March 7, 2016


News For The Day


CORRECTION: I stated yesterday that Nancy Reagan was a Democrat. The TV news just informed me of my error. Her son Ron, Jr. was and is a liberal Democrat, as well as his sister, and Nancy herself has recently said that she wanted Hillary to win the Presidency according to http://nationalreport.net/nancy-reagan-want-hillary-win/.

She spoke glowingly of Obama in 2009 in this Vanity Fair article: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/07/nancy-reagan200907, “Nancy Reagan’s Solo Role,” By Bob Colacello, June 25, 2009 --

“‘I voted for McCain,” says Nancy Reagan. “But I thought Obama ran the best campaign I have ever known—disciplined, well organized, very, very good. I was very impressed.” So imagine her surprise as she watched Obama’s first press conference after his election and heard him say, in response to a question about which former presidents he would ask for advice, “I’ve spoken to all of them, those that are living. I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances.” “My God,” says the former First Lady, “the phones started ringing—and the amount of e-mails!”

“As soon as I heard the words come out of his mouth,” says her son, Ron Reagan, who, along with his sister, Patti, publicly endorsed Obama, “I thought, There’s at least going to be a note written. Sure enough, that afternoon he called my mother.” When I suggest to Nancy Reagan that it was gracious of Obama to call, there is a slight edge to her reply: “It certainly was.” She doesn’t go into details about his apology, although she does say that she told him “he’d gotten me mixed up with Hillary.”



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/australia-navy-finds-2-000-weapons-somalia-bound-fishing-dhow-n533196

Australia Navy Finds 2,000 Weapons on Somalia-Bound Fishing Dhow
by ALEXANDER SMITH
NEWS MAR 7 2016, 9:43 AM ET

Photograph -- Weapons including AK-47 assault rifles and rocket launchers were found aboard a small stateless fishing boat bound for Somalia on February 27. Royal Australian Navy
Image: Thousands of weapons were found on a fishing boat bound for Somalia
The weapons are pictured having been seized last month. Royal Canadian Navy
A team from Australian frigate HMAS Darwin discovered the cache last month some 195 miles off the coast of Oman.


More than 2,000 weapons including assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and mortar tubes were found hidden under nets aboard a small fishing boat bound for Somalia, American and Australian officials said Monday.

The U.S. Navy believes the boat had set off from Iran and that the crew were Iranian, Lt. Ian McConnaughey, a spokesman for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, told NBC News in an email.

McConnaughey said an initial assessment indicated the weapons were destined for Yemen to be used by Iran-backed Shiite Houthi rebels in the country's civil war.

The weapons were discovered aboard a dhow on Feb. 27 but the find was only announced Monday.

The guns were seized under United Nations sanctions the prohibit the delivery of illegal arms to Somalia. They are expected to be transferred to U.S. custody for further analysis and disposal, McConnaughey added.

The Australian ship that found the hoard was part of Combined Task Force 150 - an anti-terror, piracy, and smuggling operation whose membership include the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and others.

It uncovered 1,989 AK-47 assault rifles, 100 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 49 PKM machine guns, 39 PKM spare barrels and 20 mortar tubes, according to a statement from the Australian Navy.

The task force does not have authority to detain traffickers in international waters and the crew of the dhow was released after the weapons were seized.

Yemen is locked in conflict between the Shiite Houthi rebels, who are allied with Iran, and the internationally recognized government, which is backed by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia said in October that it had intercepted another fishing boat laden with weapons destined to be used by the Houthis, according to Reuters.



“The U.S. Navy believes the boat had set off from Iran and that the crew were Iranian, Lt. Ian McConnaughey, a spokesman for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, told NBC News in an email. …. The guns were seized under United Nations sanctions the prohibit the delivery of illegal arms to Somalia. They are expected to be transferred to U.S. custody for further analysis and disposal, McConnaughey added. The Australian ship that found the hoard was part of Combined Task Force 150 - an anti-terror, piracy, and smuggling operation whose membership include the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and others. …. Saudi Arabia said in October that it had intercepted another fishing boat laden with weapons destined to be used by the Houthis, according to Reuters.”


