Hot Outside? The heat index and you.

It’s been hot in the United States for June/July 2012, breaking many daily and all-time heat records across the country. In the nations capital, temperatures above 95F have been seen for the first 10 days of July, also a record. During such heat waves there is always talk of the Heat Index. Most people have a general notion that this means it feels hotter than the actual temperature, but what does this actually mean? Since the human body gets it’s energy by burning calories, it needs a way to get rid of the excess heat generated. It can efficiently achieve this by simple radiation up to about 70 or 80F. Above this temperature range the body doesn’t have enough surface area to radiate the excess heat fast enough. This is when you begin to sweat and the process of evaporative cooling takes place. When the air is dry this works quite well, but when the air gets humid the evaporation can not take place because the air is already saturated with water. In this case the body can neither rely on radiative cooling or evaporative cooling and you begin to overheat. This can become a dangerous situation resulting in Heat Illness, and is the physical basis for concept of the heat index. Daniel Engber of slate.com gives a nice description of how the heat index works.

This makes a certain amount of sense, but where did the index come from and how is it determined? A decently accurate short history and discussion can be found in an online article by the Capitol Weather Gang. Basically, a New York banker came up with the idea back in 1937. I was able to trace this back to a Time Magazine 1938 article called “THE WEATHER:Humiture Wave”. An excerpt from this article is as follows:

“The weather served to publicize a new word: humiture. The invention of a 38-year-old official of Manhattan’s National City Bank, Osborne Fort Hevener, it was first used by his friend Frank L. Baldwin in the weather column of the Newark Evening News. Humiture is a combination of temperature and humidity, computed by adding the readings for both and dividing by two. Weathermen called it a “fool word” but according to Mr. Hevener (who last week escaped the humiture by motoring to Quebec) this figure “gives the man in the street a better index of the summertime torture to which he is being subjected.” Peak Manhattan humiture: (with temperature 76 and humidity 98% of saturation) 87.”

Subsequent stories appeared in New Yorker 1954 and New Yorker 1959 Magazines. Hevener published his story in an article called “All about Humiture” in Weatherwise 1959. Granted, Hevener’s concept was simplistic, but provided some relative measure of the modern concept of a Heat Index. It wasn’t until the late 1970’s that a  TV meteorologist in Jacksonsville, Fla., George Winterling, came up with a revised and adapted version of  humiture, which he apparently published in the an article called “Humiture-revised and adapted for the summer season in Jacksonville, Fla.”  (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 60, pp. 329-300, 1979) and began using it in his on-air weather reports. I have not been unable to find this article, but still looking for it. It is reported that the work was based on Robert G. Steadman’s seminal studies, humorously titled “The Assessment of Sultriness”:

Part I (Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 18, Issue 7,pp. 861-873, 1979)
Part II (Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 18, Issue 7, pp.874-885, 1979)

From these articles there are no less than 20 parameters and assumptions that go into a model that determines the heat index. They are listed here for your viewing pleasure:

