The unworthy attraction of spurious accuracy

(Photo: Sky UK Limited)

I was interested to see a press release announcing that Sky News was to begin broadcasting a daily Climate Show, highlighting the latest information on climate change. It is obviously extremely good that a broadcaster is taking climate change seriously, but it looks as if Sky has fallen for one of the oldest problems in the book when it comes to reporting data: spurious accuracy.

I can only guess, but my suspicion is that the show has a bit of a problem with daily reporting on a topic that is changing relatively slowly. There's only so much drama you can put into a slow moving topic, but by making the show daily, Sky would need some impressive graphics, including their huge on-screen display. When I saw this, something leapt out at me. Apparently the average global temperature has gone up by 1.123456789 °C since 1880. Clearly this was just a test number for the display (though it's a shame it appeared in their publicity photo), but equally it seems likely that they intend to display the increase in average temperature to nine decimal places - presumably so it can dramatically tick upwards during the show. But there's a big problem with this.

The good news is, we know where Sky is getting their data - and it is genuinely impressive that they have an attribution for it on their graphic, pointing to the University of Oxford's Global Warming Index. Even so, nine decimal places seems impossibly accurate for a number that is notoriously difficult to calculate. The Earth is a big place and temperatures around the world at the same time can vary hugely, making the deduction of a realistic value really tricky. The Oxford gang do a great job - there's a good paper here describing how it's done. But the interesting thing is to look at the uncertainty in these figures.

In the 2017 paper, Haustein et al tell us that 'the human-induced warming in May 2017, calculated relative to the period 1850–79*, reached +1.01 °C with an uncertainty range of +0.87 to +1.22 °C (5–95% confidence interval).' This tells us that with a reasonable degree of confidence, the rise was somewhere between 0.87 and 1.22 degrees (though it would not be extremely unlikely for it to be outside that range). The value, then is accurate(ish) to about 0.18 degrees either way. This means that the only safe figure is a 1 °C rise. You could probably push this to 1.0 °C. But any further accuracy is pure fantasy.

A value that shows nine decimal places may look pretty on the screen, but it is hugely misleading to the viewer. You wouldn't be impressed if a courier told you that a parcel would arrive at 10.50am, and when it didn't arrive they said 'Oh, that just means it will come sometime this year.' Yet that's far closer than is nine decimal places to one decimal place. Spurious accuracy can result in all kinds of misunderstandings when it is misinterpreted. It can also backfire on the scientists when they have to revise a value. For example, if the temperature rise were calculated more accurately, it might turn out to be, say, 0.9 or 1.2 - this would make it seem like they were stabbing in the dark when they had apparently previously claimed to know it to such accuracy.

So, please Sky News, consider dropping this feature - or if you must make use of this spurious accuracy, please display the confidence intervals on the display too (and explain them). Otherwise the result will not do climate science any service whatsoever.

* So strictly speaking this is not since 1880, but we'll let Sky off on that one.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog