On this Veterans Day, I once again have to confront the gulf between combat zone military veterans and those who have never served in a combat zone. Being in the military means that you've accepted the status of being willing to sacrifice anything and everything, including your physical and mental health, right up to and including losing your life. You've given your nation a signed blank check and they can write in the amount. For those veterans serving in combat zones, and especially those who actually participated in combat, it's difficult to try to communicate their experiences to those who haven't so served. I've described my experiences here.
On one day per year, we see lots of messages of gratitude to our veterans, and that's nice, but what about the other 364 days? What are we doing to provide help to veterans who have returned from combat and been struggling to cope with their endless nightmares? No one who participated in combat ever returns to become the same person they were before. I was extremely fortunate - it only took me a year or so to return to something close to my former self after leaving the military, but even then, I was forever changed by my military experiences. Some of those changes in my life were positive, and some were negative. I was blessed with good fortune, for no obvious reason. It could have turned out very differently.
I really do value the sentiments expressed by those who offer gratitude for my time in service, but I'm concerned for those veterans who need so much more than words from their nation. Our nation should show their gratitude in their actions as well as mere words, when it comes to our combat veterans. Some of our veterans reach a time when they just can't deal with their devils created by the horrible things they've experienced - too many suicides, broken families, homeless vets, drug addictions, etc. I feel unworthy of gratitude for my time in the military, when I think about those who have suffered so much and been unable to find any peace in their minds. And this says nothing about those who have had life-changing physical injuries to try to overcome.
We ask young people to serve and protect our freedoms, but we sometimes send them to fight in unwinnable wars on foreign soil for no good reason. Vietnam was such a war, and our so-called "war on terrorism" is another example. How do you win a war against a tactic? How do you define what is a "win" in such a war? We had a similar problem in Vietnam - it was a war against an economic and political ideology in a far away land. We never found a meaningful exit strategy in Vietnam, so we just left and all that followed showed that our involvement in Vietnam was pointless. Millions died for nothing. The young men and women serving in combat have to make hard choices about what to do in hostile circumstance and, if they choose incorrectly, we punish them harshly. We're getting better about trying to help veterans with PTSD and such, but we still have a long way to go.
Don't ever thank veterans for their service but then turn around and ask someone else to risk everything without a damned good reason! Don't be so eager to support military actions to back up political positions. Don't send our young men and women into combat and then oppose aid for those who manage to survive. I saw somewhere that about 9,000 Vietnam veterans have committed suicide since they returned - they actually died in Vietnam. I think their names should be added to the wall at the National Vietnam Memorial as combat fatalities. They're not on that wall only because their injuries required more time to take their lives. That raises the Vietnam toll of American combat deaths from 58,000 to 67,000.
I've long been an advocate for the cessation of discrimination against, and the abuse of, women in our society. Progress has been made, but there remains a long way to go. In the past several days, FaceBook has seen numerous posts of "Me, Too" from women, about having been harassed and/or assaulted (including rape). The sad fact is that most women will be harassed or assaulted at some time in their lives - likely, repeatedly. The awful part of this is that most of the crimes against women are not reported. Why not? Unfortunately, our culture seems all too inclined to blame assault victims for being assaulted!! And all too inclined to allow the perpetrators to get away with it, either being let off scot-free or given a very mild slap on the wrist. And all too inclined to provide little or no support for the victims, in terms of helping them seek justice or in terms of providing care for what many women experience as PTSD as a result of these attacks. "Well, the way she was dressed, she was asking for it!" "Well she should have known better to be in that place at night!" "It was just boys being boys!" Bullshit!! There is no excuse for harassment and rape, and the blame rests solely on the perpetrator, never the victims. If we want to stop these crimes, we must teach our boys not to commit violence of any sort against women. "No!" means no, damn it!
It may surprise some that many such incidents also occur to men. I was molested (raped) by a neighbor when I was a boy. I was so humiliated and shamed by it, I didn't tell anyone (except for my very best friend at the time), for decades - certainly not my parents! This pedophile got away with it, as it seems many do. Rape is not a sexual act - rather, it uses the apparatus of sex as a weapon to degrade and humiliate the victims in what is an act of violence, rather than sex. Pedophiles - a subset of sexual assaulters - often commit assaults on either boys or girls. And it often succeeds in silencing its victims, as it did with me.
My wife tells me that most rapists have committed their crime many, many times, and almost certainly will never stop hunting for new victims unless they're incarcerated ... or die. The actual frequency of rape is not known, owing to the underreporting issue, but I'm pretty certain it's much higher than the actual numbers will show. I know of no other rapes by the man who did it to me, but it seems unlikely to have been an isolated event in his life. His name is Paul Newton, and he lived on our block in my home town in the Chicago suburbs, 3 houses south. I'm sure it's well beyond the statute of limitations, but I hope some other victim had the strength and courage to report him. But probably not.
