State Street is ready for the Line

While one can normally count on State Street to be a bastion of conformity and bourgeois manners, not withstanding the antics of tourists and occasional juvenile hijinks. But today was a day of small revelations. On a day like this one, we can again imagine a town ready for art and conversation.

Outside of Barnes and Noble there was Greg, whose busking talent lay (literally) at his feet: a dog, a cat, and a rat in blissful harmony. Greg is energetic, enthusiastic, and likes to talk about which YouTube video does his pets the most justice.

About the time I ran into Greg, it began to rain. Here is the problem. It began to rain, a serious squall, but the sun shone brightly and not a single cloud darkened the sky. Pedestrians stood and stared at the sky. A young girl threw her arms up and cried "It cannot be raining, it just can't!" Five minutes later the rain stopped. 

Each of us on the street had a new answer to the old Creedence song, "Have you ever seen the rain?" (coming down on a sunny day).  

That's a big "yes."

Further up the street, now in the bright sun, couples and families were sitting out at Andersons bakery. A street performer, probably homeless, carrying a guitar, went from table to table passing out five-dollar bills. The first one he gave to a young girl, who showed it to her father. "It's real." He handed it back to her. The second on he laid on a table of another family. The third he gave to a couple, who tried to give it back.

"Take it," he ordered. "That's the last of my money. The final 15 dollars in my pocket. Now it's up to my guitar to save me."  

He strode away toward the Art Museum, challenging pedestrians to listen to a new song of his. We all watched him go, I was wondering what medication had he forgotten to take today. Come supper time, he'd likely want his 15 dollars back.  

The spectacle of street-people giving money away on a rainy-sunny day made the stroll up State Street just about perfect.   What with the dog-cat-rat, all it needs now is a lightblueline.

Note 2 from DC: Uncertainty in our Climate Understanding

Tom Karl, Director of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) at NOAA, began his talk with the problem that human-induced climate change brings for our understanding of the climate system.

"For the first time," he noted, "the current climate observations are no longer reliably connected with the record from the past." 

What this means is that the uncertainties that human-induced climate change bring for our future global climate also have impacts on our current ability to use historical climate information to understand the future. As we venture into what can only be called a "new climate" the lessons we have from the "old climate" are less reliable.

This is another reason to be "climate conservatives." We need to help preserve the climate we were born into, to pass on to our children the benefits of this climate and also the benefits of knowing how to predict weather and other climate extremes.

Karl notes that models predict for the US that a day so hot it occurs once every 20 years will, by 2100 become a one in 2 year event.

Another projection about the weather is that the really heavy rainfall days... the types of storms that flood Santa Barbara, that might occur once every 20 years will occur once every 8 years by 2100. 

Note from DC: The Case for a Climate Service

I'm listening to Chet Koblinsky, Director of the Climate Program Office at NOAA ,talk about the need for a nation "Climate Service" along the lines of the weather service. He began by pointing out how extreme events in our weather increasing need to be attributed to either normal forcings or to forcings due to change in the longer term climate. We have a greater predictive understanding of the longer term climate trends, but not a lot of current knowledge on how to pin today's weather to these trends. Recently, Congress, following the lead of mayors and governors who have demanded more information on regional and local climate information, is moving toward the idea of a comprehensive climate information service for the national need.

NOAA spends about 250 million dollars a year on climate science and information. Much of this is spent on maintaining observation posts and information streams. The remainder is spent on analysis, modeling, and information services to the public. 

In order to fill the emerging need for a climate service, NOAA would need to expand its ability to assemble and predict climate features at the regional level. This means creating new observation capabilities and also models with higher resolution (a major computer challenge). 

Because climate research and information services are also done at NASA and other agencies, the proposed service would need to be a multi-agency effort. A good example of a prototype for this service is the National Integrated Drought Information Service that the Western Governors Association requested in the late 1990s. Authorized by Congress in 2006, this service provides regional predictions for drought across the US.