I wonder how many wars have been going on at any one time in this century? I have never known a time without something in the news somewhere. Here Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting a proxy war in Yemen, or for Yemen. Powerful countries always want to continue to extend their power, just on general principles. I’m tempted to say that I don’t understand the psychology of it, and I don’t, but it’s undoubtedly about money. It’s probably about oil, or water, or some other desirable commodity. It isn’t just the ordinary citizens who want to stretch their international reach, but the business interests. Either way, life in a war zone is unbearable, and the people there are probably poor and starving. See the following article on poverty and recent history in Yemen.
http://www.ye.undp.org/content/yemen/en/home/countryinfo.html.



http://www.npr.org/2016/03/07/469457184/flint-debate-strikes-sparks-between-democratic-presidential-hopefuls

Sparks Fly Between Clinton And Sanders At Flint Debate
RON ELVING
Updated March 7, 20168:57 AM ET
Published March 7, 20165:52 AM ET

Photograph -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders argues a point as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listens during the Democratic presidential debate at the University of Michigan, Flint on Sunday. Carlos Osorio/AP


In their seventh debate, this time in Flint, Mich., Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agreed on the root causes of that city's drinking water crisis. They both called for a massive federal intervention and investigation of the lead poisoning there and urged that the state's Republican governor, Rick Snyder, either resign or be recalled.

But the two Democratic candidates also clashed over the role of trade deals in the deterioration of Michigan's economy, the usefulness of the Export-Import Bank and the state of manufacturing in America generally.

They also disagreed about gun control and the best way to expand health care coverage to the maximum of Americans. They had predictably different views of whether President Bill Clinton helped or hurt African-Americans during his eight years in office.

Sometimes, the contrast between their positions, aims and personalities created visible tension. When Clinton talked about cracking down on U.S. companies that move jobs overseas or move their corporate headquarters to duck U.S. taxes, Sanders was contemptuous.

"I am very glad," Sanders said, "that Secretary Clinton discovered religion on this issue. But it's a little bit too late."

At another juncture, Clinton noted Sanders' vote against the 2009 bailout for the auto industry as a contrast between them.

"If you are talking about the Wall Street bailout where some of your friends destroyed this economy," Sanders began. Clinton began to interrupt, then Sanders said: "Excuse me, I'm talking."

"If you're going to talk, tell the whole story," said Clinton.

"Let me tell my story, you tell yours," he responded.

There were also hostile exchanges on the issue Clinton's team regards as Sanders' greatest vulnerability in the primaries. Clinton noted that Sanders voted against a bill making gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed with their products, calling it a blanket immunity enjoyed by no other industry.

Sanders said Clinton was talking about a position whereby no guns could be manufactured in the U.S. at all, adding that he disagreed with that.

Both candidates admitted they did not and could not really know how it felt to be a person of color in the U.S. Each related experiences in their youth that brought them into confrontation with the racial schism of their time. Clinton spoke of exchanges between her suburban church and the youth of inner-city churches in Chicago. Sanders related his own arrest for protesting discrimination in housing in the same city, when he was a student at the University of Chicago.

But despite the frequent disagreements and reliance on sarcasm, the debate between these two candidates was a broadly collegial affair when compared with the two most recent Republican debates.

"I just want to make one point," said Clinton near the end of the evening. "We have our differences and we get into vigorous debate about issues. But compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."

Sanders agreed, saying either he or Clinton would invest "a lot of money into mental health, and when you watch these Republican debates you know why we need to invest."

If you have watched all six of the previous debates among the Democratic candidates, you know well the arc of the contest thus far.

Initially, the Democratic National Committee wanted only four debates, and scheduled this small number in time slots all but guaranteed to minimize the audience watching in real time. Pressure to expose the candidates and create more competition between them led to additional debates.

The stage at first included not only Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders but two other contestants as well: former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland.

Webb dropped early, complaining about his scant speaking time. O'Malley lasted until the Iowa caucuses, where his minor fraction of the vote indicated he was not connecting with voters.

Since then, Sanders and Clinton have met several times, and their encounters have been progressively less cordial. Sanders had been generous toward the former secretary of state in the first debates, even helping her deflect criticism for keeping official business on her private server while in office.

But as the Sanders campaign matured into a major competitor for Clinton, Sanders became more challenging, even hostile. In February in Milwaukee, he interjected a quick jab: "You're not the president yet."