Another disgusting incident of a different nature occurred when I was working at the National Severe Storms Laboratory. A very famous and honored meteorologist was invited to be a consulting senior scientist there by the Lab Director, Dr. Jeff Kimpel, and it turns out he was sexually harassing women who worked in the lab. After I was made aware of his disgusting behavior, I was going to report him, but one of his victims there begged me not to do it. She felt that reporting him would only make things worse for her!! Reluctantly, I did as she asked, and never reported the evil bastard. She was probably right about the outcome, and that makes me very sad when I think about how many women have gone through this, and been powerless to obtain justice. From everything I've heard during my time there, at that time, the overall treatment of women at NSSL was pretty poor, with an atmosphere of "Boys will be boys" at high levels in the management, despite all the safeguards that had been put into effect.
Fortunately, I've been able to overcome the shame of my molestation and now realize I wasn't to blame in any way. If there can be said to be a "benefit" to being molested, it's that I've experienced what many women have experienced, so I have a sense of what they must go through. The "Me, too!" campaign on FaceBook is allowing many people to come forward and say they, too, have been through harassment/assault. Stories are optional. Our society has looked the other way for far too long and the time has come to seek justice and provide consistent support for the victims. It's time to take a stand against the injustices we've inflicted on victims for too long. If you've never been a victim, just try to imagine how awful it would be. Then use that understanding to get up and speak out against crimes of sexual violence - against women and men, girls and boys!
There's an insidious illness that has infected the USA, causing our culture to evolve in ways that will eventually end badly for us. It has become widespread and malignant - like a cancer, it comes from within rather than a foreign invasion. The election of the incompetent, ignorant, narcissistic, racist, misogynist, corrupt clown that only a minority of Americans voted for in last year's November election is but a symptom of the problem.
The founders of this nation, as imperfect as they were, began what is often called "The Great American Experiment in Democracy". The experimental aspect of how our nation was created by those founders, was expressed eloquently by President Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The Civil War was a rigorous test of those principles, and the nation managed to stay together, sort of. Given that the Confederate battle flag known as the "Stars and Bars" has become symbolic of, not just the Confederacy, but more so of the racism that caused the Civil War in the first place. That racism (not limited to the Southern states), like the HIV virus, clearly lives on to this day within our nation. It has gained widespread support and its persistence is a poison to the principle of equality for all humans in our nation.
Many of these issues surfaced again during the turbulent era of US involvement in Vietnam. Similar divisions were present in the 1960s that had been around during the Civil War. And those same divisions in our society plague us today, without the benefit of the spirit of compromise upon which our nation was founded. Political parties have become a corrupting influence on us, where party loyalty is more valued than service to the American people.
The founders of our nation fell quite a ways short of living up to their own principles, of course. That shortfall is still obvious today in many Americans. Equality for all people actually never has been achieved in America, and we have made at best only slow and erratic progress at making equality a reality for everyone. Women have been given the vote, but they're still being discriminated against in the workplace (and elsewhere) and subjected to sexual harassment and assault (including rape). Justice for the perpetrators of harassment and assault against women remains elusive - power and money buy such criminals a free pass, despite our ideals. Women actually are blamed for these crimes, rather than those committing them. In the face of such inequality, most of the discrimination and the crimes against women are never reported, and in the rare instances where they are reported, that often backfires on the women, not the perps.
After slavery was abolished, racial inequality remains a fact of life experienced on a daily basis for most non-white Americans. The police are charged with enforcing the laws of the land, but some of the police are simply brutal thugs, free to attack and even kill without being held accountable. And the police commit such crimes disproportionately on non-white Americans. Every black family must have "that conversation" with their children to make them aware that justice isn't equal in America. The default assumption among many whites is that non-whites match the stereotypes projected on them by white Americans (who live in an invisible "bubble" of white privilege), and so many whites are completely unaware of the reality of discrimination against non-whites.
Non-christians in America are widely despised by the "religious right", especially Muslims and atheists, these days. Christian notions of morality are being forced on all Americans on a daily basis. I'm not going to go off on a rant against all religion, but here in America, creeping theocracy is generally associated with conservatives, who yearn to impose a mythical vision of America as they imagine it "used to be" when religious discrimination was not being opposed by those who believe in real freedom, not only of, but also from religion. The "Establishment Clause" of the 1st Constitutional Amendment is constantly under attack by the religious right. When people believe their god is on their side, they think that means they can fight for a theocratic USA by any means necessary.
Science and the tools of science - education, logic, evidence - are now widely mistrusted by many Americans. There is a deep thread of anti-science and anti-intellectual thought that has always existed in America, but it seems to be growing more popular. Public education is being threatened by siphoning even the diminishing taxpayer support for education into religious schools via the so-called "vouchers". Too many Americans are monumentally ignorant about science, history, geography, mathematics, civics, and more. Democracy depends on being supported by educated voters, so the attacks on public education are actually attacks on our democratic principles. To make voting decisions in the modern world dominated by technology requires people who understand how things in our society work. Otherwise, they are too easily led astray by would-be dictators.
