Agricultural Commodities and the Impending Solar Cycle Shock

Published on
February 24th, 2020
Duration
25 minutes


Agricultural Commodities and the Impending Solar Cycle Shock

The Expert View ·
Featuring Shawn Hackett

Published on: February 24th, 2020 • Duration: 25 minutes

When trying to understand what is actually driving climate change, it is important to remember the source of the information. Shawn Hackett, president of Hackett Financial Advisors, considers himself to be a non-biased observer whose only financial incentive is to analyze the driving forces behind changes in weather to accurately forecast price movements in agricultural commodities for his clients made up of farmers, producers, and investors. Using analysis of natural cycles of the solar system and the sun, Hackett lays out his thesis that agricultural commodities are in for a massive shock as we enter into a period of increased weather volatility and lower temperatures. Filmed on January 29, 2020 in New York. Shawn Hackett's report on agricultural commodities and solar cycles can be found here: https://www.hackettadvisors.com/Register_Sample_WeatherReport.asp

Comments

Transcript

  • KT
    Ken T.
    4 August 2020 @ 08:09
    circling back to this video. a la nina watch was issued last month https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf
  • DK
    Dennis K.
    10 July 2020 @ 21:46
    Probebly the most important lecture of this year. Probebly also not very well understood due to the mainstream disinformation process. Liked your december 2019 paper also very much. Great to have met you through realvision.
  • NG
    Nelly G.
    17 May 2020 @ 20:38
    If I start investing in food based on long term predictions on climate where no one really has any idea (let's be honest here), pretty soon I won't have money to buy food.
  • js
    j s.
    25 February 2020 @ 17:57
    Food has been going down? I'd like what he's smoking.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 21:50
      Yes food commodity prices have been falling.
    • WM
      Will M.
      2 March 2020 @ 00:11
      Just because Heinz beans prices have been rising doesn't mean the cost of the beans hasn't been falling.
    • NG
      Nelly G.
      17 May 2020 @ 20:35
      A powerful hallucinogen.
  • MC
    Mathew C.
    7 March 2020 @ 09:28
    How many researchers do you have working for Hackett Advisors?
    • NG
      Nelly G.
      17 May 2020 @ 20:27
      0 for sure. Always be wary of 'financial advisors'.
  • JG
    James G.
    9 March 2020 @ 01:41
    I bet 85% of the people listening to this will think you are a crackpot. I am not one of them and have studied the topic and it's real.
  • EB
    ELLIOT B.
    8 March 2020 @ 13:06
    Enjoyed the video. Appreciate counter cultural viewpoints that challenge the status quo. Would love to evaluate the thesis but am struggling to find credible sources that support. Can Shawn or anyone who agrees with the thesis share just a few links to (a) some of the "10’s of 1000s of papers written on the subject matter" that provide " a preponderance of evidence supporting the dominant role of the sun", or (b) the "plethora of articles supporting the suns dominant role in impacting climate"? Many thanks.
  • JL
    James L.
    2 March 2020 @ 09:45
    good analysis. totally agree re solar cycle.
  • ea
    edwin a.
    25 February 2020 @ 19:58
    I'm confused by this presentation, mostly because the speaker seems to be at odds with a scientific consensus about the *magnitude* of the impact of solar cycles relative to atmospheric change (CO2). From the NASA website: "According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity." Can you address / explain this? https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 21:45
      The hitorical data does not support those assertions and we address them in our report that is available for download as history shows very substantive impacts to climate from a lowering of the suns irradiation. Thank you for your comments.
    • MH
      Martin H.
      26 February 2020 @ 03:01
      Yep, bad politics. The sun is the dominant factor in our climate!
    • DM
      Doss M.
      26 February 2020 @ 05:30
      I think the issue here is the unprecedented rapid build up in greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, in just a short amount of time. The magnitude of radiative forcing from GHGs is exceeding the variation in solar irradiance within the various solar cycles. Historical patterns and climate cycles on earth are changing with this new paradigm. I believe the NASA, NOAA, IPCC reports that say the GHGs are now the dominant forces in climate variability. There are all kinds of papers on the arxiv, in Nature, etc. quantifying these numbers. Also, the ocean temperature oscillations are part of larger cycles and patterns that have greater variability and less stability, rendering the usual patterns less predictable.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      26 February 2020 @ 10:11
      Hi doss the rate of change of increases in co2 in our atmosphere have been decelerating and have shown no acceleration during the current climate crisis debate. Temperatures today globally still have not exceeded 1998. NASA and noaa have written just as many papers about the sun being the dominant force impacting climate as they have that co2 is the main force. Unfortunately it appears government run organizations have a bias towards the politics of the time and hence why they write such conflicting information. At this point there is just no historical proof that humans and co2 are the cause and it is really just speculation. Thank you for your comments. Great discussion and sharing of ideas. That is what science is all about.
    • DM
      Doss M.
      26 February 2020 @ 11:52
      Total Solar Irradiance Variability: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05258.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2770.pdf Greenhouse Gas Radiative Forcing: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.01877.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845.pdf https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
    • FB
      Frank B.
      26 February 2020 @ 23:30
      Shawn H.: "the rate of change of increases in co2 in our atmosphere have been decelerating and have shown no acceleration during the current climate crisis debate." Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
    • WM
      Will M.
      2 March 2020 @ 00:17
      Edwin, unfortunately the global warming argument is now part of the heard mentality and while I am personally open to argument I have heard enough to know that generally, if you are "young" or "green" or "left wing" or "social liberal" you are likely a global warming proponent. Otherwise you are generally not.... This means it is politicized. Therefore I remain very skeptical about CO2 yet understand it has a part to play. I think the bigger part is the sun and climate cycles. Now is it 51% 49% or 75% 25% I dont know. But if we are cooling as a plant, it has started and will intensify in the next 2-3 years. Then we will KNOW.
  • PH
    Philip H.
    24 February 2020 @ 20:48
    Nobody show Greta this video. She will NEVER FORGIVE YOU!!
    • SM
      Stephane M.
      25 February 2020 @ 02:45
      How dare you ;-)
    • DS
      Darryl S.
      27 February 2020 @ 09:42
      Perhaps that is why Greta stresses the urgency. The need for action NOW! Fearing that the data going forward will not buttress the claims made.
    • WM
      Will M.
      2 March 2020 @ 00:07
      We joke about Greta, but the potential for a very serious ending to her sanity is palpable. I dont know what her parents were thinking. I seriously hope she can grow up and live a normal life. If anything happens to her we know which Greenpeace person will be to blame.
  • AM
    Artem M.
    24 February 2020 @ 14:41
    Thanks Shawn (&RV)! Not enough people are talking about solar cycles, and almost non in finance. Unfortunately many people in our society would consider Shawn a "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER" (and bad person) for even suggesting that the earth could possibly be cooling or that the major cause of our weather is that giant thing in space that is basically responsible for all life on earth and is 333,000 times more massive than our planet. I believe the focus on (/ pushing of) 'Global Warming/Climate Change' is a ploy by corporations and governments to distract the public from the 'non-debatable' topics of 'natural cycles' and 'particulate pollution'. They keep people arguing whether it was the cow farts, F150s or god, that are melting the polar bear igloos, while ignoring the giant plastic islands floating in our oceans or the massive amounts of carcinogenic chemicals in our food, water and air. The more people argue, the less corps and gov'ts have to do, as taking 'real action' would have significant impact on thier bottom line or elect-ability. The same is true with studying historic cycles, weather, economic, geopolitical, etc. society is pushed to believe that 'this time it's different'. On the bright side, for those who can see through the propaganda and are students of history the potential for gain from the coming shift in our climate and economic systems is very large, though this will come at the expense of the masses, which is kind of a bummer. p.s. If anyone is interest in learning more about solar cycles, and/ or listing to a daily 'solar cycle' new and updates I highly recommend checking out 'Suspisious Observers' on YouTube. (I am in no way affiliated with them). https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/featured
    • WM
      Will M.
      2 March 2020 @ 00:04
      Well said Artem!!!
  • CG
    Christine G.
    24 February 2020 @ 14:09
    Are your serious? Do sun spots affect climate? Yes. Do they account for what is going on? No. That is ridiculous as demonstrated by the absolute value of climate change (e.g., temperature of the air, of the ocean, acidifidcation of the ocean, etc.) and the rate of change - both unprecidented.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      24 February 2020 @ 15:26
      Thank you, Christine, for reaching out. Our data and research do not support your assertions. But if you would be kind enough to let me know the data you are using to support your comments I would love to verify and correlate and do some research with those data sets. Science is a constant process of learning and refining. I am open to going wherever the data takes me. Have a super day.
    • DB
      Douglas B.
      24 February 2020 @ 16:32
      By the level of emotion in your response, I can smell how much fear you have, which always will affect your objectivity.
    • RM
      Robert M.
      24 February 2020 @ 18:11
      In support of Christine's statement, the ice age threat in the 1970s was more of a pop culture phenomenon and not supported by the super majority of scientists at that time. Do sunspots impact earth's weather, sure. But most scientists also recognize our planet's environment also impacts the weather. The sun accentuates the direction based on the cycle. It has been discussed since the 1950s the impact of carbon dioxide impact on the environment. For finance people, you should appreciate this chart from NASA that clearly shows the break in the carbon dioxide cycle based on the impact of humans: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      24 February 2020 @ 18:43
      Scott unfortunately and 800-year chart when making claims of unprecedented high levels of co2 is not statistically significant when ice core samples go back 100,000's of years of co2 levels. When one looks at the actual data from a sampling size that is large enough to be statically significant we are not doing anything unusual and remain below historical high levels from c02 in the past. The data can be obtained from NOAA website using this link. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/location?dataTypeId=7&search=true
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      24 February 2020 @ 18:45
      I meant Chris. Sorry not Scott.
    • RM
      Robert M.
      24 February 2020 @ 19:00
      Shawn, you need to go back and re-read the chart and look at its scale at the bottom. It is in thousands of years, so those cycles go back 800,000 years, not 800.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      24 February 2020 @ 20:04
      Then the ice core data that is available does not support that chart. I can email you the chart of the actual data from ice core samples and it does not support the chart in the link you mentioned. This data is available for anyone to see and analyze. It's free. so I have no idea where they came up with that chart.
    • BS
      Bernd S.
      24 February 2020 @ 22:49
      Shawn, do you mind sharing where I can find that data? I haven't spent that much time yet, but I am just totally confused by the conflicting datasets that the anthropogene vs non anthropogene crowds. my gut doesn't want me to believe the anthropogene guys, but then it's just my gut, and I'd love to know where to find real non-manipulated data to verify or falsify the claims. I applaud your courage speaking up against what seems like the whole world (maybe not, but it seems like that when you live in Germany...) when your analysis and data speak against what's called "consensus".
    • RM
      Robert M.
      25 February 2020 @ 00:32
      Shawn, there are multiple data bases and studies from on ice core research readily available online. There are also multiple databases for atmospheric readings. The data from that NASA chart came from NOAA. Here is a link to a more recent chart from NOAA on carbon dioxide trends. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html. As you will note, the parts per million for the past decade matches up to the chart shared on NASA's site that goes back 800,000. I don't think these government agencies are screwing up their data and thus their charts per your comment. Going through reports from CDIAC or international groups like the Global Carbon Project, their data supports the chart I shared on the NASA website from NOAA data. Either way, you should contact NOAA to make sure you are using the correct data set since it doesn't not match this publicly shared information (which and you are building an investment thesis based on the database you are using. But to suggest that the weather is all about sun cycles without taking into consideration our own atmospheric changes is shortsighted in my opinion, no matter one's politics.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 00:56
      On the end what the weather does will determine who is right, We will let Mother Nature decide the nature of what managed climate on earth. I have shared ate findings. And I stand by them. Thank you for your counter arguments. They play a critical role in the scientific process. In my view after the La Niña endless winter that is coming for 2021/2022 based on our work will end any discussion that humans have any meaningful impact on our climate. Let’s revisit in 2022 and see what the truth turned out to be. ASI said I really hope I sting but Unfortunately thousands and hundreds of thousands of years of research in climate data says I’m probably going to turn out to be right.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 00:58
      Very sorry for the spelling errors I’m in the car talking to my phone and the translator of course doesn’t always work right have a super evening
    • DM
      Doss M.
      25 February 2020 @ 07:44
      Solar Variation: https://youtu.be/cP_kpYzqoEk
    • WM
      Will M.
      2 March 2020 @ 00:03
      Christine, you need to get out more and enjoy yourself. Shawns work is well founded and just because it challenges the crowd doesn't mean its "ridiculous". What is "ridiculous" is the adults using that young girl (who has a mild mental illness) who isn't even a woman yet and has no real experience of life. So sad.
  • WM
    Will M.
    1 March 2020 @ 23:54
    Excellent. Having been a subscriber to martin Armstrongs site for several years I am of course used to the cyclic theories of climate and solar cycles in particular. So much of Shawns concerns in this segment I am already aware of. This was just a great video and a necessary counter to the global warming fanatics. I recommend Realclimatescience.com if you want to see how data has been manipulated to support global warming theories.
  • HO
    H2 O.
    28 February 2020 @ 01:36
    I recall that Papa Smurf was able to see the future during a blue moon. Maybe we should wait for that to make predictions about ag prices.
  • PC
    Peter C.
    26 February 2020 @ 23:00
    I like Realvision but I do think that they should warn their members that the views and ideas of this expert are not supported by the scientific community at all. NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and others conclude, based on thousands of peer-reviewed articles and studies, that the impact of the solar cycle is minimal in comparison to the greenhouse effect. The odds are much more in favour of a continuously warming environment, a rising sea-level and extreme, damaging weather, energized by the temperature increase.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      26 February 2020 @ 23:40
      Kindly spend some time doing research on the 10’s of 1000s of papers written on the subject matter and you will find a there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the dominant role of the sun. Each of the organizations you mention have written a plethora of articles supporting the suns dominant role in impacting climate. There is very little historical evidence that can describe changes in 1000s of years of earths changing climate resulting from co2. If your research has found such data and evidence kindly direct us to it’ so we can do a more detailed study on it. We love the scientific process and are willing to go where ever the truth in the data takes us. Thank you so much for reaching out. Have a super day.
    • PC
      Peter C.
      27 February 2020 @ 10:37
      Sorry but there is no preponderance of evidence supporting the dominant role of the sun. On the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence showing that the greenhouse effect is the overall dominant factor. There is also growing evidence that impact of solar cycle and in particular a solar cycle minimum will only be a fraction of the greenhouse effect, so basically a short blib in the charts. As a start, I suggest that you read the history on climate change research from Spencer Weart to get an unbiased view of where we are. His work is based on 3000 articles (all referenced) so it cannot be seen as a 'political' position by a governement entitity. https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm In particular, I suggest that you also read his "Changing Sun, Changing Climate?" summary that discusses the research and position of the scientific community on the impact of the sun. https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm For a recent assessment of the impact of a grand minimum in the solar cycle, I suggest the following papers (all 2010 or later). According to NASA, these studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth, and just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the grand minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042710 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017013 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50806 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50361 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022022 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa124/meta
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      27 February 2020 @ 11:28
      Kindly provide the data that your research is usuing to make such conclusions and we would be glad to look at it more closely. We will go where ever the truth in the data takes us. Our research is clear on the sun's role and it is profound. I really appreciate the discussion. This is what the scientific process is all about. Be very careful about government-run organizations and their conclusions. We trust the data not the conclusions of others. Have a super day and look forward to seeing the data from which you draw your conclusions.
    • FB
      Frank B.
      27 February 2020 @ 21:18
      Thanks, Peter, for the effort! I am totally with you and don't understand this paranoia of government institutions. Why people rather seem to trust an advisor with a business model (and misleading charts) on such topics is beyond me.
  • DS
    Darryl S.
    27 February 2020 @ 09:52
    Depopulation and Malthusian economics, Green New Deals, food shortages, Beyond Meat, Greta Thunberg's insistence "we don't have time". Are we sensing an urgency that exists to head off Shawn's thesis expressed here? Food for thought (pun intended). Let the debate continue past imposed deadlines.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      27 February 2020 @ 21:14
      The problem is that it's obviously a political game for those of us who actually consider the theory (it should never stop warming, which is why they had to change the word to climate change). Peter below lists all sorts of organizations that rightly say there is a "community" but that is not necessarily related to actual science, which is and always should be challenged. The basic reasons to reject AGW is that the earth has been much hotter before, and that had nothing to do at least with CO2 levels from human, since it was impossible at those times. There are far too many inputs and no trends that any of the groups below have been able to use in order to PREDICT future via their models. They have been laughingly and painstakingly horrible in predicting anything with these models; it is very telling. They don't have a good understanding of what has been going on --- which favors Mr. Hackett's position at least as an alternative thesis --- but they do have a lot of government and NGO activism to keep the charade going. What a great "community."
  • WS
    William S.
