This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Headline PPI Drops By 0.1%, Core PPI Rises By 0.3%, Highest Y/Y NSA Jump Since June 2009, BLS To Change PPI Weights

Tyler Durden's picture


Mixed picture in today's PPI which saw headline prices decline by 0.1%, on expectations of a 0.1% increase, driven by a 0.8% drop in both food and energy finished goods. Alternatively, core PPI rose by 0.3%, with the same +0.1% consensus, and is the largest M/M increase since July 2011. Just as curious, the Year over Year change in the NSA PPI of 3.0% is the highest in the series since June 2009. It appears money printing even in the face of multi-trillion debt deleveraging can be inflationary. Finally, and in pulling a page straight out of the BLS playbook, the BLS announced it would change the weighting in its PPI categories. "The new weights, which will be introduced in February 2012 with the release of January 2012 index data, will be based on shipment values from the year 2007. These value weights come from the Census of Manufactures, the Census of Mining, the Census of Services, and the Census of Agriculture. PPI weights have been based on 2002 census shipment values since January 2007. All PPIs will be affected by this weight update, including all the industry net output indexes, as well as indexes for traditional commodity groupings. In addition, weights will be updated from the 2002 to the 2007 census for all stage-of-processing indexes, durability of product indexes, and special commodity-grouping indexes. This weight revision will not change any arithmetic reference bases for indexes, the dates when PPIs were set to 100." This is a lot of words to say that going forward even more inflation will be crammed into smoothed core price indices, so as to completely ignore any swings in the margins. Because after all who cares about energy and food?

Some commentary from Bloomberg

  • Light trucks accounted for 30% of core rise
  • Headline decline fueled by drop in energy prices, with forward-looking intermediate costs indicating “further relief is on the way for producers,” says Bloomberg economist Joseph Brusuelas
  • Easing pricing pressures “will be good for profit margins later in 2012”
  • Light trucks, passenger cars down on Thai-floods-triggered supply-chain disruptions, tobacco up on tax increases
  • "The global economy is slowing and prices of most basic materials are moderating,’’ says Bloomberg economist Rich Yamarone

Core PPI NSA Y/Y change:

From the report on what caused the jump in core PPI:

Trade industries: The Producer Price Index for the net output of total trade industries moved up 0.2 percent in December after no change in November. (Trade indexes measure changes in margins received by wholesalers and retailers.) Leading the December advance were margins received by merchant wholesalers of durable goods, which climbed 1.4 percent. Higher margins received by discount department stores and by automotive parts and accessories stores also were factors in the rise in the total trade industries index. In 2011, the total trade industries index rose 3.4 percent.


Transportation and warehousing industries: The Producer Price Index for the net output of transportation and warehousing industries moved up 0.6 percent in December following a 0.2-percent decline in November. Over seventy percent of this rise can be traced to prices received by the  scheduled passenger air transportation industry, which climbed 2.7 percent. Higher prices received by the industries for long-distance general freight trucking (truckload) and local general freight trucking also contributed to the increase in the transportation and warehousing industries index. In 2011, the transportation and warehousing industries index moved up 6.1 percent. 


Traditional service industries: The Producer Price Index for the net output of total traditional service industries edged down 0.1 percent in December following a 0.1-percent advance in November. The index for the commercial banking industry led the December decrease, falling 0.9 percent. Lower prices received by the industries for non-casino hotels and motels and for passenger car rental also were factors in the decline in the total traditional service industries index. In 2011, the total traditional service industries index increased 1.9 percent.

And so on. Full report here.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:51 | 2073978 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Somehow those balls stay in the air.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:52 | 2073979 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Can I change the weightings of my holdings once the returns are in?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:54 | 2073982 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

They picked the weights from 2007? Yes, when the bubble was at its highest, when they were the most busy sending crap we don't need around the globe financed on basis of an enormeous and ever growing debt bubble, that's the best case basis for an "average" year indeed.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:53 | 2073984 LongBalls
LongBalls's picture

No respectable savings will be allowed. You WILL throw it at risk in the markets to stimulate activity.



Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:55 | 2073991 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

More than 5 days worth of cash balance, and you'll be branded a traitorous hoarder.

The future underclass will be those who are not massively overdrawn on every credit line they have.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:25 | 2074254 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

You mean like JP Morgan?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:54 | 2073987 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

No worries - "Inflation can be fixed in 15 minutes"

Right, the only options left for fixing my margins are to cut staff or enter the black markets and start doing business tax free.  Thanks Ben.  Margins matter mother fucker.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:28 | 2074265 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of one minute myself. "they don't call it a New York Minute for nothing" as they say. And when "junk debt" yields hit...say...200 percent...that should have the desired deflationary impact.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:54 | 2073988 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

When will they drop the "L" from BLS?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:55 | 2073990 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I am picturing when Bernak and Obama meet up and no one is looking they do a NBA style chest bump.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:03 | 2074020 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

I thought they just blew each other.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:55 | 2073992 LongSoupLine
LongSoupLine's picture



PPI - Purely Preposterous Information

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:59 | 2074006 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

PMI - Propaganda Machine Inc.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:53 | 2074175 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

You're lost in a hall of mirrors.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:10 | 2074223 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What's the matter, did you read any of it? Or are your blinkers so firmly on that you can't see the outright fraud of guys like Patrick Michaels?

