WTI Crude Tumbles To $47 Handle As OPEC-Compliance Drops

Crude oil prices have retraced 50% of their pre-OPEC-deal hope rally and dropped back below $48 as JBC Energy reports OPEC compliance dropping to 92% in May from 96% in April.

Additionally, Bloomberg notes: OPEC-14 OUTPUT ROSE 370K B/D TO 32.5M B/D IN MAY: JBC ENERGY

“There continues to be considerable skepticism about the effectiveness of the production cuts,” Carsten Fritsch, an analyst at Commerzbank AG in Frankfurt, said in a report.

 

“Oil prices are still trending towards weakness.”

WTI hit $47 and Brent dropped below $50.

 

Tonight brings inventory data from API.

via http://ift.tt/2qAQV2D Tyler Durden

“Painstakingly Detailed” EU Brexit Document Demands UK Payment For Everything

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Brexit without a signed agreement looks increasingly likely as I suggested all along.

EU documents reveal “Painstaking Brexit Detail” down to the smallest item demanded by every nation.

The document also demands arbitration by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). These are both non-starters from the UK side. 

Just 10 days before the general election, the EU published two documents that will affect every person living in Britain for years to come. Despite being dropped into the maelstrom of an election caused by Brexit, there was hardly a murmur.

 

The documents were the most detailed positions yet from the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, on the upcoming divorce talks with the UK.

 

In two policy papers, the bloc has elaborated its stance on the Brexit bill and citizens’ rights.

 

The 10-page paper on the bill does not put a price on the divorce, but sets out in painstaking detail all EU bodies with a vested interest in the spoils – 40 agencies, eight joint projects on new technologies and a panoply of funds agreed by all countries, from aid for refugees in Turkey to supporting peace in Colombia.

 

No detail is too small. Britain is even on the hook for funding teachers at the elite European schools that educate EU civil servants’ children.

 

On citizens’ rights, the EU spells out in greater detail the protections it wants to secure for nearly 5 million people on the wrong side of Brexit – 3.5 million EU nationals in the UK and 1.2 million Britons on the continent.

 

In a red rag to hardline Brexiters, the document stresses the European court of justice (ECJ) must have full jurisdiction for ruling on disputes about citizens’ rights, while the European commission ought to have full powers for monitoring whether the UK is upholding the bargain.

 

“On the side of the 27, people are a little cross and they have hardened their positions,” said Jean De Ruyt, a former EU ambassador. “It is a dangerous situation when you harden positions and you cannot do anything [because formal talks have not begun].”

 

The divide is stark on the Brexit bill. The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, was shocked after May told him the UK had no obligation to pay anything on leaving the bloc.

 

Diplomats on the EU side say they cannot contemplate scaling back demands on the divorce. EU civil service pensions will not be bartered away to secure the UK’s post-Brexit contribution to the union’s seven-year budget, known as the multiannual financial framework (MFF), the EU diplomat said.

 

“I think our priority is that the UK will pay for everything,” they said. “Everything is a priority – we cannot trade pensions for the MFF.”

Ridiculous Demands

Britain’s Brexit Secretary David Davis has mocked the European Union over divorce talks after Brussels published its position papers for talks with the UK on crucial issues.

PressTV reports UK describes EU Brexit demands as ‘ridiculous’.

Davis said on Tuesday that the EU’s demands to protect its citizens’ rights in the UK were “ridiculously high”, giving its citizens greater rights in the UK than Britons have.

“Art of the Deal”

“Art of the Deal” tactics by the EU are not going to work.

The EU exports more to the UK than vice versa. Fishing rights in UK waters are in play. The lower British Pound will temper cost of any tariffs the EU places on UK exports. EU imports to UK will collapse.

It’s hard to imagine a worse negotiating stance than that taken by the EU.

Once again I repeat: Brexit Negotiations: Why Bother?

 

via http://ift.tt/2rkwdFI Tyler Durden

The real reason to own Bitcoin

In 1483, just as Johannes Gutenberg’s new moveable type printing press was spreading across Europe, Sultan Bayezid II of the Ottoman Empire issued a staunch decree banning the machine from his realm.

At the time the Ottoman Empire was the dominant superpower in the world, having conquered most of the Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe.

