![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Here's a good little article in Ars Technica, taking a look at the increasingly-common rumors that have been spreading about "global cooling" -- basically, the way that a lot of people with a vested interest in fighting the idea of global warming have seized on short-term statistics and ignored the long-term ones. Apparently the AP did a simple little experiment of sending the data, context-free, to some statisticians and asking what trends were seen in the numbers: the result (which won't surprise most people here) is that the pattern of warming is quite clear, and the "cooling" is nothing more than statistical blips and preconceptions...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-03 11:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-04 02:48 pm (UTC)The thing that makes this notion incorrect is that you don't know that the current case has the same duration and magnitude as the other cases - you only know whether it has that so far. One of the important bits about Bayes Theorem is to get some tools to help figure out the probability that new data weakens or strengthens the probability that the current model is correct.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-04 05:12 pm (UTC)Correct. The true answer of a scientist is, "the current data does not yet support that conclusion". The strict scientist does not speculate on what the future data may or may not be. That would be assuming the conclusion.
I also think that we are talking about slightly different questions. The "case for global warming" is to me a case about a trend in the past - has the average temperature been rising. Even if this cooling trend continues, it does not alter the fact that the past trend was for warming. Nor would it mean that the past warming trend was withing normal variations.