Feed on

You thought I meant global warming? More like unemployment swarming.

And going back to the BS from the BLS, as John Lohman’s chart below shows that in 2011 initial and continuing claims have been revised higher the week following 91% and 100% of the time, respectively. A purely statistical explanation for this phenomenon is “impossible.”

I am sure it is just one tiny isolated series of 52 incidents.

UPDATE: for some of you interested in the science of global warming, here is another link from Coyote. As he puts it, it is the “dinosaur bone to the creationists” data. A summary?

The bottom line:

The models say the Earth system ought to accrue energy at the rate of 3W/m2. Instead the best estimate we have of recent energy balance suggests we’ve been losing energy at a rate of about 0.1 W/m2 (Knox and Douglass 2010). The models don’t match the observations.

There is no getting around it. The models are wrong. The energy balance is so central that none of their other predictions can be relied on.

Ocean Heat Content conpared to modelsOcean Heat Content conpared to models

3 Responses to “Fun Facts to Know and Tell: Science from the “Evidence” Based Community”

  1. Harry says:

    Great charts.

    A while ago, wintercow pointed out that the US Department of Labor has an annual budget north of $200 billion. One would think that the BLS could do more reliable forecast of initial claims. Maybe when the BLS guys go to OTB, they get tips from their fellow statisticians at the USDA, or the EPA, or the cosmopolitans at the IPCC.

  2. Harry says:

    Anybody who has tiptoed into the Atlantic or Pacific oceans north of Jacksonville or San Diego knows that red line is wrong. The water is refreshing.

Leave a Reply