Not housing starts, not housing sales, not retail sales, not even the plunging stock market headed from down 50% toward down 66% from October 07 high. The threat is the unemployment number skyrocketing (blue), and the acceleration of the year over year change employment rate (red). The acceleration in both directions is thrilling if you are, like me, excited by catastrophes, dystopian romances of apocalypse, and just generally a fan of end of the world movies. What we see here is a Grapes of Wrath (Rage) scenario headed to Bladerunner (Rain) on its way to Soylent Green (Bones). The Obama administration budget proposal is Condition Rage, with enough class warfare to entice the poll numbers to favor the war on money and investing and corporations. It is an easy success to speak against the rich, and to demand that the rich pay their fair share. This does not answer the problem, it just frames
it. The markets shrug at the President's rhetoric. This is a worldwide collapse, and the ability of the US to manage the crisis is limited to not significant. The unemployed are an army. The army is at first spontaneous and rankless, but then it quickly finds leadership and voices; and the army in the US will find the army in Germany and Britain and Taiwan and Mexico and so forth. Then we will have a global rising. How long will it take? I found a quote last evening from the Baseline Scenario prodigy that I really like. "...it always takes longer than you think; but when it happens, it always happens faster than you can imagine." Look at the chart (right) on US unemployment, and consider this tale from Germany right now.
The Market Not Bottoming.
In case you avoided TV and the web the last hours, there is this chart from CR on the market sell-off, comparing the '29 crash (of the Dow) with the bear markets of 73-74, 02-04 and 08-09 (SPX). Long way below.
Colleague Larry Johnson of No Quarter sends me this trenchant post he put up tonight:
The Obama Depression
By Larry Johnson on February 28, 2009 at 6:51 PM in Current Affairs | Edit
Obama inherited an economic mess from George W. Bush but he is moving rapidly to put his own stink on the situation and make it a genuine disaster. Strong words, but the decision making of Barack Obama and his team of clowns (if you claim to be an economic genius and can’t figure out how to use Turbo Tax or to pay your taxes on time a la Timmy Geithner, you are by definition a clown) over the last month is worsening the already precarious financial system. The failure is two fold–the failure to pass a genuine stimulus package and the decision to propose a budget that quadruples the Federal deficit while raising taxes.
Government spending cannot rescue the economy. It can help stave off a collapse, but the Government itself tends to be a drain because it is financed by taking money from U.S. citizens who do not work for the government or from borrowing money from people who, for whatever reason, are willing to make Uncle Sam a loan. There is a third alternative–invade another country and still its wealth–but that has not worked out too well for us either.
Why do I insist that the stimulus package won’t work? Consider this. On page 49 of the stimulus bill aka The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 you find this little gem:
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AVIATION SECURITY
For an additional amount for ‘‘Aviation Security’’, $1,000,000,000 for procurement and installation of checked baggage explosives detection systems and checkpoint explosives detection equipment: Provided, That the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall prioritize the award of these funds to accelerate the installations at locations with completed design plans: Provided further, That no later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives a plan for the expenditure of these funds.
This may save some jobs but it is unlikely to create any new jobs. Two of the biggest suppliers of this kind of technology are GE and L-3. For the purpose of full disclosure I once worked with a company that represented the original manufacturer of the GE machine (Invision Technologies) way back in 1996. So I have some first hand knowledge about employees and production requirements.
You should first be aware that the Congress already had appropriated $450 million to purchase explosive detection systems for airports. Now they have added another billion to the mix. Here’s the problem. There is a limited number of machines the companies can make without expanding their factories. I am told be a friend who is a lobbyist who represented one of these companies that the production capability in the existing factories is currently underutilized. Both GE and L-3 can make about 30 machines a month. That is 720 a year. Even with the promise of as much as $1 billion neither GE nor L-3 Communications are going to build new factories and hire new workers to produce around 800 explosive detection machines. Nope, they will simply use existing employees who are not fully engaged on other projects. They may hire some new workers, but these will be temporary hires. These are not going to be long term hires. This $1 billion is not going to generate more than 1000 jobs total.
