Newsgroups: lter.ced Path: LTERnet!news From: Bruce Hayden Subject: CED 4.3 Message-ID: <1995Mar7.162251.5134@lternet.washington.edu> Sender: news@lternet.washington.edu Organization: Long Term Ecological Research Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:06:23 GMT ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *********** *********** ********** *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * ********* * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** * * * * *** *** *********** *********** ********** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Vol.4 No.3 ::: March Issue ::: March 1, 1994 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** CED METADATA ---- CED is the Climate/Ecosystem Dynamics bulletin board of the LTER network. In CED, you will find exchanges of ideas, information, data, bibliographies, literature discussions, and a place to find experts within the LTER community. We are interested in both climate controls on ecosystems and ecosystem controls on climate. As this is an inter-disciplinary activity, we hope to provide things that you might not come across in your work at your LTER site. CED is a product of the LTER climate committee and contributions to CED for general e-mail release may be sent to either David Greenland of Andrews LTER [Greenlan@oregon.uoregon.edu] or to Bruce Hayden of the Virginia Coast Reserve LTER [bph@Virginia.edu]. We expect that the scope of CED will evolve and reflect the interests of the contributors and users of this service. CED will be issued as the preparation work gets done (usually monthly). Back-issues of CED may be requested from Ray Bero [helper@LTERnet.edu] by the file name given in the masthead.Daniel can also add people to the CED mailing list. CED is now a part of the World Wide Web. Web users can link to the following URL: http://atlantic.evsc.virginia.edu/julia/CED.html Feedback on CED from LTER scientists is welcome (non-$$$$ contributions also welcome.) For example, please forward citations of climate & ecosystem publications on your site. We are keeping a LTER wide bibliography on Climate/Ecosystem Dynamics that we pass on via E-mail. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** BRIGHTER FUTURE FROM DARKER CLOUDS *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** [As mirrors of the real world, climate models are far from perfect. These computer stimulations of how solar energy and Earth's ocean and atmosphere interact can't even get today's climate entirely right. And when they're asked to prognosticate, the results are even worse: When researchers use them to predict how the intensifying greenhouse will affect the world in the next century, the models give answers ranging from a modest warming of 1.5 C to a scorching increase of 4.5 C.] I know what you are now thinking. "There goes Hayden again -- global-warming bashing." Not true! Replace the brackets around the previous paragraph with quotation marks and sign it Richard A. Kerr the Science magazine editor, commentator and neo-GCM basher (see Science V. 267 page 454). Kerr's comments were to introduce the Science reader to two somewhat technical papers on just how much sunlight is absorbed by clouds. Theory says that the maximum amount of sunlight they can absorb is 6%. So all the GCM use this theory generated number. For the last 30 years reports from measurement scientists was that clouds absorbed much more. This prompts the often CED asked question: Who do you believe theory or observations? Model builders are prone to select theory over observations. The two papers (Cess + 19 other authors in Sci 267:496-499 and Ramanathan + 7 other in authors Sci. 267: 499-503) indicate that the satellites and good ground measurements say clouds of all types and over all latitudes absorb not 6% by about 20% of the sunlight that hits the clouds. Chopped liver? Not! Cess is quoted in Science: "It's everywhere. It's Mother Nature doing something, something we don't understand." Apparently, it is 20% not 6% land and sea, high and low latitude. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** 1440 or 1370 or FLUX *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** It is important to look a bit at the history of the climate models. In the early models the solar constant was set at 1440 Watts per square meter. This was done even though the measured solar constant was 1370 Watts per square meter. The models just didn't work with 1370 but did an OK job if the solar constant was set to 1440. That is called tuning the model. When this fudge of some size was pointed out as being less than an ideal way to do science, they set the models back to 1370 and changed the ocean current flux of energy from low to high latitudes. It was sort of the GCMers shell game. The change just swept this energetic dust under the rug of dynamical oceanic complexity. Out of sight out of mind. 1440 Watts per square meter -1370 Watts per square meter = a 70 Watts per square meter "bump" to the solar constant used. Dump 30% off to space as part of the planetary albedo and we have 49 Watts per square meter to deal with. Divide that by 4 (earth disc area divided by spherical area) and you get 12.25 Watts per square meter. Dump that into the clouds and add to it the theoretical 6% (=18.25 Watts per square meter) and you are getting close to the observed 20% cloud absorption. Maybe there is a reason that