Antarctic Ocean Ice

It looks like we are headed towards an historic record maximum ocean ice extent in Antarctica. It will likely beat the previous record of 19.47 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) set in September of 2013. The 2013 record beat the 2012 record of 19.44 million square kilometers. All of these records are somewhere in the neighborhood of a million square kilometers above the accepted average.

“The paradox of expanding Antarctic sea ice has troubled scientists for many years. Although climate models predict southern sea ice should shrink, it has stubbornly refused to do so.” -- Julia Rosen from the LA Times

Our planet’s annual tilt races towards its autumnal minimum, and the length of day in the southern hemisphere increases more and more each day. It is still cold –very cold- in Antarctica, but it is averaging little less very cold each day. It will soon be springtime in Antarctica, but right now it is still winter. Winters in Antarctica are VERY cold. Even if greenhouse warming increased Antarctic temperatures by several degrees Celsius the Antarctic winters would still be freezing cold; literally. The lowest temperature ever recorded was -89.2C at the Antarctic Vostok station in 1983.

The extent of ocean ice at the poles is not limited by whether-or-not the temperature drops below the freezing-point temperature; it will likely do that every year regardless of the amount of greenhouse warming the planet experiences (by all estimates). An increased temperature will decrease the length of the year where temperatures are below freezing, and decrease the overall rate at which energy is removed from the freezing portion of the sea.  In other words –all else being equal- one expects an increase in temperature to decrease the amount of ocean ice.

We are seeing average temperatures increasing in the Antarctic. They have increased by as much as 2C since 1970 at some stations. Ocean ice in Antarctica has also increased during that period.  An alternative hypothesis for the relationship between temperature and ocean ice in the Antarctic region is needed.

Some data re-analysis has called into question the amount of sea ice increase, but it has not called into question the fact that the amount of ocean ice has been increasing. Geographically there is nothing around Antarctica to physically impede the growth of ocean ice. The ocean ice can continue to form without ever running out of open ocean to form in. This is not the case in the Arctic. Small changes in the large expanding margin of the Antarctic ocean ice extent can result in large changes in the official amount of ocean ice.

I have written several posts concerning the extent of Arctic ocean ice; using this metric as a measure for the extent of warming in our current state of global climate change. I do think it is a good measure, but I often neglect to point out that the melting of Arctic ocean ice will have little effect on human civilization. In fact all of the Arctic ocean ice could melt and –if it were not for the other effects of the factors causing the melt- we might not notice much difference.

The main threat to humanity from melting ice is from rising sea levels. Ocean ice does not contribute to this threat. Ocean ice is already floating in water, and melting it all would result in no major change in sea level. In order to increase sea level the ice on land must melt, and most of that land ice on the planet is in Antarctica. So much land-ice is in Antarctica that it accounts for almost 70% of the total fresh water on the planet. The fact that ice is frozen fresh water, as opposed to frozen seawater, is important.

Ocean salt water has an average concentration of about 35 grams per liter of salt; as low as 30 near the deltas of large rivers. Freshwater is pretty-much anything with less than a third of a gram of salt per liter. There is a lot of water on the planet, but only a tiny amount (2.5%) of it is fresh. The average depth of the oceans is four and a quarter kilometers; so putting all the freshwater into the oceans at once would only raise them by a little over 100 meters. Melting all of Antarctica would only raise the level of the ocean by about 70 meters. This is enough to cause big problems for the majority of the world’s population, but not me; I live over a thousand meters above current sea level.

Salt water requires much lower temperatures to freeze. There is a direct relationship; increase the saltiness of water, and it has to be that much colder for the water to freeze. Partially freezing salt water in a container will result in a separation; the ice will be mostly fresh, and the remaining unfrozen water will be saltier than the water sample was before freezing.

I use the term “ocean ice” (though I use ocean ice interchangeably with sea ice in other posts) to mean ice that is floating in the ocean. This could be ice that broke off from the land or ice that froze out at sea. The later is the species of ice that is properly termed “sea ice”.

The species of ice called sea-ice begins forming as hair-like crystals of freshwater freezing out of the salty ocean water. When these coalesce into blocks of ice they typically trap little droplets of salty liquid brine. These trapped brine droplets make new sea ice taste salty. As the sea ice ages the droplets of brine will slowly melt down through the ice, giving the sea ice characteristic microscopic vertical striations. The saltiness of water in which sea ice forms therefore affect both its rate of formation, and, until most of the brine ages out of it, its stability once formed.

This means that if you were able to decrease the salty of a water body… say by melting a sizeable portion of 70% of the world’s fresh water into it… it would actually freeze as fast as undiluted salt water exposed to lower temperatures.

Ocean salinity measurements around Antarctica show a steady decrease in overall salinity of as much as 0.03 grams per liter every decade. These lower salinity data are the result of the mixing of huge amounts of freshwater from some source with vast amount of saltier ocean water. There has to be a huge source of fresh water to make sense of these data. A further decrease in salinity is expected as one physically approaches the source, and the water has had less time to dilute by mixing into the ocean water. The temperature difference in freezing points for seawater at river deltas whose salinity is around 30 grams per liter (5 grams per liter less than the open ocean) is about 1.78 degrees Celsius. This is close to the increase in temperature observed in Antarctica since 1970.

Once ice has formed in seawater it is fairly stable until the temperature rises considerably. Ice that is floating in seawater that is cold enough to start the sea-ice formation process will not melt. A patch of ocean is considered “covered” by sea ice if it is really at least 15% covered. The forces of diffusion facilitated by wind and weather would move ice away from areas of rapid formation/ high concentration to more open ocean. In this way smaller areas of substantially lower salinity could create many square kilometers of sea ice.

Land ice does not just melt into the sea. The gigantic glaciers –huge rivers of ice- flow into the sea in solid form. When the glaciers meet the ocean seawater cuts under them, and float off massive chunks as icebergs. These icebergs in turn break into smaller blocks, which in turn float off in a multitude of directions. This floating former land-ice contributes to the high Antarctic ocean ice coverage values.

A better direct measurement of the effect of greenhouse warming in the Antarctic would be a measurement of land-ice. How much is left? How thick is it? Unfortunately these direct data are extremely hard to acquire. Sea ice coverage is a much easier measurement to obtain.

Antarctic ocean ice coverage values appear on first blush to not provide direct evidence for global warming. However, if this hypothesis is correct, they do appear to provide direct evidence for a significant impact of global climate change, and these may be more valuable data. There is no real need to use satellite imagery metrics as a huge thermometer as we have data from actual thermometers showing warming trends; although I do like the gigantic data sets because they are impressive, and changes in them melodramatic.

Because the changes observed in the Antarctic may be evidence of actually bad things happening to the planet as a result of global warming they may even be worthy of more attention that the Arctic data.

Dry Paint

The next few weeks will be an exciting time for the melting of ice. Ice melting, second only to the drying of paint, is a popular metaphor for the ironies of unbridled joy, and by unbridled I mean wildly pervasive, and by joy I mean tedium. Still, July is the month, in the Northern hemisphere at least, when ice does melt rapidly. And of all the great places to watch ice melt in the Northern hemisphere none is more compelling than the Arctic sea.

Sometime, in the next few weeks, there is the possibility of a major arctic sea ice melting event which could make 2014 a record-breaking year. Already large pockets of open ocean called polynyas have started to form within the ice-covered arctic sea.

The truth about Arctic sea ice coverage is not exactly what I generally picture in my mind. An area is said to be covered in Arctic sea ice if it is at least 15% ice covered. This means that much of the area covered by arctic sea ice could be as much as 85% open water, with just chunks floating around. In other words a really big storm could appear to be a major melting event by pushing all the sea ice from one part of the ocean to another.

Whatever the major melting event actually is there has been one in the June-July time frame for most of the record-breaking years. The major melt event for the 2012 all-time record occurred earlier in June, but the one for the 2007 record that stood until 2012 occurred later in July. Any day now! Isn’t it exciting!

The Arctic ice is currently tracking at slightly less than the 2007 year trace, and parallel to, but significantly higher than, the 2012 trace.

In March I predicted the maximum sea ice extent about a week before it happened. There was a rapid expansion event that took 2014’s maximum out of the running for a record low. I caution anyone from mistaking any of my guesses for predictions with any discernible intrinsic certainty.

In the Antarctic the amount of sea ice is increasing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice is very different from Arctic sea ice. The Antarctic data are not as pretty as their Arctic cousins. First of all, the sea ice almost completely melts off in the summer. Secondly, its rapid increase may not be a good thing.

In the Antarctic we want the ice to stay on land; by “want” I mean that melting the land ice in the Antarctic could raise the level of the oceans by many feet causing major breakdowns in social structure, wars, pestilence, biblical-level-mad-god plagues, and other “do not want” stuff. If it is in the water it could mean that it has come off the land.

A recent study suggested that some of the major Antarctic glaciers were oozing off the land into the sea at incredible rates. This is not good. To image the movement of glaciers into the Antarctic seas I picture squeezing toothpaste into water. The toothpaste eventually disperses into the water, and the level of the water rises in proportion to the amount of toothpaste squeezed into it. This, however, is an unsatisfactory metaphor as realizing it physically will result in additional dishes, and wasted toothpaste. Only a very foolish person would try it in a bathtub as it makes a significant mess, and one has to waste lots of toothpaste to get the water to rise at all; although if the tub water is really warm and soapy the toothpaste disperses quickly.

Not only does ice melt quicker in July, but paint also dies quicker. Here in the Utah high desert a freshly painted wall can go from glossy-wet to matt in minutes. I’ve got a project planned that involves knocking holes in walls and power tools. After I am almost done I will repaint, call AYD and AOD into the room with me, and I will explain that the drying paint we are watching is a metaphor for an ecological disaster destroying the fabric of humankind’s culture on this planet. Choosing one’s metaphors carefully can save a lot of scrubbing.

“Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?” -Macbeth Act 5, scene 1

Greg has air conditioning in his trailer

Talking about the weather is a classic neutral conversation starter. Religion and politics are the classic “topics to avoid” in conversation. The news of late may begin to blur this time-honored division; talk of the weather sounds more and more like talk of religion and politics. Descriptions of the devastation caused by the tornados of April, and now of late May, sound like the frontline dispatches of a trench-bound war correspondent. The body counts are topping the psychological levy which separates mean statistics from human faces and lives. One could be reading a story about the latest catastrophic bombing from somewhere in the Middle East. Any day now some extremist religious or politico-religious organization should claim responsibility.

The acute change in tone precipitated by the recent tornado tragedies plays to a chorus of disquieting talk about global climate. Simple talking about the weather now regularly considers the question of climatic effects on weather. Some louder voices proclaim that the new tornado disasters are part of a great pattern of climate induced disasters; other equally loud voices maintain that the inability to directly connect specific weather events to climate means that there is no connection. Most of the voices come from people whose expertise in meteorology or climate science is laughable. This very essay is a case in point as I’m not really sure what “climate” even is.

