Guest essay by Kip Hansen, St Thomas, USVI
The AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY just published a Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled: EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF 2012 FROM A CLIMATE PERSPECTIVE edited by Thomas C. Peterson, Martin P. Hoerling, Peter A. Stott, and Stephanie C. Herring. [hereafter EEE2012].
Kenneth Chang at the New York Times reported on the findings in an article, “Research Cites Role of Warming in Extremes”, on 5 September 2013. In this piece, Chang includes the following paragraph, which was picked up and repeated in the Andy Revkin’s NY Times Opinion Page blog, Dot.Earth, filed under Climate Change:
“The articles’ editors likened climate change to someone habitually driving a bit over the speed limit. Even if the speeding itself is unlikely to directly cause an accident, it increases the likelihood that something else — a wet road or a distracting text message — will do so and that the accident, when it occurs, will be more calamitous.”
This is unfortunate, for two reasons:
1) The articles’ editors said no such thing.
2) Even if they had, what Chang says just happens not to be true in and of itself.
Andy Revkin , doubling down on Chang, says: “Ken Chang’s news article in The Times ….. includes an apt analogy used in the introduction to the studies: [followed by the paragraph quoted above].” This too is unfortunately not true, for the above two reasons, an analogy can’t be apt if it wasn’t made and isn’t true, , and the fact that the analogy being referred to appears not in the introduction, but in the CONCLUSIONS AND EPILOGUE section, written by Thomas C. Peterson, Peter A. Stott, Stephanie C. Herring, and Martin P. Hoerling.
What Peterson et al actually said was:
“To help understand the difficulty of determining the anthropogenic contribution to specific extreme events, consider this driving analogy (UCAR 2012). “Adding just a little bit of speed to your highway commute each month can substantially raise the odds that you’ll get hurt some day. But if an accident does occur, the primary cause may not be your speed itself: it could be a wet road or a texting driver.” Similarly, while climate models may indicate a human effect is causing increases in the chances of having extremely high precipitation in a region (much like speeding increases the chances of having an accident), natural variability can still be the primary factor in any individual extreme event. The difficulty in determining the precise sensitivity of, according to our analogy, driving speed on risks of accidents in particular conditions (wet roads, texting drivers) can explain why somewhat different analyses of the same meteorological event can reach somewhat different conclusions about the extent to which human influence has altered the likelihood and magnitude of the event.” [EEE2012, page 64]
Point 1: The editors said no such thing:
Notice that Peterson says nothing about speed limits, nothing about speeding, and nothing about any subsequent accident being “more calamitous” – nothing at all about any of these three points. Chang makes up his own, new and improved analogy. Why? We can’t know – as a journalist, he should have reported what was actually said.
Point 2: Even if they had, what Chang says just happens not to be true in and of itself.
It is a long term, well understood fact that the safest driving speed on America’s highways is “a bit over the speed limit” – actually, more specifically, a bit over the average speed of the traffic on the road, which is often, on a wide open road, at or just a little bit over the speed limit. This is known as Solomon’s Curve, or the Crash Risk Curve, a graph that shows the least accidents happen to those who drive just a bit faster than the flow of traffic. Note that this has nothing to do with absolute speed (for example, 55 mph vs. 75 mph) but speed relative to the other cars and trucks.
So, was what was said in EEE2012 true?
“Adding just a little bit of speed to your highway commute each month can substantially raise the odds that you’ll get hurt some day.”
If you generally drive slower than the flow of traffic, if you are a strict 55 mph’er on an Interstate that flows at 67 1/2 mph, you’ll be safer if you “add a little bit of speed”, because you be involved in fewer (statistically) accidents. However, if you are recklessly already driving 75 mph on the same Interstate, and add a little bit of speed, you’ll be increasing your risk of accident and increasing the kinetic energy of any resulting crash (the last true for the 55 mph’er too).
On its face, in a plain everyday English sense, I’d say the analogy is false as used, because, well, it depends. But I’ll leave it up to the traffic engineers and statisticians — way too much wiggle-room in the phrases “just a little bit of speed” and “can substantially raise”.
My advice to journalists: Use direct quotes, stick to the facts, don’t make stuff up (and for Andy Revkin – don’t trust other journalists to have done these things, check them yourself).
My advice to Climate Scientists: Use analogies that are proven and demonstrably true – not just ones that seem true or sound nice, stick to the facts and don’t make stuff up.
*****
EEE2012 at http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf
Chang at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/science/earth/research-cites-role-of-warming-in-extremes.html
Solomon’s Curve at http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/fzfeens/trans/Transport-lecture4.ppt , see slides 53 and 55
” AlexS says: uh!? of course there is a difference, the first is a 200mph crash the second is a 100mph crash.”
Kinda but not really… there are TWO cars. Max energy of deformation for one car hitting wall at 100 mph = 1/2*M1*V^2 Max energy of deformation for two cars hitting head on = 1/2*(M1+M2)*V^2. So there’s double the overall energy expended in the collision but each car (all things equal) gets HALF so no different than hitting a wall. The other way to look at it is momentum. If each weighs the same then the final velocity of either is ZERO – same as hitting a wall.
I recall a statement in my Driver’s Ed class.
It isn’t the speed limit of the highway that matters to crash rate, it is the DIFFERENCES in speed that matter. Larger differences in the velocity of cars leads to more crashes.
Statistically, the crash rate is related to the standard deviation of the velocity of vehicles.
If you think about it, it has to be correct. Stock car racing happens at near 200 mph, yet the cars can be inches from each other when traveling the same velocity. It is only when there is a difference in velocity in such close quarters do accidents happen.
Accidents happen on freeways in stop and go traffic, no where near the speed limit, but large and frequent difference in the speeds between cars.
Now, if I may make a analogy to climate, that may or may not be any better than the NYT’s, the difference in temperature between the equator and the poles will drop with global warming, according to the IPCC. A drop in the difference in temperatures will lead to a drop in extreme weather events. There, NYT, it cuts both ways.
“Notice that Peterson says… nothing about speeding”
—
Except, of course, where he says the following:
“much like speeding increases the chances of having an accident…”
How do you misrepresent the quote at the same time you’re complaining loudly about others misrepresenting the quote? It’s enough to point out why it’s a bad analogy to climate. There’s no need to go overboard and risk your credibility in the process.
This is why ‘the scientists’ have gone from AGW to Climate change, now no way to challenge the CO2 theory.
Reply to Claude Harvey (September 8, 2013 at 6:35 am): My intention was to make a molehill comment about a foothill of journalistic malpractice.
Reply to Eric (September 8, 2013 at 7:50 am): “Give Andy Revkin a break…” You should see the links first. It wasn’t Andy’s false analogy, nor Andy’s misrepresentation. He was just fooled by thinking that Kenneth Chang had quoted correctly…Andy just failed to check original sources. So, he got a break –> “(and for Andy Revkin – don’t trust other journalists to have done these things, check them yourself).” Mr. Revkin and I correspond occasionally — and while I don’t always agree with him — we are generally collegial.
Reply to Louis (September 8, 2013 at 11:37 am): Peterson does mix in a second bit, which is included in its entirety. Difficult to say if he is referring back to his original analogy, adding in an additional point, or if he just forgot what he started out saying. If he checks in here, we can try to clarify it with him.
=========================================================================
True. An analogy to communicate a point is not proof of the point.
On the flip-side, finding a flaw in the analogy does not disprove the point.
Show us the data so the world doesn’t trip over a tree ring.
Stephen Rasey says: “I recall a statement in my Driver’s Ed class. It isn’t the speed limit of the highway that matters to crash rate, it is the DIFFERENCES in speed that matter. ”
My driver ed teacher explained that the reason you should not tail gate is because of the difference in speed that will occur at impact because the car in front of you started braking before you did by the amount of your reaction time. I pointed out in that there exists a specific close distance however, from which the closer you get, that difference of velocity at impact starts going back down. The obvious truth of that is if you are already touching the guy’s rear bumper there will be a zero velocity difference. ( He didn’t like me… 🙂
Chris says (September 8, 2013 at 9:29 am): “What’s your source for that?”
Here’s one:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1997-11-09/news/9711050452_1_speed-limits-statewide-fatality-rates-lave-and-elias
The overall safety improvement was attributed to, among other things:
1) Reducing the speed difference between speeders and compliant drivers;
2) Luring drivers back onto safer divided highways.
No mention of drivers being “more alert” at higher speeds. 🙂
Reply to Gunga Din (September 8, 2013 at 12:48 pm) and hoyawildcat (September 8, 2013 at 6:47 am): My wife, who holds an Ivy League English degree, tells me that an analogy is more properly a literary device and not a device well-fitted to scientific discussion — because it is not usually factual, not meant to be an exact parallel, but poetical by nature. Thus speaketh the English Department.
Reply to Bob Tisdale (September 8, 2013 at 6:47 am) “…I’ll feel justified the next time I get the urge to use other cars as cones in a slalom course.” Your speed range of added safety is pretty narrow, eyeballed at about 2-6% above the speed of the flow of traffic … at 65 mph that translates to 67 to 69 mph. Not so much a slalom course really. Sorry!
