"An Unforgettable Winter" - Bank Of America's "Explanation" For The 17th Worst GDP Print In US History

Tyler Durden's picture

And so the polar bears penguins come out of hibernation, "explaining" today's disastrous GDP print. Randomly selected for your reading pleasure, here is Bank of Frigid America's Ethan Harris spiking the Kool Aid with an above Surgeon General recommended dose of hopium.

An unforgettable winter

 

We caution against reading too much into the weakness, as it is clear that special factors during the quarter distorted growth. The severe winter weather weighed heavily on consumption, fixed investment and trade. Furthermore, there was a notable inventory drawdown that amounted to a 1.7pp drag on growth, following two strong quarters of inventory build in 3Q and 4Q of 2013. Despite the deeper contraction in this final release, we are not revising 2Q GDP growth. We continue to expect a 4.0% rebound in the second quarter, and the recent data suggest that we are headed in that direction. However, uncertainty around this number remains elevated: there could continue to be special factors at play stemming from the weakness in 1Q. Moreover, benchmark GDP revisions, released with the first estimate of 2Q GDP in July, could alter the trajectory.

 

Assuming 4.0% growth in 2Q and solid 3.0% growth in 2H, growth will still only average 1.7% this year. It certainly was not the start of the year we were hoping for.

Putting today's GDP print in context, here is J. Lyons Fund Management which shows that the final Q1 GDP print was the 17th worst in US history.

 

Or, said another way, it was their fault.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PartysOver's picture

Can't make this stuff up.  Incredible.

Tao 4 the Show's picture

And just wait for the El Nino and the apparent grand solar minimum coming. Should be an interesting decade or two ahead.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

The future will be more interesting than ever.

Pinto Currency's picture

 

Unforgettable Kondratiev winter.

CH1's picture

Because Global Warming?

Honey Badger's picture

At least stocks aren't affected by the weather...

flacon's picture

Heads I win, tails I win. Extreme cold I win, extreme hot I win. 

RevRex's picture

Global warming causes record cold winters which cause the economy to shit a brick in the summer!

Being a Democrat means you have a mental disorder.....

Calmyourself's picture

Flak, say I am convinced, which I can be, if your side would quit cheating for 5 minutes of a warming planet, What is the specific energy source that the entire planet, 1st world and BRICS will use to adapt?  Energy density says if we abandon oil/coal we must halve the population I see no way around it, even if we live in mud huts and use solar ovens there are too many of us, who chooses the winners and losers, in detail please..

Your either a HUGE proponent of advanced nuclear energy or a Malthusian I would guess..

 

 

Flakmeister's picture

We either figure out a combination of decentralized solar with a dispersed wind/solar/hydro baseline or die trying...

Existing nukes are part of the solution. Long term, Nukes ain't....

Coal is the real killer in more ways than one. Peak oil will wean us of indiscriminate burning of oil...

I wish the answers were obvious and easy. They ain't...

But to do nothing is simply calling for civilization to play a Thelma and Louise...

Or for those rockers out there, Bon Scott...

"death by misadventure"

Stackers's picture

Wasn't it really cold and snowy 2 winters ago too ?

NidStyles's picture

Always the solution giver...

Enoch's picture

check out FLIBE Energy and the thorium liquid salt reactor ;)

Flakmeister's picture

Sure, can you point me to a good commercial design?

Calmyourself's picture

Thorium is coming and the fuel is extracted from coal double win.. 

New_Meat's picture

U-233 mid cycle will keep Thorium far away. - Ned

Mark Urbo's picture

Obama has the scam of global warming as his No.#1 priority...

 

..in order to save him from cold winters and a collapsing GDP - can't make this looney tune leftist (Flak) stuff up.

Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Interesting to see durable orders drop 1% in May, and then read some dipshit state that data suggests a 4% increase on GDP Q2.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

The Q1 rollout of Obamacare had nothing to do with it. It was the weather.  Honest.

The higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-insurance, and lower physician reimbursements were not a factor, and neither were the higher taxes and other higher costs of hiring workers.  Ignore United Healthcare's kick-ass profits and rocketing stock price.  It was slightly higher and lower temperatures in certain places.

Flakmeister's picture

Here was a historically cold winter in 1978-79

Winter 78-79 

Compare that the one linked elsewhere in this thread for last winter...

Notice how the rest of the world compares...

ZerOhead's picture

FRAUD ALERT !!!

"Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fid...

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Seasonal adjustments for the seasons?  Makes perfect sense to me.

ZerOhead's picture

Check out Flakemaster & Friends adjustments to the US temperature record for the period up to 2000.

The temperatures show in the comparison are US RAW VS ADJUSTED TEMPS

http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1998changesannotate...

 

Anything to add Flakey?

Son of Loki's picture

Don't forget the higher postal rates; hiked twice in a 12 month period. Plus, the internet sales tax (which, incidentally was supported by bnoth Repugnicans and Demobrats)....