a.) Dimensions of a human: Determines the skin’s surface area. (5′ 7″ tall, 147 pounds)
b.) Effective radiation area of skin: A ratio that depends upon skin surface area. (0.80)
c.) Significant diameter of a human: Based on the body’s volume and density. (15.3 cm)
d.) Clothing cover: Long trousers and short-sleeved shirt is assumed. (84% coverage)
e.) Core temperature: Internal body temperature. (98.6°F)
f.) Core vapor pressure: Depends upon body’s core temperature and salinity. (5.65 kPa)
g.) Surface temperatures and vapor pressures of skin and clothing: Affects heat transfer from the skin’s surface either by radiation or convection, determined iteratively.
h.) Activity: Determines metabolic output. (180 W m-2 of skin area for the model person walking outdoors at a speed of 3.1 mph)
i.) Effective wind speed: Vector sum of the body’s movement and an average wind speed. Angle between vectors influences convection from skin surface (below). (5 knots)
j.) Ventilation rate: The amount of heat lost via exhaling. (2-12%, depending upon humidity)
k.) Skin resistance to heat transfer: A function of activity, skin temperature, among others.
l.) Skin resistance to moisture transfer: A function of the vapor-pressure difference across the skin (and, therefore, relative humidity). It decreases with increasing activity.
m.) Clothing resistance to heat transfer: The magnitude of this value is based on the assumption that the clothing is 20% fiber and 80% air.
n.) Clothing resistance to moisture transfer: Since clothing is mostly air,pure vapor diffusion is used here.
o.) Radiation from the surface of the skin: Actually, a radiative heat-transfer coefficient determined from previous studies.
p.) Convection from the surface of the skin: A convection coefficient also determined from previous studies. Influenced by kinematic viscosity of air and angle of wind.
q.) Surface resistance to heat transfer: As radiation and convection from the skin increases,this value decreases.
r.) Surface resistance to moisture transfer: Similar to heat transfer resistance but also depends upon conditions in the boundary layer just above skin’s surface.
s.) Sweating rate: Assumes that sweat is uniform and not dripping from the body.
t.) Other assumptions: Ambient vapor pressure of the atmosphere. (1.6 kPa), steady-state equilibrium conditions, wind gustiness neglected, all evaporation occurs at skins surface.

All this was taken together in a model of the human body to produce some tables, from which a multivariate fit can be made to produce an approximate equation for the Heat Index in terms of conventional independent variables, namely the ambient temperature in Fahrenheit (T) and the relative humidity in percent (R), which is accurate to plus or minus ~1 degree.

This is, in fact, approximately what The National Weather Service uses to predict the Heat Index. So, now you know the whole story of where is comes from and how it is determined. It should be mentioned that this applies to shade conditions and in the sun it can feel like ~15 degrees higher still. Of course it helps if you are 5’7, weigh 147 lbs, walking in a light breeze of several miles per hour, wearing long pants and a short-sleeved shirt. In addition, it is assumed that the following have been calculated correctly: vapor pressure, dimensions of a human, effective radiation area of skin, significant diameter of a human, clothing cover, core temperature, core vapor pressure, surface temperatures and vapor pressure of skin and clothing, activity, effective wind speed, clothing resistance to heat transfer, clothing resistance to moisture transfer, radiation from the surface of the skin, convection from the surface of the skin, sweating rate, ventilation rate, skin resistance to heat transfer, skin resistance to moisture transfer and surface resistance to moisture transfer.

That seems like a pretty tall order to take all that and derive something meaningful from it, so it begs the question: Is it really all that accurate or useful? Well, temperature is a relative thing after all, so perhaps it is not the actual numbers that matter, but the danger that such numbers could potentially pose for human health. I think that is the lesson and usefulness one can take from a weather report when a Heat Index is given. It advises a person to use caution, which is always a good thing for safety. Like any scientific model there are always variation in parameters, and not every human being is the same, but this determination of how hot it feels on a given day above 80F with less than 100% humidity for an average person is only as accurate as the input values. It’s just the limitations of science nature of the universe sometimes.

Note: Canadians don’t use Heat Index, but something called Humidex. It’s a similar way to determining how hot it feels, but is  derived from the dew point rather than the relative humidity. I am not entirely sure what the difference is in interpretation, or if any scientific comparison has been made.

Here’s a Heat Index calculator
Here’s a Humidex calculator

Just goes to show that there are probably more ways than one to assess sultriness!

