跟我熟的人都知道，從上禮拜颱風到現在我都沒有罵過人。一方面就像之前跟也是台灣人的室友討論過的，我們現在不在島上，加上一個要期末一個要趕畢業，對這方面的資訊比較冷感一點；一方面是，有很多人已經把我想說的話都說完了：
網路上大家罵得夠多了，我想就留給不想再飆血壓的人一點空間，不用多一個只會清談不會力行的人了吧！
這幾年老天爺越來越走極端路線，像這次南台灣一年的水一次倒完，西雅圖這半年多從極寒到極熱，一定會有人說：這都是溫室效應的關係，blablabla……，這讓我想把學校一個氣象學老師寫的部落格文章（Cliff Mass, Was the heat wave a sign of global warming?）部分文字翻給大家看：
One heat wave, one storm, one event says nothing about global warming or its effects. That is why those who jumped on Hurricane Katrina as proof of global warming were really off-base.
（任何一個單次事件，如一次熱浪或一個暴風雨，都無法代表全球暖化及其效應，所以有人說卡翠娜颶風是全球暖化的證據是不成立的。）
First, this last hot event was completely localized ... while we had record breaking heat, the upper plains and midwest (and parts of the east coast) had record breaking cold. The reason: a persistent ridge of high pressure over the western U.S. and a trough over the central/eastern U.S. ─ NOT uniform warming. When I went back east for a meeting, people were complaining about the cold, and those of conservative bent were griping about the global-warming fanatics.
（首先，這一次的高溫完全是在地現象。西雅圖破高溫紀錄時，西南部高原區、中西部和部分的東岸卻是低溫破紀錄。會有這樣的現象是因為高壓脊籠罩美國西部，而低壓槽落在美中和美東造成的不均勻暖化。當我回到東部開會時，當地的人抱怨天氣好冷，保守人士反過來批評全球暖化狂熱者。）
Second, one event does not provide much information on trends, and trends are what count in climate. The atmosphere has a certain amount of natural variability, and there will be records and extremes even if the large-scale situation remains the same. The atmosphere is rarely "normal" and the averages include extremes of both directions.
（其次，氣候表示「趨勢」，一個天氣事件並不能完全代表氣候上的趨勢。氣壓本來就有某種程度的變異，即使從大尺度來看狀況維持恆定，卻仍是有極端值；氣壓很少有「正常值」，而平均值也包含了極大和極小兩個極端。）
The media and some climate-action groups are continuously confusing the differences between weather and climate and some of their claims are unsupportable ─ like the frequently stated prediction that the NW will have more windstorms under global warming. There is NOTHING to support this conjecture. I have even heard some explain the unusual cold/snow wave last December on global warming! (the claim is that global warming will produce more weather variability). And another one is about heavy rain events ─ that our recent heavy rains/flooding are due to global warming The truth is that heavy rain events are decreasing in Oregon and increasing over parts of NW Washington (I have a student working on this issue). Why would global warming produce such a dipole effect? (I can speculate on this but won't here).
（媒體和一些環保團體常常混淆天氣和氣候之間的不同，而他們的說法也沒有科學上的證據，如妳們常常聽到的，美國西北部將因為全球暖化有更多的暴風雨，就沒有任何研究支持這項說法。我就聽過有人說，去年十二月的寒冷和降雪是全球暖化造成的，全球暖化會造成氣候有更多變異！還有人說我們最近的豪雨或是水災都是全球暖化的緣故。但根據我學生的研究，事實是，豪雨在奧勒岡州有減少的趨勢，但在部分的華盛頓州西北部逐漸增加。爲什麼全球暖化會造成這麼極端的影響？我有一些推論但不在這裡說明。）
Don't get me wrong ... I am absolutely convinced that global warming is going to happen and will be significant here, but many of the claims about local effects are without support. And because we are downstream of the cool NE Pacific, the Pacific NW may see global warming's effects delayed and weakened.
（請不要因為我這樣說就誤解我，我很確定將有全球暖化，也會在美國西北部造成顯著的影響，但目前許多局部效應都還沒有科學上的支持。也因為美國西北位處太平洋偏冷的東北岸，全球暖化效應在此可能會延緩甚至減弱。）
如果有耐心看到這裡的人，大概會發現氣象學家對全球暖化效應的說法跟我們常常聽到的環保團體說法有一些不一樣；甚至，如果不是最後一段，應該有很多人會開始想暖化這件事根本就不存在吧！
我有時覺得，這大概是科學普及化最讓人困擾的一點：我們寫paper時不太會用那些斬釘截鐵的字眼像是「一定」、「絕對」，最常用的是「或許」、「也許」、「建議」，可是要讓不懂科學的人了解「暖化很嚴重喔！」用這些極端的例子似乎又是必要之惡，因為一般人沒有研究人員的偏執，願意花一輩子的時間去了解這樣複雜的系統，但過分簡化的宣稱又讓反對者有選擇數據不客觀立論的攻擊點。
也許，人類只願意了解簡化過的立論的惰性，才是讓事實真相沒辦法越辯越明的原因吧！
