The link was to an OP-ED piece today in the New York Times by Steven Rattner titled “Trump’s Economic Muddle”
Where I find this: “Still worse are his notions for how to bring jobs home, particularly his call for huge tariffs. At various times, he has proposed levies of 25 percent on imports from China and 35 percent on Ford vehicles assembled in Mexico. That would significantly raise prices for Americans and unleash retaliatory moves.”
This struck a nerve. Exactly what “retaliatory moves” does he envision from China? China whose economy would crater without the import markets of the USA and Europe.
What could produce such confusion?
And has the Ministry of Truth redefined the word inevitable? Our current system of foreign trade was never inevitable. Our government made policy choices which favored some Americans at the expense of others. With those policy choices, we now purchase from trade partners what we used to produce ourselves.
Dean Baker’s entire response to the OP-ED is worth the read.
Of course it is the trend that matters. And the trend has been modeled well before the last couple of years, and now:
“In an earlier post, I wrote about some research that compared ocean temperature measurements to climate model predictions. It turns out, the models have done a great job estimating the increase in ocean heat although they have slightly under-predicted the change.
What about other components of the Earth’s climate? For instance, how have the models done at predicting the changes in air temperatures? With recent data now available, we can make an assessment. I communicated with NASA GISS director Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who provided the following data.
The graph shows the latest computer model simulations (from the CMIP project), which were used as input to the IPCC, along with five different temperature datasets. The comparison to be made is of the heavy dashed line (annotated in the graph just below the solid black line) and the colored lines. The heavy dashed line is the average predicted temperature including updated influences from a decrease in solar energy, human emitted heat-reflecting particles, and volcanic effects.
The dashed line is slightly above the colored markers in recent years, but the results are quite close. Furthermore, this year’s temperature to date is running hotter than 2014. To date, 2015 is almost exactly at the predicted mean value from the models. Importantly, the measured temperatures are well within the spread of the model predictions.
Comparison of the most recent CMIP5 climate model simulations with actual global surface temperature measurements.
If we next consider earlier predictions using the prior generation of climate models, we see results below. Again, we see that in recent years, temperatures are slightly below the average of the models, but well within the uncertainty range. Furthermore, if we were to add the current 2015 temperatures, it would be very nearly at the model mean.
So we see the models are doing a pretty good job. Certainly, they are good enough for us to project out into the future. I think of models as a crystal ball. We use them to see the future, albeit as a cloudy picture. While we cannot expect models to be perfect, they are good enough to help inform our decisions today.”
From time to time, I find myself wondering about the product of our higher educational system.
This time the cause was an OP-ED piece linked to in an article by Dean Baker. Dean Bakers piece was titled “Manufacturing Jobs, Trade, and ProductivityManufacturing Jobs, Trade, and Productivity”
See: http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/manufacturing-jobs-trade-and-productivity
The link was to an OP-ED piece today in the New York Times by Steven Rattner titled “Trump’s Economic Muddle”
Where I find this: “Still worse are his notions for how to bring jobs home, particularly his call for huge tariffs. At various times, he has proposed levies of 25 percent on imports from China and 35 percent on Ford vehicles assembled in Mexico. That would significantly raise prices for Americans and unleash retaliatory moves.”
This struck a nerve. Exactly what “retaliatory moves” does he envision from China? China whose economy would crater without the import markets of the USA and Europe.
What could produce such confusion?
And has the Ministry of Truth redefined the word inevitable? Our current system of foreign trade was never inevitable. Our government made policy choices which favored some Americans at the expense of others. With those policy choices, we now purchase from trade partners what we used to produce ourselves.
Dean Baker’s entire response to the OP-ED is worth the read.
Of course it is the trend that matters. And the trend has been modeled well before the last couple of years, and now:
“In an earlier post, I wrote about some research that compared ocean temperature measurements to climate model predictions. It turns out, the models have done a great job estimating the increase in ocean heat although they have slightly under-predicted the change.
What about other components of the Earth’s climate? For instance, how have the models done at predicting the changes in air temperatures? With recent data now available, we can make an assessment. I communicated with NASA GISS director Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who provided the following data.
The graph shows the latest computer model simulations (from the CMIP project), which were used as input to the IPCC, along with five different temperature datasets. The comparison to be made is of the heavy dashed line (annotated in the graph just below the solid black line) and the colored lines. The heavy dashed line is the average predicted temperature including updated influences from a decrease in solar energy, human emitted heat-reflecting particles, and volcanic effects.
The dashed line is slightly above the colored markers in recent years, but the results are quite close. Furthermore, this year’s temperature to date is running hotter than 2014. To date, 2015 is almost exactly at the predicted mean value from the models. Importantly, the measured temperatures are well within the spread of the model predictions.
Comparison of the most recent CMIP5 climate model simulations with actual global surface temperature measurements.
If we next consider earlier predictions using the prior generation of climate models, we see results below. Again, we see that in recent years, temperatures are slightly below the average of the models, but well within the uncertainty range. Furthermore, if we were to add the current 2015 temperatures, it would be very nearly at the model mean.
So we see the models are doing a pretty good job. Certainly, they are good enough for us to project out into the future. I think of models as a crystal ball. We use them to see the future, albeit as a cloudy picture. While we cannot expect models to be perfect, they are good enough to help inform our decisions today.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/10/2015-global-temperatures-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
Ah.
So we are in dread danger, but safe from some trolls.