Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things
Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things
I found out this week at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union that my friend Jerry Mahlman died in late November. Jerry was a climate scientist, and for many years, the Director of the Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory. Here is the announcement of his death, which includes a paragraph about his science life. Here is Rick Piltz's, Remembering Jerry Mahlman.
In 2003 Jerry and I hatched a plan to road trip to Big Bend National Park. Jerry liked to “bushwhack” across desolate places, and in the Lower 48, Big Bend National Park is about as remote and desolate as it gets. Big Bend is also home to a huge variety of wildlife. The wildlife is there not only because it is protected desolation, but also because its climate straddles the edge of the tropics. This means birds, and birds could be the noble goal of any Jerry adventure.
The retired Jerry set out to planning. Another flavor of road trip brought me to his house in Longmont, Colorado, and Jerry had collected a set of suitably obscure information about the places in the Larry McMurtry world through which we would venture. There would be counties where there might be 4 rooms for those passing through – identify such opportunity in advance. Jerry had descriptions that required us to pay attention to the juniper trees on the side of road at the curve 31 miles from the U.S. highway intersection. Beyond the juniper, there would be pull out and a path, and down that path, a gully, and in that gully, the footprint of a dinosaur.
The week before we were on our way, Jerry had his stroke. The rational, though perhaps without fully thinking it through – the rational Jerry called me to explain that despite the type and severity of a stroke that normally killed more than 99% of the time, he was certain that by the time I arrived in three days, he would be ready to go. He had tested his readiness, by standing and walking. Though he was dizzied and tired by more than a few steps, he was certain that by the time we arrived in Big Bend his recovery would be adequate. As a precaution we would limit our exposure to steep trails and sheer cliffs.
That trip never happened. After recovery and therapy Jerry and I did take a set of road trips into the easy hinterlands of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. We would frequently pass through Fort Collins, and he would talk about his time with Janet during graduate school. On one of the trips beyond Colorado’s Moose Viewing Capital, Walden, we happened upon a “nature” trail on, probably, Bureau of Land Management leased land. The nature trail was maintained by an oil interest, and had signs that talked about the natural warming caused by carbon dioxide, and how the oil industry removed carbon dioxide from the air, pumping it into to the ground to release, safely, more oil to be pumped. Recycling carbon dioxide.
In his backyard Jerry kept something of a rock garden, perhaps more in the style of corralled rocks than, say, the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco. In 2008 with Jerry’s short-term memory loss starting to become prominent, we set out to Capulin Volcano National Monument in New Mexico. The noble goal was large round rocks spewed from a volcano. We hiked in the National Monument, and collected large round rocks from a rancher’s field, and then set off through the dirt roads of northern New Mexico and southeastern Colorado. We drove the entire length of the Dry Cimarron River, wandering onto roadside rock crumbles and into easy gullies. We crossed the grasslands, through the windmills and settlements that are relics from the Dust Bowl. We visited dimly lit, small-town museums that were housed in repurposed general stores and gas stations. We tried to use, whenever possible, Colorado Highway 71, which ran north into Nebraska to his hometown of Crawford, and beyond to Janet’s hometown of Hot Springs, South Dakota.
Jerry Mahlman in a gully of the Dry Cimarron River, New Mexico, 2008
Our last trip was in 2009 - too early for a last trip, but lives get complicated. It was October. We started up over mountains in Wyoming, but the roads were closed to our demure vehicle. So we hiked Vedauwoo Rocks, and then we went down a barren Wyoming road that had remained solidly anchored in Jerry’s memory. We ate at a Chinese restaurant, in a town that met the required criterion of at least two Chinese restaurants – to assure some quality from competition. The hot and sour soup passed muster. The Scoville Scale was unchallenged.
From that common place where it was understood that is was OK to be Ricky, not Richard – to Jerry.
ricky
Jerry Mahlman at Vedawoo, Wyoming, 2009
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
Exactly, nymore! I did see your comment on marketing over there. Which made me even more surprised to see you wasting your time arguing about it. I am a bit surprised at the high level of emotional reaction there is with respect to storm naming, a European practice for many years. There are more important and interesting things to discuss with respect weather and climate.
