Drifting Continents, Greedy Motives, Party-Animal Meteorologists, and Snowstorm Arissa: Musings on Weather and Climate

-->

Drifting Continents, Greedy Motives, Party-Animal Meteorologists, and Snowstorm Arissa: Musings on Weather and Climate

This was a week in which several random but related events caught my attention in the weather and climate world.  The moment that inspired this blog was an interesting question by a friend of my wife. At my UGA office, I got an email from my wife stating that the friend wanted to know if the United States (US) is drifting closer to Europe by 3 inches per year.  One of her kids learned this at school that day and that baffled the friend. Whether the speed or direction of movement is accurate is not the focus of the blog.  For me, this was a very interesting and poignant realization because I suspect that a large portion of the US public does not realize that our continents drift or that there is something called plate tectonics that describe such drift, earthquake activity, and mountain formation. I say this not to poke fun at anyone.  It is simply factual that the average US citizen understands science at a middle school grade level. This speaks to a larger observation of mine in the climate discussions that I continually have with the public and even some policymakers. There is a tendency for many to impose their level of knowledge on a science topic and either question/refute the facts if it doesn’t line up with their level of understanding.  You would be surprised at how many people misunderstand what “heat lightning” is; are confused when I say that a rainstorm in the middle of summer may have started off in the cloud as snow; or are perplexed when I tell them that ice ages will happen again due to periodic changes in Earth’s orbit or tilt. Every globe from elementary school has lied to you because it gives you the impression that the tilt never changes.

This “adaptive understanding of science” is rampant in climate science, which like nuclear physics or cardiology is a complex science. Yet, you rarely find a plumber or real estate agent debating a cardiologist or nuclear physicist. With that introduction, let me move on to other counter-intuitive or puzzling matters that crossed my mind this week.

Greedy Motives: I continue to be amazed that some people still think that climate scientists talk up climate change for grant money. This is one of the latest “zombie” theories (i.e., theory that is not true or that has been refuted but continues to live on) making the rounds. While it is not true, I had a guy (an accountant) at the Atlanta Braves game throw this out to me when I made the point that there are some industries that have a strong interest in spreading confusion about climate change in the same manner that the tobacco industry did with studies about the dangers of smoking. It lines up nicely with Upton Sinclair’s statement that “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”  This “zombie theory” is very counter-intuitive because it would actually seem more likely that if scientists wanted more research funding, they would say that things are very uncertain or unclear and that we need more study (and funding). Additionally, those who throw out this “zombie theory” clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of how grants are acquired and the peer-review process. Oh by the way, none of my grants is for studying greenhouse gas warming processes.

Party Animal Meteorologists: Another example of shortsightedness that I observed this past week was a story by a local Atlanta news station. The station had a story about a watchdog group questioning why a federal agency like NOAA would send employees to meetings like the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Annual Meeting. They characterized these meetings as “vacations” and taxpayer waste. Amazingly wrong! While some industry meetings may skew on the side of social functions, AMS and other scientific meetings are very rigorous “multiple meetings/conference within one” where scientists and scholars learn about the latest technology, research, and methods that can benefit them in their job capacity. Because AMS has 15 separate conferences within one meeting, it is actually a huge value for taxpayers. Additionally, these meetings have several training short-courses that are critical for professional development. Name any profession where continual learning and development is not valued. Further, anyone that calls a scientific or technical conference vacation obviously has not attended one.

Naming Snowstorms: The other story that got my attention this week is the new Weather Channel initiative to name snowstorms. The Weather Channel, in my view, is one of the single most important partners and resources in our field and is a pioneer on so many fronts. I am pleased to say that I have friends and colleagues at all levels of the organization. However, on this particular initiative, I had some concerns. Naming snowstorms is not new. Free University in Europe does this and at least one major insurance company in the US has tried it as well. However, there is no official institution (e.g. like the World Meteorological Organization or National Hurricane Center) that does this to my knowledge. Here are my concerns. First, the naming of snowstorms will affect the public and the broader community. I believe that a more prudent approach would have been to have community input from other media outlets, NOAA, and perhaps AMS/NWA. I do not believe that this is the right opportunity to try to gain competitive market advantage. There is too much at stake. Second, I could foresee competing interests adopting their own naming conventions since there is no “official” standard. This probably would serve to confuse the public. Third, I would like to see more physical/social science research (peer reviewed) backing the criteria for naming and how people perceive such information. For example, one of our graduate students at University of Georgia is working with two of my colleagues on perceptions of Georgian citizens to winter weather hazards. Fourth, it is reasonable to ask, “what is next?”  Should we also name major floods, drenches, or droughts? To be clear, I am not opposed to change and the intentions may be good.  I am mainly concerned about the process. The Weather-Climate Enterprise of the AMS fosters public-private partnerships and is an ideal venue for such an initiative.

In summary, these random but related thoughts on weather and climate were on my mind. At least, my kids are thrilled by the prospect of having more opportunities to have a storm named after them.  Snowstorm Arissa huuuuum!