Normal Weather?

Meteorologists, TV weathermen, and state and local water planners have convinced the general public that there is something called "Normal Weather." The implication of this is that anything other than "Normal Weather" is "Abnormal." But there is no such thing as normal weather in the sense that most people think of normal. Indeed, what meteorologists mean when they say normal is AVERAGE. "Average Weather" makes perfect sense, but unfortunately the general public is so stuck on normal and this terminology is so ingrained in the media that it is unlikely to change. To give due credit to many professional meteorologists and meteorological organizations, they have tried to use the term average instead of normal, but on TV and in newspapers normal is still used almost exclusively.

The problem with using NORMAL is that the general public expects that temperature or rainfall or number of hurricanes or other weather phenomena should, most of the time, fall into the normal category. This is simply not the case. For a given month, day, or year to actually hit right onto the value touted in the media as normal is a fairly uncommon event. Most days, months, and years the temperatures and rainfall are either less than or more than the normal value. And yet the media continue to broadcast these statistics as if we should be getting the normal amount.

In speaking of the recent storms that have helped a bit with the water situation in California, one web site stated: "Thanks to the most recent rounds of rain and snow throughout California, Los Angeles and San Francisco both received at least 86 percent of their normal rainfall for the month of February. However, farther south, San Diego only received 44 percent of the city's normal precipitation for February."

It sounds from these reports that 86 percent of normal or 44 percent of normal is abnormal, like California deserves to at least get a normal amount of precipitation and if they get anything less or more then someone has really messed up. But how likely is it that California will get only 86 or 44 percent of "normal" precipitation? Meteorologists like to calculate a measure called the Coefficient of Variation to help determine this likelihood. The coefficient of variation is related to the standard deviation of rainfall at a particular station and in essence tells us that if the coefficient is 0.24, for example, then at that station the average rainfall would be expected to vary by 24% in 67% of the years (1 standard deviation on a bell curve). This coefficient varies at different locations across the state of California, but here is a list of a few places provided by another web site:

Station in California (Climate Zone)	Coefficients of Variation
Klamath (Marine West Coast)	0.24
Eureka (Marine West Coast)	0.27
Fort Bragg (Marine West Coast)	0.29
Chico (Mediterranean)	0.37
San Francisco (Mediterranean)	0.35
Monterey (Mediterranean)	0.37
Spreckels (Mediterranean)	0.39
Santa Barbara (Mediterranean)	0.41
Los Angeles (Mediterranean)	0.47
San Diego (Mediterranean)	0.46

So in Los Angeles, rainfall will vary by up to 47% from average 67% of the time. It also means that 33% of the time (one-third of the years) rainfall will vary by more that 47%. Since Los Angeles received 86% of it's average rainfall in February, then it is only 14% from its average value and well within the coefficient of variation.

I don't suppose this is a battle I will ever win. The media will continue to use normal instead of average, water planners will continue to use normal in their future plans, and the general public will continue to expect "normal" to happen and be disappointed when most of the time it does not. But perhaps a few will realize that if we expect normal to happen, we are fooling ourselves.
 

Do you give extra credit?

College students are very interesting creatures. I know this for a fact, having been one myself several years ago. Students have a very sharp intellect and do very well on standard intelligence tests, but they seem to lack the genetic code for reading and understanding a syllabus, and at times it appears that their hearing has been severely damaged. By saying this, I don't mean to offend those college students out there who may have stumbled upon this blog. I really, really do like you, but I can't ignore the facts.

As an example of what I am trying to say, let me share with you the short version of a recent course I taught. Here we are on the first day of class:
Professor (me) after discussing class procedures and policies: Now, if at any time during the semester you have questions about the course, about your grade, or about how you can do better in class, please look back over your course syllabus or stop by my office. I would love to have the chance to visit with you and help you to do better in the course. Are there any questions?"

Student #1: Do you give any extra credit assignments?

Professor: No, there will be no extra credit and I have included a statement about that in your syllabus. However, I will allow you to make up missed assignments if you contact me on or before the day the assignment is due. Other questions?

Student #2: Professor, will you allow us to make up assignments? And will there be any extra credit?

...and so the semester begins. Several weeks pass and no students show up to see me. I notice that some have not been turning in their assignments. After the first exam I plead again with the students read the grading policy in the syllabus and to come and see me, particularly if they have not been doing well. I also remind them of the make-up policy for missed assignments. The second exam comes and goes. This time one student stops by my office. She received a 99% on the exam and is just wondering if there is some extra credit she can do to bring it up to an even 100%.

The semester is almost gone. As we reach the last week of class, I am thrilled to receive an email from a student wanting to talk about the final exam and how he is doing in the class. At the appointed time, the student knocks on my office door.

Student: Hello. I'm looking for Professor Kowallis, can you tell me where I can find him?

Professor: I'm Professor Kowallis. It's been me the whole semester.

Student: Oh, sorry. I wasn't able to get to class as often as I wanted.

Professor: Apparently not. How can I help you?

Student: Well, I haven't done so well on my tests and assignments and I really, really need to pass this class. You see, I'm supposed to graduate this semester and I have a job lined up and I just got married and my dog died last week...oh, and did I mention that I just really need to pass this class.