Many politicians are being corrupted by large corporations pouring vast amounts of money to buy special favors for such companies, at taxpayer expense. The "Trust Busting" era when Teddy Roosevelt broke the power of the corporations, is little more than a distant memory. The Republican party has been taken over by the far right wing of their party and now supports tax breaks for big corporations while taking resources away that have been providing support for indigent people who need external help just to survive. The indigent suffer even as the rich get richer. Income inequality is a capitalist form of slavery and could eventually result in a violent revolution, with the indigent protests likely to be slaughtered by the very police who have pledged to serve and protect them. Look at recent events for small-scale examples, such as the protests by the Standing Rock Sioux.
The trainwreck that is the crypto-fascist regime under Trump and his GOP supporters is simply a reflection of the decay from within that is infecting our nation. Most Americans don't exercise their right to vote, and that tendency is at least part of the reason we have been saddled with this regime. By not voting, Americans are giving up on the American Experiment and our democracy is being threatened by the drift toward fascism. The right-wing extremists seem more interested in voting than the moderate center. What is considered "left-wing extremism" is what used to be considered "liberal" while the true extreme left-wing is left out of the political picture altogether and so is reduced to protests and occasional violence. No one in America wants it to become Communist, and the Communist threat pretty much disintegrated in 1989. Disenfranchising Americans (limited predominantly to those who would cast a "liberal" vote) is also a terrible stain on the democratic experiment here, and the GOP has mastered the tactic.
Our current regime has dedicated itself to erasing any remnant of their sworn enemy - Barack Obama - as if all of the vitriol poured on him during his time as our President were actually true. This is causing the US to lose its role as the world leader. We are alienating our allies and encouraging our enemies. And we have a childish psychopath with his finger on the thermonuclear trigger!
We seem to be tending toward going down a road to total collapse of liberal democracy, unlikely to be identical to, but also not unlike, the experiences of the moderate provisional government in Russia before the revolt by the Bolsheviks that put them in power, and that of the moderate Weimar Republic in Germany before the triumphs of the Nazis. The different ideologies mask the many similarities between the Bolshevk and Nazi dictatorships. History shows us that extremists can win, even when they only represent a small minority of the people in a nation - and we are not immune from having something like that happen! The signs of our willingness to slide toward fascism have been apparent from the start of the 2016 election. Extremists have a clear picture of what they want and are willing to do whatever it takes to "win", no matter how much suffering they create in achieving their cause. Moderates often are paralyzed with indecision about what to do and how to do it - they talk, while extremists act. Are we seeing the last days of the Great American Experiment? American "exceptionalism" is a nationalist myth. There is nothing inherent in American Democracy that will enable it to survive - the testing of its ability to endure has been ongoing since before the Civil War!!
Now we are engaged in a struggle about whether our nation, so conceived and dedicated to the principle of equality for all its people, can endure as a beacon of democracy and freedom. It is altogether fitting and proper we should do this. On this struggle hangs the outcome - whether or not this nation shall have a new birth of freedom so that our government of all its people, by all its people, and for all its people, shall not vanish from this Earth.
I write this as Hurricane Irma bears down on South Florida, with the potential to be up there with the worst ever disasters from a hurricane in Florida. I also hear some people saying they have ridden out other hurricanes and so are planning on riding out Irma. This ridiculous notion deserves some consideration ...
In my tornado research, I spent decades becoming familiar with the climatological record of tornado occurrences in the USA. In the process, one can't help but observe that really big, bad tornadoes are but a small minority of the 1000 or so tornadoes that hit the USA every year. In 1998, a tornado rated F3 hit Gainesville, GA in the early morning, killing 12 people in an event that was unusual in that it was not warned-for in advance. In the wake of that event, my colleague Dr. Harold Brooks was talking via the phone to an emergency manager in the Gainesville area and she told him (I'm paraphrasing) that she had no idea things could get that bad in Gainesville! Clearly, she didn't know anything about the last single tornado in the USA to kill more than 200 people - the tornado that struck Gainesville, GA on 06 April 1936 (part of a two-day outbreak including a single tornado that killed 200+ in Tupelo, MS the day before). If a "generation" is roughly 30 years, this means that the institutional memory of that awful day in 1936 had been mostly lost in, even in an agency about being prepared, within roughly two generations! My experience says that's pretty typical. After a big disaster, awareness is high and people are receptive to the call for preparation. But as time passes, people move away, people die, new people move in and the local memory of disaster fades all too quickly. Resources for event preparation are re-allocated to other projects. Complacency grows. All too soon, the disaster is mostly forgotten. But the weather data base doesn't ever forget.
Studying the climatology of hazardous weather gives researchers a mental model of dangerous storms that isn't widely known in the "general public". While I was visiting Australia in 1989, it turned out there was a flash flood event in Melbourne while I was there. It wasn't a major event, being confined mostly to urban flooding. I watched a TV interview the next day with a couple living in the area hit by the flash flood, and they said "We've lived here for 9 years and we've never seen anything like this!" So they apparently believed that living in Melbourne for 9 years was going to representative of all the possible weather in Melbourne for all the rest of eternity! And this relatively modest event was a big deal for them!
It's understandable that non-meteorologists would fail to have an accurate understanding of the occurrence of rare events. I'm not sure how to go about fixing this shortfall in our communication of science, but here, today, with the landfall of Irma in South Florida likely in the next two days, the complacency associated with people's flawed understanding of what is "typical" for their area seems to be influential in the choices some people are making. Ignorance of such things almost never implies a blissful outcome.
Immediately after a major storm disaster, people are likely to want to think of what happened to them as a "freak" weather event: something unprecedented and very unlikely. Being hit by a major storm is a relatively rare occurrence, but calling it a "freak" event is misleading and counter-productive. If you're familiar with the climatology of tornadoes, someplace (and possibly someone) is going to be hit by a violent tornado virtually every year! Violent tornadoes are rare in any one place, but they aren't "freak" events, somehow outside the range of our human experience. Of course, they likely are outside of your own personal experience! You could live in central OK and not be hit by a violent tornado in 1000 years; on the other hand, Moore, OK has been hit by violent tornadoes in 1999, 2003, 2010, and 2013! The distribution of tornadoes has all the signs of being "random": being truly random doesn't mean the events are spread irregularly but more or less uniformly. Instead, random spatial distributions have both clusters and voids. If we had enough data (at least 1000 years worth), we might have a very clear picture of the climatology of violent tornadoes, at least in central OK. But we don't have that much reliable data on tornadoes before, say, 1953. The more rare the event, the more data are required for a meaningful analysis of the danger.
It's also likely that our knowledge of Cat-4/5 tropical cyclones is similarly flawed. A much longer period of record is needed for an accurate picture to emerge. The climatology of major events determines such numbers as the "return period" for these events. The more data one has, the greater the number of major events in the database and the "return period" calculation is less about iffy extrapolation and more about reliable information. The notion of "return period" is widely misunderstood by the public but that (obviously) is off-topic for this blog.
Folks, it's just not helpful for you to have faith that your personal experience with storms includes all that could possibly happen to you. When the storms become more intense, the less useful your experience is. This affects the decisions you make in advance of being hit by a particular storm, and your decisions will determine such issues as whether you live through it or not. Your choice will affect your family and perhaps even your friends. Don't trust your knowledge of the past to be helpful - listen to what the forecasters are saying and take it seriously! Lives hang in the balance!
The slow-developing situation involving Hurricane Harvey has caused me to contemplate just what our weather forecast message has to be in order to be effective in mitigating the threats. As I write this, the death toll is less than 10 people. Every casualty is a tragedy but things clearly could have been a lot worse. However, that isn't what I want to consider here.
There's been an effort in the last few years to try to help people understand that there are three different primary hazards posed by landfalling tropical cyclones:
1. the very strong winds near the eye, 2. the "storm surge" of ocean water pushed onto the land by the storm's winds and low pressure, and 3. the extreme amounts of rain.
Some hurricanes also produce tornadoes in their outer rainbands. This event (Harvey) was forecast pretty well. The rapid intensification was anticipated but it likely exceeded most expectations when Harvey became a Cat-4 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale of hurricane intensity) just as it was making landfall. Evidently, the storm surge was not a very big factor in Harvey. What was really well-anticipated was the extreme rainfall once Harvey came on shore. This was the highlighted threat in most of the forecasts by both public and private sector forecasters, days in advance. Arguably, in this event, it was the most important hazard, and it seems it will have become a rainfall event that, if not unprecedented, is on the extreme end of such hazards.
Every hurricane making landfall will offer some combination of these three main hazards. Each of them carries with it a certain potential for damage and loss of life. The actual evolution of those hazards in a particular event depends on a several factors that govern the dangers from storm winds, storm surge, and heavy rainfall. What the storm will actually produce in terms of damage and casualties is not necessarily easy to predict with high confidence, but Harvey's main threat was forecast to be the heavy rainfall; that was the gist of the forecasts, and that's pretty much how Harvey has evolved.
Our challenge as forecasters is to try to anticipate the hazard level for each of the three elements and seek to pass that information on to the users of our forecasts so they can make informed decisions. In this event, as is common, some people did well in preparing themselves for the anticipated hazards, but others, not so much. A big challenge to our forecasting community is to try to convey to the public that the windspeeds, which are the basis for assigning the Saffir-Simpson intensity category for the storm, are not always the main threat from the storm. A weakening tropical storm may not pose much of a wind or storm surge threat but it still can be quite capable of producing copious rainfall, with its associated potential for both damage and casualties. Although the wind threat is declining, the storm can remain seriously dangerous!
A big challenge with the threat from heavy rain is the question of what people can do to prevent becoming victims of flooding. Obviously, flood damage is unavoidable if you live in a location vulnerable to flooding during a heavy rain episode - you can't move your home out of danger. Many people have little or no knowledge of the actual flood threat in their particular location. Even more challenging is what people in an area subject to flooding in extreme rainfall can actually do to protect their lives. Evacuating the area might be effective in saving lives, but when people delay an evacuation decision to the 11th hour, then the roads will be choked and people trapped in their cars can be killed by rising floodwaters. Some people may not be able to evacuate under any circumstances. If you're going to evacuate to be safe, do so early or not at all! If you choose to ride it out at home, you should have a plan regarding what to do if the waters rise high enough that even your roof is no longer safe from the rising water. Not much you can do in that case if you don't have a boat!
