Pages

Jump to bottom

3 comments

1 klys  Apr 29, 2014 4:24:20pm

Apparently (and this is not on you but on Wired), links to the actual paper are overrated.

Which means I am still left with a whole lot of unanswered questions regarding methodology, assumptions, and once again have the conclusion that the majority of science journalism sucks.

2 Rightwingconspirator  Apr 29, 2014 4:36:41pm

re: #1 klys

Apparently (and this is not on you but on Wired), links to the actual paper are overrated.

Which means I am still left with a whole lot of unanswered questions regarding methodology, assumptions, and once again have the conclusion that the majority of science journalism sucks.

Thanks, I guess all we can do is await further work. Honestly i’d be surprised if this were really in error rather than a debate about how far this has gone.

3 klys  Apr 29, 2014 4:43:14pm

re: #2 Political Atheist

Thanks, I guess all we can do is await further work. Honestly i’d be surprised if this were really in error rather than a debate about how far this has gone.

I don’t know? It is one of the tricky things. Just some of the big questions the Wired article doesn’t answer, but the paper might:

If we’re using damage estimates to provide estimates of windspeed, how is he accounting for storms where there was little damage to the relative observed windspeed? (See the debate over the rating of the May 31 2013 El Reno storm for an idea of how this plays out.) Also relevant to that question is the fact that as this area becomes more built up, there are more things out there to damage. If a tornado goes through a field in the night and is never reported …well, that’s less often happening these days, thanks to the ability to observe on radar and more substantial followup, but it has the possibility to have skewed earlier statistics.

I certainly believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but I’m not convinced that this is yet at the level of good, statistically-sound science. Which is not to say that it won’t ever be, but again, there’s some serious scientific questions to be asked and I can’t see how they were addressed in the paper because Wired doesn’t think they need to provide a link to it.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh