Don't dumb it down

The Outbreak of 27-28 April 2011 was incredible. Incredible loss of life in a relatively high population density area, amazing damage to what we believe are sturdy structures, amazing long track tornadoes, some incredible supercell storms, incredible LIVE coverage of the tornadoes, and an incredible number of warnings, and a pretty good warning lead time performance for the weather service.

What I also find incredible is the disconnect between the linkage of science and society as it pertains uniquely to journalism. I will not pretend I am a journalism expert. I am not. So take the following with a grain of salt.

What makes a great story are personal details. Something the reader can relate to and understand. As if they were there, reliving the story with themselves as the subject of the story. There is implied intelligence here. This human story does not require anything more than what happened and how did you feel and what was going through your mind. This gives that sense of being there only without the mystery of what happens next. The spoiler was probably the title, and the fact that a person was interviewed means they survived.

To add to the story writers like to add facts for perspective. They look for all kinds of facts. They ask the experts and then they modify the words for effect sometimes losing all coherence. They like to add words like rare and extreme.

Then they add their own perspective. They cite their experience of why they are qualified to offer an opinion. Read that sentence carefully. There is only one. Assess if they are truly qualified to make a statement. It is usually obvious. If you ask a wrongologist, they would remind you that the writer is like the coyote chasing the road runner off the cliff (not having fallen yet). They keep writing because they are on a roll and havent taken stock of where they are. Then they realize. They look down and fall.

I have read a number of articles where the writer just hasn't realized. Then they make statements which seem plausible but wouldnt stand up to a thorough review by a subject matter expert. Remember the experts? They are interviewed first. The editor has the last say. Think he/she is a scientist?

The disconnect is in the presentation of "dumb-downed" science. The public may not understand everything about the science, but surely they are capable of learning. We need a more educated public. A more educated public is quicker to adapt. They are harder to confuse. They are privy to the "inside" information ("inside" will fade away when everyone knows the information). They are more likely to prepare because the risk is that much more understandable, that much more real, and that much more on their radar (pun unintended).

I like when people on TV say things like: "We are not used to this like people on the Great Plains." Thanks. I accept your accolades. You just insulted all your listeners. You told me that other people are more prepared, more accepting of the risk, more in tune with the violent weather risk. You also admitted publicly that you haven't done enough to prepare your listeners for that dreadful day.

Ask any survivor if they are used to being in a tornado that is ravaging their lives. The people are used to warnings and watches. They believe they are at risk, rightfully so, but usually are not directly at risk. Tornadoes tend to be small. That is one aspect of the problem. Big mile wide tornadoes are somewhat rare and also somewhat weaker on average, a fact I still find surprising. (I await that data being published in a peer reviewed journal.)

Not all stories or opinion pieces are bad though. I have read quite a few amazing stories, seen even more on TV. The father and son who left their mobile home to seek shelter face down in a ditch. The apparent life saving act was a tree falling on them to keep them anchored to the ground before it was lifted off of them by the tornado trying to suck them up. I guess the word is getting out to the mobile home folks, even if it is a relative few. This was the 2nd such story I read where people left their mobile home and sought refuge in a ditch. Others who stayed in theirs, were not so lucky.

****
Was this event rare? Rare in the once every generation rare. In terms of the meteorology it was certainly unique to have so many supercells producing long lived, long track tornadoes. The violence of those tornadoes was certainly not rare, but the number of them that were violent in a high population density area could perhaps be described as rare.

The EF5 in MS received the following description from the NWS Storm Survey: "appliances and plumbing fixtures in the most heavily damaged area were shredded". That to me is rare, having not been a storm surveyor, but only because I too think that the safest place to be in a house without a shelter or basement is the bathroom. Where all the pipes essentially reinforce the walls at least in a small area.

I should also refer you to this blog: http://stormeyes.org/wp/ for more perspective on this outbreak. It was well worth the time.

Khan part 2

I have an obvious criticism of my previous post about the guy who made lectures available on line as part of this new "revolution" in education:
Does he think that every kid will watch 6 hours of lecture video at home and go to school?

The other issue regards what the role of a teacher actually is. A teacher is there to provide guidance and help and knowledge. The teacher has not only subject matter knowledge, but experience in teaching to a wide array of students. They know what works, how it works, and they have time to perfect their craft. Often times the delivery is just as important as the messenger. So by using a different teachers' videos, you are adding a challenge for the student to learn the same material from two different people. This could be an advantage in some instances, providing perspective on problem solving skills.

But the reasons that Khan cited for why this system worked were somewhat enlightening:
1. They could pause and rewind at will wasting less of my time.
2. They could go slowly through the material taking time for mastery.
3. They could work around exploring the material.

Well, I am not sure I want students to forge their own path through the material not should I expect younger learners to do this on their own. As for the other two, we are to blame for that. The standardized testing contributes, and so does the need to finish school in a year, so to speak.

Perhaps this is just evidence that we are caving to the social norms of this generation. Immediate gratification. Or it means that we recognize that we have too many different types of learners mixed into our classrooms. Does this mean we should segregate them? Smart kids go to advanced school, while slower kids go to slower schools? But really we already do this by separating the kids within the school into what I knew as "tracks". I was in the college track and even the name was daunting for kids not in it. They immediately knew what it meant to NOT be in that track.

I will bet other kids feel that same way with regard to funding, especially in the inner city and probably in the rural areas too where the smartest kids stick out like a sore thumb.

I believe Europe has a very interesting approach to education. I have only heard about the process around pre-college level: At some point in high school you are deemed worthy to attend college. Others are sent to develop a trade or craft I presume through some sort of apprenticeship. College though is just the first step. After 2 years you are selected into a major based on your math and science skills. But the principle in college is simple. You have 1 year. Show up to class or don't. Your choice. There is 1 test at the end. Pass and you advance.

The demonizing of teachers and the lack of funds mentality we pass on to our kids is showing up in the classroom. The American dream is no longer attainable for the masses. It is for the smart, or the big risk takers, or the already wealthy. This too is entering the classroom. The process of education is suffering from societal apathy. It is also suffering from "it is their job to teach you" or outsourcing of responsibility mentality. It is the students' job to learn.

I know this country has an outsource mentality, but we can not outsource education to be delivered outside the classroom. The outsource mentality is that someone else will do the grunt work ... the jobs no one wants to do. We don't have that problem in the classroom. Teachers like teaching. Ask them. They will tell you and in the process will invariably mention: "well, its not for the money". And they are correct. They enjoy the process as much as the material. They want their students to be successful.

At the least Khan is identifying issues in the classroom and pointing out that teachers are overworked. At best he is providing some help for teachers. Whether this works for the student, I think, depends on parents.

I am surprised that no one has investigated how well tutor businesses are doing. Their business was booming in my former "affluent" educational community. We could really learn a lot by looking at the whole picture (public, private schools, tutor companies, individual tutors) instead of only addressing portions of the problem; and only then by applying band aids to stop the hemorrhage.

Uncertainty and skill

I was reading about what the National Hurricane Center will be doing this year. It was quite interesting:
1. Watch lead time to 48 hours; warning lead time to 36 hours
2. The size of the cones will be based on 5 year running mean of 2/3 of track error.  The cone size radius varies in the Atlantic basin from 36 to 59 miles from 12 to 24 hours and grows about 35-40 miles per 24 hours thereafter.*

This means they have skill out to 48 hours in advance. They will be communicating actively their uncertainty via the graphical product (cones).

My foolish expectation would be to shy away from any sort of climatological cone of uncertainty and use ensemble guidance. This may not be the best option since it could provoke the so-called meteorological cancer i.e. over-dependence on models which have little value, not necessarily little skill. On the plus side it allows forecasts to be naturally consistent ... fairly certain in their ability to track where storms are, where they are going in the immediate future. To be fair the cone widens for a reason: tropical storms and hurricanes can encounter harsh or favorable environments quickly and these types of environments are hard to recognize over the ocean at longer lead times. Of course these environments can bring about changes to the inner workings of tropical storms in which case certain status quo forecasting rules may not work so well, and of course models also tend to not be spot on with hurricane intensity changes.

If nothing else, just seeing the products and how they are discussed should be interesting. It will be worth paying attention to see how the "public" reacts to be under "threat" for longer periods of time.

* I have not seen what this will look like but it will certainly be interesting!

budget impacts to schools

I have more questions than answers.
Has anyone in charge of the budget crisis given any thought to their actions from the perspective of young students or teenage students?

Villifying teachers by saying their benefits and salary are too large is just plain non-sense. Does anyone realize that teachers are on a 9 month pay schedule? Or that they work from home at least 2-3 hours per evening? And they do these things because they believe that education makes a difference in the relative success of our young people.

Do your children think about Teachers after school? Do they wonder where homework is graded, or how many classes are taught, or how many students are in their classes? Can they fathom the willing sacrifices that are made to achieve success as a teacher? Do parents teach their kids to "Walk a mile in someone elses shoes"?

If we say education matters but cut funding from schools, what does that say to kids?

 Kids are listening to what we say about education and are watching we do about education and it does not compute. They know education is important but they act like it isn't. I hope you aren't wondering where they get that from.

I take exception

A recent article appeared on Foxnews.com that I found noteworthy.

I wish to challenge the notion that anyone, with any certainty, can use any recent weather event no matter how large as a sign of or lack of global climate change. Climate as we all should know is about statistics. It will take a decade or longer to know how epic this latest blizzard was.

What Al Gore got correct was the scientific evidence. He correctly stated that under global warming scenarios it has been shown that variability increases. And even during a warming trend, globally, there can be dips, significant dips (even negative anomalies) regionally. This evidence suggests that this CAN be part of global warming scenarios. Of course we don't know the reverse because I am not sure that anyone has done a global cooling experiment. Please enlighten me if such a study has been done.

The second issue I wish to be picky about is the notion of predictions associated with climate. We are assuming a CO2 increase in what can only be described as complex models, but models that do not represent the full coupled climate system. This is necessary because building complex models requires a solid foundation upon which to add complexity. And unfortunately by building complex models we can not say that a model error at this point is actually wrong because all the processes we observe in the real world are not present in the model. It is an interesting problem to say the least. One that is being tackled on the weather side as well.

What we do know is that as model resolution improves we get better, but not perfect solutions. That is good news for weather and climate. But long term climate prediction is still not an initial value problem. Though some argue this point feverishly. It is a true scientific issue and debate will continue in the scientific arena, not in the media.

Speaking of media:

            "If it all seems confusing and contradictory, other experts say, the real blame lies not with the     climate, or with science, or even scientists or former politicians, but with the incompetent media for failing to provide critical context for readers. "

Indeed. In this very article! Examine it closely. The first half of the article presents one side and then trails off into the other side and only by the late middle does context begin to appear. And then just as context settles in, they bring in the 1970's cooling argument. This argument was created and propagated by press reports which misrepresented the science. Which makes it irrelevant in the current discussion.

And then they close by stating that science changes! Of course science changes. It does so because we update our theories based on new evidence, new data, new analysis. And yes even scientists can be wrong. They go where the science leads them and not every avenue leads somewhere or even leads to the correct somewhere. Thats why we attempt to make results reproducible.

We call it climate change because we know way more about the weather and climate and can state with confidence that change is the best way to describe it. Some regions will warm, others may cool. Some will get more precipitation, others less. It is an important scientific distinction. It is not changing the message, however. 

Climate change is not contentious because the science is weak. It is contentious because the science is young. It is further complicated because of the economic impact any action on carbon emissions might have. Scientists still have the duty to warn about impending climate fluctuations or even climate change. And the climate scientists have spoken, in consensus, to warn us about the effects of increasing CO2. They do so with uncertainty; the range of possible warming scenarios. They do so with caution. What our policymakers should be doing is deciding how to act responsibly not deciding which science is correct. The science updates all on its own. 