So we can look ahead to NOAA and other agencies that are compiling global climate and weather information to come together to provide governors, mayors, and other decision makers with the regional climate information they need... 

more soon

Is Global Warming a “Fact”? The Problem of Incredulity in Modern Earth Science

This one is not mine. My son, Louis Caron, is a PhD Candidate at Kings College, Cambridge, working on intellectual history and political thought. He's been looking at the debate over global warming and decided to apply Pascal's Wager to this:


The majority of legitimate Earth Scientists hold that the production of CO2 emissions from human industrial, commercial and personal consumption is a (if not the) central factor in the impending and ongoing climate change. Scientists posit that the kind of global warming we are witnessing today is a product of human activity (primarily the massive consumption of fossil fuels), as opposed to a purely natural process. They warn that our interference in the environment could have unforeseen and potentially disastrous consequences. In a report issued in 2005, the US National Academy of Sciences implored all nations to take immediate action against the production and consumption of fossil fuels and other activities that contribute to the release of harmful waste into our atmosphere. Analogous warnings have been issued by the most respected scientists, from professors in higher-learning institutions across the nation to organizations like the EPA. A rising sea level is but one inevitable outcome that would see millions of humans without resources or homes.



The effects of global warming are being endured by citizens of the 21st century. Take the Zaca fire in Southern California or the fact that we have witnessed the most severe weather reported across Asia since records began in 1880 as but two examples, then remember Katrina and the worst hurricane season on record in 2005 which included Katrina. Global warming is happening today, but the most dire will be endured by our children’s children. Reliable scientific research, research which makes full use of cutting edge data and information technology, projects a reality which our daily consumption of energy derived from fossil fuels will realize centuries from now. If most scientists are correct, our progeny will have to endure some of the greatest natural disasters the human race has ever witnessed.


There are skeptics, and a number of challenges have been hurled at these findings. The most common strategy is to label the scientific consensus ‘un-scientific’, supplying contrary scientific ‘evidence’ as proof that global warming is a natural occurrence that humans have almost no control over. At the forefront of this resistance are scientists like Patrick Michaels, who has gone on record as an outspoken skeptic of global warming. Dr. Michaels views climate change as a massive and generally benign natural process, one which no amount of human interference could possibly effect (those curious about his views can read his most recent book online at http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=357). If Dr. Michael’s funding is any indication, his response has been motivated more from a political agenda (he has accepted funding from Exxon and other oil companies) then from any objective evaluation of our environment or the affect human life has on it.


Far be it for me to accuse Dr. Michaels of being some kind of ‘political warrior’ whose pockets are lined with the commercial concerns of an established but endangered oil industry. My purpose here is, first and foremost, to elaborate on the essence of the objections issued by well intentioned critics of the global warming thesis, and then to illustrate in clear terms how these critics of global warming are consistently committing a grievous ethical blunder.



The first thing we need to understand is the fact that there are good objections to scientific evidence, to scientific proof. I will list three such objections here, some of which have already been used against the evidence that so many authorities have adopted to demonstrate our role in the developing environmental crisis. Foremost is the simple fact that scientists are wrong about things all the time. There is no moment in the history of science that we might cite as an example of scientific knowledge that refers to unchallenged and absolute truth. Science is, at its core, a probabilistic enterprise. It might therefore be the case that scientists are wrong about what is causing climate change, since they will never really be 100% right, and that therefore the data being pushed by advocates of global warming should be disregarded.


Science is something that needs to be tested again and again. Yet this debate is also influenced by cutting edge scientific research, which introduces the problem of ‘Big Science’. By ‘Big Science’ I mean the kind of science that takes millions of dollars to do, the kind of science that takes years of training to execute. The fact is that we can’t really test these conclusions ourselves, because they would be too costly in terms of time and money. We simply have to trust that those who have the training and the access to the data are not trying to pull the wool over our ignorant eyes. Such trust is difficult for many to place in the hands of an educated few, and in the case of global warming it becomes all too easy (and somewhat reasonable) for people to dismiss as ‘unscientific’ that which they cannot test themselves.


Finally, there is the simple fact that though the majority of respected scientists have lent their weight to this theory of global warming, there are dissenting voices. This has much to do with the problem of assigning a ‘cause’ to a phenomenon and gets back to the first point; science is about probabilities, not hard and fast Truths. We should, however, bear in mind that no one thinks global warming is not occurring; the debate is over whether or not this is something that we can change. And because scientists might always be wrong, and because data is always open to new interpretations, it very well might turn out that the minority (spear-headed by people like Dr. Michaels and his colleagues at the Cano institute) are entirely right.