I’m not alone however. There is a large group of individuals who are so ignorant of what climate even is that they are leading a coordinated effort to properly define it. I refer to many of these folks as “climate scientists”.

There are many folks working on connecting specific weather events to larger weather patterns, and –hopefully- eventually to whatever climate turns out to be. I call these folks meteorologists. They collect data, and then work it to absurd conclusions in fantastical computer models. Right now, somewhere in a windowless room, a computer is churning away data to draw an obviously incorrect conclusion. Current computer models for weather suck. Any one of them might be light-years ahead of everything more than a couple of years old, but they are unable to warn of the devastation we have seen over the past few months…and…that…sucks.

The impression that there are large masses of confused climate scientists and meteorologists wandering around aimlessly is incorrect. These scientists may be unable to produce the actionable information that is so easily imagined, but they are not going to be a threat to drivers by wandering out into the middle of roads at night…most of them anyway. The data we want seems so simple. We just want to know, years in advance, exactly where and when devastating storms will take place. We would even settle for just information on the really big storms; the small ones could slip out under the radar. This does not seem nearly as cool as X-ray-specs or flying cars, and I’ve seen crude flying cars.

Even if the correct imaginary product has not been produced by these scientists they have not been silent. Almost four years ago Tony Del Genio, Mao-Sung Yao, and Jeff Jonas widely disseminated the results of a model they produced and ran at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (on a computer that was undoubtedly in a windowless room). From that model’s data they suggested that “severe thunderstorms that also occur with significant wind shear and produce damaging winds at the ground” would be stronger, and that this was a result of global warming. They did not, however, predict that these stronger storms would happen this spring or which towns would be decimated.

By all accounts this spring’s devastating tornado events are exceptional. It will take many more such exceptional situations to conclusively alter what we think of as normal weather. Nobody expects every spring to now bring this level of tornado devastation. The apparent phenomenon of regression to the mean suggests that next spring should not have exceptional tornado devastation. An observed increase in devastating tornados should cause a statistically conclusive alteration in what we call “normal” weather only after the data from many exceptional years has been analyzed. The more certainty we require the more years it costs us.

Questions also arise concerning the type, quality, and quantity of data to be gathered. Although the death toll (upwards of 500) is many times average (60) tornado occurrence rates may not be. According to Greg Carbin lead forecaster of the National Weather Service's National Severe Storm Laboratory:

"There is no indication of an upward trend in either intensity or numbers. We've had a lot more reports of tornadoes, but most of those tornadoes are actually the weak tornadoes, the F-0. When you take out the F-0 tornadoes from the long-term record, there is very little increase in the total number of tornadoes, and we don't see any increase in the number of violent tornadoes. It's just that these things are coming, and they're very rare and extreme, and they happen to be hitting populated areas. So right now, no indication of an upward trend in the strong to violent tornadoes that we're seeing."

Of course Greg also said:

"And, so, we can go many, many years without seeing the level of activity we have seen. And whether there's actually an increase in this activity or its intensity, we -- we just don't know that yet. We don't have a long enough record really. The record is pretty short when it comes to atmospheric data on tornadoes."

And Greg said this when pressed on climate change:

Asked if climate change should be “acquitted” in a jury trial where it stood charged with responsibility for tornadoes, Carbin replied: “I would say that is the right verdict, yes.” Because there is no direct connection as yet established between the two? “That’s correct,” Carbin replied."  -- 28 April 2011 FoxNews

It would probably be in our best interest to respond to both global climate change and any problems it might cause. However, we anticipate a lack of certainty. Perhaps we should just take the June 2009 conclusions of the US Chamber of Commerce to heart:

"Overall, there is strong evidence that populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations."

Remember:

"Humans have become less susceptible to the effects of heat due to a combination of adaptations, particularly air conditioning. The availability of air conditioning is expected to continue to increase."

I suppose if you get a heavy enough air conditioner you can crouch behind it during a tornado.

Land Beaver Day

Earlier today a man in a top hat and a black bowtie held aloft a large rodent of the species Marmota monax and declared that it would soon be warm. M. monax is a common species of rodent in North America. Every year on February 2nd the town of Punxsutawney PA gathers at dawn outside on a grass covered hillock called Gobbler's Knob to watch over-dressed men “handle” a large rodent they have named “Phil”. After playing with their furry friend for a bit they look up in the sky, and if it is cloudy they proclaim that there will be an early spring. Then they blame this prediction on Phil, and put him back in his pen.

My readers from other continents may not be familiar with our North American tradition of using rodents to predict climatic change. We call the February 2nd ritual “Groundhog Day” because one of the common names for M. monax is “groundhog”. Other common names are “Woodchuck” and “Land Beaver”. I think it should be called “Land Beaver Day”, but it is so hard to buck tradition.

Here in the rocky mountain area the closely related M. flaviventris is more common. The common name for it is “The Yellow Bellied Marmot”. We call it thusly because it has a distinctly yellow belly and is in the genus Marmota; pretty creative dontcha think? We also do not often dress in black tie formal wear to handle them as they do shed.