The Flint debate featured several similar moments when, without becoming overtly nasty, Sanders managed to assert his presence and challenge the air of dominance Clinton has sought to project.

On this occasion, Sanders could also note, as he did, that he had won three of the four states where voting took place over the weekend: Kansas, Nebraska and Maine. Big margins in these states had given him a slight edge over Clinton in the delegate allocations for the weekend, despite her overwhelming win in Louisiana, a primary state where far more votes were cast than in the three caucus states combined.

Clinton could say she won more votes over the weekend than any of her rivals in either party, and she could say she'd won a million more votes than Donald Trump thus far in all the primaries and caucuses around the country.

Clinton's margin among "pledged delegates," whose vote is allocated according to primaries or caucuses, is still near 200. When so-called superdelegates (elected officials and party leaders) are included, her advantage swells to more than 600.



“When Clinton talked about cracking down on U.S. companies that move jobs overseas or move their corporate headquarters to duck U.S. taxes, Sanders was contemptuous. "I am very glad," Sanders said, "that Secretary Clinton discovered religion on this issue. But it's a little bit too late." …. "If you are talking about the Wall Street bailout where some of your friends destroyed this economy," Sanders began. Clinton began to interrupt, then Sanders said: "Excuse me, I'm talking." "If you're going to talk, tell the whole story," said Clinton. "Let me tell my story, you tell yours," he responded. …. Both candidates admitted they did not and could not really know how it felt to be a person of color in the U.S. …. Sanders related his own arrest for protesting discrimination in housing in the same city, when he was a student at the University of Chicago. But despite the frequent disagreements and reliance on sarcasm, the debate between these two candidates was a broadly collegial affair when compared with the two most recent Republican debates. …. Sanders agreed, saying either he or Clinton would invest "a lot of money into mental health, and when you watch these Republican debates you know why we need to invest." …. But as the Sanders campaign matured into a major competitor for Clinton, Sanders became more challenging, even hostile. In February in Milwaukee, he interjected a quick jab: "You're not the president yet." …. Clinton could say she won more votes over the weekend than any of her rivals in either party, and she could say she'd won a million more votes than Donald Trump thus far in all the primaries and caucuses around the country.”


I can say truthfully that our Dems have shown themselves to be much cleaner in the things they have said, and more interested in realistic issues that are important to the US as a society, in my opinion. The Republicans don’t care what they say – except for Ben Carson and Kasich who are gentlemen and serious-minded – as long as it isn’t in any way something that strays from the narrow set of party dogmas. Promising something for the needy would be philosophically disgusting, since the poor are “too lazy to work,” and spending too many dollars on the infrastructure or on a better school system would be “wasteful.” I’m proud of both our candidates and will happily vote for either of them.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-seals-short-on-rifles-congressman-says/

Navy SEALS short on rifles, congressman says
AP March 7, 2016, 6:47 AM


WASHINGTON -- The tip of the spear may be losing its edge.

Navy SEAL teams don't have enough combat rifles to go around, even as these highly trained forces are relied on more than ever to carry out counterterrorism operations and other secretive missions, according to SEALs who have confided in Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

After SEALs return from a deployment, their rifles are given to other commandos who are shipping out, said Hunter, a former Marine who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. This weapons carousel undercuts the "train like you fight" ethos of the U.S. special operations forces, they said.

Hunter said he's been contacted by several SEALs, but he declined to provide further information about the weapons they use in order to protect their identities.

U.S. military officials said they were looking into the issue.

Sharing rifles may seem inconsequential. It's not. The weapons, which are outfitted with telescopic targeting sights and laser pointers, are fine-tuned to individual specifications and become intensely personal pieces of gear.

"They want their rifles," Hunter said. "It's their lifeline. So let them keep their guns until they're assigned desk jobs at the Pentagon."

The problem isn't a lack of money, according to Hunter. Congress has frequently boosted the budgets of special operations forces in the years since the 9/11 attacks, he said. Rifles also are among the least expensive items the military buys, leading Hunter to question the priorities of Naval Special Warfare Command, the Coronado, California, organization that oversees the SEALs.

"There is so much wasteful spending," he said. "Money is not reaching the people it needs to reach."

Combat rifles can cost up to several thousand dollars depending upon the type of weapon and quality of the sights and other attachments. But the M-4 carbine, the standard combat rifle used by the military branches, cost less than $1,000 each when bought in bulk, according to Defense Department budget documents.