To recap: scientists haven’t given us an inconvenient ‘truth’, they haven’t allowed us to test their conclusions, and they all might be wrong. The problem is not with science or the results of the majority of scientists, however, the problem that all too many fail to realize: this skeptical stance lies at the heart of all science. Science is not a dogmatic enterprise. It doesn’t tell you what to believe. There are always dissenters and there are always problems with the data, and there are never Truths. Science is not about ‘revealing’ the way the world works, it is about understanding the world, our affect on it, our power over it. It is a human enterprise, conducted to benefit human interests, wielded (in some cases to horrible ends) in the name of political causes. Science is a tool. And the fact that the vast majority of established scientists now believe that the world is getting warmer because of human activity should compel some assent.



But clearly it has not, and so the argument cannot rest on scientific evidence alone. Critics of global warming choose to fight ‘science’ by defending inaction with other scientific evidence. Yet these critics of global warming employ their doubt of science in an arbitrary and highly selective way. They forget that Dr. Michaels is as worthy of doubt as those he has chosen to attack. Critics of global warming arbitrarily hear what they want to hear, and arbitrarily choose what they want to believe.



When it comes to the question of global warming, then, the question being asked should deal not only with scientific evidence, but also with ethics and personal action. Lets say we choose to doubt equally all scientific knowledge, rather than to simply select which kind of science makes us feel better about our future. We then have to consider the consequences of our doubt. We should keep in mind that doubt is not the same as disbelief. Doubters think things might be wrong, they work in the realm of probabilities in much the same way as scientists. Simple disbelievers assert that things just are wrong. No one engaged in this debate disbelieves all of science, they rather doubt one side of the debate or another.



Given this probabilistic skepticism, we need to keep in mind what is at stake if we hope to act in an ethical and responsible way. If we doubt the majority of scientists and bet they are wrong, we end up saving ourselves time and money. Life continues unabated with the regular and unrestricted consumption of fossil fuels. If, on the other hand, it turns out that the majority of scientific research is right, we face a future whereh our progeny will not able to afford a car because the price of food, oil and water will skyrocket as arable land and potable water become scarce. Overpopulation combined with a rising sea level will make it harder or outright impossible for them to go to the club on Friday night, or to buy nice clothes. Diseases will spread as the manufacturing capacity of drug companies throughout the US and the first world are crippled by the same fundamental changes in the economy and the climate. If we actually heed the vast majority of scientists who are not being paid by oil companies and confused government administrations, the ethical truth (one that is legitimately supported by scientific evidence) is that the longer we wait, the harder it is going to be to make a difference.



The fact that even scientists should bear in mind is that the debate about global warming cannot be resolved with science, it must refer to a political arena in which science is twisted to fit the agendas of the multitude. The fundamental problem with this debate is that this future won’t be seen in our lifetime, it will be endured by those that live to see the twenty second century and beyond. Those of us stuck in the now, and those of us who are not afraid to know, must recognize the value of scientific data in making ethical decisions, but we must also realize that the burden of choice remains squarely on our shoulders. If we doubt the vast majority of scientists, we are choosing to deny our potential role in the permanent destruction of our own way of life. If we doubt Dr. Michaels and follow the weight of the evidence, we are choosing instead to capitalize on our chance to make the best of the world we live and play in. Is this worst-case scenario really just bald-faced fear mongering? No. It is a rational and highly sophisticated prediction of the future, based on the best knowledge we have right now. This is unlike any threat we have ever faced as a race; we have to reform our own way of life to prevail, and we have to do it not for ourselves but for a better future. Science is worthy of constant doubt, but whether we believe scientists or not, it is our duty to do what we can to better ourselves and our way of life for the human race.

Louis Caron

Lightblueline in full compliance with the MUTCD

It is always interesting to see how misinformation propagates in a town like Santa Barbara. One of the myths being spread (I suppose by people who get their news from only one source) about the lightblueline project is that this would somehow not be allowed because of the MUTCD—the national guidelines for creating traffic control devices.

Actually, the lightblueline is fully compliant with MUTCD guidelines for street decorations. And we have a traffic engineer, someone who has served on the national committee that reviews the MUTCD (formerly a City employee) who is willing to testify to this compliance.

The MUTCD actually has very little to offer in terms of guidance for street decorations. What guidance it does provide shows that lightblueline is fully compliant.

Note to people writing letters to the MUTCD: The lightblueline color is not blue, but rather “light blue” a color unrestricted by the MUTCD. The design is decorative, not linear. You can find the design on the lbline.org website. And the placement does not conflict with any of the actual street markings used as traffic control devices.

And again: lightblueline is a public art project proposed and funded by local residents, which received the same scrutiny and procedural review as any other public art project.

Note to hopeful city council members (and newspaper editors)… an ounce of research can save a pound of chagrin.

Back room Ranting: not simply misleading, but untrue

It has come to my attention that the local News Press Blog and at least one wannabe City Council candidate continue to rant about the lightblueline approval as a "back room" deal made by the City Council. This is absolutely untrue. As the Chair of the Historic Landmarks Commission noted when asked about this "The project went through the same process as any other public arts project."

It took several months of public city arts committee meetings (none of which the Blog attended) before the lightblueline effort was approved (unanimously and enthusiastically) at that level and thus ready to be considered by the City Council. The City Council then approved the project (6 to 1.... guess who the Blog interviewed). Then the project was ready to go before the Historic Landmarks Commission for the installations inside the historic district. The HLC also approved the lightblueline in a public meeting.

The lightblueline was and remains a project of Santa Barbara residents, not a "City-sponsored" effort. Only when the City Council approved this was the project able to coordinate with city staff to plan its execution. This is, of course, true for any public art effort.

That the News Press Blog neglects its responsibility to attend public meetings even though it wants to report on them (it did not even attend the City Council meeting when the lightblueline was approved) is disconcerting. That it neglects its professional responsibility to report facts that come to its attention is unconscionable. That it would support for city council a candidate the only platform of whom is a complaint against a News Press Blog-created fictional "back room" process is...priceless.

Buyer Be(una)ware

In the ever-moving target of accusations and arguments leveled at the lightblueline public education environmental art project the one that happened last was the most improbable: the idea that a temporary public art installation could change property values, up or down, in Santa Barbara.

Of course, the argument was made only in the “lowering property values” vein, although the exact same logic would have property values rising on the other side of the line (where most of Santa Barbara’s real estate happens to be). To begin with, the lightblueline project was elevated from an art project to some form of civic policy. By allowing the lightblueline to show residents a hypothetical new coastline in five hundred years, in order to help them realize that we have a lot to lose if we do not stop human-induced climate change in the coming decade, the city, or so the argument went, was announcing new rules for real estate transactions. Or, at least, the city was authorizing this line as a new vulnerability that property owners would need to figure into their plans.

Actually, all the city did was follow its own rules to allow local resident artists to display a piece of public art. The city made no policy decision/announcement at all. Residents are free to look at the art from all sides and make up their own minds how this information might require more thinking or conversations about climate change. Those who deny the science of climate change are free to laugh. Lightblueline is just as likely to help get the Mariners into the World Series than it would be in changing property values in Santa Barbara.

As NPR and the LA Times and others noted, the impact of the “property values” argument was to reinforce the perception of Santa Barbara as a city fixated on the real-estate bubble that has turned a three-bedroom, one-bathroom house into a winning lottery ticket. The notion that public education and awareness is bad for business and should be stopped leads to some seriously indefensible conclusions. If withholding environmental science information is a legitimate practice in the name of profit, then what other information should we withhold in order to keep the property values sky high? What else can we not tell the buyer so that they feel better about the deal?

The real irony is that lightblueline is working as hard as its volunteers can to save not only property values, but actual PROPERTY down by the waterfront. The whole point is to help coastal cities become more involved in the solutions to climate change so that their long-term sustainability is more secure. Realtors and property holders might be better served (in the long run) by joining lightblueline. All are welcome. I should note that a number of realtors have written me in support of lightblueline. So we will move on together.