"How do you think it's all going to play out?"

I went for a late lunch at Harry's Pastrami Shack on Route 9 in Westborough. I like going around 2:30 in the afternoon because my favorite booth is open and I don't have to feel like a hog sitting there all by myself because there are plenty of other places available.

Walking in, I notice a man who reminded me of Mr. Clean from the old commercial sitting at the table next to "my booth."

My "Mr. Clean!" got a smile in response.

My plan was to have some lunch and read a few pages of Dmitry Orlov's essay: Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century. I was in the part where he says that "an equally useful quality in a crisis is apathy," when my mind was being drawn to the conversation between Mr. Clean and a couple at the counter.

Counter Guy: "People complain about having to reset their clocks when there's a power outage. (On the TV they were talking about the storm in Denver) But it's much more serious when it's much more serious."

Mr. C: "Big changes in the weather."

Counter Guy: "the spring was worse with all that rain. I work for a pool company and we couldn't put in the pools. We were down $100,000 in receipts by July and there's no way you can regroup after that."

Later, and after Counter Guy leaves, I say, like out of the blue: "how do you think this will all play out?"

He looks at me and I say: "with the weather, the changes."

Mr. C: "Ya don't know. We haven't been there before."

I start talking about my previous posting about climate change and talk about Jim at Big Bear, California (he knew it instantly - I could see him 20 years ago growling up the mountain on a good old fashioned hog) and Laura in Sasketchewan. He listens attentively.

He tells me about how there was "flowering going on, on the north side of PJ Rhodadendruns; 6 months early."

He then goes on talking about the melting arctic ice shelf and how that's all fresh water and how it will upset the current (that circulates from the North Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico and then up the Eastern seaboard of the States.)

You really have to wonder how this is all going to play out.

For my part I liked how I got into the conversation with the elevator pitch of "how do you think this is all going to play out."

His comment of "ya don't know, we haven't been there before" is incisively spot-on

The other thing I took away from this conversation was how easy it actually turned out to be to "get at" what was going on beneath the surface with the right question.

He offered his hand, we shook and I left.

Needed: A Few Good Elevator Pitches for Global Warming

Here in the northeast the weather is just lovely. Mid-50's today and the Patriots won. What more could you want for the week before Christmas?

On the other hand, all this continuing and truly unseasonable weather is further evidence of a basic planet wide system which is moving further and further "out of whack."

I started Friday by reading a "rant" by Jim at his blog. It's probably not a good idea to starting off my posting with a suggestion that you go and read his post, but that's exactly what I'm going to do. Go now; it's the posting for 12/15/06. While there also read the comments section. Especially the entries from Arcolaura, and mine under the name of SimplyTim. Oh, and by the way, don't forget to come back here for the rest of my post.

Now, where to go with all this. I tested the waters with several people over the past few days. The form of the brief conversations was:

"Beautiful day."

"Yes. But so unseasonable."

"I'll take it anyway. Rather this than snow."

I would put in a few comments, for example, "I wonder if this is what they mean by Climate Change," or "It reminds me of Al Gore's movie - 'An Inconvenient Truth,'" or "Changes are happening."

Well the truth is that I thought those last three comments but didn't give voice to them. Why? Why not say it? Why is it that with so many people who have concern about global warming that they are hesitant to bring those concerns up for discussion? I point the finger at myself as much as anyone else, maybe more so.

The simple truth is that the people I mentioned it to clearly weren't interested in going any further with a serious discussion, at least at that time. (In some of my previous posts I easily went into what could be called an elevator pitch by saying that I had recently taken a "vow...I will rush no more." In those instances, the conversation went from there easily. Why not with this topic? Maybe it's because with rushing almost everyone can identify with it and have multiple examples in their mind. With the weather, with climate, it's too abstract. Maybe that's the real problem here in terms of mobilizing people towards action, towards outrage.)

With one person I said after a pause: "the change is coming."

He said: "Yes."

I had the distinct impression that he was just saying that winter will get here eventually. But there was a question in my mind as to whether he saw what I was saying in a much larger picture but didn't want to get into it.

And that's where I am wondering what some good "elevator pitches" would be. People in business and politics and activists do it all the time. Why are there so many others who are so reluctant to get the message down pat and practise it so that it can bring the conversation a few steps further. I would love to hear what some of your thoughts are.

Arcolaura said that she tends not to come up with quick responses while some others can. My sense is that there was so much depth and perception in her comments that it would be hard to spontaneously come up with them on the spot. That depth requires time and mulling over. However, her ideas perhaps could be shunted back to some of the spinmeisters to polish "pitches" which can break through, or invite more discussion; not just of the presence of changes, but of the implications and also what can or should be done.

Some other thoughts:

1. On NBC nightly news tonight there was an "in-depth report on global warming." I didn't time it, but they think 120 to 180 seconds is sufficient for an in-depth analysis. I won't even say it - yes, I will, are they for real?

There was a "chilling" reference to a new report that it is now thought that all of the ice in the arctic may be gone by 2040. I want to say: "WOW!" But the reality is that I don't know what that really means. I can imagine that it is big but what does it really mean? Maybe that's part of the problem with taking the discussion further with lots of people. The implications for most people are unclear. And with that lack of clarity, it's easier to keep doing business as usual.

A few moments later one of the scientists put it well: "It's what we don't know (about the implications of continued global warming) that concerns me. What are the surprises waiting for us?" Well said. There was a report in the paper yesterday about how they can't find any more dolphins in the Yangtze river. The end of a species, they wondered. I'm sorry, I can't relate to that. Maybe I have this gigantic blind spot but what does that really mean to me? I know it's important but there's that blind spot again - it's like I can't just see over the horizon. Maybe that's where the spinmeisters need to help out with scripts that will move conversations and me as well.

What would be a good example of a sound bite or an elevator pitch which captures one's attention, and seems to stop opposition? Well, when vice president Cheney said: "the American way of life is non-negotiable," it seemed that all discussion stopped for a while. That's powerful. It had the effect, I think, of stopping alternative thinking and by default, let things go on as usual.

Thankfully the discussion didn't stop in my mind and just possibly it didn't in the minds of many others. It takes time to look at that and to see behind the words and the rhetoric. Could it be that in the recent elections that is what the electorate was saying, that the non-negotiability of it all, and the raw power which is used to maintain that position is inherently wrong. Following that logic, the majority of the people didn't really know what has to be done, but they knew that a change had to take place, and they voiced that with their individual votes.

A lot of maybe's here, but maybe that's why the collective "we" don't take the real discussion further, why we don't make a collective decision to slow down, to change direction, because the vice-president was right, that there is a part of us which doesn't want to change. We'd collectively rather rush forward towards maintaining so nothing is lost. But remember, there is the other side in that same collective mind which knows it has to change...but the path, the route, the actions are not as collectively clear. Maybe my elevator pitch to that when combined to global warming is: "I wonder if global warming gives a hoot about the non-negotiable American way of life?"

In a somewhat disjointed way, I keep thinking about that frog in the movie, An Inconvenient Truth; if the heat keeps going up very slowly he doesn't do anything. He doesn't jump until it's a reflex - is that what we're talking about here? It will take a surprise, a threat to not the American way of life, but to the safety of the planet to then change? The nation know that we are collectively taking in too many calories, and yet look at the obesity rates. Now change oil for calories and wonder what would get the "collective" to change. The mind-set which is perpetuating the current direction is monumental and pervasive. The change will have to come from within. It will be a simple awareness, perhaps captured by the clarity of an elevator pitch which is so direct, so stealthy in it's clarity, that it leads vast numbers to shift direction in one way that will make a difference. Then legislation will help the mind-set to move in a direction, not the other way around.

2. As far as I can tell the government has been doing nothing substantive to deal effectively with this problem. Individual politicians appear "green" and will posture this way and that way, but as a whole, the government is deadlocked as usual. I'm basically a pretty conservative guy, but really, the political process on this matter is a joke. Yes, I know how that is a terrible overgeneralization but that's just how I see it. The bigger joke is, I suspect, most people know it, just like most people know that we are witnessing climate changes, but don't know how to move the process forward, for real. What we need is a good "meme" which in it's simplicity changes everything in a positive direction, at least with to the question of global warming.