Hunter wrote last month to the Naval Special Warfare Command's leader, Rear Adm. Brian Losey, about the alleged weapon shortage and also asked him for a full accounting of how the command's budget was spent last year. Losey has told Hunter to expect a reply by Wednesday.

Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the top officer at U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida, and Losey's superior, told Hunter last week he is aware of the congressman's concerns. "We're certainly running that down," Votel said during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.

Votel added that heavily used rifles need to undergo maintenance and that may be contributing to the perception of a shortage. But "we'll certainly take immediate action," Votel said, if it's determined the combat readiness of the SEALs is being degraded.

One of the SEALs who contacted Hunter blamed a slow, penny-pinching bureaucracy that rarely seeks input from the service members who use the gear, according to a brief excerpt of his comments that the congressman's office provided to The Associated Press.

Delays of as long as three to four years paralyze the acquisition system, the SEAL said. Once an item has finally been approved for purchase, new and better gear may be available, triggering the same lengthy screening process to see if it's worth getting instead.

Ammunition also is in short supply for training, the SEAL said, because the bulk of it is being used for combat missions.

Hunter also questioned whether the expense of expanding the size of the special operations forces could have left too little in the budget for weapons.

To meet heavy demand, the number of active-duty troops assigned to Special Operations Command, which includes SEALs, Army Green Berets and Rangers, and Air Force combat controllers, has grown dramatically during the past decade - from more than 33,600 to 56,000. There are 2,710 SEALs.

The budget for Special Operations Command is $10.4 billion and the Obama administration is proposing a $400 million increase over the current total for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

In his Feb. 17 letter to Losey, Hunter also said he's received reports that the command is slow to settle official travel claims due in part to money shortages. This can cause personal and professional problems for SEALs, who hold high-level security clearances, he said.

Service members who hold U.S. government travel charge cards are ultimately responsible for any late fees, interest and accrued balance on the card. So if the government fails to quickly process a voucher, the service member might have to pay out of pocket or face an overdue bill. A lapse in payment could be forwarded to a credit agency, Hunter said, and that could result in a SEAL being declared ineligible to hold a clearance.



“The weapons, which are outfitted with telescopic targeting sights and laser pointers, are fine-tuned to individual specifications and become intensely personal pieces of gear. …. One of the SEALs who contacted Hunter blamed a slow, penny-pinching bureaucracy that rarely seeks input from the service members who use the gear …. Ammunition also is in short supply for training, the SEAL said, because the bulk of it is being used for combat missions. …. The budget for Special Operations Command is $10.4 billion and the Obama administration is proposing a $400 million increase over the current total for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. …. Service members who hold U.S. government travel charge cards are ultimately responsible for any late fees, interest and accrued balance on the card. So if the government fails to quickly process a voucher, the service member might have to pay out of pocket or face an overdue bill. A lapse in payment could be forwarded to a credit agency, Hunter said, and that could result in a SEAL being declared ineligible to hold a clearance.


The need for every soldier to have a rifle of his very own isn’t clear to me. If those weapons are tailored on an individual basis to a particular fighter, that seems to me to be very expensive and not particularly necessary. If we are rotating people in and out of the conflict zones it makes perfect sense to me to have the same basic weapon for all, and to “share” them as they are now doing. Soldiers don’t and shouldn’t own their weapons. What is important is that there is a weapon available every time one is needed.

The lack of ammunition seems worse to me. They have to practice, and in a real war zone, they should have plenty. Lack of ammunition is one of the major complaints of the Kurds who, along with Iraqis, are now in battle against ISIS. If we aren’t going to send soldiers in – ground troops, I mean – we should send more equipment. Some of that surplus that was sent to our city police forces would be a good idea. I’ll bet they would be glad to get it.

As for allowing our fighters to get stuck with bills for something they shouldn’t have to pay in the first place, that is disgusting. Slow pay by the military isn’t new, however. I was never interested in joining the military, but I think those who do should be treated more fairly than to have to go into debt in such a situation. It really looks bad for our government and army. If financial corruption is at the root of the problem, that should be rooted out and the guilty punished. I hope to hear about some improvement in the matter soon.



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201603/beware-americas-shocking-loss-empathy

Beware America's Shocking Loss of Empathy
The symptoms of a society coming unhinged
David Niose
Our Humanity, Naturally
Posted Mar 06, 2016

Photo by Gage Skidmore, creative commons license


Here’s a sobering thought for the idealists among us: Even if we someday achieve a truly fair and just society, that society will nevertheless be inhabited by the same species that produced the Holocaust. “Humans are capable of many things,” as author Noam Chomsky once told me (link is external). “Some of them are horrible, some are wonderful.”

Knowing that the human animal’s behavioral capacities cover a spectrum from the horrific to the kindhearted, it seems obvious that our challenge going forward is to create social structures that lead to the more desirable outcomes. There’s plenty of room for debate over details, but the basic framework of where we want to go shouldn’t be very controversial: general prosperity, a healthy and educated population, a government free of corruption and responsive to human needs, a sustainable natural environment, and a safe and free social environment.

Most would agree that the political realm is an important component in achieving such a society, but if that's so we should be concerned about the state of affairs in America today. That is, the country’s political dynamics—the interactions between candidates, the policy proposals being considered, and even the conduct of ordinary citizens—increasingly reflect a complete lack of human empathy, a view toward others that is willfully insensitive, if not outright contemptuous. The objective observer is left wondering whether the United States, politically and as a society, is sliding toward ominous realms on that aforementioned spectrum of potential behaviors.

Donald Trump’s now-famous Mexican wall proposal is perhaps the most obvious example of America’s conscious detachment from the rest of humanity, but it’s not the worst. That distinction would probably go to Ted Cruz, who declared that he would carpet bomb (link is external) the Middle East, bragging that he would find out “if sand can glow in the dark,” apparently with little concern about the loss of innocent life.

Blame the candidates for this devolved level of discourse, but bear in mind that they make such statements with confidence that voter support will follow. And it has, for Trump and Cruz are among the few still standing from what was once a large field. As the candidates on the GOP debate stage last week chose to insult one another (link is external) rather than debate serious policy, voters are getting the political discourse that reflects their own mindset: angry, fearful, incapable of complex analysis, and hostile toward others.

Little wonder, then, that Trump’s demagoguery has such appeal. Feeding the frustration of a working class that has been decimated, Trump disparages one group after another—Mexicans, Muslims, African-Americans, Asians, women, and of course his competitors—and he rises in the polls. Adversaries are quickly branded “losers” (link is external) or “flunkies” (link is external) or “dopes” (link is external) or “lowlifes.” (link is external)

Empathy, and its close cousin compassion, can be reflected in public policy that shows concern for fellow humans. In response to the economic crisis of the 1930s, for example, America embraced the New Deal, with public works projects (link is external) that benefited everyone and other programs (link is external) that promoted a sense that, as a society, we are all in this together. Even though politics was still contentious and the nation grappled with numerous social problems, a sense of a shared humanity was seen in public policy and political rhetoric.

Contrast this to the mood in America today, where almost all discourse is uncivil, whether online, on cable television or on the debate stage, and the utter lack of empathy becomes apparent. Nobody cares to calm down, to consider what it’s like to walk in the other person's shoes, to entertain the notion that others may feel the way they do for reasons that are understandable and valid. Instead today's America, from our presidential candidates to our blogosphere and major media, more often thrives on outrage, emotion, and personal attacks.

It's noteworthy, and undeniable, that two antonyms of empathy—disdain and indifference—have become cornerstones of American politics. When outsiders are routinely reviled, targeted for blame by an impulsive population that isn’t capable of rational thought, bad things can happen. Add doses of anti-intellectualism, nationalism (link is external), and militarism (link is external) to the mix, and you have a formula for disaster. Just ask Germany (link is external).

Empathetic and compassionate policy does not require that a society sacrifice its well being for the betterment of strangers, but it does require an intelligent assessment of what is happening internally and around the world, a minimal level of humane values, and rational attempts to apply those values. Nobody would ever claim that America has been a model for empathy—our history of slavery and racism negates that possibility immediately, as do many of our military escapades and foreign policy priorities. But nevertheless, the affirmative disavowal of empathy in America today is in many ways unique.

Consider, for example, the way Trump not only endorsed the use of torture, but did so in a way that doesn’t even portray the decision as regrettable, as a necessary evil. Instead, he boldly insisted (link is external) that “even if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway.” And the crowd erupts in cheers.

If this doesn't worry you, it should. Bear in mind that even the Democratic frontrunner points to an alleged war criminal (link is external), Henry Kissinger, as her foreign policy mentor of sorts. Suffice it to say that empathy was not one of Kissinger’s prominent qualities.

Meanwhile, the one major-party campaign that rejects such a view of the world is labeled "too idealistic (link is external).” Though I began this piece with a sobering thought for idealists, I wouldn’t necessarily want to suggest that idealism should be dismissed. After all, nowadays it seems to be the only view that doesn’t reject empathy. And without empathy, our humanity is dead.

David Niose's latest book is Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason (link is external).
Follow on Twitter: @ahadave (link is external)
Get David Niose's Newsletter



"There’s plenty of room for debate over details, but the basic framework of where we want to go shouldn’t be very controversial: general prosperity, a healthy and educated population, a government free of corruption and responsive to human needs, a sustainable natural environment, and a safe and free social environment. …. That is, the country’s political dynamics—the interactions between candidates, the policy proposals being considered, and even the conduct of ordinary citizens—increasingly reflect a complete lack of human empathy, a view toward others that is willfully insensitive, if not outright contemptuous. …. That distinction would probably go to Ted Cruz, who declared that he would carpet bomb (link is external) the Middle East, bragging that he would find out “if sand can glow in the dark,” apparently with little concern about the loss of innocent life. …. As the candidates on the GOP debate stage last week chose to insult one another (link is external) rather than debate serious policy, voters are getting the political discourse that reflects their own mindset: angry, fearful, incapable of complex analysis, and hostile toward others. …. Feeding the frustration of a working class that has been decimated, Trump disparages one group after another—Mexicans, Muslims, African-Americans, Asians, women, and of course his competitors—and he rises in the polls. …. When outsiders are routinely reviled, targeted for blame by an impulsive population that isn’t capable of rational thought, bad things can happen. Add doses of anti-intellectualism, nationalism (link is external), and militarism (link is external) to the mix, and you have a formula for disaster. Just ask Germany (link is external). …. Meanwhile, the one major-party campaign that rejects such a view of the world is labeled "too idealistic (link is external).” Though I began this piece with a sobering thought for idealists, I wouldn’t necessarily want to suggest that idealism should be dismissed. After all, nowadays it seems to be the only view that doesn’t reject empathy. And without empathy, our humanity is dead.”


“Here’s a sobering thought for the idealists among us: Even if we someday achieve a truly fair and just society, that society will nevertheless be inhabited by the same species that produced the Holocaust.” This article says exactly what I have been thinking and feeling. Every sentence I excerpted above is important and very well-stated. I deeply miss “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” I remember once as a third or fourth grader walking home from school singing “God Bless America,” and with true feeling. I now feel ill. The danger we are in as a country and very likely as a world is clear to me. Not being religious, I can’t just say to myself “I’ll pray about it” and feel better. I feel that I have to do something active and political about it. I’m really proud of Bernie Sanders for standing up for the “idealism” of which he is being accused. He’s a Jew. Maybe he’s the new Messiah!



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-atmospheric-river-storms-can-reduce-sierra-snow

Study: Atmospheric River Storms Can Reduce Sierra Snow
Editor: Tony Greicius
March 2, 2016

Graphics -- Animation of an atmospheric river storm that occurred on Jan. 28 through 30, bringing half an inch to an inch of rain to many locations in central and southern California. Credits: University of Wisconsin/CIMSS


A new study by NASA and several partners has found that in California's Sierra Nevada, atmospheric river storms are two-and-a-half times more likely than other types of winter storms to result in destructive “rain-on-snow” events, where rain falls on existing snowpack, causing it to melt. Those events increase flood risks in winter and reduce water availability the following summer.

The study, based on NASA satellite and ground-based data from 1998 through 2014, is the first to establish a climatological connection between atmospheric river storms and rain-on-snow events. Partnering with NASA on the study were UCLA; Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego; and the Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado.