This morning it was 4 degrees outside (less than minus sixteen Celsius) which is rather cold. I like the idea that there will be an early spring. If Punxsutawney Phil had predicted six more weeks of winter (which is what he “predicts" if it is sunny on February 2nd) I would have chalked it up to the foolishness of even listening to what a rodent has to “say” about the weather. The best predictions are those I only need to listen to when they say what I want them to.

There is a popular saying in Utah: “If you don’t like the weather, just wait five minutes”.

I have waited several hours and it is a balmy seven degrees (less than minus fourteen Celsius) outside.

There is another popular saying in Utah: “Global warming is a lie”.

Many of the people who I have heard say this probably know more about lying than they do global climate change. I say this because the statement is rarely nested in facts. If they have a basement full of magic rodents they are keeping quiet about it.

One of the sources of information about global climate change that I find accessible and informative is “Arctic Sea Ice News”. They have nice pictures and graphs, and it takes me about five minutes to get up-to-date on one of the most unbiased datastreams that tracks global warming. They do not have rodents and formal wear that I know of so they have room for improvement. I picture the publishers of ASIN wearing jeans and T-shirts.

Sea ice is low again this year.

In addition to poorly dressing the ASIN crew lacks the fundamental ignorability that Phil embodies. If I do not like the extent of sea ice ignoring it is counter-productive.

Unfortunately, this morning at least, any warming sounds like a great idea.

Zombie Miners

“There is a theological debate that this is a carbon starved planet” -- Rep. John Shimkus (R-Il-20th)

This time last year I was in the middle of a volunteering obligation I had…well…volunteered for. I was helping a local charter school set up a collaborative document system for producing the written policies the state required of them. My first inclination, when talking about this, is to make it sound like it required a tremendous amount of technical expertise, but it did not. Basically I spent most of the couple hundred hours setting up one system, listening to why people did not like e-mail and “computer-stuff", and then setting up another system, and then listening to more luddite whining. There was a liberal amount of personally training people on systems and answering “I don’t like the way the font looks on my computer” questions. I also sat in policy meetings where single words had to be discussed at length; often through the process of protracted arguments between a particular individual and himself.

In order to facilitate my own activities I asked to be considered for one of the vacant board seats. I was told that I was “not the sort of person they were looking for” and each of the many board replacements made after that time were done only after closed session consideration. I believe that this was one of the signs that there was a concerted effort to make sure the board of this publically funded school remained entirely and eternaly Mormon. The control was targeted to produce a more specific goal than simply an all-Mormon board. The members of the board had to be a special brand of home-school-leaning-educational-separatist Mormons.

I was involved because the school had hired a director whose ideas about producing a learning environment were inspirational, and he had hired the best group of teachers I had ever seen in any Utah public school. When he was ostensibly fired (so a for-profit philosophically acceptable charter school direction company could come in) I resigned my volunteer position. Before the next school year started around 60% of the great group of teachers had also left.

At this point I believe some of you may be wondering why I started this entry with a quote from a congressman from southern Illinois. Others probably realize that I will get around to the quote, but flinch at the circuitous path I will probably take getting there.

Shortly after the new directors began to change direction the ire of the school’s parents was raised. There were apparently several heatedly orated meetings. After one someone apparently took it upon themselves to amateurishly hack and then vandalize the schools computer system. Part of the vandalism apparently consisted of someone taking one of the gold-painted shovels the board stored in the server room (the shovels were mementoes of the building’s groundbreaking) and smashing the server rack with it. Wires were pulled, a key logger was found, and probably other stuff, but I was never shown any actual report.

 For the record I think it would be much more effective to simply pour a coke on a server if you wanted to take it out. When I have seen this happen by accident it has worked very well. A truly evil person would rig something with string, two-liter bottles of soda, and Mentos mints. When the IT person walked into the server room she/he could witness the awesome destruction in process. But I digress….

After the server destruction several members of the board and the schools paid staff decided that I was a prime suspect. Their evidence consisted solely of:

1. The idea that I “knew about computer stuff”
2. That they were not forthcoming in why they refused to consider me for the board
3. That I had spent a lot of time around the school doing “volunteer” work.

Basically I had helped them by bringing in expertise they needed, and they had treated me poorly for it; all of which was true. What stunted emotional degeneracy goes into making this sort of connection, and how can one prove one’s innocence in the face of it?

Of course the allegations were not made to my face. They were relayed to me by four separate individuals who had heard them on more than one occasion, so I do not doubt them. The purpose, however, was to lay blame; not prosecute. Because of the hidden nature of my guilt it was a couple of weeks before I could point out that I was on a business trip more than a thousand miles away for the entire week during which this happened. Unfortunately this paltry alabi was not enough to prove my innocence. Apparently I did some of it remotely and my evil minions did the rest.

So now I run an evil empire bent on destruction. How did I amass this power? I did it simply by witnessing the collision between their deeply held belief system and reality.

As a side note to any board members who may be reading this blogg: YOU MAY HAVE FIGURED OUT THE SECRET TO SURVIVE THE TERRIBLE ONSLAUGHT OF MY ROBO-NINGA-FERRETS, BUT YOU WILL NEVER FIGURE OUT THAT IN ORDER TO APEASE THE INTRA-DIMENTIONAL EARWIGS THAT HAVE BEEN WISPERING SINFUL TEMPTATION INTO YOUR BRAIN AT NIGHT YOU MUST ANONYMOUSLY SEND ME LARGE SUMS OF CASH IN UNMARKED BILLS.

Here, of course, is where I suddenly shift course to talk about rep Shimkus. Check out this video from which I gleaned the quote I started this entry with. This film was taken during an actual session of an actual congressional committee on climate change.