3. A step in the right direction would be to do what the province of Quebec did, change the speed limit to 60 miles per hour. AND enforce it! Not with giving a ticket if you go 5 miles over the limit, but if you go 1 mile over the limit. My solution would be not to give a financially crippling ticket, just a modest ticket, but take a long time to give it. And then do it again 3 miles down the road, and repeat the process over and again. That would work. It wouldn't solve the whole problem but it would be a step in the right direction.

4. Remember that the basic rule of storms is that they continue until the original imbalance which created them is resolved. If CO2 is one of the major culprits, and we keep producing more and more CO2, and ...

5. A good piece of news may help. I went to two stores today looking for a copy of Al Gore's movie: An Inconvenient Truth, and both stores were sold out.

Addendum: 12/18/06 - My elevator pitch is: "I will rush no more! " Here's why that is so sweet: with that the emphasis is off global warming, and yet it's related. Everyone can identify with the natural balancing which is contained in the mantra, it gets underneath the usual counterarguments. And since rushing is essential to the perpetuation of the life style which we have all been inducted into, to change that piece, from within, one individual at a time, the possibility of "viral marketing" is very real.

Dimming the Sun and Seasonal Affective Disorder

I just wonder if there might be a relationship between the dimming of the sun (see previous post of 11.25.06) and mood state. My wife and I have both noticed that we are more effected by the shortened days of winter and by several consecutive days of rain. Also over the past several years I have heard more people talking about also feeling similarly. I am not saying that everyone is feeling this but for those who are vulnerable to it, it may be a factor.

I have also noticed that it is not simply a question of winter. I remember commenting several times that during the winters when there is a lot of snow that stays on the ground, even if it turns to "freezer frost," that my mood is not influenced by "the winter." This was never a problem for me in my first 60 years - I'm working on my second 60 years now - and when I heard about the "dimming of the sun" phenomenon it occurred to me that there may just be a correlation between the two given the fact that it is a new phenomenon.

You may be wondering why having snow on the ground for longer periods of time may have an impact on mood. Well, it's really simple; the snow will reflect more light and thus will act like a natural antidote to the impact of less light.

I have also noticed that I am less vulnerable to the winter blues if I "sun" myself. This is one of the exercises recommended nearly 100 years ago by Dr. William Bates. His book: Perfect Eyesight Without Glasses has been of interest to a number of people over the years although it is clearly not part of mainstream thinking. My only reason for mentioning it is because he recommended that people close their eyes and look towards the sun as they gently swing to the left and then to the right with their upper torso and head. It is a very pleasing and relaxing exercise. It also has the effect of letting a considerable amount of sunlight impact on the retina without hurting the eyes - BE SURE TO KEEP YOUR EYELIDS CLOSED. On a bright day my retina is bathed in bright red. It is a very pleasant exercise and I have never felt any discomfort doing this. Remember also that there is no rushing when practising it. Try it, you may find it helpful.

One other thing we have done is to a buy balanced spectrum reading light for our home. It is wonderful to read by and, yes, it reflects more light off the page we are reading.

Another observation I have made is that I have never heard of a person who went on vacation to the Carribean during the winter who came back to New England and complained of feeling depressed while there. Maybe when they returned, giggle, but maybe that is not just related to going back to work but also related to less light again.

Just wondering. I would be curious to hear if others have noticed a similar process.

Dimming the Sun and Climate Change

I watched a movie called "Dimming the Sun." It was produced by NOVA and was on a national public television station.

The long and the short of it was that in certain parts of the world the sun is not as bright as it used to be. I'll briefly describe the interlocking themes. As they say it will just be the top level of what was presented and discussed. Don't hold me to getting it exactly right but what I will describe is the gist of it.

Theme #1: About 30 years ago a scientist was asked to look at the ground temperature and the amount of light hitting the ground in Israel. He painstakingly kept records from multiple sensors over a period of time. This data revealed about what they had expected but now they had actual scientific data to support their hunches. It was important because they were going to use his findings to make informed decisions on how much water was going to be needed for national irrigations projects.

Several years ago and for some reason or other the same scientist went back to take the measurements again, I presume to see if there was any interval difference, or whatever. He was stunned to discover that the amount of light impacting on the ground had decreased. He was amazed. (ok, ok, I know the details that you want aren't here, but you can rent the movie and see it in its entirety and then add your comments to this entry.)

Naturally he wrote up his findings and published it in a scientific journal. He was surprised to find out that it drew virtually no response or interest. In the movie or on the basis of my own interpretation, I think that happened because it flew against the grain of the growing body of data on global warming. In science that's not surprising for two essential reasons. First because when ideas become popular, even with scientists, there is a ground swell which eventually becomes somewhat established dogma and this can lead people to disregard information which doesn't fit that pattern. Secondly, if you do enough research it appears that you will find some information which is different just from a statistical probability point of view. There I go again, and I was trying to keep it simple.

Theme #2: Then there was a climatologist in Germany who did a similar study in Germany or that part of Europe. She had no knowledge of the first bit of research above. She was similarly greatly surprised to find similar trends and she also published it. Once again there was little interest

Theme #3: Then there were two climatologists in Australia who were interested in studying rates of water evaporation on the surface of the earth in their area. I think they also had interval data which showed that the amount of "pan evaporation" had gone down since the time of their first measurements years previously. (They called it "the pan" because they filled a pan with a measured amount of water and then later measured how much water had to be added to the pan to bring it up the original level.)

I don't recall this part but I think they were saying that they were perplexed by the "apparent anomaly" because the temperature at the surface had increased and therefore they would expect that the pan rate would be greater also. They went to publish their paper describing this and quite "by chance" they came across the publications from Themes 1 and 2. They then ran some more experiments and found that the "pan rate" was determined by temperature, wind and the light intensity of the sun on the ground. They expected that the wind and temperature would be more important but they discovered that the light intensity was in fact the most important factor influencing the "pan rate."

Theme #4: The above themes plus a few others were then combined with some studies which looked at the influence of the amount of pollution / debris in the atmosphere on global warming in different parts of the globe. This multiyear study took place off the coast of India in a sprawling area of small islands collectively called the Maldeves. This area was chosen because on one end of the Maldeves the cloud cover was heavily influenced by the pollution coming out of China and India. On the other end of the island chain there was relatively little pollution in the cloud cover.

When the data was finally collected and analyzed it was found that the amount of light under the "polluted" clouds was less than the other area. This also had the effect of lowering the temperature in the areas of higher contamination. The explanation offered was that the particulates combine with water droplets in the atmosphere (clouds) and then the droplet-particles act as tiny mirrors which reflect the light back out towards the sun / space, with the net effect of "dimming the sun." (Please don't ask me why the particles don't reflect light off each other and then to my lay persons interpretation they would have a net effect of zero, i.e., an equal amount would be bounced or reflected equally in every direction.)

There was one other experiment which looked at the above theme in context of the influence of particulates and water vapor coming from the contrails of aircraft on light levels and surface temperatures. That was equally fascinating and was able to be conducted sadly because of the events of 9/11 where all air traffic was prohibited for a few days till things got sorted out. I'll leave that story for you to hear when you watch the movie.

The implications of this are important on a number of levels. What I understood was that the movie and the scientists were saying that pollution lowers the amount of sunlight impacting on the earth and by virtue of that lowers the temperature greatest in areas of greatest pollution. So does this mean that global warming is not happening? No, it means that the effect of dimming the sun is to lower the temperature in those areas of greatest pollution. Now here's the catch 22: pollution has to be lowered because of the significant impact on the health of those people who live in the areas of greater pollution. But in doing that the further effect will be that temperature will increase even more rapidly in those areas. Ironic isn't it that as the United States does a good job of decreasing the overall pollution of the atmosphere over the continental states, that the downside of that will (may) be a disproportionate increase in temperature. There were also other discussions in the movie of the impact of decreased evaporation at the surface of the earth on climate. How all this will impact on farming is of importance and perhaps some can comment on this.

This is a long post but I think it further points out how the climate of the globe is an integrated whole; what influences one part influences other parts. One moral of the story is that any one little piece of pollution may not have all that much impact, but the sum total is enormous. These researchers deserve a gold star for their tenacity.

In my next entry I will give you some of my thoughts about "dimming the sun" and Seasonal Affective Disorder.