What is not easily updated is how well scientific communication occurs between scientists and policymakers, scientists and the public, and policymakers and the public.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/03/worsening-winters-come-global-warming/#ixzz1Cx8RXypD

more storm communication

Did the forecast scenario's and/or forecaster methods work tonight? On one hand, the uncertainty on the depth of snow was well communicated. But both the TV and NWS focused in on a time frame when the precip would start ... 3 hours later and they missed on the precipitation type. Midnight was in numerous forecasts until the radar indicated otherwise. Pesky thunderstorms again. The precipitation type in Norman was rain for like 5 minutes before massive amounts of sleet were being dumped on us.

I don't think this was a failure at all. Just an example of how difficult it is to convey uncertainty information. In the public eye you have to convey a time. But when you do, it needs to be accurate and precise. And it just isn't possible to be precise and accurate in situations like this. I can let the sleet go because it was amazingly awesome that so much sleet fell ... better than freezing rain!

We live in very uncertain times and we simply lack the communication skills, that practical knowledge of how to convey uncertainty, without falling back to hard and precise numbers.  Humans have had to live with but not necessarily convey uncertainty information.  We say things are uncertain then make assumptions and decisions based on that uncertainty probably without thinking too hard about conveying it. We acknowledge it, decide, and move on. Whats in the past may be reflected upon, but the situations are always unique such that it is hard to know what, if any, information may have changed your mind one way or another. Sometimes we make decisions based on gut instinct or informed decisions about "likely outcomes". At least we think we know what the outcome will be. More often than not we stumble upon the outcome while trying to make our way towards our anticipated outcome.

I find it interesting and also compelling that weather information, specifically concerning uncertainty, finds itself in the same situation as personal medical data and also the terror alert system.  There was a good TED talk about the personal medical data; how it is displayed, what information to convey; giving the statistics of where you fit in. They are tailoring the information to the end user. In a similar way the terror alert system promises specific information, how to act on it, and who and where need to be alerted. It sounds like they are issuing a weather service style advisory,watch, warning type of system.  I am eager to see what they bring to the table and how.

To wrap up, our society is dealing with uncertainty communication, and it is working its way down into all aspects of life. Clearly we have lots of work ahead and the lessons we learn now might help with regional climate change. A more educated society is required in these uncertain times to utilize this uncertainty information.

Scales of uncertainty

The latest fuss in meteorological circles has focused rather intently on the Storm of Christmas, then the day after, and now the day after the day after Christmas storm. The storm has been "delayed" by 2 days over the course of the last week, and has shifted position numerous times in the forecast (gonna miss far to the east, bounce back to the west for a hit). We call this behavior uncertainty.

So what is uncertainty? "not confirmed", "still undecided", a "lack in confidence"

In modeling terms, the forecast solution has not yet converged. Our current capabilities, however, are quite robust at short range, meaning we expect the solution (over many initialization cycles) to converge. This time period is usually between 48 and 72 hours depending on the modeling system, the scale of the features that need to be resolved well, and the overall scale of the dynamical system which we seek to predict.

Over the years, despite many advances in satellite data, data assimilation systems, and numerical models and their increasingly sophisticated methods ... we still need to wait for the disturbances to enter the well instrumented radiosonde network*. Alas this too can be deceiving as was the case for the Surprise snowstorm of January 2000. You see a classic nor'easter can have origins from the Pacific Northwest which travels in amplified flow towards the gulf coast. The system itself may never leave the well instrumented but the warm gulf, cool temperatures aloft, and strong wind shear may foster convection ... thunderstorms ... or organized noise. This noise can then feedback from the large scale to the small scale ... outside the network and remain outside the network as the coastal low forms and deepens as it travels up the coast.

So, you can see how a "converged" solution of where the storm will be, can help us have confidence on predicting the other aspects of the storms. But uncertainty remains in where the precipitation will be, what precipitation type will fall, and for how long.

This uncertainty about snowfall placement and amount is very similar to the summer forecasting of thunderstorms. We may have a converged solution of the larger scale details but the smaller scale details can have a large effect on where, when, which storms will form and how severe they might be.

This where the art of forecasting kicks in. Where the analog experience of forecasters contributes. Knowing how they were fooled last time, or how they picked up on certain observed details which caused them to do better than the models. The forecaster has the ability to understand these scales of uncertainty. Only in the last few years have methods been developed, like the Ensemble Kalman Filter, which can show us where the uncertainty is for a specified region at 3,5,7 day lead time. In fact the Winter Weather Reconaissance program is designed to use these methods, then collect data in the uncertain regions to see how that can change the forecast and its uncertainty!

Aha on perspective

I was pondering on a talk I will give at the lab about communicating effectively to the potential buyer of your resume. Part of my presentation was specifically devoted to perspective. Instead of thinking about YOU, you need to be thinking about them. What will they want, need, look for and how will you sell yourself in that light. If you can't you are clearly not passionate at this level.

Upon thinking more about perspective it dawned on me. Perspective is defined as a comparison of views. You have yours and they have theirs. To have perspective, you analyze the other side. Not just once mind you, but an ensemble of viewpoints. This makes your analysis more robust because you can rationalize more about what they want and don't want. That is part of the exercise on perspective.

It would appear in our current polarized society, people pretend to have perspective ... having considered someone else's viewpoint. But the prevailing character has been either a biased viewpoint (one interpretation only) or fundamentally flawed viewpoint from which they can disregard that viewpoint.

Putting it another way, you believe X to be true. Someone else believes Y to be true. The person who thinks X, casts Y in a bad light, discounts the value of that viewpoint and then dismisses it. The whole point of perspective is to acknowledge that point of view and incorporate it. Sure if it is flawed, you should point it out. But typically people think in very different ways, and before summarily dismissing anothers view you need to assess its validity, or validate your own viewpoint. In a sense we always to calibrate our view in order to validate our perspective.

I find the current political discourse to be much ado about nothing. To me it is a lack of perspective from, now three sides, of the same coin. The level of communication is reduced to soundbites of attention getting non-sense or rallies about fundamentals. Some of these issues spring up because people have not found appropriate people with which to debate accurately or objectively.

A third political party has long been thought unnecessary. I disagree. I think we need a third team, who sits on the fence of the argument understands or strives to understand AND then communicate the broader and FINER points of the conversation as an arbiter. A negotiator if you will. An agent of compromise.

It is ironic that we strive for peace in the middle east for generations, and we dont strive for perspective or communication or facts in our political discourse.

I suppose the same happens all across America, in business arrangements (Reality TV shows are predicated on people who fail on many levels to communicate or lack perspective), families (divorce rate is pretty high, plus there is wife-swap the TV show), and friendships.

I can see the broadness of these effects in my microcosm, perhaps even being one of these people who lacks perspective or fails to communicate. ID'ing the issue is one thing. Fixing it is difficult but hardly does it qualify as impossible. Unfortunately it takes 3 people and time to fix it.

Journalism and Science

I read Miles O'Brien testimony involving NASA's budget cut:
http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2010/02/24/to-the-moon-i-think-not-alice/

I watched the Hawaii tsunami coverage on CNN.

What do they have in common?

In the former, Miles criticizes the major media outlets for dropping their actual science journalists. He says quite clearly that "the reporters are not well informed". He did not say the science journalists. he said reporters. People whose sole job is either researching and reporting, or investigating and reporting (i.e. communicating). The result, he says, is that the message is being lost. I would argue that even the sense of excitement, passion, and love of all things science is being lost as well. I follow Miles because he has these qualities. I watch him on spaceflightnow.com , I read his FB status updates, and read his blog. It oozes with a passion for science and he has a great way with words. I can read his writing and in my head I hear his voice with his inflections.

On the air today, with regard to the latter, I had to hear Rick Sanchez (whom I am biased against already for much different reasons), basically say: Hold on Dr. Scientist, don't explain this to me ... just answer my question. Which basically, in my humble opinion, criticized the smart scientist not for speaking in science terms ... but more so for speaking in laymen science terms. Thankfully CNN didnt continue with that crap and rather cut away to local affiliates coverage. There was a communication divide and it was WIDE as it was DEEP.