What we are witnessing on this tape is the collision of a deeply held belief system and reality. Shimkus is a deeply believing member of a church within the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. One of the premises of this church (along with creationism and some other ideas I could go into, but which would make this already thousand-word entry too long even for me) is “amillennialism”. Which means that they know (somewhat) how the world will end, and that you must go to their church as a result of these things they know. This of course results in some significant conflict between the LCMS and other churches who know other things that require you to go to other churches because of.

As early as 1932 the LCMS adopted the following prophetic truth (which I quote here from their A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod. Statement 43):

“As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3–12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” 

This is not taken too very kindly by several Roman Catholics I have spoken to. I can paraphrase the average response thusly: “No AOA…the pope is not the antichrist. Why do you care anyway? It is like asking if some person who you think lacks any potential spiritual significance is also not something you do not believe exists.”. I must admit that their observation about me has some degree of validity.

So what I think we are observing (in rep. Shimkis’s scriptural tirade) is a skirmish in an ongoing theological battle. Someone is going to pick up the proverbial golden shovel and smash things that should not be smashed. If there are people with Catholic upbringing on or near anyone working on global climate change that fact could serve as proof that GCC talk was a modern manifestation of some ancient evil. There may even be jews involved in GCC research. I’m not entirely sure what the LCMS would find wrong with jews, but I’m sure there is something wrong with jews…there always seems to be something wrong with jews in situations like this.

What of the evidence? Evidence is only fabrications to hide evil intentions. As long as one can create a story (credibility is optional) then there is acceptable proof. When the actual battle is between systems of divine knowledge then mundane matters take a back seat. The charter school’s board was motivated to place blame by the collision of their narrow divinely-inspired teaching concepts and angry parents who wanted the best learning environment for their kids. I just happened to be in the wrong place on that battlefield. Shimkus is waging his divinely inspired battle against iron-age evils, and GCC scientists are simply in the wrong place on his battlefield.

The really interesting question is: “What evil minions will the GCC scientists use to do their evil papal bidding?”. I think the answer can be found in the single visual aid that rep. Shimkus used. That’s right…Zombie Miners!

Think of those Chilean miners trapped for months underground. Who saved them? NASA that’s who! Did you see that miner who ran the NYC marathon cross the finish line? I’ve seen “night of the living dead”. I know what a zombie gait looks like!

“If I only had some BRAINS” -- Zombie Miners

2+2=5 for very large values of 2

The midterm elections this past Tuesday were very popular. For the first time I can remember I had to wait a considerable amount of time in line before voting. At the computer screen ballot machines a group of four folks stood staring at the screens in apparent disbelief. I had run over the ballot ahead of time so my actual voting took almost four minutes (timed) but the four folks who had begun “voting” before I arrived took almost twenty minutes. There is something admirably spontaneous about showing up to a polling place to be surprised about what you are being asked to vote on.

Smart candidates should take advantage of the last minute voters and change their names to reflect popular views on hot button topics. I think a candidate named “Second-amendment prolife” would be a shoe-in for anything in my voting district. Imagine the look on the Supreme Court justice’s face as he swore “Death-panel Birther” in for president of the US.

WAR IS PEACE

There are outcomes which I am resignedly uncomfortable with (like the defeat of my favorite candidate for Governor by a more than 33% margin), but more that I am ambiguous about.

A couple of thousand miles away Christine O’Donnell’s campaign went down in flames. There was something oddly entertaining about the idea that she might be in the US senate. Somewhere in my mind I store a fantastical picture of a grainy surveillance film featuring her and Rand Paul half-dressed as giant chickens while offering bong-hits of ground retread rubber to Aqua-Buddha. Despite this being filed away as another unfulfillable fantasy I’m sure that the new congress will provide ample opportunities for voyeuristic entertainment.

Jerry Brown was re-elected as Governor of California, and pot is still not legal. I am trying to be interested in this; there was a time when those California results would have been the center of many a conversation as opposed to being buried in the center of a blog entry.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Even races where I was interested I feel ambiguous about the outcomes. In Massachusett’s Pittsfield's 3rd Berkshire District the initiative to allow women to go topless with no more consequence than me failed. Perhaps it is because I am getting older and young women look more like my daughters and old women look more like old men, but I am non-pulsed by this result.

So too the Denver initiative to establish an “ET” commission. I enjoyed talking about UFO’s and “The new Area 51” leading up to the election, but the resounding 84:12 defeat was not at all uncomfortable. Someone had pointed out that the establishment of the commission was a feeble attempt to validate a fringe religion’s belief system as plausible; would I want a creation research commission formed in Salt Lake? I began wondering if there already was a CRC in Utah, and I decided there probably was.

The only thing that still disturbs me was the track several campaigns took of presenting physical issues as democratically amendable options. What is it with the idea of global climate change that makes it an issue people think they can vote on? At least one candidate (who was thankfully not elected; if only by a slim margin) stated: “I will believe in Global Climate Change when a majority of Americans believe in it”. An educated electorate would demand that their politicians know the difference between a matter of physical reality and a matter of public opinion.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I imagine future ballot measures outlawing gravity with campaigns that promise “flying without wings”. Perhaps we can abolish the limiting speed of light velocity so inconveniently established in the special theory of relativity: “Travel to distant galaxies in seconds; meet interesting aliens”. The feds would then need to establish an ET commission like the one Denver defeated.

The only aliens featuring prominently in my local elections were those from south of the border. If I expect any campaign promises to be fulfilled the one to enact a “stronger than Arizona’s” immigration policy for Utah is one.

Sometime around 1984 I heard a version of the Dead Kennedy’s song “California Uber Alles” (which Jell-O wrote about Jerry Brown) re-written for Ronald Reagan. The song was titled “We’ve got a bigger problem now!”

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” -- George Orwell

106 Trombones

A couple of weeks ago, on July 24th, I attended an early morning parade through the streets of downtown Salt Lake City. Despite the fact that the parade celebrated an event (the “discovery” of the Salt Lake Valley in 1847 by Brigham Young) inexorably linked to the Mormon Church there were a few floats and groups that were not overtly LDS-themed. Among these were synchronized motorcycle police from each of the several police forces that utilize motorcycle policemen. One of the policemen was obviously a woman, but she wore a cute little fake mustache to fit in.

There were several borderline-LDS themed groups; the most irksome of these were our major elected officials riding by in convertibles. There was Senator Hatch showing that, despite his advanced age, he can still wave without visible life support machinery. Senator Bennet was smiling despite the fact that his re-election never made it out of the republican state caucus, and so he is gone. Then the honorable Governor Gary Herbert rode by.

Everyone was languidly clapping for everyone. The heat was threatening 100F, and the sky was cloudless. Herbert smiled a smile only possible after years of practice, and a little coating of Vaseline on one’s front teeth. I just couldn’t help myself; I started yelling.

I could have yelled many things. If I had known ahead of time that I would be yelling I would have thought up something profound, or at least sensible. I did the best I could.

“Global warming is real!”

The Gov looked over at me and his smile flickered almost imperceptibly. The men in cheap suits and little white spiral-wired earphones looked unamusedly in my direction; one may have almost grabbed towards something near his armpit.

“Get your head out of the sand (yes I DID say "sand") and do what is best for humanity!”

The governor turned away, but several people in the crowd stared at me as if they wished to catch flying insects.

“Don’t ignore global climate change!” I yelled in finality at his car as he continued on down the road.

Then I noticed AYD and AOD. They were not amused. AYD slunk off to pretend she did not know me.

“What are you doing Dad?” asked AOD. “You are totally embarrassing me!”

She then stamped off to join her sister.

Later, after they realized they would have to ride home with me or walk, I had them alone in the car. I looked at them and attempted to arrange my eyebrows into a look of understanding and fatherly concern.

“I hope you’ve learned a valuable lesson” I said.

“What that our Dad is a complete embarrassment and that we shouldn’t go into public with him?” retorted AYD. “We’ve known –that- for years”

“No” I said. “That you can voice your opinion in public without shriveling up and dying”

"Embarrassment will not kill you” I continued “But sometimes silence can. You have a right to be heard by people elected to public offices that represent your interests. Sometimes you are given an unexpected opportunity to exercise that right. It is often worthwhile to try and take advantage of unexpected opportunity.”

Updates 1.0

The problem with writing anything about ongoing events is that what one writes becomes quickly outdated. I’ve even had entries become obsolete between their being written and publishing them.

When things I have written become outdated by more recent events I could:
     1) Ignore them
     2) Delete the refereeing entry
     3) Publish an update
Of these three approaches number one is the most appealing although that is just because I am lazy. Number three is a little 1984ish. Number two remains as the last best choice.

So I am going to write this update on a couple of things I wrote about earlier.

Some of you are thinking “AOA never writes about current events. In the last post he did not even quote anyone who was alive in the last century.”

It is true that I am very effective at avoiding current events in this blog. I did slip at least four times. Twice I wrote about global climate-change meetings in Utah. Twice I wrote about the local paper’s response to an editorial questioning god in public schools. The status on all these issues has changed. I will more diligently avoid current events, and updates, in the future.

The first issue to update is the local paper’s satus. They have broken their blockage of Mr. Kline’s editorials. They missed a few before they published one. The one they did published was very non-inflamatory.

I should re-sate that my observations are not the result of any in-depth investigation into the local paper. Frankly the foibles of a small town Utah non-daily paper are not strongly motivating. I saw the original letters and response as more of an indicator of the community’s tolerance than as an attack on free expression by the newspaper. I think my original observations are still valid. Certainly my placement of the Scarlett letter on my blog still appears to be a good thing. My take on the paper’s response must be updated.

Firstly they began publishing some of Kline’s work. I’m not a big fan of Kline so this does not generate a giant “Yipeeee!” from me. It does, however, show that the paper is not categorically censoring his work just because he may have had bad thoughts once. They may be more carefully reading his work and only using it when copy is sparse. This is probably the best approach to Kline’s work that any paper could take. I do worry that the local paper will specifically be looking for anything that hints at being non-theist so that they can block it. I do not know.

The second local paper update is that there was a letter that supported kline’s no god in public school piece.

They did it in the middle of a letter about something else. They did not mention Kline or his piece by name. They did address the central controversy. Here is what they wrote about the pledge of allegiance:

was written by a socialist minister and published in a children’s magazine roughly 120 years ago. The words “under God” were added in 1954.

Barbara Vogel, Tooele

Which is something.

So the local situation for atheism is somewhat less unambiguously hostile than it appeared.

The other current event issue has also become more ambiguous. When I wrote about global warming and our new governor it appeared as if he was riding a wave of LDS driven GCC denial. In my naiveté I actually attributed several things that politicians said to their actual positions on a mater or (in the most naïve cases) the truth. I grew up in the Washington DC area, I should know better.