Professor: Yes, I believe you did mention that. So, let's look at your grade so far. Hmm..I see that you turned in just one of the twenty assignments that were due...and you failed the first exam. Oh, and this is interesting, you appear not to have taken exams 2 and 3. I can see why you're concerned.

Student: Yeah, it was a tough semester. I missed a couple of weeks of class because of a family vacation, and, you know, families are forever. I'm sure you understand that. And then with intramurals and planning for a wedding, I just didn't have much extra time.

Professor: I see. So, what exactly can I do for you today?

Student: Well, I was thinking...and I asked my wife and Bishop about this as well...that we could all get out of this whole mess with a little extra credit. Here...I wrote this report up for you.

Professor: Are you aware that we have a class policy that no extra credit will be given?

Student: No! You're kidding, aren't you?

Professor: No, I rarely get into a kidding mood when it comes to extra credit. But you see it's right here on page 2 of your course syllabus.

Student: Oh...I lost the syllabus the first week of class. So, I guess this means you won't be giving me any extra credit for my report?

Professor: I'm afraid not. But I do have one question. I am a little bit curious about why you thought that a report on the Lord of the Rings trilogy would get extra credit in a class on physical science.

Student: Well, that's pretty obvious, isn't it? There's all that geology stuff. You know, information about mountains and rivers and the Mines of Moria. And when Mt. Doom explodes...why that's got to be one of the best descriptions of volcanic activity anywhere. And there's chemistry too. In fact, there are some things that I couldn't find any mention of in our text book...like mithril, for example. How could they have forgotten to include that in the periodic table? And physics...why physics is everywhere...floating Boromir's body down the river, chasing orcs across Rohan, sailing ships up the Anduin...it's all motion and gravity and buoyancy and forces.

If my resolve against extra credit had not been so firm, I might have given in. Not many students could pull so much physical science out of Middle Earth.

Beclasp Me!

I suppose that many of you, like myself, find time during the busy hours of the day or evening for a little relaxation. I know (because my family has told me many times) that I am a bit odd in my relaxation habits. I relax by working on family history and genealogy rather than watching TV or playing games. I will admit that I do like to solve the daily Sudoku and Cryptoquip in the paper as well. But I draw the line when it comes to Scrabble.

Old fashioned Scrabble sitting around the table was bad enough, but now you can play it on your phone with friends and have dozens of games going at the same time. The problem I have with Scrabble is that is does not test your skill at anything useful. Instead, it tests you on how many obscure words–words that no one in their right mind will ever use–you can look up. Because if you are playing online or on your phone, no one really knows the words they use, they just look them up.

And now the newspaper Scrabble guy seems to have decided to follow the same path. In the newspaper they give you four seven-letter words to unscramble. Your task is to at least make the "par" score, or if you are really good, equal the "best" score of someone who has already unscrambled the words. It used to be that the four words that were scrambled were usually fairly common words. But lately, the words have gotten more and more obscure, just like with online Scrabble players.

For example, last week when I had already completed the Sudoku, the Cryptoquip, and the crossword puzzles, I gave in and thought I would just try the newspaper Scrabble challenge. I mowed down the first three words, which were at least ones I had heard used in conversation. They were: pompous, daybook, and cousin. Daybook is pretty marginal, but I still got it. Cousin, the third word did not appear to have a 7 letter solution, but that was okay because I could still get the "best" score with a strong finish on the last word.

But the fourth word I could not solve. The letters were AEPLSBC. I knew I needed to use all 7 letters to reach the "best score" and no word I could think of would fit. I thought that maybe there was a misprint in the paper and the B should have been a second L because then I could make the word "scalpel." I finally gave up and settled for a shorter word that only gave me enough points to get into the "par" score category.

But since the answer was just on the other page of the paper, I turned it over to see the solution. The word was "beclasp." Really? Beclasp? My spell checker didn't recognize it. I looked it up. It wasn't in my regular dictionary, so I got out the big Random House dictionary. And there it was–beclasp. A transitive verb meaning to clasp all around or on all sides. If it hadn't been in there, I would have thought that the newspaper guy was doing what all other Scrabble players do when they can't think of a word, they just make it up!

Beclasp is a word I have never used and never plan to use in any possible conversation. I mean when could you possibly use beclasp and sound like a normal person? Greeting an old friend? "Oh hello, Henry. Congratulations on the new baby. Let me beclasp your hand." Or perhaps getting home from work. "Hi, Honey! I really need you to beclasp me right now. It was a hard day at the office."

The problem is that to a die-hard Scrabble player "beclasp" is a perfectly good word even though playing Scrabble is the only place it will ever be used. It's as if Scrabble players have banded together to single-handedly save all the obscure words in the English language rather than let them die a normal, honorable death. Well, I will not be joining them. I hope that in the next version of the large Random House dictionary that beclasp will be omitted, or at least marked as archaic usage. It's only a faint hope, however, because there will probably never be another large, printed edition of the Random House dictionary. Everything is online. Just thinking about it makes me a little sad. I think I'll go beclasp that ancient tome right now.