Flooding is one of those hazards that if you find out you're not safe in your location, it may not be safe anywhere within miles of where you are. By the time you figure out your life is in danger, there likely will be few, if any, good options. Protecting yourself from flooding is not the same as protecting yourself from wind or storm surge. What you need to do for your own safety depends on the nature of the threat, and most people have no idea how to deal with rising floodwaters. This was the case with the awful tragedy of Katrina (which evolved very differently from Harvey) and it resulted in an awful death toll.
Frankly, most people are blissfully ignorant about how to use weather forecast information to help them make good choices. That ignorance means they don't have the information they need to maintain situation awareness in what might be a fast-changing situation. To rely exclusively on your own personal judgement in a complex weather scenario is to risk your life and those of others around you. You may think you have a good bead on how to handle the situation, but you stand a good chance of being tragically wrong.
I don't believe in some magic bullet we might put into our broadcasts of weather information to cause everyone to make the right, life-saving decisions. Essentially, everyone's situation is different - what works in one household may well fail in a different household. We meteorologists agonize over the wording in our broadcasts of weather information but I don't think the answer to potential weather disasters lies in some magical turn of phrase. Dealing with weather hazards involves (a) inevitable uncertainty about how the weather will actually evolve, (b) recognizing the threat early enough to take effective actions, and (c) knowing what actions will be effective in your own personal situation. If you choose to be safe instead of sorry, you may waste some time and effort needlessly at times, but you'll be alive and well should the situation ever become life-threatening. The choice is yours, actually. You need to accept responsibility for your own safety and that of your friends and loved ones - learn and be prepared before the threat appears on the horizon!
The sickening, shameful parade of white supremacists in Charlottesville, culminating with the murderous assault by vehicle on the counter-protestors is probably too recent to have a clear perspective. As more becomes known and more reactions accumulate, this very well could be a watershed moment in American history. The Trump regime has fueled the racist fires in the hearts of many Americans, giving them what amounts to a green light to stop pretending they're decent human beings; they think the lid is off, allowing them to take violent actions against those who are the object of their evil bigotry.
I'm heartened to see how widespread the revulsion has become in the wake of this awful event. Of course, there are those who aren't so open about their hidden racism, even now. They secretly support the white supremacists and think the Trump regime is just their cup of tea. The ugly stain of racism has been present in this nation throughout its relatively short history, its fortunes rising and falling over time. To say that racism in the USA has ended is to contribute significantly to the problem we have in overcoming this persistent evil. Trump and his minions have emboldened the racists to re-surface and give substance to their whining about "political correctness" limiting their ability to disrespect and discriminate against whomever they choose.
That our President and some other politicians have stopped short of condemning the Charlottesville violence by white supremacists is unconscionable. The canard of "they all do it" is simply not true, especially in this case. To condemn everyone for the violence and not call out the source of that violence in Charlottesville is to support the white supremacists. Trump and others have shown the depths of their bigotry, as if any thinking person needed more evidence for that, given the last 6 months.
For many whites who repudiate racism but decline to take an open stand against it, I say the time has come for all who deny the validity of the racist hate be willing to reject white supremacy openly and with the courage of their convictions. When you see racism being exhibited in your day-to-day world, don't just be a spectator: support the victims of racism and let the neo-Nazis know that their bigotry is not shared by real Americans. A world war was fought to prevent the Nazi racial ideology from prevailing; we opponents of white supremacy should be willing to do what it takes to prevent such evil from rising any further.
If you have non-whites in your circle of acquaintances, take some time to talk with them about their experiences. Learn what they have to endure. Understand the awful lessons about racism they must teach their children for the sake of their survival! Listen to them so that you can understand what it feels like to be outside the bubble of white privilege. You may even have a chance to see with your own eyes how the hatred directed at them causes justifiable fear for their safety. Empathy is a process of trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes so that you can understand how they feel about being victimized by racism, and why they feel that way.
Racism has virtually no support from science. The physical differences that separate one human racial group from another are of no more consequence than the color of one's eyes. To focus on such superficial things as what separates the human race into certain "boxes" called races is to reveal profound ignorance about the human species. If you decide to separate folks in such highly artificial boxes, you will find, perhaps, very small differences between the people in those boxes, but they are really of no consequence. If women, on the average, are shorter than men, this doesn't mean that it's not possible for some women to be taller than some men. If black men, on the average, are faster runners than white men, this doesn't mean that it's not possible for some white men to be faster than some black men. It's time to move beyond ignorant stereotypes and recognize that all of us are essentially the same. When you know nothing more about a person than their "race" you essentially know nothing meaningful about that person. Get to know the person and then you can decide what sort of person they are if you wish.
The number of bigots participating in the demonstrations and violence represents only a fraction of the total. No child is born a racist. The young white participants in the neo-Nazi/KKK-type demonstration of bigotry in Charlottesville likely learned their hatred from their parents, either directly or through the intermediary of their friends. The sad fact is that many of the parents of those white supremacists would be proud of the horrible actions of their children!
