I always like to look at problems from a different perspective.
Lets adapt a new perspective. Suppose you dont buy into the "end of the world from climate change". What do you buy into? Recessions and depressions, hurricanes, tornado outbreaks, earthquakes?
The real fear that I have related to climate change is the subtle perturbations to the overall nonlinear behavior of the earth-human system. After all the recent earthquakes, it is easy to see how devastating these disasters can be. Hurricanes and tornadoes also have something in common with earthquakes: how quickly they devastate a vast area, and how quickly they alter your life, your surroundings, and your perspective.
Climate change will be more subtle. The impacts will be regional. The effect will be tempered by how we respond to it. I tend not to think about the magnitude of the change since that is uncertain. I think more generally about how that change will be so slow compared to our collective attention span (both in a human sense and in a financial priority sense).
The slowness would be like the financial sector meltdown we just experienced. It wont effect everyone equally at least at first. But when the full effect is felt it will already be too late.
This is not a liberal agenda. It is a warning agenda. I feel more comfortable knowing that people are warning me of these impending dangers. A lot like the people of hawaii likely felt when an invisible tsunami approached. They got out of the way and luckily nothing major happened. They were uncertain of its magnitude and yet they acted as if it was going to be big.
What helped was that there was little else going on. There were no distractions. The warning went out early, it was a slow Sunday, and the wave wasn't going to until noon or something. So the perturbations can be distractions or other disasters or other human failure events. Imagine a future war takes up our time and resources. or an earthquake, or other disaster.
Will it cost money to prepare? Yes. Will any human plan be foolproof? No. But it is fortuitous that the very important things we NEED to do be doing are actually beneficial to us and out stewardship of the planet. Cutting greenhouse gases is important.
Need we be reminded that we polluted the planet so badly that we almost removed the ozone layer? And recent estimates put its replacement around 2060. So dont be fooled by the sceptic agenda that CO2 concentrations are so small that they don't matter. The science has a long way to go. You should be encouraged that we are making progress and that the problems seem tractable to get some reasonable answers.
Remember this next time you are in a tornado watch. No models predict tornados directly. Forecasters predict the environment that tornado's are most likely to form in conditional upon thunderstorms forming, and that those thunderstorms will rotate, and that of those that rotate some might produce a tornado (of unknown strength, size, and lifetime). That is a 4 step process. And only when there is a storm with a particular signature does a warning get issued (unless a sighting precedes the radar update). Does that make you think the science is wrong? Or do you take cover when the warning is issued?
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Career in science.
I still haven't found my blog voice (in my humble opinion) so I will continue practicing.
The question for today is what does it take to start a career in science. You have the PhD. You get a decent postdoc appointment. What should that experience be like? What does it look like?
The appointment should provide you with 4 things:
1. A mentor who will go above and beyond to provide opportunities for you to excel.
2. travel to conferences to present your work and network. Think 2 for 1.
3. The ability to rapidly publish.
4. A mentor:
Think of this person as a potential parent. They adopt you after you are all grown up and established. The job for them is to use you to further their career (think chores when you were 18-21 and came home from college for the summer). They are preparing you so when they kick you out of the house, you will be comfortably prepared for anything.
So, naturally, your job is to learn, publish, grow, and become confident as an expert. You also are using them to further your career. Therein lies the rub.
*******
The choice of environment then is critical to success. You dont want a situation where you have to compromise any of those 4 needs. You need space and flexibility for creativity. Likewise you need structure to grow. The ability to give and listen to seminars, paper discussions, group meetings, and project collaborations. You also need time.
Time is relative.
1. Publishing takes time. To do original, meaningful research you need data at your fingertips. I typical 1 year postdoc should come complete with data. A two-year should come with resources to make data and have data be supplied to you by the start of the 2nd year. This gives you time to flesh out ideas and publish for the 2nd year.
2. Growing takes time. You have to be immersed in your field. Hear others speak about current issues and be at the forefront of those problems. This is likely where the money is. You also have to become well rounded in things related to your field.
A. reviewing papers or propoals.
B. giving seminars including those in an interview style.
C. getting perspective from other scientists about research styles, writing styles, personality styles, methods and strategies for conducting and publishing high profile research, etc.
D. learning computer techniques including software, hardware, programming, etc.
E. Learning to communicate at work, with your peers, and to people who don't know a damn thing about what you do.
3. Structure is not relative. This includes working on projects that have deliverables (on a timeline) that relate directly to you and your ability to publish. In this case the project is your structure. You can break it up into tasks to address a problem. You know whats expected, you can anticipate the immediate benefit to you (time is still relative here).
Consider these as general guidelines. The advice I have as I wander down this road is this:
"knowing the path is different than walking the path." It is very easy to be sidetracked on any of these, and it is unpredictable how good or bad the consequences will be. And most times, as I am learning now, different future employers are looking for different things. Some will say your body of work is great. Others will say that you aren't good enough. In a very real way, I am living out both of these outcomes.
The question for today is what does it take to start a career in science. You have the PhD. You get a decent postdoc appointment. What should that experience be like? What does it look like?