Do you understand what that means? How many salaries could you pay with $1 billion if you were going to pay each person $50,000? That is 20,000 people. But this 1 billion for GE and L-e is not going to create even 1000 jobs. That is a fact. The $1.45 billion dollars will help GE and L-3 stay in business, but it is not a jobs juggernaut. Why?
The machines that detect explosives in checked baggage cost around $1 million a piece. Let’s assume that one half of the 1.45 billion will go to both GE and L-3, which means they will build about 750 machines. If we were talking about building 75,000 machines it would make sense economically to build a new plant and hire new workers. But that’s not the case. Once you build the machines then you have to install them. This creates the need to do some construction at airports in order to install the machines. Once again we are talking short term, temporary employment. Oh, and did I mention that the Government wants to add more explosive detection systems at a time that air travel is declining?
By the way, how did GE react to the great news of more Federal money heading its way?
General Electric cut its dividend yesterday for the first time since 1938 as the global recession and credit crunch sapped profit at its finance unit and threatened the company’s AAA credit rating.
The quarterly dividend was lowered 68 percent, to 10 cents a share from 31 cents for this year’s second half, the company said in a statement. The reduction will save GE, which has paid a dividend for 110 years, about $9 billion a year, the company said.
Moody’s Investors Service said after yesterday’s dividend cut that it will keep GE on review for a possible debt downgrade from Aaa, its highest level. Standard & Poor’s also kept GE’s top-notch AAA and “negative” outlook unchanged.
Got it? The so-called stimulus package is not going to boost economic activity in the short or mid term. Zippo.
Don’t get me wrong, I think these are important systems needed to enhance aviation security. I believe that it is a product the Government must subsidize and support. But we should not delude ourselves into believing that the plants required to produce these machines are labor intensive. They are not. Unfortunately the so-called stimulus bill is filled with “projects” like this. The Federal Government is going to spend a lot of money but it is not going to generate/create a significant number of private sector jobs.
The warning signs about the worsening economic situation are clear. Just today the headlines in the Washington Post included these two bits of “good” news:
Latham & Watkins Cuts 190 Lawyers
Economy Shrinks at Staggering Rate
A friend of mine who cleans houses for a living told me two days ago she is looking for more work because several of her longtime clients who are lawyers have lost their jobs and can no longer afford to pay her. The Washington Post story on the firing of the lawyers also noted that:
In February, hundreds of jobs were cut at firms with District offices, including 243 at Holland & Knight, 134 at Bryan Cave and 29 at Dechert. Officials at Latham and the other firms declined to say how many of the dismissals were in Washington.
When lawyers in the Washington, D.C. are are being laid off and let go that should get your attention. If more government spending was a simple solution to the unemployment problem gripping this nation then companies in and around the seat of the Federal Government should be hiring more lawyers.
The Federal Government’s money is reality is more likely to be focused on saving banks rather than creating new jobs. This headline in the Post captured the mood, Bank Failures Take Toll on Insurance Fund:
The federal insurance fund that protects most bank deposits is being drained by a sharp rise in bank failures and has dwindled to its lowest level since 1993, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reported yesterday.
Depositors are not at risk because the fund is backed by the government, but taxpayers could be forced to reach into their wallets if the decline continues.
And what is Barack’s solution? More government spending on programs that do not create jobs and higher taxes. Yet, even with higher taxes, the deficits are exploding in ways that even the spendthrift George W. Bush, who presided over a doubling of our national debt (adding almost $5 trillion dollars during his eight year tenure).
The stock market dropped 4% in the very week that the Obama team announced its budget, provided details on bank bailouts and promised to exit Iraq. If you think a 4% drop is a sign of confidence then I know a Nigerian who wants to give you a $1 million dollars. Just send me your bank account and social security number and we’ll take care of getting your money. Like Barack, I promise.
As we head into March Madness we should reflect on the 'One" Shining moment of 2008. Please check out the LA Times February 22, 2009 article about China's building boom going bust. However, we had Georgia on our mind because the Devil went down to Georgia.
But no fret because we were on a Rocky Mountain High but now everyone is leaving on a jet plane or on the magical mystery our which is coming to take me away to the funny farm.
The Rocky mountain high has turned into the Rocky Horror show and we are in a Time Warp back to the thirties having not learned the lessons of history.
Thank God I am a Country Boy
Besides giving us the economic stimulus bill that can't, the Obama Administration can't even keep its basic story straight. Just days ago, The Bamster himself was wailing from the housetops that this country as facing "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," a crisis-crisis-CRISIS so far-reaching that it might require years to restore economic growth. Hence, the dire need for a trillion dollars in new or increased public sector spending, specifically to create or "save" (whatever that may mean) two million, or three million, or three-and-a-half million, or four million (take your pick) jobs. Pass it immediately, no substantive analysis or debate allowed, and the humongous Federal deficits be damned, it's a CRISIS!!
But now those crushing future deficits -- and their concomitant confiscatory tax increases -- are under increasingly sharp political attack, and so we find that Cassandra has abruptly given way to Rosy Scenario. Barack's former crepe-hangers are now soothingly predicating the allegedly reasonable size and extent of their new deficits and taxes on projections of economic growth ranging up to twice the rate of even the most optimistic predictions from private economists, and allegedly to commence as early as the end of this year and accelerate every year thereafter.
Some questions: So what happened to the New Great Depression if economic growth is going to recommence this year or in 2010, and at a respectable rate? Isn't that what most folks would call a "recovery" rather than a "crisis?" And wouldn't that also mean that economic growth will have been restored - and, necessarily, the rise in unemployment halted or reversed -- before very much of the so-called "stimulus" has even been spent (2010-2011 at the earliest)? You can't have both Armageddon and Sunnybrook Farm at the same time.
Two possible conclusions: (1) Barack Obama is an economic illiterate who doesn't know what the hell he is doing, which is scary.
(2) Barack Obama, who is a consummate political strategist and tactician and no dummy, knows exactly what he's doing, and he has no intention of restoring the American economy as we formerly knew it, especially after 1980, which is even scarier. OR
(3) Both (1) and (2) are true, for they are hardly mutually exclusive, and that's downright terrifying.
You forgot to mention that GE owns NBC
So, you did not like my 9/11 analogy for where we find ourselves today. Understood. Try this one: I'm quite certain that going out to buy a new summer dress at Saks Fifth Avenue was the last thing on Edith Metzger's mind on that fateful night of August 11th, 1956 (on Long Island) as she sat in the back seat of Jackson Pollock's convertible, screaming to get out.
I was always wondering when someone was going to ask Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann if their salary should be capped at $500,000 since GE Capital took TARP money.
Obama does not care that the economic predictions of the stimulus bill and the 2010 budget do not align. He is fully aware that the media will not analyze the inconsistancies and that the public as a whole has significant attention deficit disorder due to all the electronic gadgets that they fill their day with. No wone reads much besides the headline or the sound byte.
That is why it was so funny watching Gibbs and Sentelli going at it in front of the camera wheter they read Obama's plan. Neither had and the rest was theatrics.
Additionally that his been the lament of the democratic way. No one has read the fine print. Obama spoke of the great vetting process. They caught Geithner, Daschle, Solis etal but pushed them through anyway. Daschle had already been in violation of the senate lobbying provisions. What do standards and regulations mean if you do not intend to enforce them or selectively do so. Obama's aunt is still here in America.
That is why the contention of Bush or reagan doing away with regulations are so laughable. All we ask is to regulate the rules that are on the books. Madoff and some of the other scoundrels may have been caught.