I hope that this awful event becomes a turning point in a denial of the validity of racism by the vast majority of Americans. I want this to be the moment in history when we turn the corner on stereotyping and vitriol directed at those of us who live within different "boxes". The stakes are very high; the future of the human species could well be threatened if we can't overcome this legacy of evil.
Recently, it seems that some politicians in the state of Florida are attempting to weaken the enhancements to building codes put in place following the massive disaster of Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The hurricane revealed the vulnerability of homes built to low standards and the idea was to prepare for the inevitable return of a strong hurricane to Florida. This current effort to weaken the codes is being led by the GOP, and it seems likely that the pressure to do so is coming from the homebuilders, who are essentially the only group that stands to gain from weakening the building codes.
Natural hazards like hurricanes and tornadoes have a tendency to fade from people's memories with time. Immediately after a disaster, there's widespread support to do something to reduce the impact of the inevitable return of that hazard. Sometimes, this is referred to as "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped." Unfortunately, with the passage of time, the enthusiasm for preparing for the next hazard begins to fade. Other ways to spend resources become a higher priority than hazard preparation. In my experience (with tornadoes) the collective memory of disasters in communities virtually disappears within roughly 2 generations - about 60 years. People live under the false assumption that what they've seen in their lifetimes in their location up to that point is pretty much how things will go for the rest of their lives. Natural hazards are rare in any one place, but it's only a matter of time before they strike again.
For people who experience for themselves the horrors of a natural disaster, the memories often are still vivid decades later. But survivors move elsewhere, older victims die, and people who move in afterwards generally haven't experienced with the survivors and victims experienced. In our reanalysis of the Tri-State tornado, we found that the stories told by survivors are widely regarded locally as unreliable and exaggerated, whereas in our interviews with survivors, many of those stories could be corroborated by independent evidence! I suppose it's something of an "inconvenient truth" to learn that the natural hazards can be so devastating in the place where you live. The unpleasant reality is that if an event has happened at least once in some area, there's no reason to believe it won't happen again. Low probability does not equal zero probability!
Interestingly, over much of Europe, building construction standards are substantially higher than in most of the USA. This can be seen directly in the degree of damage when tornadoes in Europe hit human structures; equivalently strong tornadoes in Europe do less damage than in the USA!
Think about the relationship between construction practices and the lethality of, say, a violent tornado or a powerful hurricane. What's responsible for most of the fatalities in a tornado? It's flying debris ... broken 2x4s, shingles, tree branches, sometimes even cars! There's a kind of mythology that says there's no point in strengthening building that might be hit by a tornado, because no affordable construction can withstand a tornado, right? No, that couldn't be more wrong!
The costs to enhance structural integrity over the existing code standard of 90 mph in most of the USA, when amortized over the life of a 30-year mortgage is pretty small. What the builders don't like is that it takes more time to build a better home, and that is what reduces their profit. If they can build 10 shoddy homes in the time it takes to build 6 well-constructed homes, that's where they make their gains.
First of all, even in a violent tornado (i.e., one rated EF-4 or EF-5 on the enhanced Fujita scale), the most violent winds are experienced in only a small fraction of the total damage path of a tornado - typically less than 10%. Those areas experiencing EF-3 winds or less would experience considerably less damage if their structural integrity would be enhanced over what is typical construction in the US. Decreasing damage means less flying debris. Shoddy construction increases the potential death toll, as well as increasing the destruction. In most of the US, the building code requirements are such that the building should experience no structural damage at windspeeds of 90 mph or less. The fact is that most wood frame homes built in the US are built below the code requirements, sometimes far below. Code enforcement is pretty often woefully inadequate. The cost of a home isn't a very good indicator of construction quality, unfortunately. Local communities often give in to pressure from developers and homebuilders, passing laws to allow "exemptions" from code-prescribed building practices.
When subjected to powerful winds, structural failures begin with the weakest component in the structure - often the attachments of the roof to the walls and/or the attachment of the walls to the foundation. A 90-mph wind speed puts a tornado with that as its peak wind toward the bottom of EF-1. Thus, even a weak tornado can cause structural damage under this building standard. Once structural failure begins, further failures are likely - a home can be "unzipped" starting from one initial weak point. Further, a 90-mph wind can push a home off its foundation when the walls are poorly attached - we call such homes "sliders" because they can be slid off their foundation and then utterly collapse. Such a home can be totally wrecked by a 90-mph wind!
The building code requirements in Miami under the enhancements after Hurricane Andrew are on the order of 120 mph before structural damage will occur. That wind speed falls about in the middle of the EF-2 category, such that much of the area experiencing EF-2 winds will have only marginal structural damage. The area of EF-2 or less wind speed includes the majority of the damage path in even a violent tornado. Even EF-3 winds will produce less damage with the enhanced code.
For Florida to weaken its building codes is to return to a time of lowered resistance to damage, likely resulting in more casualties. That some of the politicians in Florida are seeking legislation to lower the standards is an indicator that the homebuilders are using their political influence to lobby the state government for the benefit of their profits. Who else benefits from lowering the construction standards in Florida? Weakening construction standards is an idea that should be nipped at the bud!