 

Transit of Venus

We just had a Transit of Venus recently this June 5, 2012. Is this something you should know and is it a big deal? Well, yes it is! On average, there are 13 transits of Mercury each century. In contrast, transits of Venus occur in pairs with more than a century separating each pair.  The last transit occurred on June 8, 2004, the first of the pair in our time. The next pair will occur in 2117. In centuries before, several transits were observed and they occurred on the dates:

December 9, 1874 and December 6, 1882
June 6, 1761 and June 3-4, 1769
December 7, 1631 and December 7, 1639

The 1639 observation was the first scientific observation of the transit, but the 1761 & 1769 observations caused quite a flurry of scientific activity and excitement. This was a time of new astronomical instruments too. A nice discussion about this event during the time of Thomas Jefferson can be heard here on the Thomas Jefferson Hour:  Transit of Venus with Jefferson

Transit of Venus – 5:45:25 PT June 5, 2012

My friend, Gang Lei, in California captured this amazing photo with an ipad through an astronomical telescope in KLA-Tencor campus. I tried to view the transit myself, but the cloudy conditions did not subside until after sunset. I was pleased to see my friend had captured the experience a coast away. It’s a very nice photograph to capture the event.

As to my original question, whether it matters or not, I suppose that depends on your perspective. For me, yes it definitely matters as a cosmic happening and something rare to see (once or twice in a lifetime). It is a reminder that there is is a continued regularity in the universe hopping centuries in realization. This is something to expand the human mind and visit the cosmos for a time in reflection. I saw the transit in 2004, so I am not so disappointed to miss 2012. It will never occur again in my lifetime, and that is something I feel too. The happenings of the cosmos are not insignificant and they are time passages for us all…

Here’s a retrospective:

 

Day of Sagan

In memory of Carl Sagan (11/9/1934 – 12/20/1996) on his birthday.

His words about our ‘Pale Blue Dot’ is one of the best things ever said about the human condition and our place in the universe. The words are truly inspired and speak to the greater vision beyond our own mortal and limited viewpoint. Expanding our thought beyond the scope of our own conflicts and differences is something inspiring I think. Not just for the contemplation of the vastness of space and the grandeur of the universe, but in our own lives for perspective too. Thought I would share the words in tribute of Mr Sagan’s birthday.

Click on the image for an expanded view. For more information and thought on Carl Sagan and this perspective, see my earlier blog from 2005 here at WordPress: Pale Blue Dot

 

What is Time?

Man is inseparable from time - for better or worse.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant believed time is not a thing in itself, but part of our perception. Time as an illusion is common in Buddhist philosophy. In relativity theory, the postulate that the speed of light is a constant, requires that space and time become intertwined (spacetime). In this sense time becomes as real as space. It is sometimes said that Everything is Relative. Is this true? Here’s a Strange Loop:

The statement “everything is relative” is an absolute statement. If “everything is relative” is true then some things (at least that statement) aren’t relative. If some things aren’t relative, “everything is relative” is false.

So, everything is not relative it would seem, and I believe Einstein would agree too. Still, an objective reality outside our perceptions may exist. It’s an absolute, independent of any external conditions. Relativity is just a physical theory of reference frames, and doesn’t hold much philosophical water to make generalizations like: “everything is relative“. Human beings have been bantering around ‘relative truth’ and ‘absolute truth’ since the days of Plato. Arguments can be made to validate/negate each. I guess ultimately a statement is true if things in reality are as the statement says it is. But which reality? The objective one (absolute) or the subjective one (relative). That’s part of the human condition – to live in both at the same time and try to reconcile. Language is not always the best tool, and semantics can be troublesome, but such ideas are always worthy of a discussion.

Time seems to always float downstream

But what of time? Time does seem to be relative, and has a dependence on the frame of reference of the observer. This is embodied in the Twin Paradox. One brother stays on earth, while the other (an identical twin) travels at the speed of light out into space and then returns home. The result is a paradox – The brother who stayed on earth is an old man, while the brother who traveled is still youthful. This result has been proved by experiment, not with people, but elementary particles and their lifetime. Experiments with atomic clocks flown on airplanes agree with this theory exactly as the theory predicts. How can this be? It seems to have something to do with motion and/or the expansion of the universe.