Maybe you would like to discuss this recent paper?

Global Temperature Evolution 1979-2010

There is a synopsis aimed more at the layman here

and here


Would you like to try and refute the above paper?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:15 | 2074229 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Did I read any of it? Do I read all of Paul Krugman's work? Do I check all his sources? No, because I'm not interested in wasting my time that way.

I think your anger stems from being insecure about how you make a living. The odd thing is that you are here. You do realize that this will all pop along with fiat money, right? If I were you, I'd be learning a trade right now.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:25 | 2074253 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

On matters of ideology one can have an opinion that cannot be tested or falsified, much as religious faith.

Not so in matters involving real data...

Now, are you trying to weasel out of a debate? It sure looks like it...

You might be a true denier, you mind is made up no matter what facts may emerge...  Do you listen ideologues to tell you what your world view should be? Or do you ask questions and look for answers?

Now run along.... I would have kicked your ass anyway...


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:48 | 2074606 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I've worked in an academic lab. I know what "real data" is. There should be a "real data" committee that goes back and tells us what all the real data is. This is real data, really. Oh then we'll need a real data, really committee. You can head all of them!

Oh, I'm serious. Learn a trade. When sound money comes along, no one is going to pay you anything for what you do. I think you know this.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:30 | 2074796 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Alright data-hound.... can you run a linear regression?

Here is the data for the paper and code if you like..

Go ahead, show us why it is wrong...


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:37 | 2074833 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

LOL, you just love telling people what to do.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:43 | 2074866 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

For the record, you are the one that piped in with an assinine comment to my claim that the BLS has nothing on Patrick Michaels when it comes to manipulating data.   

I will now proceed to safely ignore you.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:18 | 2074906 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Wait! I just measured an object and got real data. 12 inches. Prove me wrong! I double dog dare you!

I schooled you, chicken! Bok bok bok!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:24 | 2075602 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

WTF are you babbling about?

Tell me what the object was and how you measured it....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 20:40 | 2076474 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Haha! You have no clue what you're talking about! In your face! I reign supreme!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 20:49 | 2076487 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I think I hear Jesus calling you...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 20:58 | 2076507 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

You hear Jesus?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:47 | 2074325 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Tarsubil.  You must ignore the Flakmeister.  His oft-repeated, antagonistic blueprint is as follows: bait you into responding to one of his bomb-lobs - usually asking you to refute something that is unproven, then label you, claim superiority over you based on his godlike intellect and academic credentials, then declare victory and go home.  As the line goes in War Games, "the only winning move is not to play."

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:55 | 2074355 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Just like I took you to school on peak oil... do you still think kerogen is oil?

Would you like a lesson in Global Warming too?

One at a time though, Tarsubil chickened out and Pods is next....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:41 | 2074318 pods
pods's picture

Now you guys are forced to use 30 year sets of data?

Sorry, finding a correlation in two sets of data does not prove a damn thing.  Especially over 30 years.  

What's next, will you be reduced to videos of glaciers breaking off into the ocean to calculate rates of disappearance?


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:49 | 2074330 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Would you like to play??

Do you know why 1979 was chosen? Instead of spewing nonsense, why don't you read the abstract?

Or are you one of those guys that relies on Rush or Patrick Michaels for your scientific insight?

Go ahead, make my day....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:57 | 2074367 pods
pods's picture

Actually I rely on my training as a scientist.

Do you believe in man made global climate change?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:04 | 2074404 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I believe the hypothesis that is most consistent with the data. And for that I rely on my training as a scientist....

If the data changes or a superior hypothesis emerges, my views will likely change.... I tend to fall into this camp called Rationalism...

Would you care to dispute the findings of the paper I linked above? Before dismissing it, I do suggest that you at least read the abstract to see what was done and what the conclusions were....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:31 | 2074542 pods
pods's picture

I have read it.  I used the term "believe" to judge whether we could actually have an argument based upon the data, or whether it was an argument based upon your belief.

The abstract showed a consistent "0.014-0.018 K y-1" change.

Are you going to argue that:

1. This level of precision is actually possible with a temperature measurement.

2.  This time frame can be used to extrapolate to a longer time frame or to make any conclusions.

If either of those are correct, we are done.  As results are only as accurate as their LEAST accurate data.  And there is no way in hell that 14 thousandths of a degree can be stated with any confidence.  Sure an instrument may spit out as many digits as you program, but any average temperature is far outside of this level of precision.

So you basically found a data set that has fit your worldview.  Big fucking deal.


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:50 | 2074629 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I think you are wasting your time. Flak knows he is full of BS and he knows we know he is full of BS. What's the point?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:23 | 2074759 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So you do want to play?

Whats the matter, can't even entertain any thought that disagrees with your worldview. See, Speak and Hear no-Evil??

Humor me. Read the paper and explain why it is wrong. If not STFU and go back to commenting on the FED and Ron Paul and leave scientific discussions to those that are qualified. 

You do realize that the paper shows GW over the past 32 years as a 8 sigma effect using a very robust mathematical technique? 

It is a slam fuckin' dunk that the globe is warming....

Deal with it...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:27 | 2074776 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

LOL, you sound like you're 12 years old.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:32 | 2074805 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I was once.... and once upon a time I believed in Santa, but I grew up.

Time for you to grow up and think for yourself...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:37 | 2074839 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

If you grew up, why do you sound like you are 12 years old right now?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:46 | 2074881 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As a rule, in Fight Club, I always let the otherside define the terms of engagement...

Therefore being able to act like a 12 year old helps when relating to the emotionally and intellectually stunted denizens of ZH, such as yourself...

Ta-ta for now....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:49 | 2074898 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Of course!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:23 | 2074725 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Wow, Pods and you have the audacity to claim scientific training???

By your logic, if something cost $1.50 30 years ago and it costs $1.65 now, that is impossible because the average rate of change is 0.5 cents per year and that coin doesn't exist...

Did you read the paper? Do you understand the analysis? You do understand that all they are doing is testing a hypothesis using 5 independent data sets?

I am really disappointed, I thought you had more to offer based on some of your comments. Thanks for playing, though....


I guess I should not show you this paper

Similar technique going back to 1850 but its a bit more comlipicated and I don't want to overwhelm your limited analytics abilities (i.e. the Dunning-Kruger Effect)

(Note: the actual paper is not free, as the journal requires a subscription otherwise I would link it)


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:01 | 2074966 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Has anyone attempted to replicate any of your experiments? If so, how did that go? LOL.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:13 | 2075019 pods
pods's picture

The logic of the paper cited is not akin to your analogy.  It would be the same as looking at something that was 1.50 last week, and it 1.65 this week, and extrapolating from there.

So the data set looked at over 30 years showed the minimum of 0.42 degrees K change, maximum of 0.54 degrees.  Which correlated to their rates of change.

Does this time frame in any way extrapolate out?

What type of conclusions can be made?

I get your schtick, you are smarter than me.  Fine.  I am secure enough in my knowledge to where I accept that there are smarter people than me.

As to your second piece, these are the words that tell me that this is the same crap that has been spewed for years, and when any new data is uncovered, it is crammed into the model to keep spitting out the same result as was originally intended:

"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s

Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings

their model

average global surface warming simulated by the model

MIP3 climate models.

 natural variability can very likely

most likely value

Our best estimate is 

because the whole method is probabilistic

could be a bit smaller

could also be 

it is extremely unlikely (<5% probability)

Even if models 

extremely unlikely

This is consistent with reconstructions

can mostly be explained

the authors estimate

chose a reconstruction

they may have overestimated

Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950.

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming).  The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

ran thousands of model simulations

is projected 

Huber and Knutti's results are also consistent with the body of climate sensitivity research

And they find that if we continue with business-as-usual, we will reach 2°C above pre-industrial levels within the next few decades.  All the more reason to change course."

So basically they have estimated, modeled, reconstructed and then statistically concluded that humans are to blame for global warming.  

Lots of wiggle words in there.  Sounds pretty scientific to me.

So you are telling me that they have used the same "methods", models, adjusted data, et all to statistically come to the same conclusion that all the other global warming people have come up with?




Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:33 | 2075091 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Flak is not smarter than you are. Geez. Flak knows a lot of data that if marked to market would be worth absolute 0. Most people don't know all this stupid crap so he has to lord it over you like he is somebody of consequence. Not so. He's digging ditches with sound money.

One thing Flak is tricking you with is asking you to prove the analysis wrong. The assumption is that the measurements and data are legit. But that is where debates in science are really settled. Can you replicate the data and results? That is impossible in this case. It all comes down to whether you trust how the measurements were made, if they represent what they say they represent, the scientists making the measurements, or not. I don't myself.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:32 | 2075120 pods
pods's picture

Yeah, I do not allow myself to argue within that paradigm.  It is one of belief simply due to so many particulars of it are modelled, estimated, reconstructed, and then compared to the previous modelled, estimated, reconstructed studies.  

I merely like going through those "learned papers" to see how many wiggle words you can find.  At least now they use them on both sides to make themselves look better.  

As for a legitimate argument in the climate change area, you cannot actually have it. I like to see how excited they get though.  Emotion based arguments=belief, no matter what they are trying to say.

I saw that when you would not play his game out came the insults and taunting.  

Trying to win an argument inside the AGW sphere is like trying to beat Calvin at Calvinball.



Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:41 | 2075159 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Simple Yes No questions:

1) Do you know what a linear regression is?

2) Are the data from the past 32 years correct? or incorrect?


Hey, you are the one that has a problem with me stating the AGW deniers are frauds and that the evidence is GW is real and most of it is AGW. Please show my why I am wrong...


You talk as a condescending anti-intellectual... and your posts support that conclusion.



Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:07 | 2075306 pods
pods's picture


Have not seen the data.

Do you know the difference between causation and correlation?

I have no problem with anything you say. Opinions are everywhere.

As to the evidence, it is all based on models that limit the variables to a few simple inputs.  And those inputs just so happen to be things that we can crudely measure.

It is not my job to show you that you are wrong, only to keep you from implementing policy based on your erroneous findings.


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:23 | 2075385 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

First, you clearly did not read the FR paper let alone understand what they did. So your correlation/causation strawman is just that, a strawman.

Second, quit with the fucking strawmen. I have not discussed any government policy wrt to GW.  I am only discuss the science.  Quite frankly, the financial disaster brewing combined with peak oil will define the policy. My only hope is that we dont fry the planet a la Dr. Strangelove over dwindling oil reserves first.


Good that you know what a linear regression is, it will help understand the paper.

So, if you have not seen the data, then how can you have an opinion on global warming anthropogenic or otherwise?? Above, you claimed to have scientific training, can you reconcile that with what you just said?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:50 | 2075488 pods
pods's picture

It can be reconciled easy enough by merely coming to the realization that 30 years is much too short of a time frame to make any valid conclusions about climate.

The noise in the data far outweighs any perceived change.  And by that I mean the data that is gathered via temperature measurement.  

You might get some oohs and ahhhs at cocktail parties by dropping how well your model fit is to the data, but you are all just looking at noise.


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:17 | 2075579 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why is 30 years too short? If the data says there is a statistically significant increase over a given time frame, then one must conclude the increase is there and look for means to explain the increase.

So you are saying that the obseved temperature increase since 1979 is statistical noise? If so, why would consistent signals be seen in 5 independent data sets?

Do you think that the Earth violates the 1st law of thermodynamics? 


Before we go any further, are you an Evangelical Christian? Are you beliefs regarding the Earth based on your faith in god? Yes or No?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:54 | 2075713 pods
pods's picture

No, I am not.

Have you ever seen an output of any instrument?  If you look at the output close enough, you will see wild gyrations contained within the larger signal trend.

To use a 30 year data set when speaking of climate is a new low for you guys.  

Why not 5 years?  

1 year?

I am saying that the statistical noise in the "measurement" of temperature, which in and of itself is almost impossible to actually speak in terms of measurement makes the conclusions nonsense.



Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:11 | 2075759 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I have a Ph.D. in experimental physics, so yes, I have *measured* things and even built and run experiments.


"A new low for you guys"... WTF?

I am saying that the statistical noise in the "measurement" of temperature, which in and of itself is almost impossible to actually speak in terms of measurement makes the conclusions nonsense.

The above is verbal diarrhea. Sorry, but it makes no sense.  There are 5 different temperature records, to have a statistically significant trend that agrees between the 5 sets puts lie to your claim. Why would the noise line up between indpendent sets???

For shits and giggles, what do you think was the average global temperature during the recent Ice Ages? 

You do believe that we came out of an Ice Age 10,000 or so years ago? Do you?

Do you believe that there is evidence of a number of cyclical Ice Ages spanning back 400,000 years or so?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 21:10 | 2076509 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Have other people replicated your results? Bok bok bok! What are you one of those Jesus hearing deniers of chickenshit?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:36 | 2075133 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


So now you claim the data is wrong.... do you have any evidence of that?

I do refer you to the recent BEST re-analysis of the temperature record.

You know, the one partially funded by the Kochs that was supposed set the record straight? Well, it did set the record straight,

Here is a demolition of the UHI claims

and the Spokemans WSJ Op-Ed


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:41 | 2075157 pods
pods's picture

I think what we have been trying to tell you is that the whole premise that you can model a system as complex as the earth/sun system, correctly accounting for 10-20 inter-related variables and how they effect each other, and make and use them as a predictive tool is a fool's folly.

But, to each his own.



Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:44 | 2075188 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So you say that it is too complicated.... that is a hell of indictment of the species, that we can't figure it out. How do you know that we can't figure it out? Is is more complex than the double helix of DNA?

Yes, it is complex but we do know some things are more important than others, Yes or No?


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:49 | 2075215 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Does a non-homogenous system have a temperature to measure?

Is the climate of earth more complicated than a simply repeating polymer? Yes. Are you serious? LOL.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:58 | 2075270 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Really, the climate is more complicated? Now, I agree predicting climate is lot easier than predicting the weather 2 weeks from now.

So it predicting the climate was so difficult then this guy would not have a chance

Broecker 1975

Well this guy in 1975 made a prediction of the global temperature in 2010... Here is a chart showing how well he fared

Would you like me to catalogue a list of predictions for the global temperature from leading skeptics and how well they did?


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:05 | 2075299 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Best to ignore the first question. Blah blah blah.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:24 | 2075391 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If that is the best you can do, I may safely rest my case....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:45 | 2075474 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

LOL. Again? How many times do you have to declare victory? Who are you trying to convince?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:12 | 2075337 pods
pods's picture

Yes, I state that it is too complicated to properly model.

