Hi there everybody! Well, another week gone by, huh? Well, I have a few items for you, and of course, the Injection d'Humeur.
THE INTERVIEW
On Monday, I was invited to participate in an interview that was being conducted on the debate over climate change. The piece will appear in Alaska Magazine at some point in the future. I will let you know.
Anyway, it is an interesting debate and I am glad to be involved in the heart of it. I was worried (and warned) that the interviewer may have a certain agenda and to act prudently regardless, due to our reliance on public funding, etc. But it turned out to be very informed and neutral, as journalists should be. He asked many very good questions and did a very good job of following up and countering our statements.
The debate itself is very heated, as anybody who watches the media knows. Where do I stand, you ask? Well, the data that fills my day also dictates how I stand on the issue.
Right now, the debate lies in the fact that it seems that the average global temperature has risen, and what could have caused that. Is the observed rise in temperature a result of anthropological activity, or natural cycles? Nobody knows. Period. There is no one alive or dead who knows the exact answer to that question. I personally think that it may be a combination of both.
Unfortunately, there is a large amount of the population that just doesn't understand the argument and makes decisions on the issue based on less than all of the facts. Part of the problem lies again with some media outlets which do not fully investigate the differing arguments. For example, the National Academy of Sciences recently issued a report at President Bush's request. From the coverage of the report, one could conclude that it was ironclad proof that humans play the primary role in the global climate change. Anybody who actually read the report would disagree. Even those who authored the report found the media coverage distressing.
Case in point, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor who was a member of the NAS panel, wrote this editorial in the Wall Street Journal this week. You can find it here:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606
Here is the report in question:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/
Now, what do we know? Is global warming real? Yes, the average temperature has risen, at least it seems to have. The problem lies in the fact that a long term record, of sufficient quality, does not exist for rigorous examination. Where is the doomsday element of this coming from? The Global Circulation Model, and several other models.. These models are the main source of projections that the doomsday element uses to make statements such as "Buy land in St. Louis...soon it will be coastal land." etc. The models do, in fact, project a continued increase in temperature. However, the models are flawed. Here is why.
First, the models claim that carbon dioxide is the primary problem as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. This is wrong. The most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor. A 1% increase in atmospheric water vapor will produce the same changes as a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Some models do not take into account water vapor. This is a drastic mistake. Also, the models do not take into account the several well documented naturally occurring climatic oscillations, such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation, Northern Pacific Oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation, and more than a dozen others which have been shown to significantly alter local and regional weather and climate patterns. Another important aspect missed by the models.
Remember this fact when you are faced with data from models: The output of models is only as good as the scientific base of the model, and the input data. If the input data is flawed, or if the algorithms involved in the modeling are not complete, the model will fail from a scientific standpoint. The world of prediction modeling is wrought with Chaos Theory, and especially within atmospheric science modeling. It is not coincidence that the theme statement for Chaos ("If a butterfly flaps its wings in Central Park, it will rain in Tokyo") has a basis in weather. These models are based in the same science that is used for short term weather forecasting. Check how well they don't perform on a 3 day basis, and then project that to 50 years. Big problem. It is funny that some of the same people, who deride the National Weather Service for their poor forecasting performance and models, swear by the climate models which are even more suspect.
The interview was featured on Alaska Public Radio this morning. Here are a few links to listen to a few sound bites from the interview or just to read the script. My comments aren't included, but it helps to solidify my point:
Web Links Script:
http://www.uaf.edu/seagrant/NewsMedia/01ASJ/06.15.01climate-confusion.html
Real Audio: http://www.uaf.edu/seagrant/NewsMedia/01ASJ/ra/ClimateConfusion.ram
Wav and MP3 Files (FTP site):
ftp://www.uaf.edu/pub/SeaGrant/ArcticScienceJourneys/
Well, I hope that I have at least cleared up the issue a bit more. If anybody has any questions about this, please ask. You have a friend in the business, so there is no excuse to be uninformed.
THE HIKING CLUB
I finally got a good dose of the reason that I moved to Alaska. What I mean by that is, that as nice as Fairbanks is, I did not move here to be constantly surrounded by streets, and cars, and stuff. Last Saturday, I was reminded why Alaska is so great. Hiking up on Wickersham Dome with other members of the Fairbanks Area Hiking Club (www.fairbankshiking.org) gave me my first opportunity to enjoy the part of Alaska that most people think of. Wide open spaces, tremendous views, and of course, the mosquitoes. The relatively easy hike, just over 4.5 hours including a relaxing lunch on the summit, was a wonderful elixir. When we topped out on the first ridge, and I looked back towards the south, seeing the Alaska Range, and seeing the beginnings of the Brooks off to the north, I was able to breathe a little bit easier...
INJECTIONS D'HUMEUR
When Lief Erickson left to explore the lands across the sea, he left behind his wife. One day, she was looking through the latest population data of their town, and she noticed that Leif, her husband, was no longer listed as a resident of the town. When she confronted the city clerk, she said "You must have taken Leif off your census."
and the hits just keep on coming...
I sent in a collection of ten of my favorite puns to Readers Digest for a contest, hoping, of course, that I would win. Sadly, no pun in ten did.
Ok, I will spare you the rest, and will give you a rest.
GOINGS ON
The Huskers didn't do so hot at the CWS. Oh, well. It was cool to have them there anyway.
The corps season has started, and I have yet to hear anything except that Madison is looking somewhat better than last year, which is good. More corps, including the Bluecoats, debut this weekend.
Lord Stanley and his Cup
Well, the Colorado Avalanche won the Stanley Cup again. It was a very good series. I would have liked for the Devils to win it again, since I am a sworn enemy of Colorado (by way of my association with the RedWings), but you have to feel good for Ray Bourque. He has been playing in the NHL for 22 years, and he FINALLY gets his name engraved on the Cup. And, we can also feel good because we didn't have to put up with the Dallas Stars again this year.
Tornadoes
Nebraska got raked with some cool (in my opinion) weather on Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Tornadoes struck Seward (Hartmann-ville) on Wednesday night. According to a letter that I got from my Aunt Jeanette, the big one formed and touched down between my Uncle Bill's farm and my Uncle Dick's farm. Pretty cool. No damage was inflicted to anyone of my clan, but there was pretty significant damage to areas to the east of Seward.
"When can I expect that to happen here?" he naively asked...
Well, I am going to let you all get back to your business. Have a great weekend.
Brian "Here comes the sun! But, wait, it never left. Hmmm." Hartmann