Is there anything better than history revision? And, is there anything more pathetic than even after revision we still have a horrid economy?
As readers here know, the world has decided to change the way we consider GDP, again. As expected this reflects better towards the present than the past.
Supposedly, there’s a table out there with hard numbers to look at. I’m trying to find them now, but, this came from a ppt/pdf slide from the BEA.
In the mean time, with revisions, our GDP supposedly grew at another anemic pace of 1.7%. For those wondering. 1.7%, especially now that they include the revisions, is horrible for the US. Other nations could almost thrive on 1.7% increase, but, the US can not. This is preliminary, they’ll release the more official rate at the end of August, but, that too will be revised, later.
1.7% growth will not grow jobs nor income. It will retain the underlying weaknesses, and keep us vulnerable for another downturn, if we’re not in one already. Personally, I don’t believe we ever emerged from the last one. In spite of the tricks with the metrics, the numbers just aren’t there.
Any improvement of numbers was simply a product of the printing the fed has done, combined with the unrealistic 0% interest rate. In other words, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
Don’t believe your lying eyes with the increase of poverty and decrease in the annual income. This are better! The world powers told us so.
suyts space 
Kind of noticed that the “revision” only affects the most recent years (but I note that 1929-1959 is not broken out).
Nah, there is no politics here! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
Right, the BEA people referenced that table all over the place, but, I’ve found no links to the data, yet…..
They found that the GISS way of treating the past works so well they just had to use it on GDP. Next, all US govt debt will have been accrued under republican presidents.
They are already trying to run with that meme.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Is there anything better than history revision?
So you think all data is perfect the first time out of the box? Is that really your position?
You mean like your ocean basin calculation?
Jim
In fact, no. I’m surprised you haven’t been able to figure that out in the days since. And I’m still wondering why you made claims about tectonic processes without doing the simplest of calculations to prove it.
Show me your calculation.
Jim
First, show me yours.
Wow, he wants to slap his [whatsy] on the table. Let him Jim – but get a magnifying glass first so you can measure it.
Edited for decorum —–James
There is no such calculation (without measuring something first), but you can prove me wrong. Show me yours.
Jim
The calculation is trivial. But a professor of mine one said never do a calculation before you estimate the answer. So I’d like to know how you estimated your answer.
Was that a philosophy professor? because no hard science professor would have said that. But then given you are an imbecile, I suspect so was your “mine one” professor.
>>
David Appell says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:09 pm
The calculation is trivial.
<<
Apparently it’s not trivial, since you won’t show us the calculation.
>>
But a professor of mine one said never do a calculation before you estimate the answer.
<<
It’s good advice. I guess you do estimates only and never get to actual calculations.
>>
So I’d like to know how you estimated your answer.
<<
Unlike you, I researched it.
Jim
Unlike you, I researched it.
You are a very lousy researcher who will apparently believe anything.
Model the ocean basin as a parallelepiped of width W, depth D, and length L. If it expands from volume V1=W1*D1*L1 to volume V2=W2*D2*L2 and its volume remains constant, then the change in depth is, by differentiating the above equality V1=V2 with constant L
dD/dt = -(D1/W1)*(dW/dt)
Values: D1 ~ 5 km, W1 ~ 5000 km, dW/dt (from tectonics) ~ 3 cm/yr
Hence dD/dt ~ -0.003 cm/yr = -0.03 mm/yr
which is much less than sea level rise due to thermal expansion.
I wonder why you constantly make claims you never prove imbecile.
David, GDP is essentially a relative metric. No, data isn’t always “perfect” the first time out. However, altering metrics which have been long establish….. like revising our GDP in 1965 is a senseless and deceptive practice. It’s doesn’t reflect any better accuracy, it reflects someone’s desired view. There wasn’t any new information which came to light, there was a new way to view the old information, which skews historical perspective. A couple of more revisions like this and we won’t have had the recessions of the early 90s and 2000s.
When you alter history in such a manner, it makes it impossible to learn from history.
The point of a metric is to accurately measure something…. The data that’s available to do that is obviously better than it was in 1965, or even 1995, and it needs to be used for accuracy’s sake. As long as past results are modified to incorporate the new definition, when possible. Otherwise you are not getting the most accurate description of what you’re trying to measure.
