Sunday, February 14, 2010

No Global Warming, Sorry.

Stiff upper lip and all that, chaps. The money train's pulling out of the station in about 3 years.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

HT: Vox


jimspice said...

The key words here are "statistically significant." Jones said the increase in temp during that period failed, barely, to meet the 95% confidence interval mandated by rigorous science. In other words, there was a .12 C rise, and we can be 94% sure it was real and not due to measurement error, but there is a 6% chance it was not.

That's a far cry from the "no global warming" from the MailOnline headline.

Billiam said...

It's also a far cry from the 'chicken little running around screaming we're all going to drown unless we start using solar stoves and living in tents and stop driving those evil suv's unless your one of the privileged class' crowd.

VSO said...

@ jimspice

You either have invested heavily into these "green" industries that stand to profit from this hoax or you have nothing better to do with time than argue on the internet.

neomom said...

Or it could also mean that the rising temps were due to the asphalt parking lot heat retention or exhaust vents.

jimspice said...

neomom: scientists are well aware the so called "Urban Heat Islands (UHI)" effect. A recent peer-reviewed article in Journal of Geophysical Research * acknowledges urban readings are in fact biased ... toward cooler temps!

You might be happy to hear that other studies have, in fact, found distorted observations exaggerating warming. So they corrected for them. They always have. This is not new. I urge you to read outside of your comfort zone. Here's a nice starting point on UHIs, and though I'm sure you won't trust the site, it points to the actual primary sources, which is what we should all be looking at instead of "opinion leaders" on both sides.

Or, if for no other reason, it's a good idea to know what your opponents are saying so you can better counter it. You may be surprised to find you can't.

VSO: I have plenty to fill my time, but I do enjoy taking out a bit of time each day to bicker. Keeps the mind fresh.

* Warning for Billiam: link goes to actual scientific paper. Big words likely.

Billiam said...

Cute Spice, since I wasn't trying to insult you. Unless, of course, you're one of the chicken littles. I guess I have a problem with those, who in the past have said "The Science is settled." That indicates a closed mind to me. What we've seen, is corruption, the shutting out and dismissing of contrary evidence and Scientists with differing views. BTW, no words in that article that I had to look up, smart@ss.

Dad29 said...

Ah, yes, Jim. And by all means, let's ignore the 800-pound canary called "water vapor."

There IS variability in climate. Has been for all the time that 'climate' has been measured, and the evidence from pre-measurement days affirms that.

Your thesis necessarily posits an 'ideal' temperature, arguably from the mid-1970's, and argues that earthlings should spend whatever it takes to preserve that temperature.

The others (myself included) do not deny variability; they merely understand that there may be causes which we have not defined, and/or we cannot control, no matter HOW much money we put into AlGore's pockets, or those of various 'climatologist/agitators' worldwide.

Too bad that the leading lights of the sky-is-falling crowd also happen to be small-time frauds, eh?

jimspice said...

"Your thesis necessarily posits an 'ideal' temperature..."

From a "pure" science standpoint, the concept of an ideal is nonsensical. The earth, and humanity, as one actor in the system, do what they do, and we just step back and observe, explain and predict.

From an "applied" science perspective, however, we may confer judgment; we may intervene to affect change for our benefit. And yes, there are preferable temps: those to which we have become accustomed and around which we have built our societies. It would hardly be to our advantage to have to pull up stakes and move hundreds of millions of people away from our coasts.

Dad29 said...

"..away from our coasts..."

You mean for the NON-rising ocean threat?

As you may recall, the only anomaly in the last 2000 years was cold.

And in science, Archimedes' Principle is still valid, no?

jimspice said...

Not sure what you are getting at with your Archimedes' Principle reference. Are you suggesting that melting ice won't cause the sea to rise? Well, yes, that's true for the purposes of floating ice, like icebergs, but the concern is about land-bound ice in the arctic, particularly Greenland, and antarctic.

Dad29 said...

So where were the floods when Greenland was the world's largest corn producer?