But Bayezid was afraid of the new technology.

He and his advisors felt that the printing press would too easily allow information and new ideas to spread across his empire.

And they believed this would threaten their control and offend the religious establishment.

So not only did Bayezid ban the printing press, he imposed the death penalty upon anyone caught using one.

The Ottoman Empire remained so closed off to new ideas, in fact, that the only western book to be imported and translated for the next 3 centuries was a medical text on the treatment of syphilis.

Needless to say the Ottoman Empire did not remain the world’s dominant superpower for long.

It was during this period that Europe underwent radical growth.

Just a few centuries before, most of Europe was nothing more than a plague-infested backwater of irrelevant kingdoms.

But by the mid-1600s, Europe had surged ahead, in part due to the rapid spread of knowledge made possible by the printing press.

It was the Internet of its time.

And scientists like Isaac Newton would never have been able to ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ had it not been for that disruptive, revolutionary technology.

Western civilization as a whole owes much of its prosperity to the printing press, which enabled the sharing of information and ideas.

And the example shows how embracing new technology can make an enormous difference in the development of a society.

Today most western governments probably still feel that they are embracers of technology who encourage innovation.

But this is nothing more than a crude fantasy, especially when it comes to one of the most disruptive technologies of our modern time: cryptocurrency.

Cryptocurrency is today’s printing press– a truly game-changing technology that the ruling elite sees as a threat to their control.

This is why there have been so many ridiculous rules and tax policies that disincentivize cryptocurrency ownership– the technology is too disruptive.

Banks have enjoyed unparalleled power and influence for eight centuries, going all the way back to the Medici rule in the early Italian renaissance.

Bankers controlled the money, and were consequently able to control governments, laws, and even wars.

In the fight against Napoleon in the early 1800s, for example, the fate of the British war effort was not in the hands of the generals and admirals, but in the hands of the Rothchild banking family that financed them.

In the early 1900s, it was JP Morgan who engineered a revolution in Panama and imposed a puppet government so that his bank could finance the lucrative canal project.

And just a decade ago the heads of the top Wall Street banks cajoled the entire US government into a trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded bailout.

The only reason banks enjoy such immense power is because they control the money.

But if you think about it, banks are nothing more than middlemen, taking money from depositors and loaning it out to borrowers.

In fact the old joke in banking was the famous 3-6-3 rule: pay 3% on deposits, loan money at 6%, be on the golf course by 3pm.

Cryptocurrency disrupts this absurd middleman monopoly.

Think about it: when you send money to someone, those funds move from your bank, to the central bank, to another bank, and then finally to the recipient’s account.

This is the same way that money used to be transferred 800 years ago…

… which seems almost tragically anachronistic given that we have apps today to send funds directly to a recipient’s mobile phone or email address.

Who needs a middleman anymore?

Why should anyone borrow money from a bank when there are so many Peer-to-Peer and crowdfunding platforms available?

Why pay exorbitant fees and commissions to exchange currency when there numerous websites that exchange money at almost no cost?

Banks as financial intermediaries are about as quaint as taxi dispatchers in the age of Uber.

Cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology are the final nails in the coffin, making it possible to hold your savings in the cloud rather than at a bank.

And if that seems too esoteric, consider that your savings is already ‘digital currency’.

Banks don’t keep bricks of physical cash in their vaults; your bank balance is nothing more than an accounting entry in your bank’s electronic database.

It just happens to be 100% controlled by your bank.

They can gamble your savings away on some idiotic investment fad, charge you ridiculous fees without your consent, and even freeze you out of your own account (‘for your own security’) or deny you the right to withdraw funds.

Cryptocurrency de-centralizes this system. You become your own banker. No more middleman.

THIS is the principal reason to own cryptocurrency.

It’s not about price speculation. Too many people are buying Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. to gamble on the price.

This totally misses the point.

The idea isn’t to trade paper money for Bitcoin, hoping to trade that Bitcoin back for more paper money later. It’s the same with gold and silver.

There are far less volatile ways to make money and enjoy a great risk-adjusted return.

Cryptocurrency is about divorcing yourself from an anachronistic financial system that has never missed an opportunity to abuse you.

And that makes it worth understanding.

This is especially true if you’re naturally skeptical of the idea or have already passed judgment on Bitcoin as a ‘scam’ without having learned about it first.

Cryptocurrency is the future of finance. And just as embracing new technology can be prosperous for societies, it can also be prosperous for individuals.

Note- I’m not suggesting you buy Bitcoin at $2,000+. Far from it. We’ll talk about that soon.

Source

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/2rUs6mq
via IFTTT

House Overwhelmingly Supports Bill Subjecting Teen Sexters to 15-Years in Federal Prison

Teens who text each other explicit images could be subject to 15 years in federal prison under a new bill that just passed the House of Representatives. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, has called the measure “deadly and counterproductive.”

“While the bill is well intended, it is overbroad in scope and will punish the very people it indicates it is designed to protect: our children,” Lee said during a House floor debate over the bill. The bill would also raise “new constitutional concerns” and “exacerbate overwhelming concerns with the unfair and unjust mandatory minimum sentencing that contributes to the overcriminalization of juveniles and mass incarceration generally.”

Introduced by Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) in March, the “Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017” passed the House by an overwhelming majority last week. Only two Republicans—Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against the bill, along with 53 Democrats. Most of the opposition centered on the bill’s effective expansion of mandatory-minimum prison sentences.

One vocal opponent was Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia), who called the legislation “particularly appalling” because it would “apply to people who I think we should all agree should not be subject” to long mandatory minimums. “Under this law, teenagers who engage in consensual conduct and send photos of a sexual nature to their friends or even to each other may be prosecuted and the judge must sentence them to at least 15 years in prison,” said Scott on the House floor.

What’s more, “the law explicitly states that the mandatory minimums will apply equally to an attempt or a conspiracy,” Scott noted.

That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt. If a teenager goads a friend to ask a teenager to take a sexually explicit image of herself, just by asking, he could be guilty of conspiracy or attempt, and the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years in prison.

But Johnson, a freshman congressman (and vocal Trump supporter), dismissed opponents’ concern that the measure would be used in ways he didn’t intend it to be used. “In Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,'” he said in response to their floor concerns. “I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.”

Johnson has repeatedly claimed that his bill will close “loopholes” that allow child pornographers to go free. But in the only “loophole” case he has pinpointed, it’s overreaching federal prosecutors who bungled bringing a bad guy to justice, not some fundamental flaw in our criminal code. In that case, 19-year-old Anthony Palomino-Coronado was accused of molesting his 7-year-old neighbor repeatedly over the course of several months. In investigating the case, police discovered one photo of the abuse that had been taken and subsequently deleted from Palomino-Coronado’s phone.

Combined with the victim’s testimony, the photo should have guaranteed state police little trouble in trying to prosecute Palomino-Coronado for sexual abuse of a child. But federal prosecutors preempted such a prosecution by deciding to instead try Palomino-Coronado in federal court for producing child pornography.

It was a bad call—the case “could have been brought in state court and the defendant would have been subjected to extremely long, lengthy prison time,” as Rep. Scott noted during floor debate. But federal law against producing child pornography requires a minor to have been recruited “for the purpose of” producing photo or video. In this case, the court concluded, the longterm pattern of abuse, combined with the fact that only one explicit image was ever taken (and subsequently deleted), meant the perpetrator’s purpose was not producing child porn but, rather, his own sexual gratification. If the feds had simply let the state handle the case as one of sexual abuse, Palomino-Coronado would probably be behind bars right now; instead, they overreached with the child porn charge, and now he’s free.

Rather than learn from that mistake, the Department of Justice (DOJ) pushed for federal lawmakers to amend U.S. criminal code to make their prosecutorial overreach more permissible. According to Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), the changes in Johnson’s bill were “requested by the unit at the Department of Justice that enforces the laws against child pornography.”

Legislators aren’t supposed to be mere puppets for law enforcement agencies. Yet here we are: A bill specifically requested by DOJ was rushed through the House of Representatives with near-universal support from Republicans and also a lot of support from Democrats. Opposition to the bill from a committed group of criminal justice reformers was ignored. And amendments aimed at fixing the most problematic parts of the bill—its reliance on mandatory minimum sentencing schemes and its failure to exclude minors trading photos with other minors from child-porn prosecutions—were both voted down.