You believe the current revisions more accurately define what is commonly conceived as GDP? I don’t. I believe this is an attempt to use it as a propaganda tool more than a realistic evaluation of economic health. Here’s a link with links provided to what the recent revisions are. In essence, they’re trying to measure “intangibles”, which makes it a bit of an oxymoron.
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oh-now-i-see-why-2014-will-show-a-change-in-gdp-world-economy-to-expand-this-year-and-next/
I am extremely hesitant to give any credence to a writer who uses the pen name “Tyler Durden.”
They are revising calculations back to 1929, so I don’t see any inherent problem. The GDP will now be a new quantity, call it GDP-prime, that measures things a little differently. The real question is how does this number change with time, not so much what the actual number is.
Beyond this, I’d need to study the issue in more detail, and see what experts are thinking. Doesn’t make for the snap judgements that blogs prefer, I realize.
No inherent problem? Other than the revisions have nothing to do with GDP? Other than the fact that the revisions seem to have inflated current numbers only? Gee! I don’t know. Inflating an F to a C has no inherent problem either, does it imbecile?
Supposedly, the BEA has a table out that shows actual numbers, and I’m looking for it. But, pension deficits? Gee….
David Appell says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:14 pm
“They are revising calculations back to 1929, so I don’t see any inherent problem.”
They have chosen the adjustments so that present GDP goes up and past GDP ever less. R&D expenditure. Is only a factor since about 1980 with increasing software development.
By your argument, every GIDD adjustment that always makes the present warmer and the past cooler cannot be a problem as they revised all of the time series.
You don’t see a problem because Obama won. You are not biased; you are 100% one-sided. Do you get paid for this? How much? Minimum wage?
At minimum wage, the imbecile is grossly overpaid.
…GISS, not GIDD…
R&D expenditure. Is only a factor since about 1980 with increasing software development.
AT&T Bell Labs would disagree. As would RCA, Xerox PARC, IBM, and a host of other companies who now do a lot less research in favor of chasing increases in their quartely profits.
But the BEA would not since it had no effect on GDP prior to the current period, imbecile. Facts, those things you have no clue about,.
But, pension deficits? Gee….
Again, this is the kind of thing I can’t evaluate without a lot more information. (And even then I’m unlikely to — there is only so much time in the day.)
You do not need to imbecile. Deficits are promises, not products.
It has nothing to do with GDP. That is why it was not counted before. A fully funded pension is done so by producing wealth. An underfunded pension is merely an empty promise since there is nothing backing the deficit. No product, no service.
Same with R&D that never produces results. Nothing is created. There is no “product”.
David Appell says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“”R&D expenditure. Is only a factor since about 1980 with increasing software development.”
AT&T Bell Labs would disagree. As would RCA, Xerox PARC, IBM, and a host of other companies who now ”
And a gazillion web programming sweatshops would agree with me. You have no idea how the development of the IT sector went down, David.
I can attest to how it devolved to what it is today, firsthand.
David Appell says:
July 31, 2013 at 3:09 pm
“So you think all data is perfect the first time out of the box? Is that really your position?”
Data, like history, or Cherry, needs to be refined again and again to achieve the desired quality. In the case of temperatures, always upwards near the present and downwards in the distant past. Same for GDP. But be careful with unemployment, where it is the exact opposite!
Data is. Perhaps you are thinking of the interpretation of data (which since done by man is subject to his flaws)?
Do you try hard to be an imbecile, or does it come naturally.
Don’t believe your lying eyes with the increase of poverty and decrease in the annual income. This are better!
GDP is a national total. That’s all. It says nothing about how it breaks down by income level (or any other divider). There can indeed be a schism in how different classes fare — for example, the S&P500 has increased by 99% since Obama first took office ($9.6 trillion). So obviously the investing class is doing great. The other half, not so well.
Agreed David. And, that’s what I’m getting at…… in part. The American public is told over and over again that things are looking up! But, only for a few. There’s no fundamental reason for optimism for the majority of Americans. With our without the newly revised GDP measurements.
That I completely agree with.