Sent many already struggling small businesses down the tube. All part of Barry's Summa of Recovery.

Flakmeister's picture

Like I said, why don't these guys contact Judith or Roy, the only two remaining climate scientists at odds with AGW and get either of them to co-author somehting...

The fact that they don't should be telling you all you need to know...

-----

Just like AW over at WUWT in 2012:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

Here is the money plot

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/temps.png 

If you don't know what the TOBS bias in in the data, you really should STFU and listen to the experts...

Watts paper has still not be submitted to a real journal...

ZerOhead's picture

WOW!!!

Only two holdouts.

Anyway... good luck with the fraud and your climate models...

Flakmeister's picture

Actually you are correct, I forget Spencer's colleague at UAH, John Christy....

Who else did I miss?

Ones that have any semblance of credibiliy left are in very short supply...

ZerOhead's picture

Enjoy your 60% probablity of an El Nino.

After that heat exits the system in 2015 you guys are toast.

Mark Urbo's picture

But the AGW cult religion told Flak it was so...

Flakmeister's picture

I can't say it better than this: The latest poster boy for the denialista has been Richard Tol who managed to get a paper published in a third rate journal that questioned the 97% concensus that exists among active climate scientists:

 

Here is Richard Tol's web site and here is a quote in his own words:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct." 

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/draft-comment-on-97-consensus-p...

You are one dumb Hedgetard....

Goldilocks's picture

sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")

Mark Urbo's picture

Call me names all you want...

 

..I'm not the one who fell for the false and now completely failed Global Warming (AGW) theory.  The 17+ yrs of non-warming is now longer than the short uptick that lead to this whole scam - how embarrassing for your cult.

 

 

Flakmeister's picture

Well then demonstrate it with the data taking account the error in the fitted trend...

Once you can do that, I'll remove you from the Hedgetard list..

Because hedgetards who talk about 17 years have demonstrated they have zero credibility...

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/t5.jpg

The line are 67% and 95% CL contours from 1979-1999 fitted trend...

From

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/

and

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/uncertain-t/

Finally, for those interested in what I consider a good visual portrayal of the situation, here’s my now-”standard” display of the trend from 1975 through the end of 1999, projected into the future, with dashed lines 1 and 2 standard deviations (of the residuals) above and below the projected trend, compared to the data from 2000 to the present:

Quelle Faux Pause.... 

malek's picture

A 97% consensus on such a complex matter has about the significance of a 97% yes vote in the politburo...

and don't get me started who and in which way even measured such a "97% consensus" on AGW.

Flakmeister's picture

How about the 100% concensus on gravity?

malek's picture

Not sure where there's a forecast involved in that one...

Flakmeister's picture

How about thermodynamics? Is 100% good enough for you there?

The *thermodynamics* predicts the earth is going to warm and the real question is exactly how much and how fast. We know that even the lower bound on the amount warming that will occur is enough to put a serious fucking smackdown on the fauna and flora of this world, including us. And in the grand scheme of things, it'll be but a blink of the eye....

You want to bet that it will 200 years instead 100 years?

BTW, Forecasts are for "afternoon showers"...

malek's picture

I give it about a 50% chance that the prediction "the earth is going to warm" is correct. (It's for sure not going to remain constant.)

Flakmeister's picture

Dude, it has been warming against the natural non-anthropogenic trend for well over 100 years....

malek's picture

The medieval warm period lasted hundreds of years - and who again defined what the natural non-anthropogenic trend currently would be?

Flakmeister's picture

MWP was local not global...

Here is the last 11,000 years, the Milankovitch cycle is clear...

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/regemcrufull.jpg

From earlier, it is now safe to say that you are now claiming thermodynamics is wrong...

Now spare us your descredited memes....

 

malek's picture

0.4 degrees Centigrade - I'm deeply impressed! Oh, and is that a curve on local or global temperatures?

It is now safe to say you will read into statements whatever suits you best...

Flakmeister's picture

Until we found coal that was what "natural cycles" looked like....

Or did you miss that part?

And did you notice the MWP and LIA? 

malek's picture

Coal?
Used for many centuries, heavily used since 1870 - you say AGW actually started back then?

Flakmeister's picture

Funny that you mention it...

http://www.whoi.edu/pclift/Ruddiman.pdf

AGW started the moment our effect on the planet became larger than the variation due to natural processes (which involve slow changes over long periods)...

Clearly at some times, there are processes that will dominate relative to the human impact, like some solar extrema, volcanoes, etc...

malek's picture

 the moment our effect on the planet became larger than the variation due to natural processes

That's a pretty big statement you're making boy.

1. So much is "our effect"? I've read something between 2% and 4% of all annual carbondioxide emissions is nowadays from human activity.

2. "the variation due to natural processes"
a) That variation is less than 4%? (Or actually even much smaller, as you are believe our effect became larger than natural variation long time ago.)
b) Do you truly believe we even know understand all natural processes that lead to variations?