“While we all agree that no child pornography offense should go unpunished, we cannot overlook the consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing,” said Conyers on the House floor. Under current U.S. law, first-time offenses for child porn are punishable by mandatory imprisonment of at least 15 years, with repeat offenders subject to 25- and 35-year minimums. “By modifying and expanding [federal law] to include several new ways in which to violate the prohibition against the production of child pornography, the bill would subject new classes of defendants to mandatory minimum sentences,” he explained.

Supporters of the legislation said there’s no reason to think that federal prosecutors will use the bill against teen sexters, since they have not done so in the past. But state prosecutors have. And we’re also up against a new federal administration—one that has explicitly endorsed mandatory minimums and other tough-on-crime endeavors. No, the FBI isn’t about to start rounding up teen sexters in mass. But what will happen the next time ICE finds a racy image on a 17-year-old Mexican immigrant’s phone?

We simply “cannot rely on prospective discretion to protect juveniles under this statute,” said Conyers, “given the new policy of the Attorney General. We are under a new regime here at the federal level, and I can’t depend on relying on the prosecutorial discretion to protect juveniles under this statute.”

Opposing lawmakers also rejected the argument that while mandatory minimum sentences might generally be bad, they were OK in this instance because of our (rightful) revulsion at people who exploit children.

“We have to recognize that mandatory minimums in the code did not get there all at once. They got there one at a time, each part of a larger bill, which, on balance, might seem like a good idea,” said Scott. “The only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain or broaden the application of mandatory minimums. Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum had not been in the bill and then voting for the bill anyway not only creates that new mandatory minimum, but it also guarantees that mandatory minimums will be included in the next crime bill.”

A statement of opposition filed by Reps. Conyers, Lee, and several others stated that while “no child pornography offense should go unpunished,” Johnson’s bill “would subject more individuals to mandatory minimum penalties at a time when the federal criminal justice system should be moving away from such sentencing schemes.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2sdZhP0
via IFTTT

Inflation indicator breaks support, continues to fall

compass for kimble charting solutions post 

The economy continues to do well, along with the stock market, prompting many to be concerned about inflationary pressures picking up speed. Below looks at the TIP/TLT ratio and the message it is sending about inflationary pressures, or lack of.

TLT/TIP RATIO

 

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

Since 2011, this inflationary indicator has continued to create a series of lower highs, inside of the red shaded channel above. As mentioned in the chart, the indicator actually hit a low last July and started pushing higher. At the time of the low in this indicator at (1), nearly 90% of bond investors were bullish bonds and few thought the Fed would raise rates. That was a crowded trade that did not go well for bond bulls, as bonds fell hard and rates pushed sharply higher.

Turning the page forward 10-months, the majority feel like the Fed will raise rates. Does the indicator agree with the crowd at this time? The TIP/TLT ratio hit 6-year falling channel resistance at (2) in March of this year and the ratio has continued to slip lower. The weakness the past 6-weeks has the ratio breaking below rising support at (3).

Was the rally in this ratio at (1) a signal that inflation is back or was the rally nothing more than a counter trend rally, in a continuing downtrend? If inflation is really back, one would need to see this ratio reflecting strength and breaking out of its 6-year falling channel

 

Send me an email to review a
complimentary copy of my  
Weekly Sector/Commodity Research that provides weekly
pattern analysis and actionable ideas


Website: KIMBLECHARTINGSOLUTIONS.COM

Blog:  http://ift.tt/2nMNRyT

 

Questions: Email services@kimblechartingsolutions.com or call us toll free 877-721-7217 international 714-941-9381

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


via http://ift.tt/2rb4Cbg kimblecharting

RBC: “The Entire World Is Long Tech, Short Energy, And Now It Gets Interesting”

With stocks suddenly looking quite shaky after today’s various data misses and bank revenue warning, here is a timely warning from RBC’s head of cross asset strategy, Charlie McElligott, who warns that the “best is behind us” theme remains intact with data, both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’–kind fading from highs, driving curves flatter, and with the same ‘stalling’ is playing-out globally as well, some of the most concentrated trades are suddenly at risk.

But with volatility perhaps set to make a return, the RBC analysts has some good news: “here is where it gets interesting”, and presents some ways to trade what the inevitable unwind of the trade where the “entire world is long tech, short energy.”

From RBC’s Charlie McElligott

HOW WE GOT HERE / WHERE WE’RE GOING

The status-quo is AGAIN being perpetuated week-to-date (USTs bid / curves bull-flattening, $/Y dipping potentially on account of the massive and painful ‘PBoC engineered squeeze’ in Chinese Yuan shorts, crude fading, ‘Growth’ and ‘Defensives’ leading within equities while ‘Value’ / cyclicals and ‘Size’ / small caps are clubbed—all while S&P remains unbreakable due to ‘goldilocks’ easy conditions with lower rates and USD). 

BUT STICK WITH ME HERE, because we are nearing a potential ‘acceleration’ / melt-up of the current trade (pushing Mark Orsley’s TYN 127/128 Call Spread to protect against a move to 2.0% in the 10Y) into what could set us up for a reversal ultimately thereafter — one that could finally see capitulation in rates drive a tactical reversal opportunity, where ‘value’ equities would likely outperform ‘growth’ and ‘anti-beta,’ as rates then would have ‘runway’ to again grind higher into underpriced Fed.

HOW WE GOT HERE:

– Fading ‘inflation expectations’ pulling nominal rates lower (see today’s Euro Area ‘flash’ HICP inflation showing weaker core inflation COUGH COUGH):

– ‘Best is behind us’ theme remains intact with data, with both us ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ –kind fading from highs, driving curves flatter.  The same ‘stalling’ is playing-out globally as well:

US DATA FADE-


GLOBAL ‘BEST BEHIND US’-

– Slowing economic trajectory into a “tighter” global regime:

  1. Fed staying ‘on message’ with regards to hiking / tapering path,
  2. Chinese deleveraging efforts (impact specifically charted below) and
  3. ECB pivoting ‘less dovish’

… is creating ‘policy error’ concerns:

 
 

– Inability for rates to move higher / curves to steepen sees ‘Cyclicals’ / ‘Value’ stocks (i.e. Energy and Financials) continuing to be punished relative to the ongoing ‘risk barbell’ equities leadership of ‘Growth’ (‘secular’ stories not dependent upon accelerating economic backdrop) and ‘Defensives / Bond-Proxies’ (‘low volatility and benefit from the move lower in rates):

‘VALUE : GROWTH’ RATIO CONTINUES TO EVIDENCE INVESTOR PREFERENCE FOR ‘SECULAR’ STORIES OVER ‘CYCLICALS,’ FADING ALONGSIDE UST 2s10s CURVE AND 5Y INFLATION BREAKEVENS-

‘VALUE : GROWTH’ RATIO SYMPTOMATIC OF THE ‘PERPETUALLY EASY’ FED POLICY-

HERE IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING…

I’ve been speaking about the numerous signs of stress / big multi-manager book ‘blowouts’ from such ‘value’ sectors as ‘Energy’ and ‘Financials’ for a while now, which is occurring in conjunction with major pain in ‘mean-reversion’ strategies (looking to capture the spread of the ‘overshoot’ in, for example, Q1 laggards vs Q1 leaders) and general ‘equity market neutral’ strategy performance of late….while “Growth” sectors like ‘Tech’ and ‘Consumer Discretionary’ continue running wild:

It is my view that there has been a significant amount of quant funds playing this “growth” / “value” mean-reversion QTD…nibbling in Energy and Fins (which again yday were the two worst performing sectors in the S&P), say against shorts in Tech and Cons Disc (two of top four S&P sectors yday).  And as per the performance dynamics within each, they’re upside down on both the long- and short- legs.


Q1 / Q2 ‘MEAN REVERSION’ STRATEGY TURNING SLOPPY DUE TO GRINDING MOVE LOWER IN RATES, AS ‘VALUE’ AND ‘SIZE’ CONTINUE TO FADE AGAINST ONGOING ‘GROWTH’ AND ‘ANTI-BETA’ U.S. EQUITIES LEADERSHIP—NEARING THE INFLECTION:

But everybody in the equities-universe it seems is aware of this dynamic, and fundamental folks are increasingly nervous about the potential for a reversal in mega ‘pain trade’ style—because it seems the entire world is ‘LONG TECH AGAINST SHORT ENERGY’…people are ready to pounce on this trade.

The trick is that this performance dynamic likely only reverses via HIGHER NOMINAL RATES…but as per the earlier-mention, rates are only going LOWER right now, as ‘real money’ has missed the move (aren’t long enough) while the leveraged community still remains biased ‘short’ (and are thus being squeezed).  In both cases, this means ‘buyers are higher’ in USTs (i.e. overseas real money is ready to CHOMP if we break through 2.17 / 2.18 level, which could see the next move down to 2.00 level).  In addition to these ‘flow’ / performance-dynamics, Mark Orsley sent a quick note late Friday afternoon highlighting this potential for a further rates breakdown on account of the technical picture (bullish inverse head-and-shoulders in TYU7), as well as analogs showing the trend of lower rates following Fed hikes—as such, Mark advocated a smart TYN 127/128 Call Spread to protect against a move to 2.0% in the 10Y that gives you nice payout leverage and will capture the ‘compressed vol’ reality with solid call skew.

A move to 2.0% would break us down to the low-end of my thematic multi-month ‘macro range trade,’ and would almost certainly drive capitulatory flows from the last of the leveraged fund ‘rate shorts’ to holdout longs in equities cyclicalsAt this point though, a full rates capitulation is likely where you want to begin legging into some tactical opportunities to reverse the trade (buy certain thematic components of ‘reflation’), as the market continues to underprice US monetary policy.  This could then send crowded ‘secular growth’ sectors LOWER (source of funds) as underweights in ‘value’ likely then squeeze higher.  Again though, there is a ‘sequencing’ dynamic here, as this is only going to occur with a reversal HIGHER in rates—which requires the full breakdown LOWER first. 

via http://ift.tt/2rUi3xu Tyler Durden

Ross Ulbricht Loses His Appeal Over Conviction and Sentencing in Silk Road Case

In bad news this morning, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction and sentencing of Ross Ulbricht for life without parole based on crimes associated with launching and operating the Silk Road website, a site where people could buy and sell items anonymously, including illegal drugs.

Past reporting on the arguments made in his appeal here, here, and here.

The post will be updated later today with a more detailed discussion of the Court’s arguments and conclusions.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2qAWTEP
via IFTTT

Scott Pruitt Refuted on ‘Leveling Off’ of Global Temperature Trends?

GlobalWarmingQuestionsAlexParfenovDreamstimesA new study purports to refute new Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt’s claim that “over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the ‘hiatus’.” According to the paper, which was published last week in Nature Scientific Reports, “Satellite temperature measurements do not support the recent claim of a ‘leveling off of warming’ over the past two decades.”

The researchers, led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate modeler Benjamin Santer, draws on the global temperature trends of three different satellite datasets for the mid-troposphere—the troposphere is the lowest densest part of the earth’s atmosphere in which most weather changes occur and extends to about 7 miles above the surface—from 1979 (when the records begin) to December 2016. One dataset, from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), shows temperatures rising 0.09 degree C per decade; adjusting for measurements that are distorted by falling lower stratospheric temperatures, Santer and his colleagues calculate that the figure should actually be 0.142. The second dataset, from Remote Sensing Systems, seems to show a hike of 0.094 degrees C per decade; with the paper’s adjustments, that becomes 0.199. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration appears to indicate an increase of 0.128 degree C per decade; the paper adjusts that to 0.202.

UAH climatologist John Christy argues in an email response that Santer’s adjustment process “actually exaggerates the tropospheric warming rate (which is why we do not use it).” But his biggest problem with the study involves how those numbers are used, not how they’re generated.

In their paper, Santer and his colleagues compare those real (although adjusted) temperature data with 36 climate model outputs that are supposed to show how global temperatures would have evolved during the past 38 years in the absence of accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Such a comparison only works if the models are right about how much the climate would naturally vary in the absence of extra greenhouse gases. In Christy’s words, it “depends on climate model natural variability being correct.”

That could be a problem: “Model-generated natural variability is known to be less than real variability – this makes it easier for small trends in the observations to appear to be significant when in fact Mother Nature can produce large trends on her own. It’s a real apples and oranges comparison – real data being tested against model-generated variability.”

Earlier this month, another study in Nature recognized that the global warming hiatus that purportedly occurred from 1998 to 2015 has been defined differently in different sections of the scientific literature: It has been variously described as (1) no discernible increase in global average temperature, (2) a dramatic slowdown in the increase in warming, or (3) a slower increase than projected by climate computer models. If the Santer team’s conclusions are correct, they have actually confirmed the second definition. Take a look at this chart from their paper:

SanterFigure1B

As Christy points out, the Santer team’s tropospheric “trends ending in 2004 were two to four times the value for trends ending in 2015 – i.e. supporting Pruitt’s statement that trends were ‘leveling off’ compared with earlier periods.” The upturn in temperatures at the end is the result of the natural boost in global average temperatures following a big El Niño in 2015 and 2016.

What about that third definition—the idea that global average temperature increases are lower than the climate models project? Oddly, another team of researchers led by Santer published a study in the January Journal of Climate that reached exactly that conclusion. That paper found that once temperature data are adjusted, the climate models are on average 1.7 times warmer than observed global temperature trends.

Christy stands by his March 2017 testimony at a hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, which focused on trends in the tropics, where all models project significant man-made warming in the troposphere. Since 1979, he explained, averaging the global observational data gives you a warming trend of 0.117 degree C per decade; the projected global trend for 102 climate models was 0.216 degree C per decade. In other words, the models have been running about two times hotter than the data:

ChristyHouse2017

So if Pruitt meant that there has been no discernible increase global average temperatures for the past 20 years, he would be wrong. Still, as Christy notes, it seems odd to make “a politician’s ambiguous statement” the focus of a formal paper. “If this was appropriate,” he observes acerbically, “Al Gore would have been destroyed in the scientific literature 25 years ago.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2roAOsc
via IFTTT

Pending Home Sales Crash Most In 3 Years, Hit By “Double Whammy” Of Price, Inventory

Signed contracts in April tumbled 5.4% YoY (NSA). This is the biggest drop in pending home sales since August 2014 and comes on the back of last week's disappointing housing 'recovery' data as perhaps Fed- and Trump-driven mortgage-rate rises have finally hit the American 'pocketbook'.

This is the second monthly drop in a row (-1.3% MoM) and comes with downward revisions for the last few months.

As Bloomberg notes, the back-to-back declines in contract signings were the first since May and June of last year and underscore how limited choices of properties are impinging on the market’s progress by boosting prices and creating affordability issues.

Ironically, NAR's Larry Yun blames weak contract activity this spring on significantly weak supply levels spurring deteriorating affordability conditions.

"Much of the country for the second straight month saw a pullback in pending sales as the rate of new listings continues to lag the quicker pace of homes coming off the market," he said.

 

 "Realtors are indicating that foot traffic is higher than a year ago, but it's obviously not translating to more sales." 

 

"Prospective buyers are feeling the double whammy this spring of inventory that's down 9.0 percent from a year ago and price appreciation that's much faster than any rise they've likely seen in their income."

US housing data is at its worst since May 2016…

 

So what happens next?

via http://ift.tt/2sm7akH Tyler Durden

‘Soft’ Data Slammed To 6-Month Lows As Chicago PMI Tumbles

Employment, new orders, and production all slowed notably in May according to the MNI Chicago PMI report. Printing at 55.2 – below the lowest expectation – this is the lowest level since January’s collapse.

Forecast range 56 – 62 from 34 economists surveyed… oops!

Breakdown:

  • Prices paid rose at a slower pace, signaling expansion
  • New orders rose at a slower pace, signaling expansion
  • Employment rose at a slower pace, signaling expansion
  • Inventories rose at a faster pace, signaling expansion
  • Supplier deliveries rose at a faster pace, signaling expansion
  • Production rose at a slower pace, signaling expansion
  • Order backlogs fell at a slower pace, signaling contraction
  • Business activity has been positive for 12 months over the past year.
  • Number of components rising vs last month: 3

The continued disappontment in ‘soft’ data is becoming serious…

Six-month lows in Animal spirits?

via http://ift.tt/2rEp2Lp Tyler Durden