Environmental issues fascinate me. There appears to be a side discussion going on in America that has gained center stage. Pictures of ill informed environmentalists arguing with agenda-driven lobbyists have become the standard images of the GCC debate. How we transition from science to emotional bloodletting is a modern tale that repeatedly grips us. If decisions cannot be better informed by science, without going through the emotional census taking, we will eventually be hurt in profound and widespread ways. There is undeniably a point at which decisions need to be made based on what we know and how well we know it.

I am a scientist, but not a climate scientist. I shy away from climate science because of its enormous complexity. Just because I am not willing to go to the lengths necessary to ferret out the transition from raw data to postulated effect does not mean I put my brain on standby. The loudest source of information on this subject is a shrill collection of environmentalist gadflies.

I do not mean the Al Gore type GCC stumble. There is a great need to get processed information out to the public on GCC. Al Gore made some mistakes in his presentation entitled “an inconvenient truth”. These mistakes were identifiable and addressable. One could even access the effect removal or correction of the mistakes would have on the presentation. Mistakes like those in “An inconvenient truth” and similar presentations are expected when large amounts of data are used to make a point. The presentation of the information can be refined. The depth of the presentation can be enhanced.

I run into problems with activists who feel their way through information instead of understanding it. When a writer, like Chip Ward, suggests that scientists should be viewed as presenting information only because they are paid to argue a point of view on an issue he poisons the only well of verifiable information.

Who are we to believe? Someone like Terry Tempest Williams who wrote in Refuge of the plight of cormorants caused by human encroachment on a wetland? Since when do cormorants and people not coexist well? Look at the LA docks. Read the children’s story Ping. Someone Bill McKibben who I once heard tell an audience that “the AIDS epidemic in Africa is largely over due to NGOs giving more power to women”.

There are many GCC deniers that do not irritate me as much as the science and information denying GCC responders. The main reason for this is that I agree with the basic conclusions purported by the environmental activists. When I listen to some of their approaches, some of their made-up points, some of their ignorant prioritizations I feel stupid for agreeing with them. The issue remains as clear as ever but my feelings towards a stand on it become muddled.

This update has to do with more muddling. I could have written it earlier but I was unclear on how I wanted to approach this.

Because of various statements I had begun viewing the GCC in Utah debate as one with a religious tie-in. Therefore talking about it would be appropriate for this blog. There is still rhetoric that suggests that there is a link between certain religious groups and denial of GCC. The unity of voice for that rhetoric is weaker than I had originally thought.

Shortly after I wrote the second GCC piece a quiver of professors from BYU presented Governor Garry H with a letter decrying his GCC denier stand and stating that action to address GCC needed to be taken. BYU is THE private religious college for the LDS church. If the church significantly disagrees with one’s position at the school they can have one thrown out. Official LDS church positions are often formed as a result of activities at BYU.

The public letter contrasted with Governor Gary H’s stand showed that there was no clear church position on this issue. I did not want to investigate or write much on what portions of the positions were less unclear.

GCC is an important issue. From what I’ve ascertained there needs to be a response to this threat. My motivation for lending a voice to the response is equivocal. I no longer believe that this blog is a good place for GCC related rants.

I may change my mind at any time.

The committe MP3

I downloaded the MP3 of the committee meeting and listened to it. When I was done listening to the 3ish hours of it I wanted to take a shower.

So (towards the middle of the recording) Roy gets up in front of the committee and speaks of “feedback loops”. Are they positive or negative? Generally, do they compensate for input or do they amplify input? These are truly fundamental questions and worthy of much study. Roy’s use of the term “feedback loops” as opposed to feedback loop suggests that there are multiple feedback processes involved.

Perhaps carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by a chemical feedback loop. I can envision one. In this loop the amount of carbon dioxide influences the rate of carbon dioxide removal. The more CO2 the faster it is removed so the actual quantities remain the same. I could easily believe that such a process would exist as CO2 fixation is CO2 concentration limited in most environments. If this process existed then CO2 levels would top out and start to decrease. Since my imaginary process is driven by living organisms it should be a relatively rapid response. The rate change should only take a year or so. The problem with my feedback process is in the data. CO2 levels continue to increase at rates roughly tied to the rate of fossil fuel consumption. Bad feedback model.

The above points out a feedback loop of exceeding importance. Ideas are cultured, then exposed to data, and then the ideas are refined or discarded. The nay-saying victim scientist who is shunned and forgotten despite his righteousness is a tragic myth. These poor souls do exist in Hollywood movies, nuthouses and “Intelligent Design” rallies. That we should court them in public policy hearing is absurd.

Roy goes on and on about feedback loops without describing any. Well… that’s not entirely true, he does describe one, kinda…

Roy tries to make a point about clouds. Not that they get in his eyes or coffee but that they are involved in the warming of the earth. Roy suggests that a key positive feedback loop goes like this; “When the earth is warm there are fewer clouds which allow the earth to warm up more (then fewer clouds, then more warming….)”. Roy tries then to put this into perspective by asking “How do they know that warming causes fewer clouds and it wasn’t fewer clouds that cause warming?”. Roy provided a dramatic pause of a couple of prime seconds after this bombshell. He then went on to state how he published a paper on this and the news media did not beat a path to his door. I have also have not yet read his paper perhaps it would be more insightful because it does not appear to be a very earth shattering revelation. In order for one to have a positive feedback loop Roy’s “discovery” would be an essential part of it. How can he state what is an essential truth as a refutation of that system it is an essential truth of? Perhaps he is spinning a logical web? Unfortunately he jumps into semi-paranoid conspiracy warnings rather than develop his science.