Where does the time go? To know where time goes it helps to know what time is and where is comes from. A very basic definition might be: Time is the presence of motion and forces and is caused by the expansion of space. This is at least consistent with the idea that time began with the “Big Bang”. In a sense, maybe ‘time really does fly‘. Space began with the Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. So time began then too and is related to the expansion of space. I’m not sure space is infinite, but it’s probably boundless. Some suggest it may fold back in on itself like a Mobius strip. Recent theories talk about Branes, which is short for Membranes, and  M-theory of parallel universes offer an explanation for the our universe.

[youtube.com=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yEu-b_YD0]

accessory link: Before, Meanwhile and After the BIG BANG (M-Theory)

Some have suggested that the Laws of Physics are not forever, and may change with time, reflecting the expansion of space since the Big Bang. The laws of physics turn out to be a result of various symmetries in nature including space and time. This is what we know today, but the universe may have been very different at its birth. So, can some conclusion be made on the postulate of the blog: “What is Time“?

The physics aside, I am not sure. It seems to go in one direction, cannot be slowed down by normal means, makes us its slave, and inevitably is master of us in the end. Still, there is a positive viewpoint I see. Were it not for the imperative of time, what would be my motivation to do what I do?  Yes, there is the reality of that sense of limited time, but one just knows what must be done – somehow. It is the limited sense of time that drives me. Maybe time is the realization that everything is finite, even the universe itself. If I had a vision of it, it may be something Dali painted.

Salvador Dali's Perspective of Time

Maybe that is just the essence. Time may be just a perspective after all. It’s not how much of it you are given, but what you do with it that matters – at least for human beings anyway. I can’t speak for the animals of this world like cats and dogs, but perhaps they have some understanding too. My cats seem to have a more instinctive feel for time than I do. Maybe time is understanding that all living things (great and small) have a place and a purpose. Who am I to pass judgment? Time is the fire in which we all burn, so let each burn in its own way…

 

Stories of Stellar Significance

This year, 2011, has been busy in speculation on the heavens. As is usually the case, Science does have its surprises, or rather, I should say – uncertainties. Here are some stories of stellar significance in case you missed them so far this year:

KING OF THE KUIPER BELT

Which is bigger – Pluto or Eris? Despite being demoted in 2005, Pluto may be bigger afterall, but Eris is denser, recent measurements indicate.  It seems there is still some uncertainty in the size of Pluto, so it’s true size may have to wait until NASA’s Horizon spacecraft does a flyby in 2015. The true King of the Kuiper belt will be revealed!

The War of the Worlds, Round 2

Dwarf Planets (Pluto, Eris) Battle

ZODIAK ZEITGEIST

What’s Your Sign? A recent story suggests this is up in the air! Due to the precession of the Earth (like a wobbling top) and 2000 years of said wobbling, the signs of the zodiak are not where they used to be. Everything is shifted by a month it seems – Capricorn in January and Aquarius in February, etc. Now that’s a Zodiak Zeitgeist at work!

Did Your Horoscope Predict This?

THE APOTHEOSIS OF APOPHIS

Is Doomsday coming? Apparently NASA and the Russians disagree (slightly) on whether we should worry. The killer Asteroid Apophis is due for a ‘close’ visit to Planet Earth in 2029 and 2036. If it passes through a ‘gravitational keyhole’ in 2029, it would impact in 2036. It’s a 1-in-250,000 chance according to NASA. A ‘nearby’ approach in early 2013 is pending for more data. Stay tuned for the Apotheosis of Apophis Announcement!

Russians: 2036 Killer Asteroid Collision: NASA Unimpressed

I took the liberty of giving these stories my own clever titles as possible alternate headlines. Feel free to suggest your own. I have provided appropriate links for further exploration. On a personal note, it is interesting that these stories all seemed to emerge around the same time (Jan-Feb, 2011) and have some significance in skeptical science from the heavens – Worth a look in case they passed you. Here’s one more to ponder…

PLAYING ASTEROIDS

Is it as suggested – the first observation of asteroids colliding?

Did Hubble Capture Aftermath Images of Asteroids Colliding?

