Gold-Stock Correction Mode

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

The gold miners’ stocks are mired in correction mode, which isn’t surprising after their mighty post-stock-panic upleg. Huge buying catapulting them higher left this sector extremely overbought. Corrections are normal and healthy after prices get too stretched technically. They eradicate upleg toppings’ excessive greed, rebalancing sentiment. That paves the way for bulls’ next uplegs, and offers great buying opportunities.

The most-popular gold-stock benchmark today is the GDX VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF. It includes the world’s biggest and best gold miners, dwarfing its peers in size. Launched way back in May 2006, GDX’s first-mover advantage has grown insurmountable. This ETF’s $17.9b in net assets this week are running 31.4x larger than its next biggest competitor’s in the 1x-long major-gold-miners-ETF space. GDX is king.

Continue reading

Explaining the Discrepancies Between Hausfather et al. (2019) and Lewis&Curry (2018)

[This is a technical analysis of climate models vs observations by an econometrician who helped show that Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” was false.  –Bob]

By Ross McKitrick – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Challenging the claim that a large set of climate model runs published since 1970’s are consistent with observations for the right reasons.

Introduction

Zeke Hausfather et al. (2019) (herein ZH19) examined a large set of climate model runs published since the 1970s and claimed they were consistent with observations, once errors in the emission projections are considered. It is an interesting and valuable paper and has received a lot of press attention. In this post, I will explain what the authors did and then discuss a couple of issues arising, beginning with IPCC over-estimation of CO2 emissions, a literature to which Hausfather et al. make a striking contribution. I will then present a critique of some aspects of their regression analyses. I find that they have not specified their main regression correctly, and this undermines some of their conclusions. Using a more valid regression model helps explain why their findings aren’t inconsistent with Lewis and Curry (2018) which did show models to be inconsistent with observations.

Outline of the ZH19 Analysis:

A climate model projection can be factored into two parts: the implied (transient) climate sensitivity (to increased forcing) over the projection period and the projected increase in forcing. The first derives from the model’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and the ocean heat uptake rate. It will be approximately equal to the model’s transient climate response (TCR), although the discussion in ZH19 is for a shorter period than the 70 years used for TCR computation. The second comes from a submodel that takes annual GHG emissions and other anthropogenic factors as inputs, generates implied CO2 and other GHG concentrations, then converts them into forcings, expressed in Watts per square meter. The emission forecasts are based on socioeconomic projections and are therefore external to the climate model.

Continue reading

Gold Stocks Very Overbought

By Adam Hamilton – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

The gold miners’ stocks have grown very overbought after soaring dramatically higher in recent months. Blasting really far really fast has left this sector really stretched technically and sentimentally. Excessive gains and greed always soon lead to major corrective selloffs, which are necessary to restore balance. All bull markets, even the most powerful, flow and ebb. Big uplegs are inevitably followed by corrections.

With gold and gold stocks plunging hard Thursday morning, the timing of this research thread is certainly lucky. My weekly-web-essay workflow is well-defined, this happens to be the 877th I’ve written. I have to decide on each week’s topic by early Wednesdays, to do the research and build necessary spreadsheets and charts that day. Then I write and proof these essays Thursdays, so they can be published early Fridays.

Continue reading

An Assessment of the 4th National Climate Assessment

By Andy May – Re-Blogged From WUWT

The U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) Volume II is out and generating a lot of discussion. Volume II, Impacts Risks and Adaptation in the United States to climate change can be downloaded here (Reidmiller, et al. 2018). Volume I, published last year, on the physical science behind the assessment is here (Wuebbles, et al. 2017).

The mainstream media (MSM) is breathlessly reporting about it using the following template or something similar:

“[Volume II] of the Fourth National Climate Assessment shows how [America/city/state/poor/people of color/old people/young people, etc.] are already feeling the effects of climate change from [wildfires/droughts/floods/disease/hurricanes/etc.].

Continue reading