future:
- anthropogenic global climate change,
- a hemorrhaging balance of payments,
- an economic meltdown, especially for the middle and lower classes,
- massive unemployment
- corporate plundering to which the government seems uninterested in any meaningful response
- skyrocketing medical care costs,
- a public education system that has lost its focus on education,
- foreign wars that are economically disastrous and which are costing American lives as well as leaving many of our warfighters with debilitating physical and psychological trauma,
- aging physical infrastructure (roads, buildings, bridges, etc.),
- growing vulnerability to natural hazards,
- an inability to respond to astrophysical hazards such as asteroids,
- drug dependency and the crimes it produces,
- erosion of our Constitutional rights in the name of security,
- the imminent energy crisis as a result of the inevitable disappearance of cheap oil,
- rapid widening of the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots",
Even more worrisome, we find our attention called to issues that are divisive, inciting passionate reactions, but which are diversions from what ails us as a nation. I find religion to be one of the most egregious of these diversions. Discussions about the separation of church and state are pointless -- it's the law of the land -- until we collectively choose to become a theocracy (of one flavor or another). Should we choose to become a theocracy, we will have repudiated the intentions of the nation's founders, embracing in the process another form of tyranny (which includes fascism and communism, as well as other despotic governmental forms) that our founders hoped desperately to avoid. Any discussion of this topic serves only to generate entropy (i.e., a disordered state) and waste our time. I consider the topic of "separation of church and state" to include all such related controversies as prayers in public schools, abortion rights, stem cell research, creationism versus evolution in public schools, religious icons on governmental property, and so on. Why would political "leaders" choose to involve themselves in this useless discussion that is outside the framework of the government created by the Constitution? The only plausible explanation I can think of is that it serves to position them for political power gain. Religion has become a litmus test for political candidates, despite the clear evidence in the Constitution forbidding such tests. Everyone in this nation (as it stands) is entitled to their religious beliefs (including to be free of any religious beliefs) - live and let live - let's move on to something useful.
In the name of responding to terrorism, we've embarked on pointless foreign wars that are bankrupting us, even as their pursuit leads to the loss of constitutional rights for American citizens. This is a political act right out of Orwell's 1984 - foreign wars to divert the attention of the public from more meaningful problems inside our nation. The number of Americans killed by terrorists now is considerably smaller than the number of Americans killed fighting in wars ostensibly intended to fight terrorism. Does this make any sense at all? The mistakes of Vietnam are being made again - having our warfighters as an occupying force on foreign soil without any clear military objective is a familiar formula that has inevitable failure written into its core.
And in the name of responding to the important national problem of drug dependency (and the crime it fosters), we've undertaken yet another unwinnable war - the national "war on drugs" - comparable to the absurd effort of national alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933. We've criminalized many Americans for a victimless crime - the use of drugs - warehousing many thousands of them in prisons and destroying their lives. We should be seeking to understand and do something about the reasons for why so many people become drug-dependent. Sending drug users to prison doesn't prevent other people from using drugs, clearly. As with national Prohibition, this "war" encourages the growth of massively organized crime. Going after the drug dealers just creates new opportunities for aspiring drug dealers. Going after the supply side doesn't stop people from becoming drug-dependent, and new suppliers will always step in to meet the demand, replacing those sent to prison for drug dealing. The same goes for other "wars" on other vices. Legislating morality by criminalizing various victimless acts is pointless and never works.
Our public education system, from elementary school right on through to universities, is in deep financial trouble. Federal, state, and local governments seek to "control" the educational content rather than letting educators do their jobs - to challenge students to learn how to think for themselves and to learn the concepts they'll need in an ever more complicated world. Governments exercise this control in various ways, including budget cuts, persecution of unorthodox educators, and mandates regarding standardized tests that are diluting the kind of things that can be taught. They apparently see public schools as indoctrination centers rather than educational institutions. At a time in our history when the demands on our citizens to learn about and understand the issues confronting us are becoming critically important, our public education is losing its ability to inform the electorate. A tragic "dumbing down" is underway, leading to increased vulnerability to demagoguery.
We as a nation seem obsessed by the private sexual choices made by some of our citizens. Do we really have the luxury of vast amounts of spare time to concern ourselves with such things? Can't we find more productive ways to use that time than to worry about what other people are doing behind closed doors? Many right-wing religious folks seem to be convinced that the failure to persecute homosexuals somehow will lead to the downfall of all sorts of things, including all of American society. I just don't see how homosexuality matters much in the scheme of things. It's been some part of all human societies for all time, but our nation has been whipped up into a frenzy over this issue, at a time when I believe we need to use our time to begin acting upon really important issues (see above).
I could go on - I'm under no illusion that writing a blog will change the world, but I wanted to make my position clear about what I see as real problems versus those problems manufactured by various "leaders" who I see as only leading our nation astray.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The sad state of American mathematics education
Some recent discussions via various media have spurred me to post something about how pathetic mathematics education in this country has been for a long time -- long enough that I myself was influenced by its sorry state. As a boy, I began to encounter math phobia in grade school, where a tyrannical math teacher instilled the fear of math in me. I suppose her intentions were good, perhaps hoping to motivate me to greater achievement, but her methods were not successful in stimulating the response she probably wanted. Many subsequent teachers reinforced my fears, including my math teacher for 4 years in high school. His plan was to humiliate me into doing better, not unlike the tactics adopted by the fearsome math teacher in grade school. It worked no better in high school than it did in grade school. Instead, I began to doubt my ability to master the subject. Those doubts grew with time, to the point where in my college days, it was undermining my confidence that I could pursue the career I wanted for myself because I was performing so badly in math. Meteorology is a subject that uses mathematics to a considerable extent -- being incompetent at math was simply not an option.
It took the insight of a graduate student teaching assistant at the University of Wisconsin to begin the process of overcoming my math phobia. At that point, I had two C's and a 5-credit D in 3rd semester Calculus behind me, with no prospect for a good performance in Differential Equations. But Mr. Hunter found a way to open my eyes to the subject and I managed a B! He showed me that I could understand the material and enjoy it at the same time!
In graduate school, my advisor looked over my transcript and made it clear to me I needed to minor in mathematics! I swallowed the lump of fear in my throat and did what I was told. By some miracle, I had three straight excellent math teachers (in Tensors and Vectors, Complex Variables, and Fourier Series & Boundary Value Problems) and aced all three!! My first A's in math since 2nd grade!! My fears were vanquished and I became fully confident regarding math from that point on. It was math phobia that had been holding me back, not my ability! I wonder how many people that applies to? If I overcame my fear, then I came to believe others could, too.
Since then, I've seen many people who have been denied a career in my field owing to their lack of math skills, and I believe that the abysmal teaching of math is largely responsible. Learning how to do math can be inspiring and insightful -- skills that are useful in a technological world that can be fun and exciting to apply to real-world problems. Why are so many turned off by math? I believe it's because math teachers are among the worst at teaching their subject. Math isn't about cookbook recipes that need to be memorized -- it's about understanding the abstract world that math occupies and being able to use it to solve problems of significance to the real world. Math teachers usually suck at connecting the abstract world they inhabit to reality. Most math teachers have no clue why anyone besides a mathematician might need mathematics!
It's a universal truth that no one can teach a topic they themselves don't understand. Most math teachers feel at home in their abstract world but can't relate to those who seek to see the value of those abstractions in their reality! These so-called teachers can't relate to the reality inhabited by their students because those mathematicians don't inhabit it! When I was a graduate student, the Engineering School at OU taught several math courses because the Math Department pretty much sucked at teaching those subjects, and the topics were very relevant to engineering. I benefited from several good teachers of applied mathematics in the Engineering School!
If you have math phobia, believe me when I say it's largely been manufactured in your own mind, likely the result of lousy teaching. If you believe me when I say that math skills are useful to you, no matter what your profession, then you should accept the responsibility to learn math in spite of the lousy teachers!! I promise you it will be worth it!!
It took the insight of a graduate student teaching assistant at the University of Wisconsin to begin the process of overcoming my math phobia. At that point, I had two C's and a 5-credit D in 3rd semester Calculus behind me, with no prospect for a good performance in Differential Equations. But Mr. Hunter found a way to open my eyes to the subject and I managed a B! He showed me that I could understand the material and enjoy it at the same time!
In graduate school, my advisor looked over my transcript and made it clear to me I needed to minor in mathematics! I swallowed the lump of fear in my throat and did what I was told. By some miracle, I had three straight excellent math teachers (in Tensors and Vectors, Complex Variables, and Fourier Series & Boundary Value Problems) and aced all three!! My first A's in math since 2nd grade!! My fears were vanquished and I became fully confident regarding math from that point on. It was math phobia that had been holding me back, not my ability! I wonder how many people that applies to? If I overcame my fear, then I came to believe others could, too.
Since then, I've seen many people who have been denied a career in my field owing to their lack of math skills, and I believe that the abysmal teaching of math is largely responsible. Learning how to do math can be inspiring and insightful -- skills that are useful in a technological world that can be fun and exciting to apply to real-world problems. Why are so many turned off by math? I believe it's because math teachers are among the worst at teaching their subject. Math isn't about cookbook recipes that need to be memorized -- it's about understanding the abstract world that math occupies and being able to use it to solve problems of significance to the real world. Math teachers usually suck at connecting the abstract world they inhabit to reality. Most math teachers have no clue why anyone besides a mathematician might need mathematics!
It's a universal truth that no one can teach a topic they themselves don't understand. Most math teachers feel at home in their abstract world but can't relate to those who seek to see the value of those abstractions in their reality! These so-called teachers can't relate to the reality inhabited by their students because those mathematicians don't inhabit it! When I was a graduate student, the Engineering School at OU taught several math courses because the Math Department pretty much sucked at teaching those subjects, and the topics were very relevant to engineering. I benefited from several good teachers of applied mathematics in the Engineering School!
If you have math phobia, believe me when I say it's largely been manufactured in your own mind, likely the result of lousy teaching. If you believe me when I say that math skills are useful to you, no matter what your profession, then you should accept the responsibility to learn math in spite of the lousy teachers!! I promise you it will be worth it!!
Saturday, June 18, 2011
A simple way to fix politics
Although I have great respect for the framers of the U.S. Constitution, I doubt very much that they'd be pleased with the political evolution that's taken place since the end of the 18th century. It's become commonplace to view politicians as lying, cheating, hypocritical swine robbing the public treasury to feather their own nests and caring not a fig for truth, justice, and the American way. We've become a nation divided by the silly label of which political party has our unswerving allegiance, indulging in the counterproductive tribalism of opposing everything carrying the label of our political "opponent." The majority of Americans seems to be adrift in a sea of ignorance about the important issues that confront us as a nation, confused and misinformed about those issues, and even about the very principles of individual freedom upon which our nation is supposed to be based. And political parties have become a handicap to moving the U.S. toward solutions to its very real problems.
So I have a modest proposal for a solution. Let's abolish the system of voting for political officeholders!! Rather than having a bunch of whores painting themselves the color of the day in order to attract votes, all government offices (at all levels of government, from town councils up to and including the U.S. President) now occupied by elected officials will be filled according to a random selection from the general public. I picture it as resembling how people are selected for jury duty or military service (when conscription is implemented). Every public office would be filled by ordinary citizens, selected at random -- not professional politicians. They would be paid a wage comparable to that of our military officers, with their pay grade determined by the level of the position they fill.
All people selected would be screened to eliminate certified lunatics, felonious criminals, terrorists, and peabrains. No one under 21 or over 61 would be selected. At this point, we're already ahead of the game, since there's clearly no such screening of those running for public office (witness the debates ongoing for the christian nationalist [a.k.a. the GOP] candidate for president or the Weiner scandal). Once the selectees pass the screening, they're given a mandatory leave of absence from any other employment they had, with that job guaranteed when their term of service is over. Anyone serving in the military or other forms of national service, say, the Peace Corps, would be given an automatic exemption for life. College students would be exempt during their time in college (including graduate school) and for 3 years thereafter (so they can find a job and hold it for a while).
All selectees would have a single 4-year term, during which they'd actually have a glorious civics lesson - an opportunity to see how government really works, with access to all the "inside" information about decision-making in government being required. Transparency at its finest! It would be pretty difficult for dirty little secrets to accumulate in smoke-filled backrooms and political party caucuses. Aha, so that's how it works, eh? Ordinary people would become informed about what is going on and so would be much more understanding of how their representatives make difficult and important decisions.
Since only one term in office is permitted, the professional politician will vanish from the face of the nation, to be replaced by ordinary folks from all walks of life, who would have their chance to serve their nation for a time, and then return to their important real lives. Everyone's professed desire to serve their nation when called upon would be satisfied for most Americans at some time or another in their lives. Most of us would have the honor of being able to say When I was called to serve my nation, I did my duty! And the public would be much more informed about what goes on -- much of which is now behind closed doors.
I can imagine the howls of protest regarding this modest proposal now -- But-but-but -- I can hear the naysayers spluttering -- These people wouldn't be experienced enough to run the country! First of all, this is true of every last elected official when they take their first public office. And how do politicians gain experience in how things work? From experienced politicians and I think we all know what that means!! Corruption is learned behavior, taught to newcomers by their mentors. The more venal the new politician is, the easier it is for that self-service and hypocrisy to creep in from their peers wallowing in the political mud.
But-but-but ... would you want your country represented in the halls of power around the world by an amateur? All one has to do is look at Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura to realize that amateurs have been elected to public office many times over the years. This is nothing new, actually. Could the use of ordinary citizens to represent us all be so bad? Isn't that what politicians try to present themselves as? They claim to be just like us in order to get our vote, but when elected, they behave as if they're the privileged elite and don't give a shit about the problems that ordinary people have anymore (if they ever really did care!). Could non-professional politicians do any worse than the politicians? Without the incentive of permanent power and lots of perks for life to drive their decision-making, I believe most ordinary citizens would do the best they can for their country and their fellow citizens during their term of service and yet be eager, for the most part, to return to their lives at the end of their 4 years in office. I've served on juries and been in the military and that's pretty much how ordinary citizens behave when asked to serve!!
But-but-but ... wouldn't your plan exclude those who are serving or have served in the military? Yes, it would. Although I respect those who have served or are serving in the military, I'm not a fan of those ex-servicefolks holding public office. It's an honorable profession but doesn't necessarily make for a qualified public officeholder. For one thing, they've done their duty and should be going about their ordinary lives outside of the military, allowing others the opportunity to serve in a different way. For another, the record of famous military men in public office isn't a very compelling argument for having more of them, however popular they may have been at the time. The qualities needed for military leadership don't necessarily overlap much with those needed to lead the nation.
So I have a modest proposal for a solution. Let's abolish the system of voting for political officeholders!! Rather than having a bunch of whores painting themselves the color of the day in order to attract votes, all government offices (at all levels of government, from town councils up to and including the U.S. President) now occupied by elected officials will be filled according to a random selection from the general public. I picture it as resembling how people are selected for jury duty or military service (when conscription is implemented). Every public office would be filled by ordinary citizens, selected at random -- not professional politicians. They would be paid a wage comparable to that of our military officers, with their pay grade determined by the level of the position they fill.
All people selected would be screened to eliminate certified lunatics, felonious criminals, terrorists, and peabrains. No one under 21 or over 61 would be selected. At this point, we're already ahead of the game, since there's clearly no such screening of those running for public office (witness the debates ongoing for the christian nationalist [a.k.a. the GOP] candidate for president or the Weiner scandal). Once the selectees pass the screening, they're given a mandatory leave of absence from any other employment they had, with that job guaranteed when their term of service is over. Anyone serving in the military or other forms of national service, say, the Peace Corps, would be given an automatic exemption for life. College students would be exempt during their time in college (including graduate school) and for 3 years thereafter (so they can find a job and hold it for a while).
All selectees would have a single 4-year term, during which they'd actually have a glorious civics lesson - an opportunity to see how government really works, with access to all the "inside" information about decision-making in government being required. Transparency at its finest! It would be pretty difficult for dirty little secrets to accumulate in smoke-filled backrooms and political party caucuses. Aha, so that's how it works, eh? Ordinary people would become informed about what is going on and so would be much more understanding of how their representatives make difficult and important decisions.
Since only one term in office is permitted, the professional politician will vanish from the face of the nation, to be replaced by ordinary folks from all walks of life, who would have their chance to serve their nation for a time, and then return to their important real lives. Everyone's professed desire to serve their nation when called upon would be satisfied for most Americans at some time or another in their lives. Most of us would have the honor of being able to say When I was called to serve my nation, I did my duty! And the public would be much more informed about what goes on -- much of which is now behind closed doors.
I can imagine the howls of protest regarding this modest proposal now -- But-but-but -- I can hear the naysayers spluttering -- These people wouldn't be experienced enough to run the country! First of all, this is true of every last elected official when they take their first public office. And how do politicians gain experience in how things work? From experienced politicians and I think we all know what that means!! Corruption is learned behavior, taught to newcomers by their mentors. The more venal the new politician is, the easier it is for that self-service and hypocrisy to creep in from their peers wallowing in the political mud.
But-but-but ... would you want your country represented in the halls of power around the world by an amateur? All one has to do is look at Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura to realize that amateurs have been elected to public office many times over the years. This is nothing new, actually. Could the use of ordinary citizens to represent us all be so bad? Isn't that what politicians try to present themselves as? They claim to be just like us in order to get our vote, but when elected, they behave as if they're the privileged elite and don't give a shit about the problems that ordinary people have anymore (if they ever really did care!). Could non-professional politicians do any worse than the politicians? Without the incentive of permanent power and lots of perks for life to drive their decision-making, I believe most ordinary citizens would do the best they can for their country and their fellow citizens during their term of service and yet be eager, for the most part, to return to their lives at the end of their 4 years in office. I've served on juries and been in the military and that's pretty much how ordinary citizens behave when asked to serve!!
But-but-but ... wouldn't your plan exclude those who are serving or have served in the military? Yes, it would. Although I respect those who have served or are serving in the military, I'm not a fan of those ex-servicefolks holding public office. It's an honorable profession but doesn't necessarily make for a qualified public officeholder. For one thing, they've done their duty and should be going about their ordinary lives outside of the military, allowing others the opportunity to serve in a different way. For another, the record of famous military men in public office isn't a very compelling argument for having more of them, however popular they may have been at the time. The qualities needed for military leadership don't necessarily overlap much with those needed to lead the nation.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Are all tornado warnings the same?
In the fallout from the large tornado death tolls this year, there are some who are finding fault with the warnings from the National Weather Service. Anyone who knows something about the weather must understand that weather forecasts, even those short-range forecasts we call "warnings" have uncertainty associated with them. The science of meteorology as of this moment simply doesn't permit forecasts without uncertainty. Nevertheless, either a warning is issued or it isn't -- technically, this means warnings are dichotomous (or binary): yes, a warning has been issued or no, a warning has not been issued.
At present, warnings come in two "flavors": severe thunderstorm warnings (coded "blue") and tornado warnings (coded "red"). By definition, a storm that produces one or more of the following -- large hail (the current threshold value is one inch diameter hail), strong "straight" winds (the current threshold is 50 knots or 58 miles per hour), or a tornado -- is a severe thunderstorm. Some storms for which blue warnings are issued go on to produce tornadoes, many storms for which tornado warnings are issued fail to produce tornadoes. Some storms for which no warnings are issued go on to produce severe weather (including tornadoes). The science of meteorology at its best offers no guarantees that these important distinctions can be made perfectly in advance. Generally speaking, a red warning is associated with a greater sense of threat than a blue warning -- tornadoes are far more likely to result in fatalities. But some severe thunderstorms can produce as much damage (or more) as most tornadoes (the vast majority of which fall well short of being classified as "violent" -- EF4 or EF5) and nontornadic severe thunderstorms can result in deaths, as well.
There are no tornado fatalities from false alarms! It's widely recognized by forecasters that the cost in lives for not issuing a warning can literally be infinitely greater than that associated with a false alarm. Forecasters aren't stupid -- they know that if they fail to issue a warning for a fatality-producing storm, there would be sharks of various sorts circling the waters around them. Nevertheless, our society demands from them that no storm-related fatality ever occur without warning. The problem is that the science simply doesn't permit that. If we were to issue a tornado warning for every storm that might go on to produce a tornado, the number of false alarms would become vastly larger than it now is. If we "raise the bar" for the threat level to reduce the number of false alarms, many more tornadoes will not be warned for in advance!
Assuming that the presence of a storm is necessary to issue a warning, some threshold threat level has to be achieved in order for the warning forecaster to decide to go with a warning, and presumably this must include the perceived threat of a tornado if the storm may need to be covered with a tornado warning. As it now stands, there is no uniformly-defined threat level associated with any of the decisions a warning forecaster has to make -- every warning forecaster is more or less on their own. Obviously, not every forecaster is a carbon copy of every other forecaster. Some make warning decisions better than others.
Recently, a new type of tornado warning has come into vogue -- the so-called "tornado emergency" (which has not been defined formally, either), presumably when a populated area is in the path of a very dangerous tornado. Implicitly, the perceived need for this is driven by the fact that the tornado threat varies from one situation to another. Yet another tough decision for a warning forecaster to make!
In my view of things, warnings should use probability to express different levels of threat for different phenomena: wind, hail, tornadoes. This permits the forecaster to use the science to estimate the likelihood of various outcomes in the path of a storm. It's an established fact that forecasters can become quite good at estimating uncertainty. I don't yet know how best to formulate probabilistic warnings -- I believe years of research are needed to inform us how probabilistic warnings could be made most effective. This is a complex problem that involves far more than the science of meteorology.
In the meantime, I would hope people who are not meteorologists would begin to understand that they bear the lion's share of the burden of responsibility for their personal safety. If they expect warning forecasters to be perfect -- they're actually putting themselves in considerable personal danger. One important factor in dealing with a tornado is having planned what to do in advance. Another is to be "situation aware" when thunderstorms are about rather than counting on someone else to do that for you.
At present, warnings come in two "flavors": severe thunderstorm warnings (coded "blue") and tornado warnings (coded "red"). By definition, a storm that produces one or more of the following -- large hail (the current threshold value is one inch diameter hail), strong "straight" winds (the current threshold is 50 knots or 58 miles per hour), or a tornado -- is a severe thunderstorm. Some storms for which blue warnings are issued go on to produce tornadoes, many storms for which tornado warnings are issued fail to produce tornadoes. Some storms for which no warnings are issued go on to produce severe weather (including tornadoes). The science of meteorology at its best offers no guarantees that these important distinctions can be made perfectly in advance. Generally speaking, a red warning is associated with a greater sense of threat than a blue warning -- tornadoes are far more likely to result in fatalities. But some severe thunderstorms can produce as much damage (or more) as most tornadoes (the vast majority of which fall well short of being classified as "violent" -- EF4 or EF5) and nontornadic severe thunderstorms can result in deaths, as well.
There are no tornado fatalities from false alarms! It's widely recognized by forecasters that the cost in lives for not issuing a warning can literally be infinitely greater than that associated with a false alarm. Forecasters aren't stupid -- they know that if they fail to issue a warning for a fatality-producing storm, there would be sharks of various sorts circling the waters around them. Nevertheless, our society demands from them that no storm-related fatality ever occur without warning. The problem is that the science simply doesn't permit that. If we were to issue a tornado warning for every storm that might go on to produce a tornado, the number of false alarms would become vastly larger than it now is. If we "raise the bar" for the threat level to reduce the number of false alarms, many more tornadoes will not be warned for in advance!
Assuming that the presence of a storm is necessary to issue a warning, some threshold threat level has to be achieved in order for the warning forecaster to decide to go with a warning, and presumably this must include the perceived threat of a tornado if the storm may need to be covered with a tornado warning. As it now stands, there is no uniformly-defined threat level associated with any of the decisions a warning forecaster has to make -- every warning forecaster is more or less on their own. Obviously, not every forecaster is a carbon copy of every other forecaster. Some make warning decisions better than others.
Recently, a new type of tornado warning has come into vogue -- the so-called "tornado emergency" (which has not been defined formally, either), presumably when a populated area is in the path of a very dangerous tornado. Implicitly, the perceived need for this is driven by the fact that the tornado threat varies from one situation to another. Yet another tough decision for a warning forecaster to make!
In my view of things, warnings should use probability to express different levels of threat for different phenomena: wind, hail, tornadoes. This permits the forecaster to use the science to estimate the likelihood of various outcomes in the path of a storm. It's an established fact that forecasters can become quite good at estimating uncertainty. I don't yet know how best to formulate probabilistic warnings -- I believe years of research are needed to inform us how probabilistic warnings could be made most effective. This is a complex problem that involves far more than the science of meteorology.
In the meantime, I would hope people who are not meteorologists would begin to understand that they bear the lion's share of the burden of responsibility for their personal safety. If they expect warning forecasters to be perfect -- they're actually putting themselves in considerable personal danger. One important factor in dealing with a tornado is having planned what to do in advance. Another is to be "situation aware" when thunderstorms are about rather than counting on someone else to do that for you.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Media as carpetbaggers
Recently I had a discussion with someone from Associated Press. Apparently, he was in the Intergalactic Weather Center to do yet another piece on tornadoes. Among other things, he asked me about Mark Svenvold's book on tornado chasing, which I reviewed here. In that review, I begin with:
It dawned on me during this conversation with the person from AP that essentially all of the media reporting on tornadoes and science is being done virtually exclusively by carpetbaggers. The inaccuracy and lack of substance in media reporting is a direct result of the reporter's profound ignorance about the scientific subject. The people who actually know something about the subject matter typically are not those doing the media pieces. Reporters and documentary production teams roll in to do interviews either because of some recent events that call attention to tornadoes and tornado science, or because someone decided it was time to do another piece about the topic. Whatever the motivation, it's only a happy accident when they ask a meaningful question or know enough to interview someone who actually knows something and the interviewee manages to convey something accurately and clearly in his/her allotted soundbite(s) within the piece. That tidbit of reasonable information, however, will be overwhelmed by a veritable tsunami of misinformation in other pieces, or even by other content in the same piece containing the lonely morsel of accurate, meaningful information. How can the public tell the difference? Short answer -- they mostly can't.
Carpetbaggers frequently focus their interviews on "names" in the field, some of whom may be in management and who may not actually know much about the subject. Interviewees always have personal biases in how they see things (that includes me, of course!), so the tidbit that gets quoted from them may not be representative of how many members of the profession feel about any given topic. Given that everyone is biased, how does one distill the truth from all the media pieces? Seeking the truth is about getting information from many sources, not just the "names" in the field, or what the media provide. But most people don't seem to be all that interested in tornadoes (for example) -- except possibly when it's on the evening news or when it affects them personally. For many, it's evidently too much trouble to spend time searching for the truth by doing some serious study of the topic. So they view the garbage that spews out of the media and think they learned something, when most of what they received was superficial crap, much of it actually misinformation.
The media reporters are almost unanimous in their contempt for their audience. "Dumb it down to the 3rd grade level, please!" If all the public ever gets is 3rd grade content, then this contempt becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. No one seems interested in challenging their viewers to think, apparently because they believe they're incapable of it. That's not what the media are about, it seems.
The sad fact is that if media pieces are the primary process by which most people learn about tornadoes and tornado science (or any other technical topic), then any attempt to inform them via this pathway is doomed. There's no reason to attempt to interject your knowledge and experience into the torrent of media content, because it will end up being diluted beyond recognition. People who study and forecast tornadoes aren't writing these media pieces -- they're quite fully occupied with doing that work, which absorbs most of their attention (apart from whatever time they might devote to their families and hobbies). And the media moguls aren't very interested in seeking their contributions, anyway. What does a scientist know about journalism?
As luck would have it, I was a budding journalist in high school. And my journalism mentor made it very clear to me that if you do an interview, you have to work very hard to get your facts straight. You don't write the story until after you've done the research. And you should ask your source(s) to check your story for factual content before you run it! This standard of journalism seems to have become "old-fashioned" and mostly "out of style" today. The superficiality and outright misinformation pouring from the media on a daily basis is an inevitable result of this carpetbagging. Today's style of journalism makes this inescapable, so I don't do interviews any more!
This book is the product of another 'carpetbagger' - someone migrating temporarily into the world of storm chasing, doing his research, putting down his thoughts on what he's seen, and then packing his bags, off onto some new topic to write about and sell yet another book.
It dawned on me during this conversation with the person from AP that essentially all of the media reporting on tornadoes and science is being done virtually exclusively by carpetbaggers. The inaccuracy and lack of substance in media reporting is a direct result of the reporter's profound ignorance about the scientific subject. The people who actually know something about the subject matter typically are not those doing the media pieces. Reporters and documentary production teams roll in to do interviews either because of some recent events that call attention to tornadoes and tornado science, or because someone decided it was time to do another piece about the topic. Whatever the motivation, it's only a happy accident when they ask a meaningful question or know enough to interview someone who actually knows something and the interviewee manages to convey something accurately and clearly in his/her allotted soundbite(s) within the piece. That tidbit of reasonable information, however, will be overwhelmed by a veritable tsunami of misinformation in other pieces, or even by other content in the same piece containing the lonely morsel of accurate, meaningful information. How can the public tell the difference? Short answer -- they mostly can't.
Carpetbaggers frequently focus their interviews on "names" in the field, some of whom may be in management and who may not actually know much about the subject. Interviewees always have personal biases in how they see things (that includes me, of course!), so the tidbit that gets quoted from them may not be representative of how many members of the profession feel about any given topic. Given that everyone is biased, how does one distill the truth from all the media pieces? Seeking the truth is about getting information from many sources, not just the "names" in the field, or what the media provide. But most people don't seem to be all that interested in tornadoes (for example) -- except possibly when it's on the evening news or when it affects them personally. For many, it's evidently too much trouble to spend time searching for the truth by doing some serious study of the topic. So they view the garbage that spews out of the media and think they learned something, when most of what they received was superficial crap, much of it actually misinformation.
The media reporters are almost unanimous in their contempt for their audience. "Dumb it down to the 3rd grade level, please!" If all the public ever gets is 3rd grade content, then this contempt becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. No one seems interested in challenging their viewers to think, apparently because they believe they're incapable of it. That's not what the media are about, it seems.
The sad fact is that if media pieces are the primary process by which most people learn about tornadoes and tornado science (or any other technical topic), then any attempt to inform them via this pathway is doomed. There's no reason to attempt to interject your knowledge and experience into the torrent of media content, because it will end up being diluted beyond recognition. People who study and forecast tornadoes aren't writing these media pieces -- they're quite fully occupied with doing that work, which absorbs most of their attention (apart from whatever time they might devote to their families and hobbies). And the media moguls aren't very interested in seeking their contributions, anyway. What does a scientist know about journalism?
As luck would have it, I was a budding journalist in high school. And my journalism mentor made it very clear to me that if you do an interview, you have to work very hard to get your facts straight. You don't write the story until after you've done the research. And you should ask your source(s) to check your story for factual content before you run it! This standard of journalism seems to have become "old-fashioned" and mostly "out of style" today. The superficiality and outright misinformation pouring from the media on a daily basis is an inevitable result of this carpetbagging. Today's style of journalism makes this inescapable, so I don't do interviews any more!
Monday, May 30, 2011
Compensation
From time to time, my observations of the way people behave lead me to despair for humanity. It sometimes seems that god must love shitheads, because there are so many of them. Fortunately, there is the gift of friendship, which reminds me that most of the people I know aren't actually shitheads, even if I don't agree with them about everything.
In fact, when I travel about, it seems that most of the folks I encounter here and abroad are really good folks with whom I have so much in common that whatever differences might otherwise divide us pale into insignificance. I've been privileged to know some amazing people, including a few famous ones, but mostly just "ordinary" folks like me who actually are extraordinary in their capacity to contribute to the world in ways that may not be visible to everyone. I know these people and their insights inspire me, their generosity shames me, and their spirits soar to heights I can only aspire to in my dreams. To have such people in my limited sphere is such an astounding blessing, on the occasions when I take the time to think about it (like tonight), all my despair falls away.
I continue to see hope for our species, however many shitheads try to dirty the water with their disgusting bigotry, phenomenal arrogance, pathetic tribalism, and stubborn ignorance. It strikes me that a lot of what is wrong with humans is their deep-seated insecurity, which drives them to attack what they don't understand and to deny that anyone not just like them has the right to be different. If we're to endure the trials I see in our collective future, we must overcome that insecurity and try our best to work together for the common good.
I've benefited tremendously from people with whom I have really deep-seated differences of opinion about various things. How can this be? Because I long ago outgrew the need to prove my own worth to myself and so have no need to prove it to them. My wife was a major factor in this change, as were my children, so if I seem to be reasonably well-grounded, it is directly attributable to my family. From the base of being comfortable in my own skin, it's been easy to accept differences of opinion with others. I've learned much and grown as a person precisely because I don't feel threatened by someone with a different viewpoint. In fact, a civil discussion with them about topics over which we differ helps me to clarify things.
How many total strangers do we curse and abuse because of some perceived flaw in their behavior? I might not like the actions of someone who drives stupidly on the highways, but I have to admit that if I knew them, I might like them despite their bad driving habits. I shouldn't feel anger about their behavior nor should I condemn total strangers.
At least tonight, I ponder the range of people I call my friends and I realize that many of them might not get along very well. In some cases, I know that for sure. The only things this group has in common, to the best of my knowledge, is that they're my friends, and they've all brought something I value into my life. For me, that's adequate compensation for the shitheads of this world. It gives me the hope to keep trying to make positive changes.
In fact, when I travel about, it seems that most of the folks I encounter here and abroad are really good folks with whom I have so much in common that whatever differences might otherwise divide us pale into insignificance. I've been privileged to know some amazing people, including a few famous ones, but mostly just "ordinary" folks like me who actually are extraordinary in their capacity to contribute to the world in ways that may not be visible to everyone. I know these people and their insights inspire me, their generosity shames me, and their spirits soar to heights I can only aspire to in my dreams. To have such people in my limited sphere is such an astounding blessing, on the occasions when I take the time to think about it (like tonight), all my despair falls away.
I continue to see hope for our species, however many shitheads try to dirty the water with their disgusting bigotry, phenomenal arrogance, pathetic tribalism, and stubborn ignorance. It strikes me that a lot of what is wrong with humans is their deep-seated insecurity, which drives them to attack what they don't understand and to deny that anyone not just like them has the right to be different. If we're to endure the trials I see in our collective future, we must overcome that insecurity and try our best to work together for the common good.
I've benefited tremendously from people with whom I have really deep-seated differences of opinion about various things. How can this be? Because I long ago outgrew the need to prove my own worth to myself and so have no need to prove it to them. My wife was a major factor in this change, as were my children, so if I seem to be reasonably well-grounded, it is directly attributable to my family. From the base of being comfortable in my own skin, it's been easy to accept differences of opinion with others. I've learned much and grown as a person precisely because I don't feel threatened by someone with a different viewpoint. In fact, a civil discussion with them about topics over which we differ helps me to clarify things.
How many total strangers do we curse and abuse because of some perceived flaw in their behavior? I might not like the actions of someone who drives stupidly on the highways, but I have to admit that if I knew them, I might like them despite their bad driving habits. I shouldn't feel anger about their behavior nor should I condemn total strangers.
At least tonight, I ponder the range of people I call my friends and I realize that many of them might not get along very well. In some cases, I know that for sure. The only things this group has in common, to the best of my knowledge, is that they're my friends, and they've all brought something I value into my life. For me, that's adequate compensation for the shitheads of this world. It gives me the hope to keep trying to make positive changes.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Pick your favorite bogus "explanation"
Evidently, 2011 is going to be a bad year for tornado fatalities. A really bad year. You have to go back to 1947 to find a single tornado that killed more people than were killed on 22 May in Joplin, MO. We're approaching 500 fatalities with much of the tornado season yet to come, and the last time we had more than 500 fatalities in a single year was 1953.
1953 was a terrible year, with three major single violent tornadoes: Waco, TX on 11 May (114 fatalities), Flint, MI on 08 June (116 fatalities), and Worcester, MA on 09 June (94 fatalities), as well as many lesser outbreaks. At the time, there was speculation that the severe weather was being "caused" by the nuclear explosions going on as the United States flexed its cold war muscles. The media did what the media always do: spread wild speculation about the influence of atomic tests on the weather without regard for its scientific validity. Such talk went on for years, to be raised again in 1957 (another big year for tornadoes, but without the extreme fatality count).
Almost every time there are major tornado events, the media seem compelled to ask the inevitable stupid question: what's causing this wild weather? The production crews descend on National Weather Service offices with reporters and cameras rolling, endlessly asking the same ignorant questions. The media simply can't extricate themselves from their own ignorance, being inclined to believe that there must be something to "explain" what's going on with some simple phrase if they can just get their "expert" to utter it as a sound bite. Whenever severe weather happens, it's a "freak" storm, that struck without warning, sounded like a freight train, looked like a war zone afterward, occurred with a clash of air masses, etc. The media prefer hackneyed phrases to substance, it seems.
The tornado threat varies widely from year to year. In meteorological terms, every year is different, and so it's easily understandable that some years have many tornadoes, and other years not so many. It's called "interannual variability" and for tornadoes, our understanding of that variability is troubled with many issues regarding how accurately we know the facts about the tornadoes that happen.
In 2011, the popular "exotic" media explanations for tornado outbreaks include: La Nina, global warming, global cooling (!!), god's wrath, and local terrain features that are being blamed for these "weather gone wild" events. From the perspective of someone who's spent a career looking at tornado occurrence records, one thing is abundantly clear: these events require no exotic "explanation". The past is the key to the present and future. By looking at data from the past, it becomes clear that events similar to what have been going on this year have happened before (most recently in 1953) and they will happen again (although we can't yet predict exactly when and where). Major disasters occur when violent tornadoes track through populated areas. Since most tornadoes spin out their existence over open country or thinly populated areas, we don't have major tornado disasters every year. Really big tornado outbreaks happen at intervals of roughly 20-40 years or so. The vulnerability in any given year is increasing because of our increasing population at risk (suburban "sprawl" and increasing recreational use of some areas), but it seems that this has been mostly offset by better forecasts and warnings, improved methods of communication of the threat when it develops, and infrastructure enhancements promoting natural hazard preparation (at least until the past decade or so). But those improvements have not eliminated entirely the threat for high fatality counts, as events this year have demonstrated.
When these big fatality counts occur, it's mostly a matter of bad luck. For the most part, we've had good luck for several decades, but it seems this year that our good luck has deserted us. But there's no need to resort to "exotic" explanations for every bad event. Specific reasons for individual fatalities can be difficult to figure out after the event, since those killed are unable to explain to us what happened to them. In some cases, contributing factors can be deduced or nearby survivors may be able to tell the tale, but in other cases, it's simply not possible to know what contributed to the misfortune. We're now in the situation that more than 50% of modern casualties of late (at least in lesser tornado events) have been associated with flimsy mobile homes. The poor, the handicapped, the elderly -- all are particularly vulnerable in tornado situations. People can be killed in well-constructed homes when they experience violent tornadoes that simply sweep those homes away if they have no tornado-resistant shelter (as in much of the South, where basements and tornado shelters are relatively rare).
Major events causing many deaths are typically well-warned for by the National Weather Service. Nevertheless, when strong-to-violent tornadoes pass through populated areas, people almost certainly will be killed, even when warnings are issued with more than enough lead time. The reasons for that are complex and not entirely understood, but those fatalities are almost never the result of "it struck without warning" in the sense that a warning was not issued with useful lead time. Sadly, this loss of life continues to be inevitable despite our best efforts. No special explanation is necessary, beyond the bad luck of being in a tornado's path without anywhere to go.
1953 was a terrible year, with three major single violent tornadoes: Waco, TX on 11 May (114 fatalities), Flint, MI on 08 June (116 fatalities), and Worcester, MA on 09 June (94 fatalities), as well as many lesser outbreaks. At the time, there was speculation that the severe weather was being "caused" by the nuclear explosions going on as the United States flexed its cold war muscles. The media did what the media always do: spread wild speculation about the influence of atomic tests on the weather without regard for its scientific validity. Such talk went on for years, to be raised again in 1957 (another big year for tornadoes, but without the extreme fatality count).
Almost every time there are major tornado events, the media seem compelled to ask the inevitable stupid question: what's causing this wild weather? The production crews descend on National Weather Service offices with reporters and cameras rolling, endlessly asking the same ignorant questions. The media simply can't extricate themselves from their own ignorance, being inclined to believe that there must be something to "explain" what's going on with some simple phrase if they can just get their "expert" to utter it as a sound bite. Whenever severe weather happens, it's a "freak" storm, that struck without warning, sounded like a freight train, looked like a war zone afterward, occurred with a clash of air masses, etc. The media prefer hackneyed phrases to substance, it seems.
The tornado threat varies widely from year to year. In meteorological terms, every year is different, and so it's easily understandable that some years have many tornadoes, and other years not so many. It's called "interannual variability" and for tornadoes, our understanding of that variability is troubled with many issues regarding how accurately we know the facts about the tornadoes that happen.
In 2011, the popular "exotic" media explanations for tornado outbreaks include: La Nina, global warming, global cooling (!!), god's wrath, and local terrain features that are being blamed for these "weather gone wild" events. From the perspective of someone who's spent a career looking at tornado occurrence records, one thing is abundantly clear: these events require no exotic "explanation". The past is the key to the present and future. By looking at data from the past, it becomes clear that events similar to what have been going on this year have happened before (most recently in 1953) and they will happen again (although we can't yet predict exactly when and where). Major disasters occur when violent tornadoes track through populated areas. Since most tornadoes spin out their existence over open country or thinly populated areas, we don't have major tornado disasters every year. Really big tornado outbreaks happen at intervals of roughly 20-40 years or so. The vulnerability in any given year is increasing because of our increasing population at risk (suburban "sprawl" and increasing recreational use of some areas), but it seems that this has been mostly offset by better forecasts and warnings, improved methods of communication of the threat when it develops, and infrastructure enhancements promoting natural hazard preparation (at least until the past decade or so). But those improvements have not eliminated entirely the threat for high fatality counts, as events this year have demonstrated.
When these big fatality counts occur, it's mostly a matter of bad luck. For the most part, we've had good luck for several decades, but it seems this year that our good luck has deserted us. But there's no need to resort to "exotic" explanations for every bad event. Specific reasons for individual fatalities can be difficult to figure out after the event, since those killed are unable to explain to us what happened to them. In some cases, contributing factors can be deduced or nearby survivors may be able to tell the tale, but in other cases, it's simply not possible to know what contributed to the misfortune. We're now in the situation that more than 50% of modern casualties of late (at least in lesser tornado events) have been associated with flimsy mobile homes. The poor, the handicapped, the elderly -- all are particularly vulnerable in tornado situations. People can be killed in well-constructed homes when they experience violent tornadoes that simply sweep those homes away if they have no tornado-resistant shelter (as in much of the South, where basements and tornado shelters are relatively rare).
Major events causing many deaths are typically well-warned for by the National Weather Service. Nevertheless, when strong-to-violent tornadoes pass through populated areas, people almost certainly will be killed, even when warnings are issued with more than enough lead time. The reasons for that are complex and not entirely understood, but those fatalities are almost never the result of "it struck without warning" in the sense that a warning was not issued with useful lead time. Sadly, this loss of life continues to be inevitable despite our best efforts. No special explanation is necessary, beyond the bad luck of being in a tornado's path without anywhere to go.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
A Growing Sense of Revulsion
Tonight (22 May), on the 30th anniversary of a chase day that was wild and spectacular for me and my old chaser partner (Al Moller), I read with sorrow of the devastating events of yet another tornado disaster -- this time in Joplin, Missouri. 2011 already has been a terrible year for tornadoes, the like of which hasn't been seen since 1974, and we have a lot of the heart of the tornado season yet to go. Thing likely will get worse ...
Social media have revealed to me multiple videos so far this year of non-chasers caught up in these events who clearly have no clue about tornadoes, shooting video even as they come close to death. I also see videos posted from storm chasers whooping and hollering with excited joy about the spectacular things they're seeing in their videos aired on social media (a public venue, after all) -- quite evidently unconcerned about the feelings of those for whom these very same atmospheric events have turned their lives upside down.
Many of these videos are taken not by chasing hobbyists but by people who know little or nothing about storms, perhaps choosing to keep their cameras rolling in hopes of achieving fame and fortune, or for reasons of their own. They flirt with death and often have no idea what they're doing. Why? Is it the accumulated effect of of seeing videos on TV from storm chasers dancing on the edge of the precipice? How many people have died this year with video camcorders in their hands? How many will in the future? To what extent are we chasers responsible for that?
Ironically, the Discovery Channel premiered a program tonight about the 27 April tornadoes, showing (among other things) Reed Timmer seemingly just beginning to comprehend that what he has built his fame upon has the capacity to inflict death and disaster upon people caught in the track. The very phenomenon that excites storm chasers has a very dark side -- a side I saw with my own eyes within the second year of my storm chasing career (1973) -- see item #32 here for this little piece of my chasing history. Reed (and/or the Discovery Channel) seems still to believe that his calling in tornado reports was a significant contribution to the saving of lives on 27 April. Wrong! I have serious doubts that any chaser reports made any significant difference to the outcome on 27 April. That day's tornado outbreak is not the kind of event where chaser reports are going to make much of a difference in terms of saving lives -- see here for a discussion. How much science (of the sort associated with peer-reviewed scientific journal papers) has Reed actually contributed to the problem of tornadoes? Precisely ... zip! He may have the degrees to call himself a meteorologist, but he's not yet demonstrated by his publications that he's a scientist.
The fact of the situation is that tornado disasters are virtually inevitable when powerful tornadoes pass through populated areas; 27 April included several long, track violent tornadoes in a part of the world where the human vulnerability was large. You don't need exotic, poorly-researched explanations to understand the death toll on 27 April. Some of us have expected this sort of event to happen and, unfortunately, our predictions were accurate -- although we couldn't predict which year, which month, which days would fulfill that prediction. It doesn't make me happy to be right about this. In fact, it's awful to know that such events are coming and there's nothing I seem to be able to do to prevent them from happening. People seem immune to the message of our science until a tornado has left their lives shattered.
In this year's events, I repeatedly hear people in videos saying "I've never seen anything like this before!" Well, perhaps that's true in in the limited sense of having it happen in front of your eyes, but I guarantee that almost all of these folks have seen videos of tornado disasters on TV. Did you think you were somehow immune? What people find so astonishing is that it actually happened to them!! Well, I've got some news for you, folks -- it can happen to you, and if you don't think so, you're gambling your life and the lives of your loved ones that it won't. If you do nothing to prepare, then you have only yourself to blame for the outcome. It's time to take personal responsibility for your own safety, folks!!
I find the public celebrations of storm chasers more disturbing and repulsive every year, when the outcome of these events can be so devastating to so many people. Chasing is a hobby -- it's not about contributing to society for most chasers -- for many of the "new breed" of chasers, it's about personal success, fame, and fortune. As time passes, it's increasingly abhorrent to me to be associated with most chasers, whose egocentricity and superficiality are disgusting to me. They give little or nothing of value in return for their experiences but somehow have convinced themselves that they're saving lives. Obviously, there are responsible storm chasers, but their fraction of the chase "community" seems to be decreasing as storm chasing rapidly becomes a "trash sport".
Social media have revealed to me multiple videos so far this year of non-chasers caught up in these events who clearly have no clue about tornadoes, shooting video even as they come close to death. I also see videos posted from storm chasers whooping and hollering with excited joy about the spectacular things they're seeing in their videos aired on social media (a public venue, after all) -- quite evidently unconcerned about the feelings of those for whom these very same atmospheric events have turned their lives upside down.
Many of these videos are taken not by chasing hobbyists but by people who know little or nothing about storms, perhaps choosing to keep their cameras rolling in hopes of achieving fame and fortune, or for reasons of their own. They flirt with death and often have no idea what they're doing. Why? Is it the accumulated effect of of seeing videos on TV from storm chasers dancing on the edge of the precipice? How many people have died this year with video camcorders in their hands? How many will in the future? To what extent are we chasers responsible for that?
Ironically, the Discovery Channel premiered a program tonight about the 27 April tornadoes, showing (among other things) Reed Timmer seemingly just beginning to comprehend that what he has built his fame upon has the capacity to inflict death and disaster upon people caught in the track. The very phenomenon that excites storm chasers has a very dark side -- a side I saw with my own eyes within the second year of my storm chasing career (1973) -- see item #32 here for this little piece of my chasing history. Reed (and/or the Discovery Channel) seems still to believe that his calling in tornado reports was a significant contribution to the saving of lives on 27 April. Wrong! I have serious doubts that any chaser reports made any significant difference to the outcome on 27 April. That day's tornado outbreak is not the kind of event where chaser reports are going to make much of a difference in terms of saving lives -- see here for a discussion. How much science (of the sort associated with peer-reviewed scientific journal papers) has Reed actually contributed to the problem of tornadoes? Precisely ... zip! He may have the degrees to call himself a meteorologist, but he's not yet demonstrated by his publications that he's a scientist.
The fact of the situation is that tornado disasters are virtually inevitable when powerful tornadoes pass through populated areas; 27 April included several long, track violent tornadoes in a part of the world where the human vulnerability was large. You don't need exotic, poorly-researched explanations to understand the death toll on 27 April. Some of us have expected this sort of event to happen and, unfortunately, our predictions were accurate -- although we couldn't predict which year, which month, which days would fulfill that prediction. It doesn't make me happy to be right about this. In fact, it's awful to know that such events are coming and there's nothing I seem to be able to do to prevent them from happening. People seem immune to the message of our science until a tornado has left their lives shattered.
In this year's events, I repeatedly hear people in videos saying "I've never seen anything like this before!" Well, perhaps that's true in in the limited sense of having it happen in front of your eyes, but I guarantee that almost all of these folks have seen videos of tornado disasters on TV. Did you think you were somehow immune? What people find so astonishing is that it actually happened to them!! Well, I've got some news for you, folks -- it can happen to you, and if you don't think so, you're gambling your life and the lives of your loved ones that it won't. If you do nothing to prepare, then you have only yourself to blame for the outcome. It's time to take personal responsibility for your own safety, folks!!
I find the public celebrations of storm chasers more disturbing and repulsive every year, when the outcome of these events can be so devastating to so many people. Chasing is a hobby -- it's not about contributing to society for most chasers -- for many of the "new breed" of chasers, it's about personal success, fame, and fortune. As time passes, it's increasingly abhorrent to me to be associated with most chasers, whose egocentricity and superficiality are disgusting to me. They give little or nothing of value in return for their experiences but somehow have convinced themselves that they're saving lives. Obviously, there are responsible storm chasers, but their fraction of the chase "community" seems to be decreasing as storm chasing rapidly becomes a "trash sport".
Monday, May 2, 2011
Why I'm not celebrating
I’m going to offer my thoughts about what’s been happening as a result of the announcement last night about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. My comments will not be universally popular. As the celebrations in the streets go on, Bin Laden’s well-deserved death doesn’t leave me particularly joyful or contribute in any way to my pride in being an American. My pride in being an American depends on constitutional freedoms that other people around the world envy (and even hate).
I should start off by saying that I have no sympathy for Bin Laden, nor am I sorry he's dead. He chose to live by the sword, and he died by it. Justice of the eye-for-an-eye biblical sort has been served. And I’m not a blanket opponent of the death penalty -- far from it, in fact. Osama’s actions have resulted in thousands of deaths -- perhaps tens of thousands if the final tally were to be completed comprehensively. He certainly can be said to have deserved to die. Of course, in muslim eyes, Osama Bin Laden is now a martyr to the cause of islam. This is untrue, of course. He's the now-dead leader of a terrorist group that has used the defense of islam as an excuse to serve political ends: seeking to install a world-wide muslim theocracy.
But I find the notion of my country sending out "death squads" to commit premeditated murder is not something in which I find cause for pride or celebration. This leaves us on the moral level of right-wing dictators in South America and elsewhere around the world. We're so pleased with our military right now, perhaps without realizing the "might makes right" implications of our government’s actions since 9/11/01. Note that I'm not condemning the warriors -- only the war. It's like in a movie, where if the crime is egregious enough, that justifies any response that might follow. Killing people in movies always seems to be a way to solve problems, but life is not a movie. Death only solves a small class of problems.
Moreover, this "justice" was accomplished without trial. At least the equally nasty dictator Saddam Hussein was given a trial before he was executed -- something neither Saddam nor Bin Laden ever gave their victims. In that sense, we remained on a higher moral plane than Saddam -- before we killed him. I suppose someone will argue that Osama was killed in a firefight, resisting capture. I suspect he was simply murdered but, of course, I have no way of knowing that one way or another. Who would want to give the bastard the forum for his hate that a trial would allow? But for a nation that professes to cherish law and order, summary execution seems rather inconsistent with those principles. People around the world see our actions as not being consistent with the principles we claim to cherish. Our hypocrisy reveals our lies to them, although many Americans are blind to that hypocrisy.
Another rationalization could be that this was an evil person who deserved to die. I'm reminded of the lines from the movie Lord of the Rings:
Nor can I say I'm particularly happy with our President claiming we're a nation "under god", and asking that his god bless America -- just which god is the one of whom the President speaks? Apparently, he's referring to the god of the bible. Not all of us in the USA believe in the biblical god invoked by the President. It seems the President can't be speaking on behalf of those who don't believe in his god. I guess that means he isn't speaking for me, in particular. Is not the god of the bible the same god (by a different name) claimed by islam? Can god possibly be on both sides of a war? It seems it must be so, since both sides are claiming him (which seems to happen a lot in history). In that case, what sort of god is this, playing both sides? Is this the sort of deity we choose to believe sanctions whatever we do in his name?
It seems we're willing to give up our liberties, sacrifice our youth in wars on foreign soil, and commit murder in the name of justice -- explain to me how these actions are different from the terrorists! One of the goals of the terrorists all along has been to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the USA. It seems they're succeeding. I've already discussed this elsewhere.
Recall how we all felt when we heard that Palestinians were celebrating in the streets after the attacks of 9/11/01? We were astonished that any people would actually be celebrating the death of innocent civilians. Osama Bin Laden was hardly an innocent civilian, but he had become a symbol of defiance for muslims around the world who feel persecuted (and they have the innocent civilian deaths to back up their claim). I can well imagine muslim youths lining up to volunteer to be suicide bombers, seeking vengeance for the death of Bin Laden. I'm sure they see our celebrations over the death of Bin Laden in the same way we saw those celebrations in Palestine. Vengeance begets vengeance, not justice. We may be pleased with ourselves for finally taking vengeance on him, but we likely won't be happy with what ensues.
People on both sides of this conflict between islam and the west have allowed themselves to be consumed by tribalism, spurred on by political "leaders" who have used religion and nationalism as tools to demonize the other side, justifying merciless jihad and vigilante "justice" in the process. The death of Osama Bin Laden will not cause terrorism to roll over and die. Our security has not been increased by this act of vengeance. The pain of our losses will not be eased by the absence of this terrible (but increasingly irrelevant) man on the Earth. I can see no cause for celebration, nor any end to the bloodshed and pain of this war on terrorism that employs terrorist tactics (murder and torture, among others) by Americans in retaliation.
I should start off by saying that I have no sympathy for Bin Laden, nor am I sorry he's dead. He chose to live by the sword, and he died by it. Justice of the eye-for-an-eye biblical sort has been served. And I’m not a blanket opponent of the death penalty -- far from it, in fact. Osama’s actions have resulted in thousands of deaths -- perhaps tens of thousands if the final tally were to be completed comprehensively. He certainly can be said to have deserved to die. Of course, in muslim eyes, Osama Bin Laden is now a martyr to the cause of islam. This is untrue, of course. He's the now-dead leader of a terrorist group that has used the defense of islam as an excuse to serve political ends: seeking to install a world-wide muslim theocracy.
But I find the notion of my country sending out "death squads" to commit premeditated murder is not something in which I find cause for pride or celebration. This leaves us on the moral level of right-wing dictators in South America and elsewhere around the world. We're so pleased with our military right now, perhaps without realizing the "might makes right" implications of our government’s actions since 9/11/01. Note that I'm not condemning the warriors -- only the war. It's like in a movie, where if the crime is egregious enough, that justifies any response that might follow. Killing people in movies always seems to be a way to solve problems, but life is not a movie. Death only solves a small class of problems.
Moreover, this "justice" was accomplished without trial. At least the equally nasty dictator Saddam Hussein was given a trial before he was executed -- something neither Saddam nor Bin Laden ever gave their victims. In that sense, we remained on a higher moral plane than Saddam -- before we killed him. I suppose someone will argue that Osama was killed in a firefight, resisting capture. I suspect he was simply murdered but, of course, I have no way of knowing that one way or another. Who would want to give the bastard the forum for his hate that a trial would allow? But for a nation that professes to cherish law and order, summary execution seems rather inconsistent with those principles. People around the world see our actions as not being consistent with the principles we claim to cherish. Our hypocrisy reveals our lies to them, although many Americans are blind to that hypocrisy.
Another rationalization could be that this was an evil person who deserved to die. I'm reminded of the lines from the movie Lord of the Rings:
Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.There's little doubt in my mind that Osama deserved to die, perhaps many times over if that were possible. Does his death bring back the thousands of people killed as a result of his deeds? Of course not. The biblical god claims vengeance to be his, not belonging in the repertoire of humans [although the bible seemingly contradicts this principle, so choose your point of view]. Mere execution could seem to some to be letting this guy off too easy, of course. At the very least, we could've waterboarded him for a few weeks, right?
Nor can I say I'm particularly happy with our President claiming we're a nation "under god", and asking that his god bless America -- just which god is the one of whom the President speaks? Apparently, he's referring to the god of the bible. Not all of us in the USA believe in the biblical god invoked by the President. It seems the President can't be speaking on behalf of those who don't believe in his god. I guess that means he isn't speaking for me, in particular. Is not the god of the bible the same god (by a different name) claimed by islam? Can god possibly be on both sides of a war? It seems it must be so, since both sides are claiming him (which seems to happen a lot in history). In that case, what sort of god is this, playing both sides? Is this the sort of deity we choose to believe sanctions whatever we do in his name?
It seems we're willing to give up our liberties, sacrifice our youth in wars on foreign soil, and commit murder in the name of justice -- explain to me how these actions are different from the terrorists! One of the goals of the terrorists all along has been to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the USA. It seems they're succeeding. I've already discussed this elsewhere.
Recall how we all felt when we heard that Palestinians were celebrating in the streets after the attacks of 9/11/01? We were astonished that any people would actually be celebrating the death of innocent civilians. Osama Bin Laden was hardly an innocent civilian, but he had become a symbol of defiance for muslims around the world who feel persecuted (and they have the innocent civilian deaths to back up their claim). I can well imagine muslim youths lining up to volunteer to be suicide bombers, seeking vengeance for the death of Bin Laden. I'm sure they see our celebrations over the death of Bin Laden in the same way we saw those celebrations in Palestine. Vengeance begets vengeance, not justice. We may be pleased with ourselves for finally taking vengeance on him, but we likely won't be happy with what ensues.