Atmospheric rivers are narrow jets of very humid air that normally originate thousands of miles off the West Coast, in the warm subtropical Pacific Ocean. When the warm, moist air hits the Sierra Nevada and other high mountains, it drops much of its moisture as precipitation. Only 17 percent of West Coast storms are caused by atmospheric rivers, but those storms provide 30 to 50 percent of California's precipitation and 40 percent of Sierra snowpack, on average. They have also been blamed for more than 80 percent of the state's major floods.

“In California, atmospheric rivers tend to be the warmest winter storms we get. We wanted to understand what the connection was between these storms and rain-on-snow events," said Bin Guan, lead author of the study, which is accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Guan is affiliated with the Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, a collaboration between NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and UCLA.

“The research extends our understanding of how important atmospheric rivers are to extreme events in California, including their key roles in both water supply and flooding,” said study co-author Marty Ralph of Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “It adds a new dimension of awareness when trying to anticipate the potential impact of a landfalling atmospheric river that could prove useful to water managers.”

The researchers also quantified the difference between atmospheric river storms that cause rain-on-snow and those that do not, using data from NASA's Atmospheric infrared Sounder, or AIRS, instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite. The rain-on-snow-producing atmospheric river storms were, on average, 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) warmer than the others.

"That small difference in temperature often determines whether we gain snow or lose snow from a storm," said Guan.

The researchers found that the warmer storms typically originate in the Pacific south of 25 degrees north latitude. The cases without rain-on-snow events came from farther north, outside the tropics.

The amount of snow that melts in these events depends on how warm the rain and air are and how much rain falls. But the researchers found that, on average, warmer storms generate about a quarter-inch (0.7 centimeter) of snowmelt (i.e. liquid water) for each day of rain, providing 20 percent of the water available for runoff in these events. In other words, as Guan explained, "The primary contribution to any flooding still comes from the rainfall, but the melting snow makes things 20 percent worse.”

"These results highlight the value of observing these events to better understand and, we hope, predict rain, snow and floods in our region," said study co-author Duane Waliser, chief scientist of the Earth Science and Technology Directorate at JPL.

NASA’s AIRS instrument measures atmospheric temperature and moisture, providing insight into the physical processes of atmospheric rivers and also providing sorely needed data over Earth’s ocean, where conventional observations are limited. These contributions can improve weather forecasts of atmospheric rivers making landfall on the U.S. West Coast.

NASA uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records. The agency freely shares this unique knowledge and works with institutions around the world to gain new insights into how our planet is changing.

For more on how NASA studies Earth:

http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/

Alan Buis
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-354-0474
alan.buis@jpl.nasa.gov

Robert Monroe
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego
858-822-4487rmonroe@ucsd.edu

2016-058



“The study, based on NASA satellite and ground-based data from 1998 through 2014, is the first to establish a climatological connection between atmospheric river storms and rain-on-snow events. …. Atmospheric rivers are narrow jets of very humid air that normally originate thousands of miles off the West Coast, in the warm subtropical Pacific Ocean. When the warm, moist air hits the Sierra Nevada and other high mountains, it drops much of its moisture as precipitation. …. “In California, atmospheric rivers tend to be the warmest winter storms we get. We wanted to understand what the connection was between these storms and rain-on-snow events," said Bin Guan, lead author of the study, which is accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. …. “It adds a new dimension of awareness when trying to anticipate the potential impact of a landfalling atmospheric river that could prove useful to water managers.” The researchers also quantified the difference between atmospheric river storms that cause rain-on-snow and those that do not, using data from NASA's Atmospheric infrared Sounder, or AIRS, instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite. …. NASA’s AIRS instrument measures atmospheric temperature and moisture, providing insight into the physical processes of atmospheric rivers and also providing sorely needed data over Earth’s ocean, where conventional observations are limited. …. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records.”


Some Republicans have recently criticized the money spent on NASA and the space program. This article proves how useful it is in keeping track of air movements and studying how those changes work; and the fact that we must hold onto NASA and NOAA, despite the stubbornly stingy, anti-scientific, anti-governmental, and just plain unintelligent individuals who have made their way into our legislatures, both state and federal. Heaven help us!

TERMINOLOGY

Atmospheric Rivers (ARs) are relatively narrow regions in the atmosphere that are responsible for most of the “horizontal transport” of water vapor outside of the tropics. The vertical flow of water vapor, of course, creates localized or larger storms, from a shower, a tornado to a hurricane. AR is a new term to me so, like always, I searched it on Google. It sounds similar to the Jet Streams, but in the latter case it is a “river” of wind rather than water vapor.