The heavens are alive with the Sound of Science…

 

What is a Living Thing?

I have been pondering the nature of perception lately and viewpoints in seeing things as they are from perspective. However, I am thinking large and decide to take on this subject in a grand scale. I have wondered at times how similar in structure and form the microcosm in living things resembles the macrocosm of the universe – Is the universe a living thing? Interesting question. There are some patterns here for thought to be sure.

The following link is a perspective on the universe as seen from 10E23 meters (a million trillion miles) away from earth, and progressing by powers of 10, to deep inside  a living cell on earth at 10E-16 meters (a million trillionth of an inch). This journey from macroscopic to microscopic universes is an interesting perspective. It is intriguing how similar the far field macrocosm resembles the near field microcosm. Check it out at Molecular Expressions: Powers of 10

For another perspective that presents some visual comparisons based on these thoughts I speak of here, see this short video on Youtube aptly titled ‘Living Universe’:

 

It would be a mistake to assume that a visual similarity implies something more than just the physical nature of things – physics and chemistry structures in nature and the way we perceive. However, it is pure human arrogance to think that the way we understand is the only possible way things are in reality. There is a subtle thought here that is to be appreciated – What does it really mean to be a living thing? It’s kind of a strange magic really. The reality and the perception may be very different. I am interested to hear any direction in thought here…personal or universal.

 

Order in the Heavens?

The Titus-Bode Rule of planetary distances is a curiosity in the annals of astronomical observation. First proposed by Johann Titius in 1766, it was later published by Johann Bode in 1772. In simple terms, the Titius-Bode rule predicts the distances of planets from the sun according to a simple equation:

a = (n+4)/10

where a is the semi-major axis of the orbit in A.U. (Astronomical Units) and

n = 0 , 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, …

The definition of 1 A.U. = distance from the earth to the Sun. The long axis of the ellipse is called the major axis, while the short axis is called the minor axis. Half of the major axis is termed a semimajor axis. The length of a semimajor axis is often termed the size of the ellipse. It can be shown that the average separation of a planet from the Sun as it goes around its elliptical orbit is equal to the length of the semimajor axis. Thus, by the “radius” of a planet’s orbit one usually means the length of the semimajor axis.

So, for the planets and dwarf planets in our solar system:

Table of Solar System bodies

The rule seems to break down for Neptune and especially for Pluto and Eris. Some have said this oddity is mere coincidence. If so, it’s quite a big one. It follows 7 planets quite well and almost 8. Pluto is not a planet now, and does not follow the trend, nor does Eris.

It is possible that this rule is a consequence of the gravitational makeup of the solar system. Perhaps other planetary systems have a Titius-Bode rule as well. It is interesting to ponder on and simple enough for anybody to play around with. Simple equations, known numbers to compare, and many an astronomer that think it is mere coincidence. Something fundamental is here perhaps, it just hasn’t been recognized yet. Explain discrepancies in Neptune, Pluto and Eris and something important will have been revealed.

 

Atomic Expressions

J. Robert Oppenheimer speaking on the first atomic bomb test in Alamagordo, New Mexico July 16, 1945, known as the Trinity Test. It is a powerfully moving and emotional expression.

“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now, I  am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that one way or another.”

For more exploration see The Atomic Archive

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Flash/oppenheimer.swf

 

Lock and Key

Consider this statement from the book “Presence: exploring profound change in people, organizations, and society” By Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers (2004), p. 51:

“The problem-solving mind-set can be adequate for technical problems. But it can be woefully inadequate for complex human systems, where problems often arise from unquestioned assumptions and deeply habitual ways of acting. Until people start to see their own handprint on such problems, fundamental change rarely occurs.”

Condider also this statement by Sigmund Freud, as written to his fiance Martha Bernays (Ref: “The Secret Artist: A Close Reading of Sigmund Freud” by Leslie Chamberlin, 2003, p. 66).