People on both sides of this conflict between islam and the west have allowed themselves to be consumed by tribalism, spurred on by political "leaders" who have used religion and nationalism as tools to demonize the other side, justifying merciless jihad and vigilante "justice" in the process. The death of Osama Bin Laden will not cause terrorism to roll over and die. Our security has not been increased by this act of vengeance. The pain of our losses will not be eased by the absence of this terrible (but increasingly irrelevant) man on the Earth. I can see no cause for celebration, nor any end to the bloodshed and pain of this war on terrorism that employs terrorist tactics (murder and torture, among others) by Americans in retaliation.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Ignorance is not bliss
The 27 April 2011 outbreak of tornadoes in the southeastern US clearly has achieved historic proportions. Its death toll has exceeded the so-call Super Outbreak of 03 April 1974. It remains to be seen what the final count of tornadoes and violent (EF4-5) tornadoes will be. It's possible that the "Super Outbreak" has been exceeded. Whatever the final tally turns out to show, it seems obvious that the 27 April 2011 event has achieved its place amidst the most infamous outbreaks in US history.
The media seem to be focused on the "freak" nature of this event, as usual. For those of us who have spent years studying the record of US tornado events, this outbreak is simply a reflection of what's possible as seen in the historical record and, in fact, what's most likely. Some of us have predicted this vulnerability. Events of the sort like 27 April 2011 occur roughly every 20 years or so -- the frequency is not at regular intervals, of course, and each event is different. But the long history of tornadoes in the US makes it clear that large fatality counts result from the infrequent coincidence of violent, long-track tornadoes with populated areas. Although outbreaks of long-track violent tornadoes in the southeastern US are relatively infrequent, the southeastern US is particularly vulnerable: a large fraction of mobile home owners, a relatively high density of communities at risk, a growing population at risk, a relatively low fraction of homes with basements, and so on -- all resulting in a high vulnerability whenever long-track, violent tornadoes occur. Thus, the tragic events of 27 April 2011 were quite predictable, although we couldn't know exactly when or where this would happen.
By studying the historical record, it's possible to anticipate events such as 27 April 2011, although we can't know precisely when they will occur. Despite advances in technology and in the infrastructure devoted to tornado warnings, when violent tornadoes interact with population centers, people will die. The infrastructure dedicated to saving lives in situations involving tornadoes has resulted in roughly a factor of 10 decrease since 1950 in average annual tornado fatalities. But the increase of population at risk has begun to offset this, in part associated with an increasing fraction of people living in mobile homes (where their risk is substantially higher than those living in "stick-built" homes). We've reached the point where the majority of tornado fatalities are those living in mobile homes, and there's a higher percentage of such in the southeastern US than elsewhere.
Thus, as I suggested in the earlier essay, the southeastern US was the most likely location for an outbreak resulting in a large number of fatalies. At times, being right is not a very satisfying situation. But it does underscore the reality that the US remains vulnerable to tornadoes, despite the new technologies and the new warning infrastructure. Even more devastating events are possible in the future. We aren't invulnerable to tornadoes and not likely to be anytime soon.
The media seem to be focused on the "freak" nature of this event, as usual. For those of us who have spent years studying the record of US tornado events, this outbreak is simply a reflection of what's possible as seen in the historical record and, in fact, what's most likely. Some of us have predicted this vulnerability. Events of the sort like 27 April 2011 occur roughly every 20 years or so -- the frequency is not at regular intervals, of course, and each event is different. But the long history of tornadoes in the US makes it clear that large fatality counts result from the infrequent coincidence of violent, long-track tornadoes with populated areas. Although outbreaks of long-track violent tornadoes in the southeastern US are relatively infrequent, the southeastern US is particularly vulnerable: a large fraction of mobile home owners, a relatively high density of communities at risk, a growing population at risk, a relatively low fraction of homes with basements, and so on -- all resulting in a high vulnerability whenever long-track, violent tornadoes occur. Thus, the tragic events of 27 April 2011 were quite predictable, although we couldn't know exactly when or where this would happen.
By studying the historical record, it's possible to anticipate events such as 27 April 2011, although we can't know precisely when they will occur. Despite advances in technology and in the infrastructure devoted to tornado warnings, when violent tornadoes interact with population centers, people will die. The infrastructure dedicated to saving lives in situations involving tornadoes has resulted in roughly a factor of 10 decrease since 1950 in average annual tornado fatalities. But the increase of population at risk has begun to offset this, in part associated with an increasing fraction of people living in mobile homes (where their risk is substantially higher than those living in "stick-built" homes). We've reached the point where the majority of tornado fatalities are those living in mobile homes, and there's a higher percentage of such in the southeastern US than elsewhere.
Thus, as I suggested in the earlier essay, the southeastern US was the most likely location for an outbreak resulting in a large number of fatalies. At times, being right is not a very satisfying situation. But it does underscore the reality that the US remains vulnerable to tornadoes, despite the new technologies and the new warning infrastructure. Even more devastating events are possible in the future. We aren't invulnerable to tornadoes and not likely to be anytime soon.
Friday, April 29, 2011
A disgraceful sham of a program
We're on the second day after a historic outbreak of tornadoes in the southeastern US, that has had tragic consequences. Anyone familiar with these events knows that clean-up begins virtually immediately after a tornado has passed. A big part of the need for clean-up is to allow search and rescue by first responders, and so debris is moved off streets and highways to allow them access.
Although these and subsequent clean-up efforts are necessary and clearly need to begin as early as possible, one consequence is that they disturb the evidence needed for a "forensic" survey team. Therefore it has been deemed important that survey teams arrive as soon as possible after the event -- preferably early in the morning on the day following the event. They need access to the damaged areas (which often are closed off to prevent looting!) in order to glean the information they need before the rubble is piled up and carted away. BTW -- I've literally written the book on the subject and have been a national Quick Response Team member since it began -- I've been on precisely one damage survey (the 4 May 2003 event in Kansas City) since the QRT began! No one has called to ask me to participate in the survey for the current event.
In the past, we had Prof. Ted Fujita to do major event surveys. He had the influence and the resources to put a large team together and get them to the scene quickly, in order to obtain the information they needed to learn from these tragic events. With his death, there was a period when no one took any responsibility for doing scientific surveys after tornado disasters. The National Weather Service (NWS) was content with the "service assessment" process. Following the tornado outbreak of 3 May 1999 and especially the La Plata, MD tornado of 28 April 2002 (which was initially and erroneously rated an F5 tornado), the NWS instituted the Quick Response Team (QRT) -- the members of this national "team" were recruited from the ranks of those with experience at doing surveys of tornadic storms. They all volunteered to serve without compensation (save for travel costs) in order that we obtain the forensic evidence necessary first to understand what happened in detail, and then to learn whatever lessons could be gleaned from that evidence. The goal was to provide the advice of experienced people for the purpose of establishing the estimated intensity of the tornadoes (i.e, their F-scale - now supplanted by the EF-scale).
For a few years, this national QRT operated more or less as intended, but then it seemed that some tender egos in the NWS began to fear that they were losing control of the process. They felt they had sufficient "in-house" expertise to carry out the investigations and didn't require the services of "outsiders" in the process. I can't pretend to know precisely what NWS managers thought, but the net result has been that the national QRT is now a pathetic sham of a program. For all intents and purposes, it simply doesn't exist. The only person ever called to do a "national QRT" now is Tim Marshall, who is unquestionably one of the best. I'll leave it to the NWS to explain why Tim is the only one upon whom they now call who isn't an NWS employee. I don't understand why the NWS is refusing the advice of experienced "experts".
But a major event like the one of 27 April 2011 demands a team of folks doing the work. There are just too many tornadoes for one person to cover. Tim can only do so much and the clock ticks relentlessly as the clean-up proceeds. The 27 April 2011 outbreak of tornadoes in the southeastern US needs to be investigated using all available resources including the national QRT, and yet it seems the national QRT is on hold because the national Warning Coordination Meteorologist was out of the office yesterday!! And there are problems in coming up with the funding to support any travel by the team. Issues regarding travel support for the team should have been resolved years ago! This amounts to a disgraceful episode for NWS management. An important way to compensate our society for the damage and pain caused by tornadoes is for us to do our jobs and learn as much as we can from them. The moribund state of the national QRT is clear evidence of an inept performance and a lack of commitment by NWS management that is inhibiting the accurate assessement and comprehensive investigation of this tragic and historic tornado outbreak.
Although these and subsequent clean-up efforts are necessary and clearly need to begin as early as possible, one consequence is that they disturb the evidence needed for a "forensic" survey team. Therefore it has been deemed important that survey teams arrive as soon as possible after the event -- preferably early in the morning on the day following the event. They need access to the damaged areas (which often are closed off to prevent looting!) in order to glean the information they need before the rubble is piled up and carted away. BTW -- I've literally written the book on the subject and have been a national Quick Response Team member since it began -- I've been on precisely one damage survey (the 4 May 2003 event in Kansas City) since the QRT began! No one has called to ask me to participate in the survey for the current event.
In the past, we had Prof. Ted Fujita to do major event surveys. He had the influence and the resources to put a large team together and get them to the scene quickly, in order to obtain the information they needed to learn from these tragic events. With his death, there was a period when no one took any responsibility for doing scientific surveys after tornado disasters. The National Weather Service (NWS) was content with the "service assessment" process. Following the tornado outbreak of 3 May 1999 and especially the La Plata, MD tornado of 28 April 2002 (which was initially and erroneously rated an F5 tornado), the NWS instituted the Quick Response Team (QRT) -- the members of this national "team" were recruited from the ranks of those with experience at doing surveys of tornadic storms. They all volunteered to serve without compensation (save for travel costs) in order that we obtain the forensic evidence necessary first to understand what happened in detail, and then to learn whatever lessons could be gleaned from that evidence. The goal was to provide the advice of experienced people for the purpose of establishing the estimated intensity of the tornadoes (i.e, their F-scale - now supplanted by the EF-scale).
For a few years, this national QRT operated more or less as intended, but then it seemed that some tender egos in the NWS began to fear that they were losing control of the process. They felt they had sufficient "in-house" expertise to carry out the investigations and didn't require the services of "outsiders" in the process. I can't pretend to know precisely what NWS managers thought, but the net result has been that the national QRT is now a pathetic sham of a program. For all intents and purposes, it simply doesn't exist. The only person ever called to do a "national QRT" now is Tim Marshall, who is unquestionably one of the best. I'll leave it to the NWS to explain why Tim is the only one upon whom they now call who isn't an NWS employee. I don't understand why the NWS is refusing the advice of experienced "experts".
But a major event like the one of 27 April 2011 demands a team of folks doing the work. There are just too many tornadoes for one person to cover. Tim can only do so much and the clock ticks relentlessly as the clean-up proceeds. The 27 April 2011 outbreak of tornadoes in the southeastern US needs to be investigated using all available resources including the national QRT, and yet it seems the national QRT is on hold because the national Warning Coordination Meteorologist was out of the office yesterday!! And there are problems in coming up with the funding to support any travel by the team. Issues regarding travel support for the team should have been resolved years ago! This amounts to a disgraceful episode for NWS management. An important way to compensate our society for the damage and pain caused by tornadoes is for us to do our jobs and learn as much as we can from them. The moribund state of the national QRT is clear evidence of an inept performance and a lack of commitment by NWS management that is inhibiting the accurate assessement and comprehensive investigation of this tragic and historic tornado outbreak.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
A dangerous illusion of safety
Yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of an infamous tornado outbreak. I'm not going to discuss the event itself here, but want to focus on the continuing problem that the news coverage of the storm produced. In that video two reporters from Wichita TV station KSNW (cameraman Ted Lewis and reporter Gregg Jarrett) are shown, first attempting to run from the tornado and then taking shelter under an overpass on the Kansas Turnpike (Interstate-35) near El Dorado, KS, and helping passerby Butch Gilbert and his children up between the overpass girders. They all emerge unscathed after the tornado passes, but clearly are frightened by their experience.
There are many issues with this video that can be debated, but the main point I want to make here is that 20 years later, we're still dealing with the problem the video created: people seeking shelter from severe weather under highway overpasses. An extended presentation about why using overpasses for tornado shelters is a bad idea has been developed in an effort to counteract the impression that highway overpasses are viable shelter options.
Some friends of mine and I made the prediction soon after we saw this video that people would die taking shelter under overpasses. That prediction, sadly, came to pass on 3 May 1999, when three people were killed (and many others sustained major injuries) while seeking shelter under overpasses in Oklahoma. It's my opinion that the airing of that video is clearly and directly responsible for those fatalities. Those fatalities (and others, likely to come) are the unintended consequences of journalists doing their jobs.