Whether that indicts humans or not is not my problem.

Most people in the world think that banks loan them the banks money.

I would be careful as to how smart you think we are as a species.


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:28 | 2075402 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well, if it is too complicated how did Broecker get it right in 1975 when he predicted the temperature in 2010??

Broecker 1975

Here is a chart showing how well he fared


Yes, collectively humans are quite stupid.... but we do have people like Einstein, Bach, Newton etc.....


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:43 | 2075464 pods
pods's picture

You are too funny.  So this guy was the one who got it right?

And we can discredit the ones predicting an ice age?

So this guy predicted a 0.8C rise, and was off (as of current) by about 0.2C?

And his model was off by a max of about 0.3C during that time?

Rock solid!

And why is his prediction starting to deviate more from the observed?

Will you still hold this guy out as the one in 5 years?  Or will you merely substitute another Nostradamus to fit your worldview? 


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:54 | 2075495 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

The funniest thing about that is how it reduces the global "temperature" at a single point in time to a single number. And then it graphs that as if all those numbers are legit. It is like placing thermometers throughout a kitchen and averaging 300, 100, 37, 24, 4, 0 and then saying the kitchen's temperature is 77 +/- 2. It is totally retarded on every logical and scientific level.

And then when people criticize it, you just go on and on about your linear regression and the calibration of the thermometers or the specific weight of mercury or some other total line of BS.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:07 | 2075543 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So, you have never heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law?

And as for your gratuitous disregard for calibration, do you mind if I ask just what "academic data" you would involved with?


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:16 | 2075559 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

LOL. You just turn around and cite some law that relies on the assumption I'm questioning. I do not believe you believe this.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:21 | 2075593 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nope.... Stefan-Boltzmann is a very basic mathematical relationship derivable from the first law of thermodynamics. Been around for a long time, from the 19th century in fact....

Why don't you look it up?

Hint: it is also used in analysis of the Cosmic Microwave background data, classifying Stellar types and what not...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 20:42 | 2076478 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Does it also explain how to take the temperature of a dynamic non-homogenous system?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 20:51 | 2076493 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Those are pretty big words to use....

So, the tact you are now taking is that we cannot define the temperature of the earth..

You are a clown....

Good night...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 21:03 | 2076519 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

My overall tact is that you don't even believe the BS you're pushing.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:50 | 2077923 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

How can it be BS if you don't understand it?


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:01 | 2075526 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Did you actually read?

Broecker slightly overestimated the effect of C02. At the time, there was limited data so he had to make his best estimate.

 Broecker effectively underestimated the thermal lag of the climate system, and the equilibrium sensitivity in his calculations was approximately equivalent to 3.6°C for doubled CO2 – a bit higher than today’s best estimates of 2°C transient sensitivity, 3°C equilibrium sensitivity.

He also did not take into account aerosol data that is known to be a cooling factor, so it is not suprising that he overestimated the change in temp.

So a simple model can do a remarkably good job of prediction...


Here is comparison between Hanson and Lindzen predictions made in the late 1980s


I propose that in order to achieve a common ground that we figure out what we both agree on. Very simple yes or no questions. Are you up for that?

I'll start:

1) Is the amount of C02 in the atmosphere increasing?  Yes or No?

2) Is the current C02 levels the highest seen in 400,000 years? Yes or No?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:35 | 2075836 pods
pods's picture

How about even above your questions?
Can we accurately measure what we commonly call the earth's temperature?

And is that measurement accurate enough to be able to draw any conclusions?

I would say that during your timeframe the answer is no.



Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:47 | 2075895 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes and Yes..

Furthermore, we are able to meausre temperature differences very precisely...

On what mathematical or physical basis do you rely on when we say that we cannot?

Is there a theorem or lemma that backs your assertion or is it your opinion?



Thu, 01/19/2012 - 00:42 | 2077020 pods
pods's picture

I said can we measure the earth's temperature properly, not measure temperature.

The amount of variability that can be introduced in just determining what you would call a data point for temperature makes most models inaccurate to the level they are reporting, nevermind predicting.

Are you now going to come back with another study which looks at all the "data" (meaning a compilation of adjusted and non), develops a model which fits previous data by introducing whatever correction factors required, and which goes on to show that the sky is going to fall in x number of years if some drastic steps are not taken, until I get tired of reading over countless sets of data, assumptions, conjecture, et all, whereby you then claim victory?

Just wanted to know if that was the game plan.



Thu, 01/19/2012 - 01:07 | 2077065 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Wow... a zen buddhist denial and a strawman thrown in...

So, you never used a thermometer?? What does this mean?

I said can we measure the earth's temperature properly, not measure temperature.

Nope, the idea was to show the inconsistency of your logic.

But it is now clear that I am wasting my time, you are so fucked up that I don't think you even understand what you are writing, let alone what I write...

It is remarkable that you have such strong views but are utterly incapable of stating them coherently....

Good night Grasshopper...


Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:37 | 2077635 pods
pods's picture

I have a 100 ml beaker of a liquid, I put in a thermometer, thermocouple or whatever. I can reasonably assume that to a certain degree of precision I can measure the average kinetic energy of the liquid inside the beaker at that point in time.