The other thing, as I mentioned that I find amusing at Dr. Master's Blog is the endless arguments and debates regarding trivial, irrelevant data and statistics. It's kind of like the baseball nut who goes to the game with his laptop or tablet PC, and is so buried in trivial data (not really analyzed statistics) that he doesn't see and get into the real meat of the game.
You directly said I know nothing about marketing, Then why did I post it. Now I see your doing the backtrack trying to save face. The old Potomac Two Step as we say.
I have explained my objections to TWC naming storms , I will summarize ..
I have no objection to storms being named as long as its unilateral . Its a farce at the moment the NWS (who everyone really gets their warnings from) Accuweather and Fox are not naming them this leads to confusion .
People argue hurricanes and Tropical storms are named who names them ? The National Hurricane Centre and all the private weather companies take their lead on the name and refer to the storm as such .
If they used the Berlin Model were the money generated goes back to fund the education of young Meotrologists and metrological research . It would be to use a young phrase Cool (but I aint terrible young that I will accept, being patronized by people who think they have a right to talk down to me)
Any money that is being made by this company is going back into stockholders pockets rather to increase research into weather .unlike the European model....
Also It had been claimed that TWC were the first company to do so but a small weather company already does so its not an original idea and does come off as a gimmick and marketing stragery.
Also I read that people who are unsure of man influence on Climate Change is right wing fanatic not all are ... I actually find it ironic that people who regard themselves as left wing are in support of this Idea (TWC naming storms)..but maybe thats because I keep my political opinions to myself even thought someone implied that I was a right winger... I hope that is a mature answer to your comment and maybe you should think more deeply about it ..
And boom goes the dynamite. Well said. Excellent post
Not Meaning to create an explosion just fed up of everyone being labeled and judged . But thank you on your compliment I posted most of it in the main as well. As that was where the arguement is topical . But I dont expect a response as I seem to be ignored these days .
LOL . Sometimes I do misinterpret things that are said as it is can be quite a different form of language in different parts of the world.
When I started posting at Dr. Rood's blog, I stated that I was interested in the psychology of AGW/CC denialism. I now I see that some of the reactions are due to sloppy reading habits and an oversensitivity to the smallest perceived personal slights (not including the frequent obvious, purposeful and pointed insults).
Also there is a level of emotional involvement that brings to mind the first two stages of of loss and grief - denial and anger.
Excuse me?? That is a figment of your imagination. I am beginning to agree with Nea - I don't know whether it's a reading comprehension problem or a simple lack of focus and concentration. Your words quoted above are pure made-up b.s. What I said was - and I repeat - "I did see your comment on marketing over there. Which made me even more surprised to see you wasting your time arguing about it" I stand by that statement, but am surprised that you could not comprehend that I was saying that since you knew it to be a marketing gimmick, that I thought that it was not worth arguing about! You could have replied that even though you knew that it was a marketing gimmick, you still believed that it was worth arguing over. I have no idea why you think that I accused you of knowing nothing about marketing. In some ways it appears to be an attempt to lash back over a perceived, but untrue slight.
My point was that I think it's silly to argue endlessly about a corporate marketing gimmick - I have no objection to you're doing it, but my "opinion" is that I think it's a CWOT (Complete Waste of Time.)
You have not tried to counter the rest of my argument so I guess the rest of my argument stands up to scrutiny. Thanks...
Edit added a couple of lines
Petty name calling and an attacking tone do not lend themselves to a "logical and informed debate". They show a lack of desire on your part, in fact.
OTOH, I have never in my life wasted time on an internet forum arguing over what I or others might consider pointless issues! ;-)
I've noticed that nymore and a few others who argue (not really debate) against AGW/CC also expend a lot of effort railing against the new marketing gimmick of a corporation - TWC - of naming winter storms. They don't seem to be aware that the commercial entity TWC, the owners of this website, unlike the NWS, exists to make a profit. Marketing is one of their core weapons in the battle for dollars.
Actually This arguement was not even in DR Roods blog until you brought it up . It was debated in the main where the main topic of discussion is the current winter storm and therefore has a place..
Sorry, but my experience in science and psychology/psychiatry has lead me to examine and analyze social situations - including discussions and posts on internet forums - and discuss them both objectively and subjectively without feeling a need to be politically correct.
It is fascinating that the observation of over-sensitivity to perceived slights has been quickly validated by the replies to my posts.
The psychology of human reaction to global warming is of great interest to me. Observing the interesting correlation of postings of the some WU members who argue against the naming of storms at Dr. Master's blog, and against the AGW/CC here at Dr. Rood's blog, caught my attention. I can only speculate as to the significance of this. I visit Dr. Master's blog to follow major storms, but very seldom post there. However, he also touches on AGW/CC occasionally and the denialist/believer flame wars erupt there, slowing down postings here.
I'm not offended when someone disputes my observations, but I am amused at the reaction based on ego-sensitivity and over-reaction of several people based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some of my posts. It makes me realize the the high-90% range of climate scientists who recognize the reality of AGW/CC must really have thick skins - especially those who dare speak out in public!
As someone who has studied Psychology and Sociology at University . I find it very interesting to see the pack mentality of some of the posters who appear to gang beat some of the minority posters . Sometimes my heart bleeds for them . I have been left very angry upset and insulted at being labelled ignorant which has happened, which I don't believe I am.
The labeling of all who question the extent of AGW and the future impact as a Denier is rather offensive and seeks to marginalize and dehumanize the person you are speaking to. I could give a historical example or two of labelling but I better not .... We are all human beings and hold a right to our own opinions .
There are a few people on the main that I have enjoyed debating with as they treat me as a fully grown adult and question my opinions without a nasty patronizing air . I respect that kind of debate and then when its a weather event we dont hold the debate against each other. Thats the way it should be . Not the attitude of because I disagree on one issue I will not give credit to other comments or opinions a person has but that is my opinion
I agree completely with your sentiments that civil conversations are considerably more favorable than the name calling, mud slinging exchanges that are too frequent on any public forum. I have long believed that courteous conversations are the best delivery mechanism for an exchange of information.
What stymies me concerning this is those that will make claims, such as yours, that civility should be practiced by all and then you begin to criticize only one segment of the population that is not always civil in their conversation. As I have suggested to nymore, if you choose to moderate then you must moderate all sides.
Opinions are a part of what helps to bring forth knowledge from its depths. Science is not based on opinions. Science is based on testable data and not on testy opinions. You most certainly have the right to an opinion on the science, but your opinion should be also based on the science and not on personal beliefs.
Rookie I have noticed you do not discriminate when you like a post . And I read your civil debate with Nymore . Its just that it seems that when labels get thrown around people lose their tempers and next thing the person who is being ganged up on loses it and can result in bans . Alot of people actually are these days afraid to get into those debates as it is almost a lamb to the slaughter . which is why I usually stay off this blog , and only when the mood takes me get involved in the main .
Oh, I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately the discussion of AGW is more often based on the passion that is held than on the science that is known. That is the sad reality of the situation. I understand the politics and the economics behind the debates. Science has a blind spot concerning politics and economics. Science is not concerned with how many votes it can muster in the next election or if a theory exposes some economic concerns. What I do not understand is the passion among those that wish to hold their personal beliefs in favor of what the science tells us.
The Laws of Physics show us the implications of what a 3 mile wide asteroid striking our planet would suggest for the survivability of nearly all life on Earth. We would be willing to invest all that there is to invest to advert such a disaster if the observations show us we were going to be struck by such an asteroid in another 100 years. I suggest that this is true even if there was a <10% chance to avert the disaster. Since that is our only option, we would take it. Somehow an asteroid is more tangible to people than is a greenhouse gas. But, the disaster that asteroids and greenhouse gases share is their ability to bring dire consequences to nearly all life on Earth. People need to know this. People need to have that knowledge to work with. People need to begin to behave as if they understand that greenhouse gases carry the same potentials for us as an asteroid due to strike us in another 100 years. AGW is a serious science that tells us we will be faced with serious consequences. That is where the passion should rest.
why is it wrong to ask who funds studies???
