"Well, Duh!" Science Studies

Have you ever run into one of those? You know, the kind where what they find is so obvious, you just have to shake your head, roll your eyes, and wonder how on earth somebody found it worth studying to find this "particular something" out? We're not talking quantum physics here, which can go straight through my brain and leave absolutely no mark whatsoever. Things like quarks might as well not even exist as far as I'm concerned. If you think you understand them, you go ahead and play with them.

OK, I confess, I'm being snarky here. I've been inspired.

If you follow me, you know I'm a science nerd, and more so now that I have lots of free time. Today I ran into two of those "Well, Duh!" studies. Why doesn't everybody on the planet know these things? I grew up knowing them, even before going to school.

Then I decided to try to be fair. Both concern water, and not everyone lives in water-rich habitats. OK. That's one. Another concerns trees, and I guess there are people out there who have never opened their brains while walking under them (or possibly never had them to walk under) since that's how I learned what their instruments in their study told them. I'm on the fence about being "fair" on that one in calling their "discovery" obvious.

But it is. 

That one was about trees and urban cooling on our heating planet. When it's hot, you walk under one, and it feels cool, sometimes more than others. It's not just the shade, though that helps, but you can get shade from a building too, and still feel hot. The difference is that trees lose water through their leaves in a process called transpiration, the water cools as it evaporates, and the temperature lowers... as long as the tree has some water in it to spare, of course. So the big conclusion was trees in urban areas will cool them - and you - better if you give them water.

Well, duh! 

Let me just add that failing to water them as it gets hot can result in dead or at least sickly trees. Somebody want to study that one too, or can I just get credit for it now and we can move on? I've seen it in Minnesota, land of 14,000 lakes. I've also seen it in recent extra-hot summers in the Phoenix area where by the end of summer the roads become trails past dead trees and even cactus which have been ignored by absentee homeowners, or at least not given water. Dead saguaro break your heart - well, mine, anyway. Anything that takes over a hundred years to get its first branch should be respected.

The second study involved why skiers get sunburned. Well, let's see: the sun? They don't ski at night? OK, I'm being silly. But I learned this as a child. It helped that all my ancestors, since they moved out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago and adapted to their new location, came from northern Europe. Places like Britain, Scotland, Sweden. For me "getting a tan" is just wishful thinking. Skin cancer runs in the family, and people were starting to figure out why. I grew up on a resort but was never allowed in the water until mid afternoon when the sun was lower, and never allowed to stay long. One of the reasons given, one I was repeatedly given, was that the sun reflected up off the water and I'd get even more burned then than anywhere else or any time else. Sun screen became a must as soon as it was on the market.

What does this have to do with skiing? It's not like I ever skied, and I avoided the super-cold weather whenever possible. Warmer, snowman weather I could tolerate when properly bundled up, which I also had to be for sledding, an outdoor activity one could do cheaply, even using cardboard for your sled, unlike skiing. But being bundled up meant little access for sun to burn your skin. However, the minute I read the purpose of the study, I knew the exact answer. And indeed, it was the study's conclusion.

I knew the sun bounced up off the water, so you'd get it from both directions during summer water activities. What the study discovered was - wait for it - that snow, especially fresh clean snow - was water too!

WELL, DUH !!!!!!!