In much the same vein, The foxnews reporting on everything -gate, has cornered the market on conspiracy. Especially on Climate. They have a winning formula.
I will break it down:
1. Introduce climate change information (whether it be a simple fact or a person involved).
2. cast some doubt on said information (legitimate or not).
3. associate people with that doubt and tie them to someone somewhere who may have done something wrong (ignoring facts as they go).
4. cite climate sceptics as truth or use the glenn beck-ism "we are just asking questions here".
5. package this up as climate change doesn't exist.

They succeed because the science message isn't being communicated well. Climate has no PR machine. We have journals, technical reports, and atmospheric science bodies (the IPCC, AMS, AGU, NASA, etc.). These bodies deliver solid messages, but they can not compete with a 24 hour news org on the attack.

It just seems daunting. On the one hand we need science journalists (actual specialized folks who have passion, knowledge in science, and communicate well) to fill the void. This requires that major media outlets invest, and lets face it, the reason they cut these people was because they are bleeding.

We need better science teachers in our schools. Not just high school. Middle school and elementary schools too. And not just people who specialize in education. Again we need that passion and knowledge there too. Better teachers bring better content. This is a long shot because there just isn't the money to actually pay teachers with a Masters degree and worse a Masters may be detrimental to getting hired in the first place.

Some things need to change around here. And it would seem fitting that the people who can save us ...our young scientists who wait 3-5 years for permanent positions...are perfect to fill the gap. The problems are... the gap in pay, the student loans, the penalty for not publishing ... not worth it.

How sad is that?

meaning

So I read today that I have pursued an education that is beyond my means.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/IsYourDegreeWorth1million.aspx?page=2

My degree is worth, on average, 300K over my lifetime. I assume this is representative of a non-teaching lifestyle. I will settle for a lifetime advantage of 150K . This makes my net lifetime profit of 100K once you factor in all of the interest on loans.

But this doesnt help when I start off into my career. The starting salaries are low. The peripheral benefits are either absent (401K), or high (Insurance rates). The interest accumulated during my schooling is roughly 1/3 of my debt at variable and at times obscenely high interest rates. This is the good debt most financial people speak of.

But to say that I spent money beyond my means is ridiculous. I spent what I needed to spend to get a high quality education. Because, a high quality education is what I needed to have a career. Spending less would have resulted in a lower quality education, and thus not much hope of moving up.

Financially, though, didn't I spend beyond MY means. Yes. My parents spent a lot too. I got scholarships, financial aid, and loans. I did what I needed to, and I am paying it all back. Was it worth it?

It is worth it because I have opportunities. And will have opportunities.

My mind naturally goes to this: What if I didnt pursue my maximum potential?
I would still be poor, and I wouldnt have any opportunities. I would have been working longer, harder, for less money (per hour, over a lifetime).

So what should we tell poor kids? Don't seek an expensive degree? Dont maximize your potential? Stay poor? let your kids share in your poorness and pass on the mantra: "You cant afford education!"

The problem isnt education is expensive. Its that jobs pay too little, because companies can't give them a salary without giving them GOOD benefits. I want good benefits, too.

There are other problems too but I am tired.

Teaching

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/07/25/obit.pausch/index.html

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1826574,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

Seldom do we get to learn from great professors of academia AND life. This is the kind of teacher I am aspiring to be. It will take time and hard work. There will be obstacles. They will be overcome.

Perhaps the most intriguing similarity I have with Randy Pausch is his tidbits of information. I always try to come up with these when I have students struggling. I always found these valuable for learning. It makes the goal tangible, it stresses a process rather than an event, and it encourages work. Best of all, you never give up the answer. You show the point on the map marked "You are here". The tidbit could be a compass, or it could be motivation, or it could be perspective. the best part is there are no answers. That would spoil the journey.

Here are a few of Pausch's, stolen from the TIME article:

Don't complain. Just work harder.

Luck is truly where preparation meets opportunity.

Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.

The brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out; the brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. The brick walls are there to stop the people who don't want it badly enough.

If you lead your life the right way ... the dreams will come to you.

The dreams live on. Thanks Randy!