Do the same for a swimming pool with a heated return.  Now it becomes more difficult.  Where to measure?  Do I take multiple measurements and average them out?  Now take the same swimming pool and have a heated return on one side, then a chiller on the bottom of the other side.  Each variable compounds the difficulty in accurately expressing the average kinetic energy of the water inside the pool.

When this is extrapolated to something the size of the earth, the temperature that is quoted is based entirely upon the methods used in obtaining the data.  And I cannot take the word of group whose sole aim is to exert more control upon society when it comes to the data, or adjusted data that is used in their models.

Why is it that everyone can easily see how pharma can game a clinical trial to their advantage, or spin the statistics, but that same degree of scrutiny cannot be used to view the AGW crowd?


Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:44 | 2077656 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Repost it at the bottom of the thread...and I will reply...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:47 | 2075208 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

What a stupid question. Hey, I measured something. It is 12 inches. Do you have any evidence that that is wrong?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:07 | 2075305 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

*crickets* Off in the distance a man yells out, screams desperately, "There's no obscure data and link for that!"

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:26 | 2075395 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Tarsubil.  I retract my earlier suggestion not to engage the Flak.  Had no idea you were going to beat self-proclaimed smartest man into a pulpy heap.  A stogie for you...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:31 | 2075417 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey dingleberrry, I gave him a link with the data in the paper... do you understand the difference?

Maybe you would like to explain in your own words why GW and AGW are wrong?


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:58 | 2075514 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

It isn't that big of a deal. Flak is a magician. I know because I was once in on the game. He keeps saying look at his right hand and all I do is say look at his left hand. Flak then screams to keep your eyes on his right hand or you're not going to get it. He knows it is all just BS though.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:03 | 2075531 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Since we are running out of space, we can continue at the bottom? If you like that is...

Very simple yes/no questions... Are you game? No trickery, then again I would be fooling myself if I thought I could trick someone of your intellect!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:13 | 2075564 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

*rolling my eyes* LOL.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:23 | 2075598 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So you are a chickenshit denier...

I thought so.

Is your reason because you are an Evangelical Christian?

I ask because you have offerred no rational evidence to the contrary.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 20:48 | 2076482 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I do not deny chickenshit! How dare you sir!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 20:54 | 2076497 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, I agree you are about as lucid as Foghorn Leghorn...



Wed, 01/18/2012 - 21:04 | 2076522 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

So Flak, we got off topic there for awhile. What trade are you learning for after sound money comes along and you have to earn money in an honest way?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 22:00 | 2076673 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I don't know, how long do you think a 870 oz of physical could last?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 22:33 | 2076752 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

LOL. So you are planning to retire. That makes sense.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 23:17 | 2076850 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Already am...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:57 | 2073996 CClarity
CClarity's picture

I suppose this won't mean that banksters have to mark to market housing values that they lent against at 2007 values.  Oh my no!  The rigged system promulgates.  

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:59 | 2074005 Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Let's see if I got this right. You're job is to get all A's. Ok, here's my test, and I'm going to give myself an aribtrary grade of 92% on all my subjects. Oh, I'll will make 92% the cut-off for A's. So, objective achieved! Hey, this inflation targeting thing is easy!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 09:59 | 2074007 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

What are the odds this will translate into "lower" inflation?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:06 | 2074027 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Well, all anyone can talk about is how we're only warming up for the real printing and monetizing everything in sight that surely must come at any minute to keep stocks up...guess the odds are pretty high for way higher inflation too.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:01 | 2074014 847328_3527
847328_3527's picture

Defaltionary Depression...what did I say? Huh....what did I say.


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:03 | 2074018 FoieGras
FoieGras's picture

Where's that clown Gonzalo Lira with his ridiculous 'hyperinflation' forecast? Whatever happened to this guy and his ludicrous forcast?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:13 | 2074047 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



How do you think $15T (+$1.3T annual increment) of sovereign U.S. debt is going to vanish when the one and only arrow left in the quiver is to print more digi-fiat? 

You can have massive asset deflation and hyperinflation - they are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, it is a plausible if not likely outcome that when a critical mass of awareness is reached that the debt is never going to be serviced and that monetizing it will go on forever and at increasing rates, folks will panic and try to buy everything they should have been buying for years.  In turn, more and more dollars of less and less value chase staples while consumers completely abandon debt service and long-lived asset prices crash.

I wouldn't be so enamored by a single, manipulated print.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:18 | 2074057 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Exactly, got cash and physical staples?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:33 | 2074290 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

You need something unpayable first. Right now "that's Wall Street" and the government has rightly said "not our problem."

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:18 | 2074055 emsolý
emsolý's picture

The path to hyperinflation includes a period of deflation. Cf. "When money dies", by Adam Fergusson.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:03 | 2074019 Elvis is Alive
Elvis is Alive's picture

The PPI is up because of trucking?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:03 | 2074021 kralizec
kralizec's picture

Oh, is today another day of bogus numbers?!  Finally, something different!