“I think there is a general enmity between artists and those engaged in the details of scientific work. We know that they possess in their art a master key to open with ease all female hearts, whereas we stand helpless at the strange design of the lock and have first to torment ourselves to discover a suitable key to it.”

These quotations encompasses some thought. I have seen other opinions as well. There is enmity between the ‘scientist’ and the ‘artist’. In my opinion, however, the scientist is also an artist, like the painter, musician, poet, etc. What does the painter, musician or poet try to capture? Perhaps a piece of nature or a sense of inner self based on experience. The scientist does this as well. A work of science tries to capture nature, or may express an inner thought based on observation. The difference between what people call ‘artist’ and the ‘scientist’, I believe, is a sensory difference. Music, painting, poetry, etc. are directly sensory in their expression. Science is taken as cold and calculating, only the facts of reality. To me, science is the greatest of the arts because it encompasses not just one or two senses, but all senses, although indirectly, by thought and reason based on observation and imagination. It is perspective really.

Artists are intriguing personalities for the ability to create a new vision and make us think in ways we have not explored before. Well, isn’t that what the scientist does too? So, why is the scientist not considered an artist? My instinct tells me that the reason is that science is not so easily absorbed as say, music, painting or poetry. It requires some explanation, and indeed, such explanation is demanded, instead of just acceptance as given to music, painting or poetry. Art has freedom of expression to go against establishment, but science does not? This is false. Science goes against establishment all the time. So, why does the ‘artist’ reach the ‘heart’ when science does not in romantic ways. Again, it is perspective. There is no separation of heart and mind really. It is an artificial separation based on emotional appeal.

The artistic expression of music, painting or poetry assault the emotions of the ‘heart’ directly, while science is more of the ‘mind’. I maintain there is no difference other than one of perspective. Are the paintings of Da Vinci or Monet more beautiful than the Hubble telescope pictures of the deep universe. Is the music of Beethoven or 50-cent more soulful than standing wave resonance or the 3 degree Kelvin  background radiation we all know a snow, hiss, static. Are the poems of Byron or Rumi more meaningful than Newton’s laws or Maxwell’s equations? Hmm…These are not easy questions. It is not a question of society, but a question of self and the perceptions we all carry entangled with emotion. It may be a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I am not sure I have resolved the quotations any further, and have lectured on my opinion of art and science. So, what about this key and lock analogy concerning the female heart? Maybe that’s it, the ‘artist’ in action acts as a key, while the ‘scientist’ discerns the working of the lock to discover the key. A different approach indeed. Very intriguing, and in the end there is only one key that fits each lock. There is no master key, no universal lock. As Shakespeare said, “The play is the thing, wherein I’ll capture the conscience of the king“. This is closer to reality than any analogy of tool (key) or mechanism (lock). The emotions are one aspect of mind, thought is another. Behavior is an art and a science in itself, not always understood to ourselves, but a thing of great complexity to be sure.

 

The Butterfly Effect

There is a thought that the wings of a butterfly in Japan can produce a breeze across the world. It is the sensitive nature of initial conditions. This seems very much like human life too in action and reaction – It can make such a difference.  I have become aware of the sensitive nature of initial conditions sometimes in just writing blogs. I see where I began, where I ended and how development can change in between. I have experienced the Butterfly Effect.

For a brief history and concept of The Bufferfly Effect see:

• Engines of our Ingenuity (No. 652: The Butterfly Effect)

If I tried to picture the Butterfly Effect, what would it look like? Motion and movement, but connecting beginning and ending, with random sequence in between. This may seem somewhat Zen maybe, but I don’t envision it as being a traditional Zen or Buddhist rendition. In other styles, perhaps  a surrealist painting in the style of Dali could capture it? Or abstract painting may be able to synthesize such concepts quite well? Below is a Fractal image that may capture some of the essence.

Fractal Image of a Butterfly

Have you ever wondered why the weather can not be predicted more than five to seven days in advance? The reason is a phenomena known as  the  Butterfly Effect. It is so named because a butterfly flapping its wings has a potential influence due to the sensitive nature of initial conditions. This is part of Chaos Theory in which systems appear to exhibit random behavior, while the model of the system is based on predictable behavior. In 1960 a fellow by the name of Edward Lorenz solved some equations on a computer that were fairly successful in predicting the weather. But Lorenz discovered something deeper as he investigated his model further. The predictions were very sensitive to the initial input parameters. As weather evolved over time, the predictions became more and more unreliable. The result is that weather cannot be predicted in long term time periods (greater than about a week). So, you might ask, what is all this talk about Climate Change, if it cannot be predicted? Well,  climate is different from  weather. Climate is the long term average of weather. It can be predicted in the long term. This is the concern of theories on the changing climate of our planet that we call home. Is it a natural cycle or a man made problem? Is mankind introducing a daily butterfly effect, that averaged over time, is gradually producing a warmer climate on planet earth?

This is your world on Carbon Dioxide

Call it Global Warming or Climate Change, it will become as debated an issue in future time as abortion has been in past time. It concerns not the question of human live itself, but whether there will be any human life left to consider. At an rate, some stories worth considering this year on a topic that seems to have a couple of names now (See links below):

• Jumping Into Extinction (1/12/2006)
• Global Warning (2/19/2006)
• Rewriting Science (3/19/2006)
• Political Environment (4/21/2006)

In all fairness, I feel obliged to offer a web site that shows a very one sided version of this topic. The following web site displays ONLY stories that support evidence against global warming/climate change: www.globalwarming.org. It is not all wrong, but very biased. I offer it as a challenge to balanced thinking.

There is a story on frog extinction that is quite interesting (See Jumping to Conclusions). This is contrary to the story above (see  Jumping Into Extinction). I have been following this story for a few years now. For those that are not familiar, there is a mass extinction of amphibians taking place. Many tropical frogs have been dying from an unknown malady. It is, in fact, the largest mass extinction of a species ever witnessed in the recorded history of man. Scientists around the world are working as fast as they can to collect specimens of the various tropical frogs for preservation. Scientists still do not know what is the cause. Is it changing environment inviting new disease, or is it simply an unfortunate disease among these creatures unrelated to their habitat conditions? The following link is a followup story on the subject: (see frog fungus).

Hot Spots on the Earth

I am a scientist, not an alarmist. These topics I bring to your attetion are for your awareness. You can check things out for yourself at the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Click on: Climate Data Archive

There is one definite “fact”. Call it a “truth” if you will, an “inconvenient truth” perhaps. Our planet is getting warmer my friends. The science is in and it is part of life on earth now. The question remaining to be answered is whether the cause is man or nature itself.  I only suggest that you think about it, as we all should be doing. This is not about politics or money or god even, but more about the survival of humanity, not you and I necessarily, but the generations to come.

Human Journey

Where are the generations of humanity now (men and women) as they have spread across the planet? It is possible to roughly trace the history of the movement of homo sapiens out of Africa, spanning 200,000 years, along with changes in climate in the deep past. Link to: Journey of Mankind. It would seem we have faced extinction as a species before!

So, where did you and I and everyone we know come from through the generations of movement and prosperity in the last 200,000 years encompassing the changes in climate? The Genographic Program is in the process of tracking humanity to find out. Genetic kits are available for purchase if you wish to determine your deep past genetic ancestry. Find out more at: Genographic Project

In the meantime, while humanity is tracing its footsteps and  you and I are wondering where we came from 1K, 10K or 100K years ago, there is climate change to deal with. If you wish to take an active role in discovering what is going on today, you can take part in an experiment to determine what is really happening by lending your computer, when not in use, towards this endeavor. To find out more, go to:  Climate Prediction.

My feeling is that mankind will survive for some time to come if we accept that nature has a will of its own and doesn’t need any help from us to decide our fate. We are part of nature and the process. We can, however, choose to be mindful and aware. The choice is ours.