4 ms·

In fairness though, they didn't just make up their bias assertion; it's in other published works[1] and there is real evidence that old measurements were incorr

In fairness though, they didn't just make up their bias assertion; it's in other published works[1] and there is real evidence that old measurements were incorrect (biased towards the high side) when compared to other available contemporary measurements. [1]: Landsea, C. W. Mon. Weath. Rev. 121, 1703–1714 (1993) - https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fmwre$002f121$002f6$002f1520-0493_1993_121_1703_acoima_2_0_co_2.xml?t%3Aac=journals%24002fmwre%24002f121%24002f6%24002f1520-0493_1993_121_1703_acoima_2_0_co_2.xml&tab_body=pdf https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$0...

laverya 3y ago
Their corrections may be correct, but it's still always nicer when the magnitude of the signal is larger than that of the corrections to the data.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  What is nice is vetting and correcting data for reliability and consistency. Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. Our brains constantly make up distracting narratives, if we let them. If the correction had been the other way, some people would say scientists have been downplaying data and probably still are.
  - foofie 3y ago
    > Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. I don't think you fully grasp the implications of arbitrarily correcting old measures. In the end, and accepting at face value these corrections, you're still manipulating old data to use the result of said manipulation as the whole basis of your hypothesis. This approach automatically leads to questions on whether you draw your conclusions from the data, or you change the data to fit your conclusions. Do you understand the risk that this poses in any discussion on a politically sensitive topic? Think of the hit to the credibility of any claim supported by this data manipulation if later your method is deemed untrustworthy because it needs further updates, and how it would look if you had to correct it to move the dial either way (i.e., "they were lying from the start and are now covering their ass" vs "they felt their lie wasn't fooling anyone and decided to double down.")
    - lolc 3y ago
      > arbitrarily correcting old measures. Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction?
      - foofie 3y ago
        > Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Because it follows a method picked and chosen by the corrector. > Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction? It doesn't really matter if these corrections sway one way or the other. What matters is that someone decided that the original values weren't good, and proceeded to pick a way to come up with other values by changing the original ones.
        lolc 3y ago
        I still don't understand your choice of words. It feels like you jumped into epistemology at the deep end and don't know how to swim in it. One article that pops up frequently around here is "Reality has a surprising amount of detail" http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-amount-of-detail http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-... I think you could profit from reading it. And I found "The Golem" a pretty good read too, if you want to go down that path: https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/general-science/history-science/golem-what-you-should-know-about-science-2nd-edition-1?format=PB&isbn=9781107604650 https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/genera...
    - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
      Tough shit. Nature doesn't care about political inconvenience. You must work with your most accurate representation of the data.
      - a_gnostic 3y ago
        I wonder how these comments measure on the Henderson Scale of plot-derailment.
throwaway2990 3y ago
Yup it’s a good way to make it fit the narrative and get more funding.
- deprecative 3y ago
  While I like a good conspiracy, it seems to me as though this was a perfectly appropriate outcome of technological advancement. Surely old storms would be biased high given a variety of reasons.
  - sudenmorsian 3y ago
    It's been acknowledged in the meteorological community that reconnaissance wind speed estimates for storms in the 1950s and 1960s have a high bias in the most intense storms, as the field was still in its infancy during that time period. Further advancement in later decades has improved the confidence in the estimates. No conspiracy needed. After all, the first time a hurricane was intentionally flown into by a storm was only in 1943: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Surprise_Hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Surprise_Hurricane. The 1950s and 1960s are not that far removed from that initial attempt.

laverya 3y ago

Their corrections may be correct, but it's still always nicer when the magnitude of the signal is larger than that of the corrections to the data.

Nevermark 3y ago
What is nice is vetting and correcting data for reliability and consistency. Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. Our brains constantly make up distracting narratives, if we let them. If the correction had been the other way, some people would say scientists have been downplaying data and probably still are.
- foofie 3y ago
  > Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. I don't think you fully grasp the implications of arbitrarily correcting old measures. In the end, and accepting at face value these corrections, you're still manipulating old data to use the result of said manipulation as the whole basis of your hypothesis. This approach automatically leads to questions on whether you draw your conclusions from the data, or you change the data to fit your conclusions. Do you understand the risk that this poses in any discussion on a politically sensitive topic? Think of the hit to the credibility of any claim supported by this data manipulation if later your method is deemed untrustworthy because it needs further updates, and how it would look if you had to correct it to move the dial either way (i.e., "they were lying from the start and are now covering their ass" vs "they felt their lie wasn't fooling anyone and decided to double down.")
  - lolc 3y ago
    > arbitrarily correcting old measures. Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction?
    - foofie 3y ago
      > Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Because it follows a method picked and chosen by the corrector. > Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction? It doesn't really matter if these corrections sway one way or the other. What matters is that someone decided that the original values weren't good, and proceeded to pick a way to come up with other values by changing the original ones.
      - lolc 3y ago
        I still don't understand your choice of words. It feels like you jumped into epistemology at the deep end and don't know how to swim in it. One article that pops up frequently around here is "Reality has a surprising amount of detail" http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-amount-of-detail http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-... I think you could profit from reading it. And I found "The Golem" a pretty good read too, if you want to go down that path: https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/general-science/history-science/golem-what-you-should-know-about-science-2nd-edition-1?format=PB&isbn=9781107604650 https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/genera...
  - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
    Tough shit. Nature doesn't care about political inconvenience. You must work with your most accurate representation of the data.
    - a_gnostic 3y ago
      I wonder how these comments measure on the Henderson Scale of plot-derailment.

throwaway2990 3y ago

Yup it’s a good way to make it fit the narrative and get more funding.

deprecative 3y ago
While I like a good conspiracy, it seems to me as though this was a perfectly appropriate outcome of technological advancement. Surely old storms would be biased high given a variety of reasons.
- sudenmorsian 3y ago
  It's been acknowledged in the meteorological community that reconnaissance wind speed estimates for storms in the 1950s and 1960s have a high bias in the most intense storms, as the field was still in its infancy during that time period. Further advancement in later decades has improved the confidence in the estimates. No conspiracy needed. After all, the first time a hurricane was intentionally flown into by a storm was only in 1943: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Surprise_Hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Surprise_Hurricane. The 1950s and 1960s are not that far removed from that initial attempt.