Stir It Up

Hurricane season started today. Uh oh.

The Atlantic Basin got a little bit of a reprieve last year: only nine named storms and three hurricanes. And on top of that, the hurricanes were named "Bill", "Fred", and "Ida". I mean come on, did anyone REALLY feel threatened by that?

People way smarter than me are predicting much more activity in the coming months. Water temperatures are at record highs. On top of that, a weak El Nino is depriving the atmosphere of strong upper-level winds necessary for wind shear, which is really effective at ripping the heart out of tropical cyclones before they can get their juices really flowing. Add it all up, and NOAA is predicting up to 14 hurricanes, 7 Category 3 or higher.

All of that could translate to one of the more active seasons in history -- although hopefully nothing ever outdoes 2005, which spawned monster after monster in the Gulf of Mexico (Katrina, Rita, Wilma) en route to running out of names, forcing us to use the Greek alphabet to name storms 22-27.

And that's not even speaking of the BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana (Day 43 and counting). Sure doesn't sound good, does it? Could the spill throw a monkey wrench into the 2010 hurricane season, or vice versa?

NOAA released a nice little write-up on the subject. There are a lot of variables and possible outcomes. The spill probably wouldn't have much effect on hurricane development. On the other hand, a hurricane could actually disperse the oil more quickly by chopping up the water with high winds and seas. Or it could drive the oil inland via storm surge, depending on the track of the storm.

The worst storm surge is typically found in the eastern eyewall. Think about it: if the storm is rotating counter-clockwise (as it always will in the northern hemisphere), then the eastern side of the circulation is where seawater would most forcefully be pushed onto shore. Thus, if a hurricane slammed Louisiana, bypassing the oil slick slightly to the west, the results could be disastrous for the Louisiana wetlands. On the other hand, if one were to track over the Florida panhandle, the oil could be pushed back into the Gulf.

It seems unlikely that this question will go unanswered for too long. But you never know: ironically, maybe a couple of good tropical cyclones is all the Gulf needs to more quickly rid itself of this disaster.

P.S. On a related note, as I was browsing aimlessly through Wikipedia earlier tonight, I found this picture of a Hurricane Hunter flying in the middle of Katrina's eye. Is that not the craziest thing you've ever seen?

---
ADDENDUM: A new report released today estimates that the oil will invade the Atlantic coast of Florida "within weeks" and disperse through the Atlantic basin by the end of July. Helpful animation:

Sunset In Emporia

One of the calmer moments from my recent storm chasing expedition:

On Paper

It’s a common expression in sports, but it reaches far beyond mere competition into the deepest crevices of life and philosophy.

"On paper", the New York Yankees should win the World Series every single year. "On paper", the undefeated New England Patriots should have steamrolled the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLIV. "On paper", my Dallas Mavericks, having won at least 50 games each and every season in the last decade, should have won at least ONE championship. (A pain I am way too familiar with.)

What exactly does that mean? An outcome of a given situation is predictable based on the logical assessment of “paper”, a symbolic representation of hard facts, statistics, and data.

Of course, we all know you can’t rely only on paper. There are intangibles involved with EVERYTHING. That’s why each of the three above assertions turns out to be false. I often quote ESPN personality Chris Berman: “THAT'S why they play the game.”

It’s difficult to describe what these “intangibles” are. Randomness. Chance. A “human” element (as in, “humans aren’t perfect”).

Unfortunately for left-brained creatures like me who give enormous weight to fact, reason, and rationality, life in general resembles sports in this respect. Just when you have something completely figured out, to the point where you’re absolutely CERTAIN of the outcome of a given situation, life throws you a curveball. On paper, THIS should happen. But in reality, THAT happens instead.

Example 1: If you saw the season six finale of "House" last week (spoiler alert!), you saw the usually invincible diagnostician do everything right to save the life of a woman whose leg had been crushed when a building collapsed. Yet, as the woman, her husband, and Dr. House hurry in an ambulance to the hospital, her pulse vanishes, and she dies. This turns out to be a culmination of emotion and frustration for Dr. House, much of which involves the remainder of the plot -- I won't get into that. The important part is that he "did everything right", and she still died. As a writer pointed out in an interview: "If you do the right thing in the world, good should come out of it. House is trying to learn that lesson, and it hadn’t worked out so well for him. And here, he does everything right, and she dies anyway." The woman should have lived. But she didn't.

Example 2: Two people meet and are in the midst of establishing a relationship. They share like interests, values, intellect, and personalities: everything that should result in a healthy relationship...on paper. And yet, time passes, and it doesn’t pan out, due to some intangible quality that’s missing on one side or the other. There's no explanation. What makes it so frustrating is not so much that you can't "fix" it, but you can't even begin to explain why it didn't work.

Example 3: On our last chase day during my storm chasing expedition, we patiently waited in western Oklahoma for a tornadic storm to develop. (Almost) every parameter was screaming that a developing storm was on its way to producing a tornado. And then, on the precipice of exploding into a monster, it fell apart in less than a half-hour. There was no reason for this to happen...or at least no reason that we simpleton meteorologists could comprehend.

It sure is frustrating: If X and Y are true when I encounter this situation, then I can expect that Z will most certainly happen. Sometimes, it feels like an invasion of our personal sense of control: if I have control over X and Y in order to make Z happen, and then Z didn't happen, did I really have control over X and Y to begin with?

Then, I realized that this principle hints at one of my most tightly held philosophies. There seem to be two competing forces in life. Logic and reason have important roles, and most of the time -- probably nearly all of the time, in fact -- they will lead you in the right direction and correctly “predict” what will happen. But logic and reason simply cannot explain everything, due to these “intangibles” that lead to unpredictable conclusions. There’s something else out there, something beyond our comprehension, that directly contradicts logic and reason. Or maybe it doesn't contradict logic and reason, but it's so far over our head we just can't understand it. Whatever it is, it sure makes life difficult for hopelessly left-brained people like me.

I’m not sure if any of that makes any sense. Maybe I should just leave philosophy behind and stick to storm chasing.

JoshCast #23 - The High Road

I heard "The High Road" for the first time on Radio Austin at work the other day and found it oddly catchy. I didn't particularly LOVE it the first time I heard it, but found myself silently singing the chorus hours later.

"The High Road" is the single off of Broken Bells's self-titled album, released a couple of months ago. And oh, by the way, Broken Bells is yet another "super-collaboration", this time between Danger Mouse and James Mercer (right), lead singer of The Shins. (If they ever make a movie about Mercer, might I suggest that Kevin Spacey play the starring role?)

If only the song ended more strongly! That's my only complaint. Still, the first three minutes are worth your while:

Now I'm No Hot-Shot Politician...

Let's face it. After two weeks of storm chasing stories, I'm due for a snoozer.

I don't have any facts. All I have to go by is The Daily Show (NOT fact) and a personal account from a lawyer (also, probably NOT fact) familiar with one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation in American history, the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

I'm not here to debate whether I think health care should be controlled or facilitated by the government (*ahem*, it should), because I don't want to alienate my single-digit audience. But I am here to present an example of why, as constructed, the bill might not work like it's supposed to.

One of the provisions of the health care bill provides for a Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Credit. In shorthand, this is a provision that sets aside $1 billion for tax credits or grants for small biotechnology companies (less than 250 employees). Such credits/grants would reimburse companies for 50% of selected expenses incurred from 2009-2010 associated with projects that develop homegrown technologies that address some kind of healthcare need.

So it's designed to help domestic small business, which is the target of countless legislation over the years.

Sounds great, right?

Well, think about it. You're technically reimbursing companies for work they've ALREADY DONE, not work that they're GOING TO DO. I suppose that helps the pocketbooks of small business that are hurting, but is it the best way to encourage new growth? In fact, according to the lawyer I spoke with, companies that are out of business have every right to apply for this credit. And companies that are out of business tend to not grow.

I have to stress: I don't know all the facts, and I've unfortunately become so disenchanted with such debates that I don't have the desire to learn all of the facts. And problems like this are probably inevitable given the scope of the problem the government is trying to solve, the insane time constraints, and the compromises that are made to appease various political factions. I suppose we can trust that the committees that decide to whom to grant these credits chooses wisely.

But wouldn't it be better to reward future efforts than past efforts while we're on the road to recovery?

Hooray America!