The appointment should provide you with 4 things:
1. A mentor who will go above and beyond to provide opportunities for you to excel.
2. travel to conferences to present your work and network. Think 2 for 1.
3. The ability to rapidly publish.
4. A mentor:
Think of this person as a potential parent. They adopt you after you are all grown up and established. The job for them is to use you to further their career (think chores when you were 18-21 and came home from college for the summer). They are preparing you so when they kick you out of the house, you will be comfortably prepared for anything.
So, naturally, your job is to learn, publish, grow, and become confident as an expert. You also are using them to further your career. Therein lies the rub.
*******
The choice of environment then is critical to success. You dont want a situation where you have to compromise any of those 4 needs. You need space and flexibility for creativity. Likewise you need structure to grow. The ability to give and listen to seminars, paper discussions, group meetings, and project collaborations. You also need time.
Time is relative.
1. Publishing takes time. To do original, meaningful research you need data at your fingertips. I typical 1 year postdoc should come complete with data. A two-year should come with resources to make data and have data be supplied to you by the start of the 2nd year. This gives you time to flesh out ideas and publish for the 2nd year.
2. Growing takes time. You have to be immersed in your field. Hear others speak about current issues and be at the forefront of those problems. This is likely where the money is. You also have to become well rounded in things related to your field.
A. reviewing papers or propoals.
B. giving seminars including those in an interview style.
C. getting perspective from other scientists about research styles, writing styles, personality styles, methods and strategies for conducting and publishing high profile research, etc.
D. learning computer techniques including software, hardware, programming, etc.
E. Learning to communicate at work, with your peers, and to people who don't know a damn thing about what you do.
3. Structure is not relative. This includes working on projects that have deliverables (on a timeline) that relate directly to you and your ability to publish. In this case the project is your structure. You can break it up into tasks to address a problem. You know whats expected, you can anticipate the immediate benefit to you (time is still relative here).
Consider these as general guidelines. The advice I have as I wander down this road is this:
"knowing the path is different than walking the path." It is very easy to be sidetracked on any of these, and it is unpredictable how good or bad the consequences will be. And most times, as I am learning now, different future employers are looking for different things. Some will say your body of work is great. Others will say that you aren't good enough. In a very real way, I am living out both of these outcomes.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
supercells
I have been thinking about severe weather for my work. I have always been curious about supercells because the characteristics I have observed have been so varied. Everything from the cloud structure and radar appearance to the location of tornado (or tornado's).
What I find even more interesting is that they tend to evolve rapidly. They evolve because of a changing environment (vertical wind shear, CAPE, moisture and moisture depth). But there are also those weird days, where in a similar environment, they develop differently. In a few cases I would surmise this has occurred because some boundary has been influencing the storms.
But a paper I read hinted that there are two types of these supercells distinguished by front vs rear precipitation relative to the updraft. There are some solid objections to this line inquiry based on the known and documented differences between so-called classic supercells and Low precipitation supercell tornado threats. However, a taxonomy is only useful if the storms have a certain structure and that structure leads to some predictable behavior.
While a taxonomy appears to be worthwhile to describe these varied characteristics, what are we really trying to achieve with it?
1. Operational radar recognition of the supercell and tornado threat.
2. A conceptual model of these storm types, including their life cycle evolution.
3. Explain why some supercells produce tornado's and why some do not; why some produce many and others produce 1; why some have a predictable location of tornado occurrence and others have multiple.
4. Address: Why do tornadic supercells differ so little from non-tornadic supercells?
These challenging questions are why, once again, the VORTEX2 field project will be operating in the Great Plains this year. Hopefully a new round of data collection will offer some insights into these fascinating and destructive storms.
What I find even more interesting is that they tend to evolve rapidly. They evolve because of a changing environment (vertical wind shear, CAPE, moisture and moisture depth). But there are also those weird days, where in a similar environment, they develop differently. In a few cases I would surmise this has occurred because some boundary has been influencing the storms.
But a paper I read hinted that there are two types of these supercells distinguished by front vs rear precipitation relative to the updraft. There are some solid objections to this line inquiry based on the known and documented differences between so-called classic supercells and Low precipitation supercell tornado threats. However, a taxonomy is only useful if the storms have a certain structure and that structure leads to some predictable behavior.
While a taxonomy appears to be worthwhile to describe these varied characteristics, what are we really trying to achieve with it?
1. Operational radar recognition of the supercell and tornado threat.
2. A conceptual model of these storm types, including their life cycle evolution.
3. Explain why some supercells produce tornado's and why some do not; why some produce many and others produce 1; why some have a predictable location of tornado occurrence and others have multiple.
4. Address: Why do tornadic supercells differ so little from non-tornadic supercells?
These challenging questions are why, once again, the VORTEX2 field project will be operating in the Great Plains this year. Hopefully a new round of data collection will offer some insights into these fascinating and destructive storms.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Journalism and Science
I read Miles O'Brien testimony involving NASA's budget cut:
http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2010/02/24/to-the-moon-i-think-not-alice/
I watched the Hawaii tsunami coverage on CNN.
What do they have in common?