What concerns me most here is the enduring impression created by the many, many airings of that dramatic video. The very evident message of this video, whatever reasons may have motivated its creation and presentation, is the erroneous notion that taking shelter under an overpass provides safety from tornadoes. My NWS colleagues tell me they've learned that some people are leaving their homes to take shelter under overpasses! It seems that no matter how many times people say this is absolutely not the correct thing to do, the impact of that video overwhelms those spoken (or written) words -- it's the old saying about a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, a video is apparently worth tens of thousands of words. The video lives on via YouTube, of course.
Of course, someone might say, "Well, those folks sheltering under the overpass survived! What's the problem?" It's likely the reporter and his cameraman were ignorant of the fact that they could easily have outrun the tornado and then driven off an exit, at right angles to its path to escape the tornado. There was no need for them to stop and wait for the tornado to roll nearly over them. It's likely the reporters were ignorant of the inappropriateness of using overpasses as shelter. They simply did what they thought was right -- and took advantage of an opportunity to create dramatic video that no doubt profited them and the KSNW-TV station. Note that the tornado didn't pass directly over the location of the survivors under the overpass. And the tornado wasn't particularly violent at the time (although no tornado, even an EF-0, should be taken lightly). The violent tornado winds of 3 May 1999 blew people out from under the overpasses where they were hiding. The survivors in that video are lucky to have escaped unharmed. Their choice put them in considerable danger. What was clear to us when we saw the video was that if many others emulated this behavior, eventually someone would die as a result. It took several years, but the anticipated resulting fatalities eventually happened. If dangerous behavior is repeated enough times, someone will pay the price with their lives. When individuals survive unharmed after doing something life-threatening, that doesn't mean that the behavior is not dangerous!
Whatever their intentions, the damage from airing this video has been done and it apparently will take decades to repair that damage. Perhaps we need to air equally compelling, dramatic video of mangled overpass tornado victims? If on-air meteorologists and media journalists want to reinforce the message of not using overpasses in this way, they absolutely should never air that video! Never again! We must work to get that video out of people's sight, and perpetuating it on YouTube is only adding to the problem. Words alone have been ineffective in stemming the tide of people using overpasses as tornado shelters. If you show that video and say "Don't do this!" your words are wasted -- the evidence they see with their eyes overrides your words.
There are many issues with this video that can be debated, but the main point I want to make here is that 20 years later, we're still dealing with the problem the video created: people seeking shelter from severe weather under highway overpasses. An extended presentation about why using overpasses for tornado shelters is a bad idea has been developed in an effort to counteract the impression that highway overpasses are viable shelter options.
Some friends of mine and I made the prediction soon after we saw this video that people would die taking shelter under overpasses. That prediction, sadly, came to pass on 3 May 1999, when three people were killed (and many others sustained major injuries) while seeking shelter under overpasses in Oklahoma. It's my opinion that the airing of that video is clearly and directly responsible for those fatalities. Those fatalities (and others, likely to come) are the unintended consequences of journalists doing their jobs.
What concerns me most here is the enduring impression created by the many, many airings of that dramatic video. The very evident message of this video, whatever reasons may have motivated its creation and presentation, is the erroneous notion that taking shelter under an overpass provides safety from tornadoes. My NWS colleagues tell me they've learned that some people are leaving their homes to take shelter under overpasses! It seems that no matter how many times people say this is absolutely not the correct thing to do, the impact of that video overwhelms those spoken (or written) words -- it's the old saying about a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, a video is apparently worth tens of thousands of words. The video lives on via YouTube, of course.
Of course, someone might say, "Well, those folks sheltering under the overpass survived! What's the problem?" It's likely the reporter and his cameraman were ignorant of the fact that they could easily have outrun the tornado and then driven off an exit, at right angles to its path to escape the tornado. There was no need for them to stop and wait for the tornado to roll nearly over them. It's likely the reporters were ignorant of the inappropriateness of using overpasses as shelter. They simply did what they thought was right -- and took advantage of an opportunity to create dramatic video that no doubt profited them and the KSNW-TV station. Note that the tornado didn't pass directly over the location of the survivors under the overpass. And the tornado wasn't particularly violent at the time (although no tornado, even an EF-0, should be taken lightly). The violent tornado winds of 3 May 1999 blew people out from under the overpasses where they were hiding. The survivors in that video are lucky to have escaped unharmed. Their choice put them in considerable danger. What was clear to us when we saw the video was that if many others emulated this behavior, eventually someone would die as a result. It took several years, but the anticipated resulting fatalities eventually happened. If dangerous behavior is repeated enough times, someone will pay the price with their lives. When individuals survive unharmed after doing something life-threatening, that doesn't mean that the behavior is not dangerous!
Whatever their intentions, the damage from airing this video has been done and it apparently will take decades to repair that damage. Perhaps we need to air equally compelling, dramatic video of mangled overpass tornado victims? If on-air meteorologists and media journalists want to reinforce the message of not using overpasses in this way, they absolutely should never air that video! Never again! We must work to get that video out of people's sight, and perpetuating it on YouTube is only adding to the problem. Words alone have been ineffective in stemming the tide of people using overpasses as tornado shelters. If you show that video and say "Don't do this!" your words are wasted -- the evidence they see with their eyes overrides your words.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Humanity's hubris
I'm often struck by the absolutely absurd notion that this planet was created for humans. What incredibly arrogant nonsense! We're only the latecomers on the block -- the last few seconds of the 24-h geological and astronomical clock marking the history of the Earth -- if you actually accept the scientific notions of geological deep time and evolution. Of course, if you choose not to accept those ideas, it may be because you're living under the self-centered delusions of religious fundamentalism. In that fundamentalist view, we humans are created by an omnipotent and omniscient deity to have "dominion" over the planet and everything on it. But humble in the face of the overwhelming power of this presumed deity (Might makes right? Pretty tough to challenge a being who is omnipotent, after all. Better bow down and kiss ass.).
No serious scientist would ever subscribe to such an silly notion. Every year, our planet demonstrates to us mere humans how pathetic and weak we are in the face of the meteorological, geological, and astronomical forces that can easily and without malice -- only indifference -- sweep us from existence on this planet. Natural hazards occur, such as the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, that should make it clear to any rational creature that we are not the masters of this world! Of course, you can choose to attribute these hazards to an angry deity, punishing us for our transgressions, as did our ignorant ancestors who knew nothing of science. This is, of course, associated with the species-centric and pre-eminently religious notion that the putative deity, who presumably loves us above all of his/her/its creations, controls the processes that are responsible for devastation and destruction here on Earth. This deity, whose ways are mysterious (especially when no one can can offer a reasonable explanation for why he/she/it visits destruction on us, his chosen favorites), apparently uses natural processes to remind us of our place - subservient to the omniscient and omnipotent deity (which would seem pretty evident - why does he/she/it need to remind us of our insignificance in comparison to him/her/it?).
But leaving the religious nonsense aside, we humans seem only inclined to be worried about the planet and what we might be doing to it, when we ourselves are threatened. The late George Carlin noted that the planet doesn't need "saving" from the things we're doing to it. The Earth will return to its natural state quite nicely without us, should we be stupid enough to pollute ourselves into extinction. We depend on the processes ongoing here on Earth, but the Earth doesn't depend on us for anything!
Nevertheless, the only way to make any human care about what's going on seems to be to call attention to what we're doing to ourselves. What we might be doing to polar bears, or desert pupfish, or owls, or frogs, or spiders, or snakes, ... who cares? They're only lesser creatures, made by the mythical "creator" for our exploitation or indifference. "Let 'em go extinct. Who needs 'em?" says the species-centric idiot. Never mind the complex web of life on which we ourselves depend in the most critical ways. Endanger that web at our peril!
One of the most noble activities humans engage in is the rescue and rehabilitation of non-human creatures. When the Birds of Prey Foundation releases a healed raptor back to the wild, my sense of the ultimate value of humanity soars with them! This is an ultimate act by a thinking human being -- to seek to save the life of a member of a non-human species. Such acts on behalf of humans are magnificent, of course, but to do so for another species -- this is truly transcendental of your human arrogance. There are many advocates for non-human species who toil away in obscurity and indifference, but they tend to be drowned out by those who believe that all creatures are under our dominion! Must all species bow to our arrogance? Can we treat them all as disposable?
In the long run, it seems likely that humans are transients on this planet, not the chosen species of a mythical deity. Only our own hubris allows us to see ourselves as the crown of creation. We are nothing more than another step along a path that leads to a destination inconceivable and unknown to us. And that destination is not foreordained by some mythical deity who favors us above all other species. We'll be extremely fortunate to last as long as the dinosaurs, for instance. Our civilization and all its supposedly noble accomplishments (we're legends in our own minds) is meaningless in the context of deep time and evolution. We humans right now teeter on the brink of extinction from our own ignorance and arrogance. And the Earth would easily shake us off like a bad case of fleas (as noted by George Carlin) and go on its own way.
No serious scientist would ever subscribe to such an silly notion. Every year, our planet demonstrates to us mere humans how pathetic and weak we are in the face of the meteorological, geological, and astronomical forces that can easily and without malice -- only indifference -- sweep us from existence on this planet. Natural hazards occur, such as the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, that should make it clear to any rational creature that we are not the masters of this world! Of course, you can choose to attribute these hazards to an angry deity, punishing us for our transgressions, as did our ignorant ancestors who knew nothing of science. This is, of course, associated with the species-centric and pre-eminently religious notion that the putative deity, who presumably loves us above all of his/her/its creations, controls the processes that are responsible for devastation and destruction here on Earth. This deity, whose ways are mysterious (especially when no one can can offer a reasonable explanation for why he/she/it visits destruction on us, his chosen favorites), apparently uses natural processes to remind us of our place - subservient to the omniscient and omnipotent deity (which would seem pretty evident - why does he/she/it need to remind us of our insignificance in comparison to him/her/it?).
But leaving the religious nonsense aside, we humans seem only inclined to be worried about the planet and what we might be doing to it, when we ourselves are threatened. The late George Carlin noted that the planet doesn't need "saving" from the things we're doing to it. The Earth will return to its natural state quite nicely without us, should we be stupid enough to pollute ourselves into extinction. We depend on the processes ongoing here on Earth, but the Earth doesn't depend on us for anything!
Nevertheless, the only way to make any human care about what's going on seems to be to call attention to what we're doing to ourselves. What we might be doing to polar bears, or desert pupfish, or owls, or frogs, or spiders, or snakes, ... who cares? They're only lesser creatures, made by the mythical "creator" for our exploitation or indifference. "Let 'em go extinct. Who needs 'em?" says the species-centric idiot. Never mind the complex web of life on which we ourselves depend in the most critical ways. Endanger that web at our peril!
One of the most noble activities humans engage in is the rescue and rehabilitation of non-human creatures. When the Birds of Prey Foundation releases a healed raptor back to the wild, my sense of the ultimate value of humanity soars with them! This is an ultimate act by a thinking human being -- to seek to save the life of a member of a non-human species. Such acts on behalf of humans are magnificent, of course, but to do so for another species -- this is truly transcendental of your human arrogance. There are many advocates for non-human species who toil away in obscurity and indifference, but they tend to be drowned out by those who believe that all creatures are under our dominion! Must all species bow to our arrogance? Can we treat them all as disposable?
In the long run, it seems likely that humans are transients on this planet, not the chosen species of a mythical deity. Only our own hubris allows us to see ourselves as the crown of creation. We are nothing more than another step along a path that leads to a destination inconceivable and unknown to us. And that destination is not foreordained by some mythical deity who favors us above all other species. We'll be extremely fortunate to last as long as the dinosaurs, for instance. Our civilization and all its supposedly noble accomplishments (we're legends in our own minds) is meaningless in the context of deep time and evolution. We humans right now teeter on the brink of extinction from our own ignorance and arrogance. And the Earth would easily shake us off like a bad case of fleas (as noted by George Carlin) and go on its own way.
Monday, April 18, 2011
What is inevitable and what's not inevitable ...
My often-underestimated spouse has offered an emotional tribute to the loss of a friend. This event, like others before it, makes me confront something both unpleasant and at the same time uplifting. In our relationships with others, it's inevitable that we'll be parted by the unrelenting reality of death. One of us will be first to go that way, and it's a harsh reality that we'll be parted in the process. Every human relationship is finite and will be terminated by the death of one.
Some of us cling to the forlorn hope that we'll be reunited in some mythical afterlife. I don't choose to accept that insubstantial promise of solace, that supposition of eternal life after an Earthly demise. Rather, what I choose to accept is that our interpersonal relationships will be severed by the inevitability of death. I've already had to accept the deaths of many friends and acquaintances. This is an unpleasant part of getting older. I miss them all, every day. But I have solace of a very different sort than the mythical promise of eternal life in some paradise of a supreme being.
Although separation is inevitable, what is not inevitable is the experience of having shared my time on Earth with someone who has brought joy into my life. This is indeed far from inevitable. My experiences with most people are fleeting and of little significance to me. Sorry, but that's the reality of life. However, some people leave an indelible and important impact on my life. These special relationships run a gamut of variety, but what they have in common is that I feel enriched and happy that I had some time to share my existence with these people. Losing them before I myself have passed means that my existence is impoverished by their absence -- but at the same time, I must acknowledge that my existence has been enhanced by the time I had to share with them. I choose to dwell on that, rather than my loss -- it's selfish to be absorbed by feelings of loss and bitterness over that loss. I prefer to be thankful for the joy these people brought into my life.
Laughter over light-hearted moments, empathy and understanding in times of sadness and loss, discussions that have enlightened me and enriched my time, love that we've shared, hobbies we've enjoyed together, wonder and awe at the natural world, arguments that have left me grateful for their willingness to give me their unadorned opinions of me and my thoughts, moments of profound connection as human beings that seem to go beyond normal communication. These and many more such are gifts that have flowed from the non-inevitability of the real relationships I've had and which continue to bless my Earthly existence virtually every day. I've welcomed many people into my life and been grateful for most of them. If they pass before I do, I refuse to submit to self-centered mourning for my losses. Rather, I exult in the times we shared and the connections we've made. Ultimately, we die alone, but the blessing of friends and family make our time here rich with experiences and shared humanity. At some point, my time will come and I don't fear that moment very much. Others have gone before me, and others will follow, inevitably. But the value we place on the time we spent with our friends and family is not mandatory -- it's a matter of choice. I choose not ever to regret that time nor to negate the joy of those times by my selfish sense of loss when those people have preceded me in the inevitability of death. And I embrace the principle that death is an inevitable part of life, not something evil or malevolent.
Some of us cling to the forlorn hope that we'll be reunited in some mythical afterlife. I don't choose to accept that insubstantial promise of solace, that supposition of eternal life after an Earthly demise. Rather, what I choose to accept is that our interpersonal relationships will be severed by the inevitability of death. I've already had to accept the deaths of many friends and acquaintances. This is an unpleasant part of getting older. I miss them all, every day. But I have solace of a very different sort than the mythical promise of eternal life in some paradise of a supreme being.
Although separation is inevitable, what is not inevitable is the experience of having shared my time on Earth with someone who has brought joy into my life. This is indeed far from inevitable. My experiences with most people are fleeting and of little significance to me. Sorry, but that's the reality of life. However, some people leave an indelible and important impact on my life. These special relationships run a gamut of variety, but what they have in common is that I feel enriched and happy that I had some time to share my existence with these people. Losing them before I myself have passed means that my existence is impoverished by their absence -- but at the same time, I must acknowledge that my existence has been enhanced by the time I had to share with them. I choose to dwell on that, rather than my loss -- it's selfish to be absorbed by feelings of loss and bitterness over that loss. I prefer to be thankful for the joy these people brought into my life.
Laughter over light-hearted moments, empathy and understanding in times of sadness and loss, discussions that have enlightened me and enriched my time, love that we've shared, hobbies we've enjoyed together, wonder and awe at the natural world, arguments that have left me grateful for their willingness to give me their unadorned opinions of me and my thoughts, moments of profound connection as human beings that seem to go beyond normal communication. These and many more such are gifts that have flowed from the non-inevitability of the real relationships I've had and which continue to bless my Earthly existence virtually every day. I've welcomed many people into my life and been grateful for most of them. If they pass before I do, I refuse to submit to self-centered mourning for my losses. Rather, I exult in the times we shared and the connections we've made. Ultimately, we die alone, but the blessing of friends and family make our time here rich with experiences and shared humanity. At some point, my time will come and I don't fear that moment very much. Others have gone before me, and others will follow, inevitably. But the value we place on the time we spent with our friends and family is not mandatory -- it's a matter of choice. I choose not ever to regret that time nor to negate the joy of those times by my selfish sense of loss when those people have preceded me in the inevitability of death. And I embrace the principle that death is an inevitable part of life, not something evil or malevolent.
Monday Morning Quarterbacks
How appropriate that I'm inspired to make this entry on my blog on a Monday morning. Some chasers have been commenting on the excellent performance of the Storm Prediction Center regarding the 3-day outbreak of severe weather starting on 14 April. Most of the posts are appropriately supportive of the excellent job done by my colleagues there over the past several days. But there always seem to be some trolls who want to play Monday Morning Quarterback (MMQ). This is hardly the first time I've seen such comments -- today's were only the latest in a long line of such over the years. Many people, including some storm chasers, seem to delight in finding fault with the SPC. Thus, I want to take some time to make a few things clear:
1. SPC forecasts are not only concerned with events of interest to tornado chasers. They include all forms of NWS-recognized "severe thunderstorm events": not just tornadoes, but also convective wind gusts and large hail. The SPC forecasts are not tailored specifically to the needs and interests of tornado chasers. If you're going to criticize the SPC forecasts, please keep this in mind. If you think you make a better chase forecaster than the SPC forecasters, then by all means -- define your forecasting criteria, post your daily chase forecasts in advance for a whole year, make the whole data set public, and show us the verification results for your chase forecasting. Note that successful chases can be associated with what amount to busted forecasts, so your tornado videos are not evidence of your forecasting capabilities -- only of your chasing capabilities!
2. The task of putting out severe convective weather forecasts for the entire USA, 24/7, is not a simple job. It's quite challenging, and I challenge anyone to produce the suite of products the SPC produces during the day shift every day -- products issued several times per day and others as needed -- for a whole year. Lest anyone think that the advent of numerical models and other objective forecasting aids has made this task easier -- think again! All the SPC forecasters put their names on all the forecasts as a matter of public record. After you've published your forecasts, then do an objective, statistical verification of them along the lines of the SPC verification programs, and compare your results to those of the SPC for that year. If you can provide such evidence that yours are even close to their results, then I might give you some credibility. If you can't exceed their results, then my recommendation is to shut the hell up!
3. The SPC suite of products is, like all other forms of weather forecasting, not perfect. It's likely impossible to put out an indisputably perfect forecast, so that's not even a worthy topic of discussion. The Facebook troll I encountered today made the statement that SPC forecasts are "wrong as often as they are right" -- thereby establishing beyond doubt that he doesn't have a clue about the subject. He was a legend only in his own mind, incapable of backing up his claims, naturally.
I'm far from blind to the shortcomings of the NWS, as anyone who has read even a fraction of my Web content can determine for themselves. But for a few years, I sat in the hot seat of the forecasters at the SPC (back when it was known as the SELS Unit of the National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas City, MO) and, with all my education, I just managed to not embarrass myself as a severe weather forecaster. I wish I could convey the feeling of ignorance that swept over me as addressed a blank map of the US, onto which I had to produce my first ever convective outlook. Anyone who hasn't done this simply has no clue what it's like, or how challenging it can be. Even on those days when the SPC forecasts make significant errors, these forecasters are not just lollygagging around, spouting objective guidance-driven platitudes. They're doing a difficult job well every damned day! They're the best severe convective weather forecasters on the planet, so far as I'm concerned, until someone can step up and show me solid evidence that they're better than the SPC!
4. The fact that I respect the job being done by the SPC doesn't mean that I think they're perfect and metaphorically walk on water. They themselves would readily admit to shortcomings, I'm sure. When they make forecasting decisions, some of them turn out to be mistakes. The state of the science is far from complete and if you want to accomplish something useful to push forward the state of the science, I'm sure the SPC forecasters would be among the first to applaud your contributions. By all means, share your insights via conference presentations and publications in the formal meteorological literature. But if all you can contribute is after-the-fact MMQ'ing, then I suggest you shut the hell up!
A few folks with the capability to meet or exceed SPC forecasting standards might exist, but they're not doing the job right now that the SPC does. Until someone has done that job, they still have something to prove. If you can't produce the evidence, your claims to such capability remain undemonstrated and you have no qualifications to play MMQ!
1. SPC forecasts are not only concerned with events of interest to tornado chasers. They include all forms of NWS-recognized "severe thunderstorm events": not just tornadoes, but also convective wind gusts and large hail. The SPC forecasts are not tailored specifically to the needs and interests of tornado chasers. If you're going to criticize the SPC forecasts, please keep this in mind. If you think you make a better chase forecaster than the SPC forecasters, then by all means -- define your forecasting criteria, post your daily chase forecasts in advance for a whole year, make the whole data set public, and show us the verification results for your chase forecasting. Note that successful chases can be associated with what amount to busted forecasts, so your tornado videos are not evidence of your forecasting capabilities -- only of your chasing capabilities!
2. The task of putting out severe convective weather forecasts for the entire USA, 24/7, is not a simple job. It's quite challenging, and I challenge anyone to produce the suite of products the SPC produces during the day shift every day -- products issued several times per day and others as needed -- for a whole year. Lest anyone think that the advent of numerical models and other objective forecasting aids has made this task easier -- think again! All the SPC forecasters put their names on all the forecasts as a matter of public record. After you've published your forecasts, then do an objective, statistical verification of them along the lines of the SPC verification programs, and compare your results to those of the SPC for that year. If you can provide such evidence that yours are even close to their results, then I might give you some credibility. If you can't exceed their results, then my recommendation is to shut the hell up!
3. The SPC suite of products is, like all other forms of weather forecasting, not perfect. It's likely impossible to put out an indisputably perfect forecast, so that's not even a worthy topic of discussion. The Facebook troll I encountered today made the statement that SPC forecasts are "wrong as often as they are right" -- thereby establishing beyond doubt that he doesn't have a clue about the subject. He was a legend only in his own mind, incapable of backing up his claims, naturally.
I'm far from blind to the shortcomings of the NWS, as anyone who has read even a fraction of my Web content can determine for themselves. But for a few years, I sat in the hot seat of the forecasters at the SPC (back when it was known as the SELS Unit of the National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas City, MO) and, with all my education, I just managed to not embarrass myself as a severe weather forecaster. I wish I could convey the feeling of ignorance that swept over me as addressed a blank map of the US, onto which I had to produce my first ever convective outlook. Anyone who hasn't done this simply has no clue what it's like, or how challenging it can be. Even on those days when the SPC forecasts make significant errors, these forecasters are not just lollygagging around, spouting objective guidance-driven platitudes. They're doing a difficult job well every damned day! They're the best severe convective weather forecasters on the planet, so far as I'm concerned, until someone can step up and show me solid evidence that they're better than the SPC!
4. The fact that I respect the job being done by the SPC doesn't mean that I think they're perfect and metaphorically walk on water. They themselves would readily admit to shortcomings, I'm sure. When they make forecasting decisions, some of them turn out to be mistakes. The state of the science is far from complete and if you want to accomplish something useful to push forward the state of the science, I'm sure the SPC forecasters would be among the first to applaud your contributions. By all means, share your insights via conference presentations and publications in the formal meteorological literature. But if all you can contribute is after-the-fact MMQ'ing, then I suggest you shut the hell up!
A few folks with the capability to meet or exceed SPC forecasting standards might exist, but they're not doing the job right now that the SPC does. Until someone has done that job, they still have something to prove. If you can't produce the evidence, your claims to such capability remain undemonstrated and you have no qualifications to play MMQ!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
