Articles like this reinforce why actual science is so important & can't be replaced by newspapers (sorry @pbump)
US tornado record has significant known discontinuities (eg, 1950-1973, 1974-1999, 2000-) making simple trend analysis misleading
Discussed: sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publicat…
US tornado record has significant known discontinuities (eg, 1950-1973, 1974-1999, 2000-) making simple trend analysis misleading
Discussed: sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publicat…
https://twitter.com/pbump/status/1470462051260772359
Eg, this figure is incredibly misleading
It purports to saying something about tornadoes
What is really says is something complicated about how observational technologies have changed over decades (eg, Doppler Radar 1995) allowing different abilities to detect tornadoes
It purports to saying something about tornadoes
What is really says is something complicated about how observational technologies have changed over decades (eg, Doppler Radar 1995) allowing different abilities to detect tornadoes
The @washingtonpost utterly ignores the IPCC, whose job it is to sort through complex issues in the literature like observational platform changes over time & impact on detection of events
In process WP completely contradicts IPCC & mainstream scientific literature . . .
In process WP completely contradicts IPCC & mainstream scientific literature . . .
More people read WP than IPCC or peer-reviewed literature
Thus when accurate science is presented (eg IPCC) there is a reflexive response by the well-meaning but uniformed to label it "denial" etc
Thus WP actually contributes to spreading misinformation counter to IPCC
Thus when accurate science is presented (eg IPCC) there is a reflexive response by the well-meaning but uniformed to label it "denial" etc
Thus WP actually contributes to spreading misinformation counter to IPCC
What IPCC actually says
"trends in tornadoes... associated w/ severe convective storms are not robustly detected"
"attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (eg, tornadoes) is beyond current modelling & theoretical capabilities"
"how tornadoes... will change is an open Q
"trends in tornadoes... associated w/ severe convective storms are not robustly detected"
"attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (eg, tornadoes) is beyond current modelling & theoretical capabilities"
"how tornadoes... will change is an open Q
The TL;DR excerpt from our paper on normalized US tornado losses on data discontinuities in the NOAA records
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
