Stock markets took an initial heavy hit back in March when the governments of the world issued edicts shutting down the economies of entire nations. Investors were scared silly. . . . . and now?
via Watts Up With That?
Guest News Brief by Kip Hansen — 6 August 2020
Stock markets took an initial heavy hit back in March when the governments of the world issued edicts shutting down the economies of entire nations. Investors were scared silly. On March 9, 2020, this headline appeared in The New York Times Business section:
Wall Street Plunges in Worst Drop Since 2008
Oil prices crashed and bond yields tumbled. The S&P 500 had its worst day in more than a decade.
[ link ]
The United States has weathered almost six months of Covid [madness] since then. How have investors fared?
Here I speak of investors as specifically opposed to stock market gamblers and speculators. Investors buy shares – partial ownership — in existing companies in order to take advantage of their future prosperity. By being partial owners, they normally receive a share of the company’s profits as dividends and as the company expands and grows, their personal share of the company grows in value. The value of a company is subjective and depends on myriad factors often turning on the concept of public confidence not only the specific company but in its industry and in the economy in general.
Market gamblers and speculators do something quite different. They buy shares in companies in hopes of making a profit on the small, short-term fluctuations in the daily prices of those stocks. The old adage: Buy Low, Sell High – but do it quick. In modern stock markets, there are all kinds of speculative moves that produce profits for these people, but the most salient fact is that they are gambling that a stock or the markets will move in the direction of their bet. When they have guessed right, they profit. If they guess wrong, they lose. These gamblers are often called Day Traders and, as knowledgeable and savvy as many are, like professional poker players, it is a mistake to consider them as anything else.
It is pertinent to point out the “The Stock Markets” are not “The Economy” – while they are generally related and inter-connected, it is a mistake to conflate the two. The U.S. economy, by many measures, in in rough shape, with government-mandated unemployment running very high and many of our smallest businesses having been forced to be closed by government orders related to Covid.
However, the aging U.S. population – its retirees – depend on pension funds and private investments as their main sources of income, along with whatever Social Security income for which they have qualified. Pension funds depend heavily on investments in the stock markets. So, our retired citizens, such as myself, are somewhat at the mercy of the markets.
How have the markets fared for investors?
Have investors been driven to penury by the reaction of the markets to Covid? by the downturn in the economy brought about by government Covid-mandates?
Investors are doing very well, thank you for asking.
Let’s look at the numbers:
Note: All of these charts are for the last 5 years, with the monthly values – the last value is close of market 5 August 2020. Remember: Investors are not bothered by the tiny (or big) day-to-day jitters – they have invested for the mid- and long-term.
The Dow is not at an all-time high – but very near. Despite Covid [Madness] investors are up even on a one-year basis – the Dow is higher than this time last year. Over a five-year period, from August 2015, the market as a whole is up from 16,500 to 27,200 – up 65%. That is a net gain of 13% per year which is a very good return on investment.
The S&P 500 is at an all-time high. In August 2015, it was 1,972, today it finished at 3,327. Over this last five years it has gained 69%, about 13.8% per year, a bit better than the Dow Jones.
The NASDAQ is the big winner. It has risen from 4,776 to 10,998 — a whopping 130% over five years. That’s a gain of 26% per year.
The idea that the Worldwide Covid Lockdown has crashed U.S. stock markets is simply not true. There has been no stockmarket crash in response to the pandemic which has barely affected U.S. stock markets, after the initial shock. Quite to the contrary, two out of three are at all-time highs, and all three major U.S. stock markets have been supplying terrific return-on-investment on price-value alone (even without considering dividends). Your well-diversified pension fund and your well-diversified personal portfolio is safe, healthy and doing well at the moment.
# # # # #
It never hurts to have a little good news. Good financial news is particularly nice when so many depend on their savings and investments.
Reader’s who wish to insist that things are worse-than-we-thought are free to do so, and I won’t argue. The crimes that have been committed against small and family-owned businesses by our political leaders who have been consummed by Covid-Madness are simply beyond anything I would have ever imagined, even as a young 1960s university antiwar revolutionary. I would have been less shocked to see concentration camps for radical dissidents.
# # # # #
August 6, 2020 at 05:05PM
Even if so-called greenhouse gases were a climate problem, CO2 is only a very minor player compared to water vapour, and human-caused CO2 is only a small fraction of total atmospheric CO2. So what problem do we think we can solve?
Climate science is unsettling because past data are not fixed, but change later on. I ran into this when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers, which I discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end. Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up. The two sources of data were:
Temperature anomalies from RSS here: http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu
CO2 monthly levels from NOAA (Moana Loa): https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html
The blue line shows annual observed differences in monthly values year over year, e.g. June 2020 minus June 2019 etc. The first 12 months (1979) provide the observed starting values from which differentials are calculated. …
View original post 1,100 more words
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
August 6, 2020 at 04:39PM
THAILAND, AUGUST 6, 2020
THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF TWO ARTICLES ON THE EFFECT OF BOVINE ENTERIC FERMENTATION AND DIET ON ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING OF THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY. THEY ARE …
(1) THE COWS THAT COULD HELP FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE [LINK]
(2) COW FARTS AREN’T THE ONLY FOOD RELATED CLIMATE CULPRIT [LINK]
PART-1: WHAT THE ARTICLES SAY
- Article #1 says that „a hefty slice of global greenhouse gas emissions come from enteric fermentation of livestock but a vaccine can kill the gut microbes that provide the enteric fermentation function for the cattle and thereby reduce or eliminate their methane emissions. [LINK]
- Article #2 says that a fifth of each person’s carbon footprint comes from food that are sources of greenhouse gas emissions. These foods are identified in the two charts above where the items „red meat“ and „dairy“ refer to enteric fermentation but the list adds new sources not usually seen in the climate change literature that pretty much encompass all food types including grains and vegetables. It says that to fight climate change we must adjust our diet. A vegan diet will have the largest emissions reduction but where a full vegan diet is not possible, the chart above may be used to make food choices wisely to fight climate change. [LINK]
PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY
- In a related post it is argued that AGW climate science derives from and is a continuation of the anti fossil fuel and pro renewable energy movement of the 1960s [LINK] . The reasoning is that climate change serves only as the rationale for climate action and so the real movement is for climate action with climate action restricted to a single option, that of getting rid of fossil fuels and moving the global energy infrastructure to renewables. There is no alternative form of climate action.
- This connection establishes the relationship between AGW and the anti fossil fuel environmentalism of the 1960s that had subsided but was never really over. Climate action continues to link AGW to environmentalism. It is thus that we find an environmentalism interpretation of AGW by environmentalists of all colors with each movement interpreting AGW climate action in terms of their cause.
- In a prior post on this subject [LINK] , we presented a similar argument for the interpretation of climate action by vegans in terms of veganism. In that post it is shown that the interpretation of climate action by vegans differs from climate action prescribed in AGW and that therefore the assumed connection between veganism and AGW does not exist. The difference is that in climate science, climate action requires reduction in fossil fuel emissions but in veganism climate action the proposal is to reduce carbon cycle flows.
- In the current analysis we find that both articles, the livestock vaccine article and the climate friendly diet article, have made exactly the same error in their interpretation of AGW as the veganism article in the prior post. The fatal error in all three articles in their interpretation of climate action is that in climate science, climate action means to reduce fossil fuel emissions. It does not mean to reduce carbon cycle carbon flows that flow from the surface to the atmosphere. The difference between fossil fuel emissions and carbon cycle flows in the context of AGW is explained by NASA climate scientist Dr. Peter Griffith in the video below.
- The importance and key role of fossil fuel emissions in AGW is explained thus by Dr. Griffith: „This is a chunk of coal. It was also made by plants. It also contains carbon dioxide that was in the atmosphere. BUT THE CARBON IN THIS CHUNK OF COAL WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE 350 MILLION YEARS AGO AND SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WE’VE BEEN TAKING IT OUT OF THE GROUND AND USING IT FOR FUEL. THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS WHETHER IT IS COAL, OIL, OR NATURAL GAS, HAS RELEASED THIS VERY VERY OLD CARBON BACK INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
- This statement by Dr Peter Griffith is the essence of the theory of AGW climate change and it is important and necessary that climate action proposals be true to this theory and consistent with what Dr Griffith is saying here. What he is saying is that it is the external carbon, the 350 million year old carbon from under the ground that does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle, that drives AGW, not carbon cycle flows. Carbon cycle flows are natural that always was and always will be and not a creation of the industrial economy and not anthropogenic. The point is that the injection of this very old carbon that is not part of the current account of the carbon cycle causes an artificial perturbation of the carbon cycle that reaches across time for millions of years to raise atmospheric CO2, and causes warming.
- Climate action must therefore be understood in terms of this AGW causation mechanism of the industrial economy and not in terms of pre-industrial carbon cycle flows like respiration or enteric fermentation. In that context, the attempt by environmental activists with an ex ante environmental activism bias against certain natural carbon cycle flows to the atmosphere, to interpret anthropogenic global warming of the industrial economy in terms of their activism needs is inconsistent with AGW theory and cannot be understood as climate action. Such insertion of unrelated environmentalism into AGW climate change cannot be understood as climate action.
- CONCLUSION: The climate action propositions of the two articles cited above – the vaccine to control enteric fermentation and the dietary advice for low carbon cycle carbon flows from nature, are invalidated by the analysis presented above because the proposed climate action does not address anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions of the industrial economy that drives AGW but natural and pre-industrial carbon cycle flows that are irrelevant in the AGW climate change context.
THE NASA VIDEO LECTURE BY DR. PETER GRIFFITH
— Thongchai Thailand
Climate science is unsettling because past data is not fixed, but changes later on. I ran into this when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers, which I discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end. Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up. The two sources of data were:
Temperature anomalies from RSS here: http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu
CO2 monthly levels from NOAA (Moana Loa): https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html
The blue line shows annual changes (differences) in monthly values year over year, IOW, e.g. June 2020 minus June 2019 etc. The first 12 months (1979) provide the observed starting values from which differentials are calculated Those differentials changed slightly in the 2020 dataset vs. the 2014 dataset, on average +0.035 ppm. But there is no pattern or trend added, and deviations vary randomly between + and-. So I took the current dataset to replace the older one for updating the analysis.
The other time series is the record of global temperature anomalies according to RSS. The current RSS dataset is not at all the same as the past.
Here we see some seriously unsettling science at work. The gold line is 2020 RSS and the purple is RSS as of 2014. The red line shows alternations from the old to the new. There is a slight cooling of the data in the beginning years, then the two versions pretty much match until 1997, when systematic warming enters the record. From 1997/5 to 2013/12 the average anomaly increases by 0.11C. After 2004/1 to 2013/12 the average increase is 0.16C. At the end from 2012/9 to 2013/12, the average anomaly was higher by 0.21.
RSS continues that accelerated warming to the present, but it cannot be trusted. And who knows what the numbers will be a few years down the line? As Dr. Ole Humlum said some years ago (regarding Gistemp): It should however be noted, that a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct.”
Given the above manipulations, I went instead to the other satellite dataset UAH version 6. Here are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 changes.
The changes in monthly CO2 closely match temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are referenced to the 1981-2010 period. The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1979 with a simple mathematical formula:
For each subsequent year, the co2 level for each month was generated
CO2 this month this year = a + b × Temp this month this year + CO2 this month last year
Jeremy used Python to estimate a and b, but I used his spreadsheet to guess values that place for comparison the observed and calculated CO2 levels.
This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which rise steadily and monotonically.
Previous Post: What Causes Rising Atmospheric CO2?
This post is prompted by a recent exchange with those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.
The IPCC doctrine which has long been promoted goes as follows. We have a number over here for monthly fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and a number over there for monthly atmospheric CO2. We don’t have good numbers for the rest of it-oceans, soils, biosphere–though rough estimates are orders of magnitude higher, dwarfing human CO2. So we ignore nature and assume it is always a sink, explaining the difference between the two numbers we do have. Easy peasy, science settled.
What about the fact that nature continues to absorb about half of human emissions, even while FF CO2 increased by 60% over the last 2 decades? What about the fact that so far in 2020 FF CO2 has declined significantly with no discernable impact on rising atmospheric CO2?
These and other issues are raised by Murray Salby and others who conclude that it is not that simple, and the science is not settled. And so these dissenters must be cancelled lest the narrative be weakened.
The non-IPCC paradigm is that atmospheric CO2 levels are a function of two very different fluxes. FF CO2 changes rapidly and increases steadily, while Natural CO2 changes slowly over time, and fluctuates up and down from temperature changes. The implications are that human CO2 is a simple addition, while natural CO2 comes from the integral of previous fluctuations. Jeremy Shiers has a series of posts at his blog clarifying this paradigm. See Increasing CO2 Raises Global Temperature Or Does Increasing Temperature Raise CO2 Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
The following graph which shows the change in CO2 levels (rather than the levels directly) makes this much clearer.
Note the vertical scale refers to the first differential of the CO2 level not the level itself. The graph depicts that change rate in ppm per year.
There are big swings in the amount of CO2 emitted. Taking the mean as 1.6 ppmv/year (at a guess) there are +/- swings of around 1.2 nearly +/- 100%.
And, surprise surprise, the change in net emissions of CO2 is very strongly correlated with changes in global temperature.
This clearly indicates the net amount of CO2 emitted in any one year is directly linked to global mean temperature in that year.
For any given year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be the sum of
- all the net annual emissions of CO2
- in all previous years.
For each year the net annual emission of CO2 is proportional to the annual global mean temperature.
This means the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be related to the sum of temperatures in previous years.
So CO2 levels are not directly related to the current temperature but the integral of temperature over previous years.
The following graph again shows observed levels of CO2 and global temperatures but also has calculated levels of CO2 based on sum of previous years temperatures (dotted blue line).
The massive fluxes from natural sources dominate the flow of CO2 through the atmosphere. Human CO2 from burning fossil fuels is around 4% of the annual addition from all sources. Even if rising CO2 could cause rising temperatures (no evidence, only claims), reducing our emissions would have little impact.
In this video presentation, Dr. Salby provides the evidence, math and charts supporting the non-IPCC paradigm.
About 18 minutes from the start Dr. Salby demonstrates that all the warming since 1945 came from two short term events.
If these two events 1977-1981 and 1994-1998 are removed, the entire 0.6C increase disappears. Global Warming theory asserts that adding CO2 causes a systemic change resulting in a higher temperature baseline. Two temperature spikes, each lasting four years, are clearly episodic, not systemic. A further proof that warming over the last 70 years arose from natural variations, not CO2 forcing.
via Science Matters
August 6, 2020 at 01:31PM