Congrats for Obama’s successful GDP increasing policies!
I wonder whether Kim Jong-Un and Fidel already heard of THAT trick.
Dirk:
Who do you think taught Skeeter.
The index has. The S&P has not. If you are going to use terms, use the correct ones imbecile.
>>
David Appell says:
July 31, 2013 at 5:46 pm
<<
It’s very good, actually. However, I can see why you were hesitant to reveal your magic formula. You don’t really need calculus. You’re basically solving for dD/dt with respect to dW/dt. The equation you want is:
L*W*D = L*(W + dW/dt)*(D + dD/dt).
Solving for dD/dt, we get:
dD/dt = -D*(dW/dt)/(W + dW/dt);
and as dW/dt is small compared to W, we can ignore it in the denominator. Voila! We have your formula.
Unfortunately, you didn’t account for tectonic changes to depth. You’re assuming a constant depth (and length) and only changing width. So we need to add (or subtract) an additional 3 cm/yr to your depth calculation.
That would swamp your 1.6 mm/yr per W/m2 value.
It’s really more complicated than would be indicated by your simple formula. The Atlantic basin is expanding; the Pacific basin is shrinking; the Sea of Japan has been unchanging for millions of years; the Mediterranean Sea is shrinking; and all the ocean bottoms are changing due to upwelling and subduction. As I said before, it needs to be measured to determine the actual changes.
Jim
Hi Jim,
I too was curious to see what DA was going to show. I didn’t expect anything significantly different than what he provided.
However, what you are missing is that, when only discussing thermal expansion, the expansion of the ocean doesn’t change the tectonics (to any significance) because the ocean mass stays the same, whereas only its volume is changing. Now, if we were talking ocean changes due to more water being added via land ice melt, then sure, tectonic changes could matter.
That is the type of answer that DA should have given…not some refusal to show a basic geometrical formula. Of course, now he’ll say he knew that all along…but if so, then it only goes to show how poor his reading comprehension skills are.
-Scott
>>
Scott says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:10 am
Now, if we were talking ocean changes due to more water being added via land ice melt, then sure, tectonic changes could matter.
<<
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Tectonics changes the container shape. Temperature changes the volume. Neither changes the mass.
Jim
What I’m saying is that temperature, which only changes volume, doesn’t change the mass (we agree). But I’m saying that tectonic changes induced by ocean volume changes are induced by changes in mass, not volume.
Or are you saying ocean level changes are being induced by plate tectonics? This is clearly possible, but I didn’t know that’s what you were saying.
-Scott
>>
Scott says:
August 1, 2013 at 11:33 am
Or are you saying ocean level changes are being induced by plate tectonics? This is clearly possible, but I didn’t know that’s what you were saying.
<<
I thought that’s what I was saying. I wasn’t clear about that? There are three ways the sea level can change: 1) more or less water–change in mass, 2) higher or lower temperature, and 3) larger or smaller container–ocean basin changes due to tectonics primarily. Tectonics may change mass too, but I wasn’t making that argument.
Jim
Hi Jim,
Thanks for clearing that up, that makes sense. I had thought you were saying that the plates were shifting due to increased ocean on them. That would be true for increased ocean mass but not for temperature-induced volume changes.
-Scott
I skipped a step–the units don’t match until the end. I should have started with the following formula:
L*W*D = L*(W + ΔW)*(D + ΔD);
which gives this formula:
ΔD = -D*(ΔW)/W.
Dividing by Δt gives us Appell’s formula:
ΔD/Δt = -D*(ΔW/Δt)/W.
Jim
>>
PhilJourdan says:
August 1, 2013 at 11:46 am
<<
How do you insert your comments in the middle of a series? I’d like to know how to do that too.
Jim
I would love to know how he has one extra layer of “reply” too. He seems to be the only one.
-Scott
Am I the only one that gets emails of the conversations? With threaded comments like Suyts, it is the only way to keep up with the new comments (those on WUWT where comments are linear, you just read top to bottom).
I get emails for each comment posted. At the bottom is a “Reply” button. I click on it and WordPress does the rest.
Thanks. I never turn on the email reply. I should try that. 😉
Jim