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:08 | 2074034 PaperBear
PaperBear's picture

"BLS To Change PPI Weights" ?

Just like a magician would disappear the lady in the booth so will price inflation be made to disappear.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:11 | 2074040 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Baltic Dry Index down another 4.9%

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:11 | 2074041 iamoneman
iamoneman's picture

The inflation is not in the numbers and as we see above will not be reported honestly, it's hidden in the size of the package. 12 oz of cheetos cost just as much as the 14 oz bag I bought last year... Price did not jump so the ficticious number above did not change hence no inflation...

Move along nothing to see here...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:18 | 2074058 roccman
roccman's picture

Exactly - if boxes of cereal get any more thin they're gonna need book ends to hold them up.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:15 | 2074053 razorthin
razorthin's picture

Does creative accounting against a man-made, arbitrary monetary back-drop really matter?

Apparently not.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:22 | 2074067 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

HEY there why all the sourpusses, STOCKS are up! Are you not ENTERTAINED? 

Damn ingrate American peasants, most spoiled peasants around! We'll be fixing THAT soon, I guarantee it.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:54 | 2074180 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Right, just add an 'h' and declare hunting season. Maybe we missed that memo already....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:37 | 2074123 adr
adr's picture

No no no, see the inflationary period was transitory. By setting the benchmark at 2007 levels overall inflation will be seen to have moderated. Doesn't matter that everything costs more while incomes have dropped, inflation has moderated and based on 2007 prices it can be shown the current environment is deflationary in some aspects. Look at the nat gas wholesale price at a ten year low. It doesn't matter that retail nat gas rates are still higher than last year and with added fees a person using 5 mcf of gas would be paying triple what they paid 10 years ago. Wholesae nat gas prices are deflationary so we need some "crisis" like fracking bans to get the price back to $7 where it belongs. Get ready for a long pointy stick people, we're screwed.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:45 | 2074146 Snakeeyes
Snakeeyes's picture

Today's industrial production and capacity utilization grew for December, but remain stubborningly below 2006/2007 levels.


MBA Purchase and Refi Applications Surge, Industrial Production Rises (But Still Below 2006/2007 Levels)

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 10:55 | 2074184 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

Hmmm.  I thought when food and energy were up....only the core # mattered.  Now the big new is the food and energy are down.... oh and just ingnore that core #.

What a crock!


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 11:49 | 2074334 Saro
Saro's picture

NPR this morning tried to play up the inflation numbers as essentially a "non-issue".

Looks like they are laying the groundwork for QE3 . . .


Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:05 | 2074412 Paul67
Paul67's picture

“I don’t know why they call this stuff hamburger helper, it does just fine by itself.”


Or if you still want some meat;


“its only dog food if you feed it to a dog.”


If you want to keep track of the real ‘food’ inflation number go to the link below.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 12:45 | 2074605 SAME AS IT EVER WAS

in 2002 prices were on thier way to the moon, in 2007 they were about to crash. bls baseing off 2007, now?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:09 | 2075554 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Pods and Tarsubil;

I'll start with two simple questions:

1) Is the amount of C02 in the atmosphere increasing?  Yes or No?

2) Is the current C02 levels the highest seen since 1832? Yes or No?

3) Is the current C02 levels the highest seen in 400,000 years? Yes or No?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:07 | 2077966 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Moved from above for clarity:

I have a 100 ml beaker of a liquid, I put in a thermometer, thermocouple or whatever. I can reasonably assume that to a certain degree of precision I can measure the average kinetic energy of the liquid inside the beaker at that point in time.

Do the same for a swimming pool with a heated return.  Now it becomes more difficult.  Where to measure?  Do I take multiple measurements and average them out?  Now take the same swimming pool and have a heated return on one side, then a chiller on the bottom of the other side.  Each variable compounds the difficulty in accurately expressing the average kinetic energy of the water inside the pool.

When this is extrapolated to something the size of the earth, the temperature that is quoted is based entirely upon the methods used in obtaining the data.  And I cannot take the word of group whose sole aim is to exert more control upon society when it comes to the data, or adjusted data that is used in their models.

Why is it that everyone can easily see how pharma can game a clinical trial to their advantage, or spin the statistics, but that same degree of scrutiny cannot be used to view the AGW crowd?


So, you think that you cannot measure the temperature of the earth.  Do you agree that we can meausure the temperature of the Sun? The temperature of Mars? So the column labelled temperature here is a myth??

or this one from an Astrophysics department

What would some hypothetical being on Mars say about the temperature of the Earth? According to you they cannot say anything. I am sorry you are just wrong.


So really, your problem with GW is that you do not like the implications of it for possible policy. So it is easier to deny the science than to figure out the best approach...And to think that people whose logic works like this have the right to vote...

I don't give a fuck about your ideological hangups... I only care about the science and the spreading of lies.