It is not wrong to ask who funds studies. The BEST Report showed me that this does not matter when the science is applied and adhered to. In the end, it is has less to do with the funding than what is valid science. As long as the science is the only concern, then the funding is less of a concern.
if you really look at the big picture both sides argue and whomever is right nothing will be done about it...guess people should learn to adapt to whatever happens...
Similar reason as last time you were telling me ?
Its no wonder I have got very careful recently....
yeah same ole reason.....hope you are having a great day..
could be worse believe it was bad around the gulf today?
If the asking is a childish method for trying to sucker another poster into saying something in writing - something that you think you could then jump on them for - yes, then it is wrong. Or certainly not a civil and intelligent form of argument.
On the other hand, if you were truly interested in supporting a point, you could simply say that "a graph posted by Neapolitan was produced by (or hosted the publication of) xyz organization, which has a particular agenda because it is funded by a particular organization. And here is evidence that that organization is publishing false or misleading information."
Simply badgering someone to admit something is like an old Perry Mason mystery TV show courtroom scene: "Your Honor, I object. The prosecution is badgering the witness!"
If you are truly interested in debating the subject, stop playing silly games and state your case with a bit of maturity.
yeah about 4 am this morn a strong front moved thru 50-60 mph winds....
so you will agree with all peer reviewed data and accept it??? or is there a black list of people you avoid if it goes against how you feel?
No and no! (There! Now you can refer me to as a denialist - a yoboi denialist.)
I don't agree with "all" peer-reviewed data, but the academic peer-review/publication process usually gives more weight than a simple publication of a paper by a commercial, or even non-profit entity. I would be as skeptical of non-peer-reviewed paper that supports global warming if funded by a corporation that stands to make millions from such things as carbon offset credit trading as I would a fossil fuel industry funded paper.
Also, a newly published peer-reviewed paper does not necessarily render invalid another older one one with which it disagrees, although that is a possibility. Usually, additional research is done to see who is correct.
Although it's a bit of an incomplete and simplistic way to look at it, science searches for reasons that things exist or occur, as much exploring to find new phenomena or mechanisms. Now that AGW/CC is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, most non-commercially funded studies and research projects on AGW/CC focus on why, how, how bad is it, what are the rates of change/progression, what are the implications for human civilization, and what can we do to mitigate it.
Meanwhile, back here at WU-Land many of us are following these advancements in the science of AGW/CC, but a few folks are still stuck on the ground floor with their eyes closed.
Just my opinion, but with HUGE scientific support.
Phys.org)—The Gulf Stream and the warm waters it brings are one reason the climate is milder along the Norwegian coastline than other places so far north. Researchers now know that the Gulf Stream is not only driven from the south, but also drawn northward by Arctic winds. Link
Good link - thanks!
Although anyone remotely familiar with global climate issues is aware of the role of the Gulf Stream in tempering the Climate of Western Europe, the article presents some interesting new information on some aspects of the winds that drive this surface current. There is no discussion, however, of any changes in the understanding of the role of Gulf Stream in the global thermohaline circulation system. Perhaps that will be a follow up study.
The last paragraph includes an acknowledgement of the dangers posed by AGW:
I find your comment amusing!
You are aware that this is a blog dedicated to climate change, are you not?
You are aware that the link you posted refers to AGW, are you not?
You are aware that the global thermohaline circulation system, which includes the Gulf Stream, is a critical component of global climate - and is critical to Western Europe's temperate climate, are you not?
Sheesh, I try to be civil and acknowledge your contribution, and you are offended? I give up!
There is a big difference between offended and disgusted
Have a distraction, if you will.
Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD
Yay! More opinion!
Viewing: 251 - 289
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index