Roy comes back to state that feedbacks are only negative but he does not describe any more feedbacks specifically. Then he begins to blame politics for deceptions of the scientific community. “Little Ice age”, “medieval warming period”, “every century a warming period”… all discounted by politically motivated scientists. Good thing Roy is there to set us all straight. “The main culprit or candidate (for nature’s cause of global warming) is the pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)” says Roy. The PDO is a statistical feature of temperatures. It is like saying that the cause is the fact that we have seen something like this before. He then goes on to state that output of the sun and volcanoes and just about any physical cause mechanism is not strong enough to drive climate change like mankind’s input.

He concludes then by stating that apparently global climate change is caused by global climate change. His implication that strong evidence for a part of a feedback loop is evidence that the loop doesn’t exist lies undisturbed. His paranoid ramblings about committees and bribed scientists use up half his testimony; time that could have been used to illuminate his work if it were really important to him.

So what does the committee take home from these scientific testimonies? Well they pickup on the paranoid ramblings about political conspiracies.

“I hope the science can in some way reach a broader consensus before we invest our entire future on a science that may not be conclusive” said Rep. Lorie D. Fowlke who decried the polarization of the science.

In keeping with the emphasis on the political portion of Spencer’s testimony Rep. Roger E. Barrus quotes Vaclav Klaus at length and then states that a coordinated response to carbon emissions will cause “Mass redistribution of wealth that will change our freedom”.

Finally we get a glimpse as to why a committee in Utah reached all across the country to pull Roy out of his hole in Alabama. Rep. Michael E. Noel, House Chair stated “I’m still questioning whether the scientists are totally resolved on this issue”. What makes a consensus to him if 99% of all climate scientists is not good enough? He lays it out in the following quote: “if there is still a question out there like Dr spencer I’m not sure I want to subject my constituents to (a list of bad economic things)”. So as long as someone in willing to say they disagree with mankind’s effect on GCC there is not enough consensus.

But just in case Roy was not enough there is a surprise testimony by Bob Ferguson “debunking” the junk science involved in GCC. How did Ferguson end up in a Utah public utilities committee meeting when his office is in Washington DC (is it related to his BA from BYU?)? He goes on for almost as long as Roy. More paranoid political ramblings from Bob. More unfocused objections (sort of like the “gaps” in the fossil record ID objections) from Bob. Who paid Bob to come out?
I could listen to the MP3 of the meeting again. I cannot decide if it makes me sad or angry or just incredibly bored to listen to this.

Gary and Roy

I started this blog to serve as a venue to almost anonymously vent anti-religious rants where they would not have to bee seen by anyone. Yet another blogosphere clot of rambling flotsam. Unfortunately it may have served as a pressure relief valve and I have had little to say about atheism, god, evolution, or stupidity since I began it.

Then yesterday I read about the glorious Gary Herbert (governor by appointment of Utah) and his Public Utilities and Technology Interim Committee meeting’s agenda for today (Wed. 21 Oct 2009). Gov. GaryH has been widely quoted as stating he is “not convinced by the science” behind global climate change (GCC). Today’s meeting of his committee contains as a key element of its agenda a discussion of the science behind GCC. This discussion is seen as designed to discredit the previous governor’s blue ribbon advisory committee’s findings (which were generally that GCC is caused by man’s CO2 output and is bad for Utah). Now the most likely reason for Gov GaryH’s skepticism is not that he has searchingly examined the copious science on the subject and found it wanting. The reason probably sits nestled in one of Utah’s back road coal powered electrical plants that are busily churning out kilowatts for California. Admittedly, they also churn out Utah coal mining jobs and plant operator jobs, and more importantly electrical company sponsored political lobbyist jobs. It is no shocker that a politician who is looking to actually be elected would cater to important constituent groups. One might even call this a secular exercise in power. Aside from the underlying lack of church-state separation that is a banal fact of life in Utah what is the importance of this attack on science to atheism?

Well, astute reader, I’m glad you asked.

The link comes in the type of logic Gov GaryH sought out to “clarify” the GCC debate into an acceptable level of opacity. Gov GaryH has elicited the help of Roy Spencer Intelligent design advocate and GCC sceptic.

Since there were no believable GCC skeptics to be found in Utah (even in provo!) Gov GaryH sent word to the University of Alabama at Huntsville where a bunch of them apparently hang out. UA sent one of their best. Roy Spencer is credentialed as an award winning climatologist who studied the effect of temperature differentials on wind patterns. Roy is not, in the strict sense, a GCC denier. His work and the data he helped produce are apparently undeniable proofs that GCC is occurring. Roy simply believes that man has nothing to do with it. Apparently god is doing it without man’s help. This is good news for Gov GaryH as he will not have to be mean to the power companies and by slipping a bit of cash to LDS sanctioned programs he can more directly affect GCC’s impact on Utah. It is a Win-Win.

The diluted lukewarm pseudo science that is “intelligent design” is more of an argument than a science. It raises shrill voices of discontent where reason speaks and attempts to drown it out. Has Utah’s Governor purchased discord of reason for his state to achieve short term political goals? I will look forward to reading the minutes (and perhaps listening to the proceedings if the link can be made to work).