models needed a very robust solar constant -- they had bad clouds. This is simplistic but fun. So what does it mean to have our clouds do a 20% job on sunlight rather than a 6% job? First of all it reduces the sunlight to reach the ground by some 25 Watts per square meter. If that doesn't ring a bell, consider that the theoretical, extra downwelling of IR resulting from 2XCO2 is only 2 Watts per square meter! So the atmosphere with its clouds gets warmer (it absorbs more sunlight) and the surface gets cooler (it gets less sunlight). Perhaps the GCM warming due to almost a century of rising CO2 doesn't match reality because the models telling us about reality didn't have the right theory in them. Modelers who have rushed to their models to have their clouds do a 20% rather than the old 6% job report "pleasing improvements in simulated climate." In the climate beauty contest of model outputs they mean it looked better. Some may think that I am overly harsh about the shortcomings of our climate models. As a card carrying atmospheric scientists who can read the literature, I must read the literature, all of the literature and call it like I see it. If I don't do that work malacologists and proctologists with their special proclivities might take on the job without the full spectrum of training needed to do the job. Besides when I read about global warming in Time magazine and Iowa sand dunes over-running the city, bile reaches my taste buds via reverse parastalsis and my wife says, "Calm down. Calm down." ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** NEW PHYSICS NEEDED *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** The modelers often say that they have the physics right and only have trouble with the metaphysics (GCMs). Well, 6%, the theoretical cloud absorption number, is now old physics (1943) and the 20% means a new physics is needed. Why do clouds absorb so much sunlight. There are three theories that have been kicking around for about 40 years: 1) large drizzle size cloud drops absorb more than your average cloud drop, 2) haze particles in the air in the cloud and in the cloud drops causes the drops to be much better absorbers, and 3) we don't understand just how much sunlight is absorbed by water vapor, especially by dimers of water (two water molecules consummating a contact). The cloud drop size seems to have been ruled out by the 1980s, the haze model is still alive, and the water vapor absorption seems to involve the not-to-be-seen-by-human-eyes near infrared part of the solar spectrum. We really don't know at this point. I might remind CED readers that if it is the haze particles doing it then much of the excess-over-theory absorption due to clouds can be traced to the biosphere and biogenic hydrocarbons. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** A NIXONIAN SMOKING GUN FOR CLIMATOLOGISTS *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 6% Vs. 20%. What did we know and when did we know it? The 6% theoretical maximum of cloud absorption of sunlight dates from 1943 and to a fellow named Hewson [Q.J.R.M.S. 69:47-62] When did we first observe that the correct number was 20%. That honor goes to Fritz (1951) "Solar radiant energy" in the Compendium of Meteorology pp 14-29 and to Fritz and MacDonald (1951) Measurements of absorption of solar radiation by clouds. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 32:205-209. There have been dozens of studies since. But, it is hard to dislodge theory by mere observations. It really is. Some scientists like to test observations with theory. The Science papers cited above are based on fine observational work. The theory is going to give way to observations. Science rules even if it takes time! ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** NSF TO LTER: MIX IT UP WITH THE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** In the spirit of a Scrooge augmentation-future, this issue of CED takes a looks at the some of the contributions that social scientists (those who use PSY and SOC as their course prefixes) that might get an ecosystem-type scientist all fired up. PSY/SOC literature is open to newsletter-writers. I have been careful not to cite any researcher who is currently a program officer at NSF. Hey, we are trying build bridges here not Schwartzenegger them. Here are some titles (only two I made up) I am avoiding because they are either a bit too hot or there exists real possibility that an NSF type is a blind or double-blind author. "On the ecology of political violence: The long hot summer." "Judgement calls in research." "Illegitimacy and the influence of the season upon conduct." "The influence of ambient temperature, negative affect, and a cooling drink on physical aggression." "Feeling and facial efference: Implication of the vascular responses in proposal ranking." "Horn-honking near the Balston Towers." . ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** WEATHER CULTURE *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** I pray thee good Mercuti, let's retire; the day is hot, the Capulets abroad, And, if we meet, we shall not 'scape a brawl, for now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet. The minds of men do in the weather share, Dark or serene as the day's foul or fair. --- Cicero ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** THE THERMAL THEORY OF BEAN-BALLS *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** In each year of the publication history of CED temperature and the human condition has won space. In 1992, we reported on global warming and brains and on global warming and a pimple plague for our youth. In 1993 an article titled "Climate, Liberalism and Intolerance" entertained us as did "Teenagers Cause Winter." Who could forget the 1994 gem "The heat has been blamed for an international outbreak of irrationality." 1995 will be no exception. My discovery source is from The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. This is a journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. The article is titled Temper and Temperature on the Diamond: The Heat-Agression Relationship in Major League Baseball. [1991: 17:580-585] Alan Reifman and Richard Larrick claim to have done equal work on this study. Alan has since turned his professional attention to alcoholism. He may yet return to the stadiums of America if the old guys replace the replacements. The notion that temperature is somehow related to aggression is explicitly found in literature of those two greats Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) and Spike Lee (Do the Right Thing). I am sure that some PIs have been steamed, hot under the collar, or have suffered from boiling blood. It apparently occurred to our erstwhile researchers that the bean-ball was a fine demonstration of aggression and not only that, but baseball "statisticians" have dutifully recorded each beaner since at least the 1962 season. In addition, our National Weather Service has temperature records for each day that every baseball game was played. In the 1,056 selected baseball games in 4 years ('62, '86, '87, and '88) there was an average 0.4 beaners per game! To me that seemed like a replacement level of beaners. Reifman and Larrick report that beaners are positively correlated (.11) with game-time temperature. That is not a great correlation but it is significant at the p < .01 (two-tailed). Sample size does wonders for the demeanor of the statistician. It turned out that walks were also correlated (.09) at the .01 level and walks and beaners are correlated. Give a walk or two, get frustrated and then heave the beaner. For games with air temperatures below 70 F beaners were penciled in, on average, 0.33 times per game. Between 70 and 80 F it is 0.34 beaners per game. When the mercury climbs to the 80 and 89 F range, 0.4 beaners per game are tossed. Above 90 F beaners soar 0.58 per game. Air conditioning and night games? You got it -- it's beaner-shortage city! The temperature correlation individually in each year and for all teams. Annual total beaners might, one day, become an index of global warming. Heat-aggression, as you well know, is usually attributed to excitation-transfer/misattribution and cognitive neoassociation. Zajonc, Murphy and Inglehart implicate vascular emotional efference due to elevated brain temperature which in turn is under the control of the venous structure in the nose. Without a firm understanding of the PSY/SOC literary background of these theories, CED offers the hog-mate theory extracted from Sunday night TV: Sixty Minutes! ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** HOG-MATE *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** The story of hog-mate is credited to 60-minutes. I am sorry but my memory cells are inadequate to recall the talking head who presented this feature. This story involves inpatient stud-boars, soccer-fan hooliganism, the fairer sex and chemo-mediated aggression. Hog-mate comes in aerosol can and I am led to understand that English farmers can get it without a prescription from their farm store. When the stud-boar arrives at your sty, your sow needs to be ready. Time is money to stud-boar owners. So, the penurious farmer whips out his hog-mate aerosol and sprays the head and chestal area. The sow works up a good lather and wastes none of the boars time when he arrives. The active ingredient in Hog Mate, the stuff that all the lather is all about, is extracted from hog urine. 60-minutes claimed that the active ingredient is the same as that excreted in human urine and sweat. Always on the lookout for a good story, CBS lackeys sprayed every other seat in a British movie theater (I think it is illegal in the US). The movie-goers entered sat down then shortly there was a sort of musical chairs. The women seemed to want to sit in the hog-mate sprayed seats. Next the same CBS lackeys sprayed several pub-goers of the male variety and soon scuffles and other forms of aggression were displayed before the cameras. Next CBS show films of the famous soccer stadium riots and collapses. In the standing room only section of the stadium, cheering fans did not like to give up there SRO space to use the facilities. A rolled program listing the players and their police records provided a means to get the urine to the ground with minimal mess on all but the windiest days. Well these SRO places became, according to CBS, loaded with human hog-mate and these fellows soon become hooligans. CBS thought it amusing. Now back to baseball beaners and hot days. In my view the big increase in beaners happens at temperatures above 85 degrees. Above 85 degrees profuse sweating sets in and major league hog-mate gradually wets the pinstripes. The potential for aggression increases with each inning. This then is the CED theory of temperature and temperament: temperature yes but only after it exceeds skin temperature and the juices of passion and aggression flow. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** LATENCY TO HORN HONKING *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Some CED readers might well have been involved in a study like this given the number of psych. majors at your average college or university. Here is how the experiment works [Baron 1976: J. of Appl. Soc. Psych. 6:260-274]. A "confederate" in his car slips in front of another driver and comes to a stop at a traffic light. The light turns green and the "confederate" sits through the green light. The near-by, mean-spirited researcher with his clipboard records the latency to horn honking. Baron found that people in air-conditioned cars were slow to honk compared to those who have sworn off Freon. Kenrick and MacFarlane's 1984 follow-on study was more elaborate [Environment and Behavior 18:179-191]. The measured latency to honk, number of honks and total time spent honking at "confederates". This work was done in Phoenix and temperatures ranged from 84 F to 108 F. Temperature and horn honking were indeed correlated (p < .02). The correlation was best (r = 0.75) for cars without air-conditioning. For air-conditioned cars the correlation was only 0.12. Latency, number of honks and time spent honking were intercorrelated indicating that the more latent you are the more you honk and the longer it takes. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** SOME LIKE IT HOT *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Jeopardy Answer: What is -- some do like it hot but most get liked more when it is cool. Jeopardy Question: Is it better to court and woo when it is warm or when it is cool? Griffitt and Veitch (1971: J. of Personality and Soc. Psych. 15:240-244) introduced people to strangers under various temperature conditions and then using a "44-item attitude scale" assessed first impressions. The hotter it got the "notter" the first impression got! (p < .07). ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** THOUGHT POLICE TAKE VACATIONS IN WINTER *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Does temperature affect thought content and thus perhaps aggression? Subjects in this study had to read stories and then make a "stem diagram" of the story. Stem-diagram-reading experts then classified the stem diagrams according to how aggressive they were. Both aggressive and non-aggressive stories were used. When it got hot stem-diagramers diagramed aggressive stem diagrams but only when the story was aggressive to begin with. Rule, Taylor and Dobbs (1987: Social Cognition, 5:131-143) concluded that hot temperatures can prime aggressive thoughts when the situation was somewhat aggression relevant. As a young Ph.D. student at the University of Wisconsin, I was informed by Reid Bryson that the kind of books borrowed from the local library was different on days of a cold front passing than warm front days. It's non-fiction on cold front days and fiction on warm front days. I don't want to even think about how much better my GPAs and GREs would have been if I could have taken those exams of days with fine Canadian Air. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** LOMBROSO KNEW WHERE THE HOTHEADS LIVED *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** In 1899, C. Lombroso wrote a little book called Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Little Brown, Boston. See if you can figure out Lombroso's rule of thumb for crimes against people. He concluded that such assaults were twice as common in the south of France as in the central or northern areas. Homicide was 31/100,000 in southern Italy, moderate in central Italy (15.2/100,000), and only 7.2/100,000 in northern Italy. He found that the rate of homicide was 10 times higher in southern England compared to northern England. Lombroso published his data and his hotter latitudes differences passed the p< .01 test. In the US it was 19.37/100,000 in the southern states and 3.55/100,000 in the northern States (p < .001). Lombroso's ideas do not apply to aggression when comparison between nations only within nations. Unlike interpersonal aggression, Political aggression seems to know no latitudes. However, if you want to be with the winner when a fracas starts up, get on the side of the country with its capital at the highest latitude. Lombroso did, however, find that political aggression was most common in July in the Europe and in January in South America. Modern US data, drug-based aggression included, confirms the latitude/temperature correlation with homicide, rape and assault. We also know now that hot years have more violent crime than cold years (p <.0001). I can see the headline now: Global Warming to increase homicide, rape and assault! ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** *** *** *** *** *** CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY *** *** *** *** *** ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** For crimes against chastity see A. Leffingwell (1892). Illegitimacy and the influence of the seasons upon conduct. New York: Scribners. The Victorians were indeed wordsmiths. Leffingwell found that chastity was most at risk in the third quarter of the year (subsequently tested using modern PC statistical packages and confirmed at the < .0001 level).