True Belief in Global Warming: Errors in Prediction are not Model Errors (?)

I was checking on the current snow storm in the N.E., tonight, and came across a fine exemplar of how true believers avoid logic.

First paragraph:  OK current events show "significantly slower" global warming than predicted in ALL 114 IPCC models.  Yes, everyone UN committee has failed to reflect reality.  But wait, there is more! The reality, further, is there has been NO slowing of global warming, there exist global cooling. True believers see a cooling trend as a slowing of a warming trend. The need to justify a religious belief has given us:  because temperatures are falling, the warming trend is slowing.   (I am not making this up.)

Why:  because the truth exists and stray data must be explained.

Please examine the graph below. There is a colorful splattering that represents every one of the 114 models from our genius academics. Notice the circle?

Yes, the one on the bottom of the colorful patch.  Every model shows real temperature ABOVE reality. Not one model made a  politically incorrect error and demonstrated temperatures below reality. By itself, this condemns all the models to more than being ill conceived - they are written to demonstrate a warmth that does not exist.

Indeed, every model since 1989 places temperature above the real temperature.

The headline, in true believer form, announces the models are not erroneous, they are just all wrong.

At the end, tow scientists are quotes as saying IPCC models do not over estimate the warming my Nissan causes. That mean, of course, they are merely defective.

Climate Model Error Not the Reason for Recent Differences between Forecast and Actual

February 4, 2015; 7:37 PM ET

The rate of global warming since the start of the millennium has indeed been significantly slower than all of the 114 relevant IPCC climate model predictions. However, the gap (error) between what was predicted by the models and what was actually measured was not due to systematic errors of the models as some AGW sceptics have argued.

Global land/ocean surface combined temperature trend since 2000. Image courtesy of NASA GISS.

Not surprisingly, the gap is due to the fact that there are always random fluctuations in the Earth's climate, according to Jochem Marotzke, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and Piers M. Forster, a professor at the University of Leeds in the UK.

The two researchers reached their conclusion through a comprehensive statistical analysis, according to the EurekAlert report.

The team also found that climate models do not generally over-estimate man-made climate change and do not react too sensitively to increasing atmospheric CO2 (greenhouse gas).

Image courtesy Nature 2015/MPI for Meteorology.

OMG, Global Wind is Killing Us!

Since Professor Obama has announced that climate change (whatever that means) is a fact, government worker bees are trying to figure out how how nothing seems to be following the in-bred models.

The government's Council of Information, with departments such as the New York Times, Time, PBS, Discovery Channel, etc., your superficial distractions, are not sure what to report, these days about the "hiatus." 

The hiatus refers to the lack of global warming, which is, also, global change, which includes global cooling. So, there is an admission that the warming seems to be missing, which, for those who failed reeducation camp, must mean there is no climate.  I think. 

Nature Magazine, a pop science digest, is not to be outdone:

...several researchers, writing in Nature magazine, discovered that the wind off the Pacific Ocean is forcing warm water deep into the sea, which in turn lifts cooler water to the surface. 

This has cooled average global temperatures .36 of a degree since 2001. That’s not a lot, but it might be enough to slow down the warming.

I swear I did not make this up.  My humor is subtle, but would not be so bold as to consider anyone would accept such a contortion as satire.  I like the scientific: "That's not a lot, but it might be enough to slow down the warming." Yuk. Yessiree. 

So, global wind saved the earth from global warming by driving warm water under cold water!  We are saved, as long as the wind keeps blowing. 

Since wind reacts to temperature variants on our spinning globe, by blowing down the

warmer water (or whatever) below the colder molecules, wind is creating its own causation. We are in a death spiral! We need Goldman Sachs to tell us what to do.

There was no mention of the obvious, it is the solar storms that are in an hiatus.  (I think "an" is correct). The absence of storm activity is a precursor to continued cooling.  Think global freezing is likely. Unless, of course, the wind drives cold water back where it belongs, but, then, we will die from global changming.  

The answer is to have Progressor Obama announce that it is settled science that we do not need the sun. QED.

Not by a whimper, but by wind

August

Not august, but August, the month. It is here. My car will be also, so thanks to all you taxpayers for your clunker money. I feel stimulus all over me.

A time to slow down and take advantage of the incredible global warming. Just let things slide by and go with the flow, like good serfs, and snuggle by the July fire.

I just wanted to offer two observations about the full-court press about "reforming our medical system." Each time I hear that, my blood pressure goes up and I can't afford that.

1. What's with this medical "system" concept? There is a marketplace, sure. There is no constructed organization, no central planning or government department. What is the medical system? When you start to actually define what you are talking about, the feel good platitudes start to erode.

One could use the term "system," the popular one adopted by social sciences, as shown below, but that is not how it is being invoked. At least, not in the context it is. You can't reform a market or an abstracted defined set of interactions that have no central order or control or output. The human body could called be a system, but how do you reform it? Below, is a little on the use of the term system. I like the integrated whole as opposed to a set of subsets that one makes up.

From Wiki:

System (from Latin systēma, in turn from Greek σύστημα systēma) is a set of interacting or interdependent entities, real or abstract, forming an integrated whole.

The concept of an 'integrated whole' can also be stated in terms of a system embodying a set of relationships which are differentiated from relationships of the set to other elements, and from relationships between an element of the set and elements not a part of the relational regime.

The scientific research field which is engaged in the study of the general properties of systems include systems theory, systems science, systemics and systems engineering. They investigate the abstract properties of the matter and organization, searching concepts and principles which are independent of the specific domain, substance, type, or temporal scales of existence.

Most systems share the same common characteristics. These common characteristics include the following

• Systems are abstractions of reality, or part of reality (real-world systems)
• Systems have structure which is defined by its parts and their composition.
• Systems have behavior, which involves inputs, processing and outputs of material, information or energy.
• Systems have interconnectivity, the various parts of a system have functional as well as structural relationships between each other.

The term system may also refer to a set of rules that governs behavior or structure. (By idiots)

A system can be said to be all this, but it is not an organization or company. It is an abstract aggregation of factors that could be said to form into a blob that has a consistent purpose, sort of, but that is far from it being a machine, hard or soft. Is there a candy store system?

2. What's with "reform"?

This is just a logical thing, so no one really cares about it.

So, what is reform? Is it something new that you like? Something new (or old) that you think is better?

There is no medical organization, so no beneficial tinkering can be made, if we were able to define a beneficial alteration. Is reform more efficiency of the parts, like a stronger biceps?

If we use the looser term for system, how does one reform it? What is bad and what is good? What parts alter the the entire system so there will be unexpected consequences.

Does reform mean cheaper? More under central control?

Is something reformed if the subsets move on or lose incentive?

So, if you say, come on, we all know what reform is, then I say, come on, no we don't and neither do you. Only you are voting for what you don't know. I know, change for changers sake

3. Has anyone found "quo warranto," by what right, the government is going to create a medical organization? Can you identify how the federal government has been empowered to become a socialist central planner and put private companies out of business? Do we care about private contracts? Or do we just skip that step?

So, off I go to fix a fence and plan a smooth escape. I will see if there is any other free money you are giving me.

As it says on the bottom of my letterhead:

Marcus Aurelius: The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.