For the very definition of fraud, read this excerpt from the link on Michaels

Climate scientists aren't in the business of predicting how human greenhouse gas emissions will change in the future - that is a policy question.  Instead, climate scientists predict how the climate will change in response to a series of possible emissions scenarios (for example, continuing with business-as-usual emissions, dramatically cutting our emissions starting in the year 2020, etc.).  In 1988, Hansen used the NASA GISS climate model to predict how the planet would respond to three possible scenarios.  Scenario A assumed continued exponential (accelerating) greenhouse gas growth.  Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.  Hansen believed Scenario B was the most likely to come to fruition, and indeed it has been the closest to reality thus far.  In the summer of 1988, Hansen presented his results in testimony before U.S. Congress.

Ten years later, with the Kyoto Protocol international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the works, Patrick Michaels was invited to testify before Congress about the state of climate science.  He spoke of Hansen's 1988 study, and in the process, grossly misrepresented its projections and accuracy by deleting Scenarios B and C, wrongly asserting that the planet had warmed "more than four times less than Hansen predicted." 


James Hansen had this to say about Patrick Michaels' distortion of his work:

"Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud?"

Michaels certainly didn't mess around with his first known case of data deletion, using it to mislead our policymakers as they decided whether or not to commit to reducing American greenhouse gas emissions (they ultimately refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol).  Michaels' other data deletions, while being almost as misleading, were not made on nearly as grand of a stage.


I have finished wasting my time with you....

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:51 | 2078180 pods
pods's picture


I have a 100 ml beaker of a liquid, I put in a thermometer, thermocouple or whatever. I can reasonably assume that to a certain degree of precision I can measure the average kinetic energy of the liquid inside the beaker at that point in time.

Do the same for a swimming pool with a heated return.  Now it becomes more difficult.  Where to measure?  Do I take multiple measurements and average them out?  Now take the same swimming pool and have a heated return on one side, then a chiller on the bottom of the other side.  Each variable compounds the difficulty in accurately expressing the average kinetic energy of the water inside the pool.

When this is extrapolated to something the size of the earth, the temperature that is quoted is based entirely upon the methods used in obtaining the data.  And I cannot take the word of group whose sole aim is to exert more control upon society when it comes to the data, or adjusted data that is used in their models.

Why is it that everyone can easily see how pharma can game a clinical trial to their advantage, or spin the statistics, but that same degree of scrutiny cannot be used to view the AGW crowd?



Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:02 | 2078227 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


see my reply directly above your post....


Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:05 | 2078241 pods
pods's picture

Nevermind, I just read your treatise above.  Which still does not clear up my problem, but of course presents another 18 links which do nothing to answer the issue.

How do you measure the temperature of the earth?  What set of standards are used to arrive at that which we call temperature?

From one of your links it showed that the measured temperature fluctuations are what, like 150C?  

From this extreme oscillation we are to arrive at a mean temperature of the earth?  And with enough accuracy to be able to state that a 30 year snippet is enough to verify a trend that is but 0.3% of the range for the data, and also to implicate 1 variable in this multivariable equation (if it even could be mathematically represented) as the causation?

Belief.  That is what you have.  And links.  Lots of links.


Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:37 | 2078347 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well it is better than what you have, lots and lots of misunderstandings...

Will you at least try to read on the Stefan-Boltzman law?

Did it occur to you ever that temperature is more than just a number you get from a mercury based thermometer?

Maybe you should contact the local physics department and ask any faculty member what is meant by a temperature of an astrophysical body...

I mean I cannot really give you a physics education without some effort on your part... If you want to cling to your naive understanding, by all mean do, but do not expect any respect for your views.

You are becoming a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger Effect and are too thick to even realize it...

I am sorry, but you are an ignorant fool that does not even realize how ignorant you are....

As for you having any experience with physical sciences, I call bullshit. I do not think that you can even use a ruler...

My 14 year old son can grasp the concept of a temperature for the earth....

Do you even believe that Earth revolves around the sun??


Edit: You are so ignorant that you could not even figure out what web sites are pro and anti-AGW...

I'll give you a hint, here is a leading denier website

Even these guys agree that you can define the Earth's temperature..... 

Here is another famous denier

He certainly believe the earth has a measurable temperature....

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:55 | 2078698 pods
pods's picture

So basically you are still NOT answering my question?

And now you will get all fancy about how the wavelength of emitted light is proportional to the temperature for black body radiation.  Of course, even though that calculation will spit out as many digits as you want, it answers NONE of the questions that I posed.

And in what way will this prove my statement that 30 years is too short of a time frame to accurately see any trend in data that is roughly 0.3% of the range in the signal, from whatever source?

That is the problem with you guys.  You never question your assumptions, because you are too smart.  Most people do not have little man syndrome.  The closer to academia I get, the more I see it though.  



Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:00 | 2078729 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I am sorry to disappoint you...

You are too fucking dense to get it....

And you claim to know what a linear regression is???

I am beginning to seriously doubt that..


As for never questioning assumptions....

if there was such a glaring error in climate science, do you not think that someone would have noticed it?


Why don;t you post at WUWT your concerns about temperature... you don't have to take my word for it...

Good bye.... I

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:31 | 2078331 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!