Atmospheric river
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An atmospheric river is a narrow corridor or filament of concentrated moisture in the atmosphere. Atmospheric rivers consist of narrow bands of enhanced water vapor transport, typically along the boundaries between large areas of divergent surface air flow, including some frontal zones in association with extratropical cyclones that form over the oceans.[1][2][3][4]

The term was originally coined by researchers Reginald Newell and Young Zhu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the early 1990s, to reflect the narrowness of the moisture plumes involved.[1][3][5] Atmospheric rivers are typically several thousand kilometers long and only a few hundred kilometers wide, and a single one can carry a greater flux of water than the Earth's largest river, the Amazon River.[2] There are typically 3–5 of these narrow plumes present within a hemisphere at any given time.

Atmospheric rivers have a central role in the global water cycle. On any given day, atmospheric rivers account for over 90% of the global meridional (north-south) water vapor transport, yet they cover less than 10% of the Earth's circumference.[2]

They also are the major cause of extreme precipitation events which cause severe flooding in many mid-latitude, westerly coastal regions of the world, including the West Coast of North America,[6][7][8][9] western Europe,[10][11][12] and the west coast of North Africa.[3]



http://www.livescience.com/27825-jet-stream.html

What is a Jet Stream?
by Kim Ann Zimmermann, Live Science Contributor
March 11, 2013 07:22pm ET

Image -- The jet stream, in purple, separates cold air over the Rocky Mountains from warm air over the Midwest in this forecast map for the weekend of March 8, 2013.
Credit: AccuWeather.comView full size image


Jet streams are like rivers of wind high above in the atmosphere. These slim strips of strong winds have a huge influence on climate, as they can push air masses around and affect weather patterns.

The jet streams on Earth — other planets have jet streams as well, notably Jupiter and Saturn — typically run from west to east, and their width is relatively narrow compared to their length. Jet streams are typically active at 20,000 feet (6,100 meters) to 50,000 feet (9,144 meters), or about 7 miles (11 kilometers) above the surface and travel in what is known as the troposphere of Earth’s multi-layered atmosphere.

While they are fairly narrow, they cover a wide latitude running north to south and often travel a very winding path; at times they can even fade away or break off into smaller “rivers” of air that merge again “downstream.”

The seasons of the year, location of low and high pressure systems and air temperature all affect when and where a jet stream travels. Jet streams form a border between hot and cold air. Because air temperature influences jet streams, they are more active in the winter when there are wider ranges of temperatures between the competing Arctic and tropic air masses.

Temperature also influences the velocity of the jet stream. The greater the difference in air temperature, the faster the jet stream, which can reach speeds of up to 250 mph (402 kph) or greater, but average about 110 mph (177 kph).

Both the Northern and Southern hemispheres have jet streams, although the jet streams in the north are more forceful. Each hemisphere has two primary jet streams — a polar and a subtropical. The polar jet streams form between the latitudes of 50 and 60 degrees north and south of the equator, and the subtropical jet stream is closer to the equator and takes shape at latitudes of 20 to 30 degrees.

While the polar and subtropical jet streams are the best known and most studied, other jet streams can form when wind speeds are above 58 mph (93.3 kph) in the upper atmosphere at about 6 miles (9.6 kilometers) to 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) above the surface. The term is often misued, even by meteorologists giving the weather forecast who sometimes, for the sake of simplicity, call all strong upper-atmosphere winds jet streams.

Jet Streams and the weather

Jets streams play a key role in determining the weather because they usually separate colder air and warmer air. Jet streams generally push air masses around, moving weather systems to new areas and even causing them to stall if they have moved too far away.

While they are typically used as one of the factors in predicting weather, jet streams don’t generally follow a straight path — the patterns are called peaks and troughs — so they can shift, causing some to point at the poor forecasting skills of meteorologists.

Climatologists say that changes in the jet streams are closely tied to global warming, especially the polar jet streams, because there is a great deal of evidence that the North and South poles are warming faster than the remainder of the planet. When the jets streams are warmer, their ups and downs become more extreme, bringing different types of weather to areas that are not accustomed to climate variations. If the jet stream dips south, for example, it takes the colder air masses with it.