Kip Hansen says:
September 8, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Reply to Gunga Din (September 8, 2013 at 12:48 pm) and hoyawildcat (September 8, 2013 at 6:47 am): My wife, who holds an Ivy League English degree, tells me that an analogy is more properly a literary device and not a device well-fitted to scientific discussion — because it is not usually factual, not meant to be an exact parallel, but poetical by nature. Thus speaketh the English Department.
=======================================================================
OT but your wife may find this of interest.
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/groupings/by%20author/bullinger.htm
@Mike M 1:00 pm
I pointed out in that there exists a specific close distance however, from which the closer you [tailgate], that difference of velocity at impact starts going back down
Clever thinking! Of course the on the downslope the probability of impact rises quickly. So is it better to have a near zero probability of large impact, or a virtual certainty of many minor impacts by tailgating?
Railroads are built on the later premise. There are six inches of play in a coupling. I read about an engineer instructing a trainee. “You’ve got a mile of train behind you. That means there is 60 feet of play at the last car. To reduce the jerk at the last car, start slowly to take out the play, then accelerate.”
My advice is don’t use analogies…period. By definition they don’t match the phenomenon in question. Using an analogy says you are not confident of being understood. Better to improve the clarity of the explanation.
reply to Sam The First (September 8, 2013 at 7:28 am) — “Why nitpick about a detail of the reporting, when the central point is completely and seriously misleading?” My article is about 2 things: Poor journalism and, in a minor way, the use of analogy in science reporting. There are many others far more qualified than I to write about the susbstance of the BAMS supplement. My main focuses are Bad Science Journalism (including medial/health topics) and Public Ethics — everyone has to pick their battles.
Reply to Pedantic old Fart (September 8, 2013 at 2:51 pm) — “My advice is don’t use analogies…period…..Better to improve the clarity of the explanation.” My English Major wife agrees that scientists shouldn’t attempt analogies…so do I. Poets though….that’s another matter.
Reply to Gunga Din (September 8, 2013 at 1:30 pm) — My wife thanks you for the link to “Figures of Speech” Bullinger, 1898. .
Misquoting sources and inventing facts and data are bread and butter to the Alarmist Movement. Kenneth Chang is just following in the grand tradition of the Warmist Creed. Misrepresentation is so natural to the Warmistas that they are no longer aware that they are doing it. They know that the Cause justifies all their actions.
Except that the analogy is correct, as the temp and CO2 rise the risk to mankind falls (More food, more oxygen, less cold) until the rise in CO2 is sufficient to negate the gains at some break-even point. This is probably the point CO2 becomes toxic to a mammals at about 40000 PPM. The climate has it’s own Solomon curve
From my last post the headline should read, “Revkin agrees global warming benefits mankind”
For those unaware of this, you can watch hundreds of real-world car crashes right here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CarCrashCompilation
(I prefer this user’s uploads because he filters out the serious injuries and fatalities, but there are a lot of those online too)
One thing that stands out in all those crashes is the lack of time to react. Even though something is in progress for some time before the crash, the people involved usually have little or no time between when they see it and when they are in trouble. Also, speeding itself is NOT the “cause”, but speeding in traffic and speeding inappropriately (ie through residential streets) can create mayhem. Best to always be hyper-aware of your surroundings when driving.
bobl, is there any mechanism you can postulate that could result in 40,000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere? Other than a catastrophic event that has absolutely nothing to do with people, of course.
Kip Hansen says:
September 8, 2013 at 3:03 pm
=======================================================================
You and your wife are welcome.
I did notice that not all of the ones listed give an explanation and example. This link fills in some of those gaps.
http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app6.html
These little lies and 1/2 truths are what opened eyes ~25 yrs ago to all the BS and sheer lack of hard evidence behind the warmists’ hysterical claims.
IIRC, the chance of an accident causing a death decreases until one reaches approximately the 85th %ile speed, then rapidly increases as the speed increases above that.
BC
“…Badly Reported by the NYT”
What isn’t? Business as usual.
Using an analogy as an argument “begs the question” and shows that you don’t have an argument.
Seatbelts, airbags, antilock breaks, collision warning and avoidance systems, safe highway design – adaptation and technology save far more lives than reducing the speed by a couple of miles per hour. Of course there are always new challenges that emerge – like distracted driving – which is not caused by global warmng, by the way.
Leave it to Climate Jounalists to believe and perpetuate common myths.
Next thing you know, they’ll tell you getting up to speed slowly will save fuel. That hasn’t been true for at least 20 years, since CVT and electronically controlled fuel injection become common. (If it ever was, the benefits of preventing and mitigating congestion might always have outweighed the cost of quick acceleration when there are other cars behind you.)