In the former, Miles criticizes the major media outlets for dropping their actual science journalists. He says quite clearly that "the reporters are not well informed". He did not say the science journalists. he said reporters. People whose sole job is either researching and reporting, or investigating and reporting (i.e. communicating). The result, he says, is that the message is being lost. I would argue that even the sense of excitement, passion, and love of all things science is being lost as well. I follow Miles because he has these qualities. I watch him on spaceflightnow.com , I read his FB status updates, and read his blog. It oozes with a passion for science and he has a great way with words. I can read his writing and in my head I hear his voice with his inflections.
On the air today, with regard to the latter, I had to hear Rick Sanchez (whom I am biased against already for much different reasons), basically say: Hold on Dr. Scientist, don't explain this to me ... just answer my question. Which basically, in my humble opinion, criticized the smart scientist not for speaking in science terms ... but more so for speaking in laymen science terms. Thankfully CNN didnt continue with that crap and rather cut away to local affiliates coverage. There was a communication divide and it was WIDE as it was DEEP.
In much the same vein, The foxnews reporting on everything -gate, has cornered the market on conspiracy. Especially on Climate. They have a winning formula.
I will break it down:
1. Introduce climate change information (whether it be a simple fact or a person involved).
2. cast some doubt on said information (legitimate or not).
3. associate people with that doubt and tie them to someone somewhere who may have done something wrong (ignoring facts as they go).
4. cite climate sceptics as truth or use the glenn beck-ism "we are just asking questions here".
5. package this up as climate change doesn't exist.
They succeed because the science message isn't being communicated well. Climate has no PR machine. We have journals, technical reports, and atmospheric science bodies (the IPCC, AMS, AGU, NASA, etc.). These bodies deliver solid messages, but they can not compete with a 24 hour news org on the attack.
It just seems daunting. On the one hand we need science journalists (actual specialized folks who have passion, knowledge in science, and communicate well) to fill the void. This requires that major media outlets invest, and lets face it, the reason they cut these people was because they are bleeding.
We need better science teachers in our schools. Not just high school. Middle school and elementary schools too. And not just people who specialize in education. Again we need that passion and knowledge there too. Better teachers bring better content. This is a long shot because there just isn't the money to actually pay teachers with a Masters degree and worse a Masters may be detrimental to getting hired in the first place.
Some things need to change around here. And it would seem fitting that the people who can save us ...our young scientists who wait 3-5 years for permanent positions...are perfect to fill the gap. The problems are... the gap in pay, the student loans, the penalty for not publishing ... not worth it.
How sad is that?
http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2010/02/24/to-the-moon-i-think-not-alice/
I watched the Hawaii tsunami coverage on CNN.
What do they have in common?
In the former, Miles criticizes the major media outlets for dropping their actual science journalists. He says quite clearly that "the reporters are not well informed". He did not say the science journalists. he said reporters. People whose sole job is either researching and reporting, or investigating and reporting (i.e. communicating). The result, he says, is that the message is being lost. I would argue that even the sense of excitement, passion, and love of all things science is being lost as well. I follow Miles because he has these qualities. I watch him on spaceflightnow.com , I read his FB status updates, and read his blog. It oozes with a passion for science and he has a great way with words. I can read his writing and in my head I hear his voice with his inflections.
On the air today, with regard to the latter, I had to hear Rick Sanchez (whom I am biased against already for much different reasons), basically say: Hold on Dr. Scientist, don't explain this to me ... just answer my question. Which basically, in my humble opinion, criticized the smart scientist not for speaking in science terms ... but more so for speaking in laymen science terms. Thankfully CNN didnt continue with that crap and rather cut away to local affiliates coverage. There was a communication divide and it was WIDE as it was DEEP.
In much the same vein, The foxnews reporting on everything -gate, has cornered the market on conspiracy. Especially on Climate. They have a winning formula.
I will break it down:
1. Introduce climate change information (whether it be a simple fact or a person involved).
2. cast some doubt on said information (legitimate or not).
3. associate people with that doubt and tie them to someone somewhere who may have done something wrong (ignoring facts as they go).
4. cite climate sceptics as truth or use the glenn beck-ism "we are just asking questions here".
5. package this up as climate change doesn't exist.
They succeed because the science message isn't being communicated well. Climate has no PR machine. We have journals, technical reports, and atmospheric science bodies (the IPCC, AMS, AGU, NASA, etc.). These bodies deliver solid messages, but they can not compete with a 24 hour news org on the attack.
It just seems daunting. On the one hand we need science journalists (actual specialized folks who have passion, knowledge in science, and communicate well) to fill the void. This requires that major media outlets invest, and lets face it, the reason they cut these people was because they are bleeding.
We need better science teachers in our schools. Not just high school. Middle school and elementary schools too. And not just people who specialize in education. Again we need that passion and knowledge there too. Better teachers bring better content. This is a long shot because there just isn't the money to actually pay teachers with a Masters degree and worse a Masters may be detrimental to getting hired in the first place.
Some things need to change around here. And it would seem fitting that the people who can save us ...our young scientists who wait 3-5 years for permanent positions...are perfect to fill the gap. The problems are... the gap in pay, the student loans, the penalty for not publishing ... not worth it.
How sad is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)