JB, can you post the Japanese climate modeling articles?
Since when does "consensus" matter in scientific study?
"Lies, Damnable Lies, and Statistics"
-Mark Twain
Consensus' in Collapse: Japanese scientists make 'dramatic break' with UN hypothesis of man-made warming! (UK Register)
Excerpt: ‘Compares computer climate modeling to ancient astrology.’ […] Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes. […] Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission. Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside. One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased. The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis. JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/print.html
Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report
By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT
Free whitepaper – Utilizing IT to put data to work
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.
Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:
"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."
Key Passages Translated
What is the source of the rise in atmospheric temperature in the second half of the 20th century?
Shunichi Akasofu
[Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Introductory discussion.
Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted
Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.
According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.
From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).
The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.
(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most part, to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.) This quasi-periodic cycle fluctuates 0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50 years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely pronounced in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand. The previous quasi-periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940 and negative from 1940 to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions rapid increase after 1946).
Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase). Since 1975 the chances of increase in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration) are high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative. For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after that, the negative cycle will probably continue.
Regarding the current temporary condition (la Nina) JPL observes a fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note: this book is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.
They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for "truth". This truth is not observationally accurate testimony. This is sidestepping of global warming theory with quick and easy answers, so the opinion that a great disaster will really happen must be broken.
It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is "hibernating". The end of Sunspot Cycle 23 is already two years late: the cycle should have started in 2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot appeared in the sun's northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished completely (new sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern hemisphere). At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no spots in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is worrisome.
So, have there been other historical periods with an absence of sunspots? As a matter of fact, from 1650 to 1700 approximately, there were almost no sunspots. This time period has been named for the renown English astronomer Maunder, and is called the Maunder Minimum.
There is a relationship between transported energy and the light emissions from the photosphere and sunspots. It was thought that times of few sunspots are times of lower energy. Satellites were launched in 1980 to research this, and results were contrary to expectations. It became clear that these times were more energetic than periods of high sunspots. Periods of low sunspots have vigorous solar activity. The total change during sunspot cycles is usually .0.1%, from the Maunder Minimum to today the increase is .05%. The Maunder Minimum fell in the middle of the period of 1400-1800, the Little Ice Age, and it was theorized that this was due to a cut in solar emissions. The theory is that solar activity began to increase after that, and from 1800 global warming increased and recovery from the Little Ice Age began.
But sunspot change and climate change are not clearly correlated. Rather, the cycle was not the punctual 11 years, scientific research indicates that climate change is related to that change. Furthermore, according to the IPCC's computational investigation, this energy increase does not significantly contribute to global warming. But then, the IPCC insists that current global warming correlates to CO2, solar influence is estimated as minimal, this calculation should be redone. This 0.1-0.5% is an enormous sum of energy. The energy of solar emissions is not just light from the photosphere. Solar winds cause geomagnetic storms, yet comparisons of solar wind and light energy to particle emissions are rarely carried out. Research into the relationship between geomagnetic storms and climate change has been undertaken for almost 100 years. However, because during this time, this simple correlation has not been seen, no conclusion has been reached. The super-hot temperatures of geomagnetic storms higher than 100 kilometers have increased, and the chances of the stratospheric and tropospheric transference are low.
Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer are affected. Whether or not this affects the troposphere is unknown. More research is necessary. On the other hand, cosmic rays continuously fall, it seems that they constantly seed comparatively low clouds. The solar system may shield us somewhat from Geomagnetic storms caused by solar winds, so called "magnetic clouds" may shield us from extrasolar cosmic rays, so solar activity and climate are in a complex relationship.
In this way, climate change and solar activity's relationship is inconclusive. It is necessary to increase research efforts into the relationship between Earth's climate fluctuations and solar activity.
Predicting the Future with Numerical Simulation
Kanya Kusano, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC)
Numerical simulation by forecast models are generally classified as theoretical models and empirical models. The former follows universal laws and carries out predictive calculations, the latter makes models that are thought to be realistic from data of phenomenon. These two methods cannot be strictly differentiated, generally experiential methods gradually become theoretical methods, finally becoming the generally accepted dogma.
Celestial mechanics originated in astrological prediction of solar and lunar eclipses, calendars were experiential predictions; mechanistic theory evolved when we reached an era of accurate computation. Consequently, the predictability of celestial mechanics became extremely high and practical estimates gave way to proof. Similarly, modern Global Climate Models still largely dependent on empirical models. Fundamental principles, therefore must resolve very complex physical/chemical/biological processes and phenomenon. That is why many artificial optimization operations (parameterization tuning) are needed, or we will not be able to reproduce the phenomenon. Because of this, besides mathematical accuracy, the people who construct models' choice of processes and optimum operating guidelines will have large scale effects on the calculated results.
1. Scientific Understanding and Uncertainty
When constructing models, if our scientific understanding is poor, we are not able to capture the model. But we should pay attention to the importance of the naturally occurring processes when our scientific understanding is not yet clearly decided.
In the IPCC's 4th Evaluation Report, a few potentially major processes were discussed; but [since] scientific understanding was too low to decide, the evaluation of these was omitted. In order to scientifically understand the uncertainty of accurate estimates according to the potential importance of these processes, "the cause of lack of scientific understanding and uncertainty" must be assessed.
Finally, uncertainty estimates should be included. For example, the effect of variances in cosmic ray activity on clouds, caused by sunspot activity, solar flares accompanied by energetic protons striking the upper atmosphere and generating NOx and ozone effects [*], etc., are not sufficiently understood and incorporated into the models.
Also, there are great uncertainties in reproducing historical TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), TSI fluctuation and spectral change related climate sensitivity estimates are inadequate.
2. The limits of modeling aerosols and clouds
The indirect effect of aerosols and aerosol generation as the greatest uncertainty is becoming widely recognized, but fundamental, naturally spontaneous (especially oceanic) aerosols are not yet well understood. Dimethyl sulfide (DMS: CH3SCH3) of biological origin is thought to be a primary source of sulphuric aerosol formation over oceans, but the process of cloud cores forming from DMS is not sufficiently understood. According to recent physical models, the percentage of involvement of cosmic ray ionization processes is not well understood.
Furthermore, the types of aerosols and the ways they affect climate systems are not well understood. The increasing number of aerosols, in this case, augments precipitation, but if it increases too much, water droplet diameter will decrease and cloud generation will be renewed, and the albedo will be changed significantly. Thus, the fine-scale physical processes of clouds causing feedback in geological climate fluctuation now clearly points at this as a decisively material effect.
However, the discussion of the properties and life span of aerosols in clouds in the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report is inadequate.
3. Predictability and estimation rules
The 4th Evaluation Report is confident of the reliability of its assessment that previous data does not differ from its model. But a more effectively persuasive assessment of its predictive ability has not come forth. This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting solar eclipses, future predictions should be tested in practice. Again, by means of short metaphase models and domain models, future information feedback can be isolated in hindcast experiments (reproducing the past according to the model) and quantitatively compared to long term climate predictions assessments.
4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical
To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability. ®
[Translation by Charles Eicher.]
Andrew warmly welcomes your comments. (mailto:andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk?Subject=japan_climate)
Politico had a story interpreting parts of Obama's State of the union speech.
I have an interpretation of Obama's comments from yesterday.
I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
I have made Washington D.C. a one party town like Chicago and now the pay for play has gone up. Pay up or be frozen out.
String Theory?
Great stuff about the Japanese scientists' report. Would it be possible to make a separate thread out of it. I know a whole bunch of people I'd like to send the link to, and if they are shallow enough to buy the man-made "global warming" nonsense, they'll never have the patience to page all the way down to that post.
This is truly so cool :D Thankyou for posting this!