Understanding Statistical Anomalies: A Geographer’s Perspective

Understanding Statistical Anomalies: A Geographer’s Perspective

To help illustrate the statistical peculiarity of the 2020 election data, let’s translate this into a scenario familiar to geographic scientists.

The Death Valley Precipitation Anomaly

Imagine you’re analyzing 150 years of Death Valley precipitation data:

  • 1870-2019: Consistent annual rainfall averaging 1.5-2.0 inches
    • Natural variations of ±0.5 inches
    • Patterns align with regional climate data
    • Correlates with nearby weather stations
    • Confirmed by geological evidence
    • Supported by vegetation patterns

Then suddenly, in 2020:

  • Recorded rainfall: 47 inches
    • 2,350% increase from historical average
    • No corresponding regional precipitation increases
    • No major atmospheric river events recorded
    • No satellite confirmation of extreme weather
    • Limited observer access during measurement period

Most puzzling, in 2021-2024:

  • Rainfall returns to exactly 1.9 inches
    • Perfectly aligned with historical trend
    • No evidence of previous year’s deluge
    • No altered erosion patterns
    • No changes in alluvial fan deposits
    • No flood debris accumulation
    • No vegetation pattern changes

The Scientific Dilemma

As geographers examining this data, you’d face several critical questions:

  1. Physical Evidence: How did 47 inches of rain leave no geological signature?
  2. Regional Context: Why didn’t surrounding areas record any unusual precipitation?
  3. Environmental Impact: Where’s the evidence of flooding, erosion, or vegetation response?
  4. Salt Pan Effects: Why do the salt flats show no signs of such massive water influx?
  5. Documentation: Why no photographic or satellite evidence of this extreme event?

The Modern Measurement Controversy

Now imagine someone arguing: “Today’s normal measurements must be wrong – look at all the tourists! Look at all the cars in the parking lots! Social media is full of Death Valley visitors!”

This mirrors our election scenario perfectly:

  • Questioning normal measurements that:
    • Fit 150 years of patterns
    • Match regional data
    • Show expected physical evidence
    • Can be independently verified
    • Follow known natural laws
  • While accepting anomalous measurements that:
    • Defy historical patterns
    • Show no physical evidence
    • Left no lasting traces
    • Had limited verification
    • Cannot be independently confirmed

The Scientific Conclusion

In geography, as in election analysis, when presented with two scenarios:

  1. A return to normal patterns under intense scrutiny
  2. An unprecedented anomaly under limited observation

The scientific method suggests we question the anomaly, not the return to established patterns.