A recent fatal flash flood incident has led me to think over the topic of media coverage of weather-related incidents. We in the "tornado community" frequently hear interviews with the public to the effect that tornadoes have hit somewhere "without warning" when the facts are that the National Weather Service (NWS) has indeed issued a warning. Clearly, what this statement by some victim reflects is that she/he didn't hear that warning (or ignored it!) and then was unfortunate enough to be in the tornado's path. I suppose they think that it was someone's responsibility to notify them personally that they were going to be hit. First of all, it's not the responsibility of the NWS to notify personally everyone in danger. Second, it's a fact that although technology might eventually make personal warnings possible, but at the moment, it's pretty much impossible to notify everyone who will be affected (and no one else). The NWS might have the means to contact individuals with warning information, but the state of the art of forecasting simply doesn't permit 100% accuracy regarding who will and who won't be in the damage path of a tornado.
Most fatality-producing tornadoes these days have warnings issued at least a few minutes before someone is struck, and sometimes the lead times can be as much as an hour! Is an hour's lead time too long? This is a debate within the tornado community that's not yet settled and clearly requires the involvement of social scientists. But just for the sake of the argument, let's consider some things about how warnings can be effective in reducing casualties: for an issued warning to be effective, it requires a chain of events. The user must
1. receive the warning by some means 2. understand what information the warning provides 3. know what to do with the warning information 4. believe the warning is relevant to him/her 5. take effective action based on the warning
All of the links in that chain must be met, or the warning will not be effective. In the case of the recent flash flood, the people in the path of the flood evidently did not receive the warning. It hadn't even rained at the location where the fatalities occurred - the rainfall was miles away upstream. This is not uncommon when hiking and camping in the wild, away from TV and cell phone coverage. If people are to recognize the danger signs without benefit of hearing the warning, they must have experienced one or more similar events (unlikely) or have been given training in heavy rainfall situation awareness (also unlikely). Flash floods have a special handicap relative to tornadoes: most everyone has experienced heavy rainfall without a flash flood, whereas most people have never been hit by a tornado. Rain seems "normal" and not very threatening, whereas a tornado is "exotic" and would automatically be seen as a threat.
A more extensive treatment of the chain of events needed for weather warnings to be effective can be found here. There are many ways for this chain to be broken, often leading people to think that the event struck them without warning. In the interest of their own safety, weather warning recipients should make it their personal business to learn situation awareness with respect to potential weather hazards. The unfortunate part is that many users won't take the relatively simple steps necessary for their own safety, and seem to expect that it's solely someone else's responsibility to protect them from weather hazards.
And the fact that some particular hazard is relatively rare where the user lives and works and recreates, doesn't mean the threat is non-existent. Tornadoes are infrequent in New England, for example, but violent tornadoes can and do occur there. Though the danger is not high most of the time, sometimes violent tornadoes happen in New England. Thinking it could never happen to you is the first step toward a personal disaster. The weather is not malevolent or evil; it's just indifferent to what we puny humans do or don't do. At times, we find ourselves in the path of a potentially fatal hazard Being prepared is a personal choice; it's no one's responsibility but your own. The NWS does its best, but there are still times when they fail to issue a warning, or issue the warning too late to be of much use to at least some people. That's the state of the art and it should not require much to understand that a warning may not be issued sometimes. Then, public safety depends on good luck and proper situation awareness; i.e., recognition of danger signs even in the absence of a warning.
Some fraction of my readers will have seen this bit by the late comedian, George Carlin, about saving the Earth. George's comedy often consisted of bashing one group or another, showing their hypocrisy or absurdity, and usually incorporated a host of valid points. This comedy segment seems to make some valid points, but I want to discuss this as if George's monologue were a serious argument, not a comedy act.
When discussing topics related to "Saving the Earth", the meaning implied by environmental concerns is not to "save the planet" for the reason he gives: the Earth will continue, regardless of any damage we're able to inflict. The planet can and likely will "shake us off like a bad case of fleas". But the human species is poisoning itself with the by-products of our industry, and our garbage. Look around at all the threats to our environment: greenhouse gases, oil and toxic chemical spills, release of radioactive materials, lost of habitat for non-human species, the danger to honeybees ... the list is long and diverse.
If we manage to kill ourselves off by means of damaging the environment, then indeed life on Earth will go on without us, but it will be very different from life as we've known it. Our absence will be a blessing to most of the surviving species on the planet. We can't survive without them, but many of them will prosper after we're gone. Our domesticated plants and animals will adapt to their life without us, or die. In a few thousand years, most of human impacts on the planet will have crumbled to dust and be mostly invisible. A new ecosystem will be established and little or no record will exist of all our accomplishments for good ... or that turned out to be harmful
What environmentally-concerned people really mean when they "Save the Earth" is something like "Save us from poisoning ourselves and destroying the ecosystem that sustains our lives." It's clear that barring extraterrestrial or divine intervention, the only way we can be saved is by our own deeds. Our children and grandchildren will have to deal with the mess we're leaving them as part of their inheritance from us. What anger and frustration might they feel for our poor stewardship of what we inherited from our forebears? We were given the gift of fossil fuels and we're in the process of squandering that legacy on self-indulgence and greed, and there are enough of us now that it's beginning to have an impact on the atmosphere and the world's ecosystems. The military is concerned about that future world with anthropogenic global warming and its associated ea-level rise. Many modern businesses have recognized the inevitability of transitioning to renewable energy sources rather than continuing the folly of our dependence on the finite quantity of fossil fuels that remain. If these very conservative segments of our society are concerned, should we not be?
Yes, George Carlin, species have been dying out for so long as life has existed, but the present extinction rate is approaching that of an "extinction event" and, given the interdependencies we're just now learning about, this can have serious consequences for the human species. As we learn more about ecology, the continuing message is that it's not a choice between us and other species - we depend on them far more than they depend on us. We don't know enough ecology yet to make detailed predictions, but if non-human species extinctions accumulate at an accelerating pace (which is evidently happening), the impact on humans may well become critically negative at some future tipping point.
If you're just not worried about these things, then you're contributing to the challenges to our very survival we confront ... together! We'll either address these issues and work together to solve them, or we literally could die off together as a species. Our transient impact on the planet will be erased and repaired in our absence over a geologically short time interval (a few thousand years). All the things in which we pride ourselves will decay and disappear; the only evidence remaining will be a deposit of our trash and its decay products, not dissimilar to the thin layer of iridium that marks the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary Periods. This thin layer rich in iridium in the geological record is evidence of a colossal extinction event that ended the dominance of the dinosaurs and allowed us mammals to begin to become the dominant animals. Not all that far above the iridium layer, a deposit of plastic shards, glass, concrete dust, metal oxides, and radioactivity will depict the end of our "rule". Our exaggerated sense of self-importance may be the source of our downfall. In this world, there are no guarantees; our survival literally is in our hands. Our instincts can betray us. Yes, George Carlin, I worry about a lot of things, and try to do what I'm able to do about it. Our current corrupt and environmentally-destructive political regime should worry you, too.
I close with the following poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley:
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
The withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Accord has drawn both criticism and support - from different segments of our society. Many of us felt it was an important first step for the world to join together to do something about anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC). What we American do or don't do affects everyone around the world. What goes on in the rest of the world inevitably has impacts in the USA. We're no longer isolated bands of hunter-gatherers, and so our species has become deeply interconnected and interdependent. Agriculture set us on the road to this interconnectedness, and industrialization moved us more rapidly in that direction. Electronic technology is now accelerating the pace of interdependence. Our withdrawal from the Paris accord is a profoundly disturbing step backward at a time when moving ahead to mitigate AGCC is critical for the future of our nation.
Apologists for this move are saying it was a "bad deal" for the USA. If global climate change is worrisome to the military in this nation, is it plausible to suggest it's a myth? If many business leaders supported our being part of the Paris Accord, is it plausible to suggest it was going to hurt the USA economy? The US military is not exactly a bastion of left-leaning tree-hugger libtards. Business leaders don't advocate things that will be bad for their business. There are abundant examples now showing that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will not bankrupt our economies, but rather will energize them. As new technology is developed to replace the old, new jobs will be created and the economy should prosper. In various places around the world, including American states, this is already happening. The hard part is the transition period as we wean ourselves from fossil fuels. To step backward away from the leadership of a movement to mitigate AGCC, will cost our nation in many ways, and is not the path to American "greatness". It delays the inevitable transition, making the pain of transition last longer.
I'm not a climate scientist, so I have no evidence of my own to support or refute the reality of AGCC. I defer to the consensus of my scientific colleagues who are doing global climate research. Would you entrust your health care to someone not a medical doctor? Would you entrust your safety to a person who has no pilot training or experience? Why do you lend credibility to non-specialists in issues of science? Why do you think you know as much or more about the global climate as the consensus of climate scientists? On what basis can there be such intense political opposition to the climate science consensus about AGCC? Insofar as I can tell, only a tiny fraction of global climate scientists are arguing the consensus is wrong. The rest of the chorus of voices opposing efforts to do something about AGCC are not global climate scientists, but are mostly basing their position on propaganda, lies, distortions of the facts, and political machinations. Opposition to the Paris accord is just another rearguard action against a future technology shift toward renewable energy sources that is already well underway, even here in the USA. Opposition to progress appeals to those who feel threatened by global unity in the face of global challenges.
The current political situation in the USA is going to result in damage that will take decades to repair. The regime in power is anti-science, anti-intellectual, supportive of creeping theocracy, contributing to the massive expansion of the income inequality gap, alienating our international allies, devastating our public education systems, encouraging xenophobia and bigotry, and on ... and on ... and on. Each day, more damage to America is happening, so withdrawing from the Paris Accord is another step down a very destructive path for America.
Some have said that politics is intruding into science and that isn't good for the science. AGCC didn't become politicized by some sort of conspiracy among climate scientists. It became politicized when it became clear that something needed to be done about the threats posed by AGCC. There would be a price tag attached to any efforts at mitigation of AGCC, and where money is involved, there go some politicians and their corporate sponsors. And many political conservatives wax eloquent talking of the doom associated with progress. It's what they do - oppose progress.