    26 February 2020 @ 17:40
    Not on point but the product shift demands a response How many purchased a product prior to today and are feeling unfairly treated by the 5/wk video limit that didn't exist until today? How many feel they should be grandfathered until their subscription runs out and then make the decision to continue at the lower (actually increased by 50+) or accept the "upsell" at 3x the price??
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      27 February 2020 @ 20:55
      I agree, yes, for such an interesting channel, you still can't get away from the smooth huckster snake oil reflections that are all about selling, bottom line, in any industry that derives its wealth from "sales".
  • SB
    Sergei B.
    26 February 2020 @ 20:08
    Fantastic presentation. If the thesis is correct and food prices are going to increase - you can also expect that eventually this will cause political turmoil (protests, riots etc) in poorer countries, this could have far reaching knock-on effects.
    • mb
      melville b.
      27 February 2020 @ 19:06
      The Arab Spring, for instance...
  • MG
    Matthew G.
    27 February 2020 @ 18:58
    Great interview. Love the idea of the sun cycle and saeculum convergence. Makes a lot of sense. Have a super day everyone.
  • FB
    Frank B.
    25 February 2020 @ 22:23
    If I may I want to comment on some charts: 1) Greenland ice core at 2:10 There is no explanation what this chart shows. The y-axis says d-oxygen -18 which likely refers to the ratio of an oxygen isotope that is used in paleoclimatology. I am not an expert, so here is from Wikipedia: δ18O can be used with ice cores to determine the temperature from when the ice was formed. Why are you using this particular chart, what statement you are trying to support? 2) Solar radiation cycle at 4:40 Clearly a chart crime. The range of fluctuation on the y-axis is between 1362 and 1360,4, about 0.1%. Cutting off the y-axis so boldly is a massive exaggeration and simply misleading. 3) El Nino/La Nina and sun spot activity at 10:29 The chart does not support the statement “At solar cycle troughs there is a very reliable El Nino to La Nina switch over”. The switchovers don’t align with the troughs much to my eye. 4) USDA Corn Supply Use Yield
 at 11:37 Again, the chart does not support the statement, that drops in yield occur during La Nina years. There are significant drops outside La Nina years, as well as La Nina year without drops. Seems like hit and miss. So, is the speaker right about weather cycles? Probably, these patterns have been known for a long time. Is he right about commodity prices, we will see.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      26 February 2020 @ 00:31
      Please read my report for clarity. Thanks for reaching out.
    • FB
      Frank B.
      26 February 2020 @ 23:23
      Clarity is what the charts should have provided, that's their use. As I said, they fail to convince me. Thanks for responding.
  • KB
    Kenneth B.
    26 February 2020 @ 22:20
    Really enjoyed this. This is very different than the normal RealVision type of guest. Would love to see more on non-PM commodities such as livestock, rare earth metals, etc.
  • LS
    Lemony S.
    26 February 2020 @ 15:49
    I enjoyed this presentation very much Mr. Hackett, mainly because I had done a lot of research (I'm trained in the scientific method) and of course I follow, or rather, am bombarded by politics on a daily basis. For those that doubt that the solar cycles and activity are the main driver of temperature and weather, keep it simple, follow the data --- and the clear historical trends. You will see that at the very least, any other explanation, commonly the global warming morphed term "climate change" has produced models that have been so inaccurate, failed, wrong, it's quite embarrassing. So that alone should make one inquire into other fields of study or alternate explanations. You will see that even in just the 20th century, as Mr. Hackett states, the 40 year periods of weather/solar cycles are blatantly obvious, especially the 1920s and 30s in the US being much, much hotter and far more extreme (dust bowl, etc). Milankovitch cycles are larger pictures of the galaxy, far less "useful" to us in this realm of our lives and investing, but informative on human adaptation/evolution over time. I foresee the coming cooling periods to confirm the global hoax (I do not argue it's a conspiracy, just a follow the money idea) that is called climate change now (in that it is not anthropogenic, and that the term is an outright deception, as you can't argue it). It will be obvious to any sane or honest thinker in 15 years that this hypothesis is true. But depending on a lot of sociopolitical factors, it may still be disputed --- again, I predict that given the level of critical thinking and honesty doesn't seem to be rising to any great degree or in the near future will that change. From an investment point of view, there will be a lag given the current food production and technical efficiency of humans in procuring and manipulating the environment, but I see consistent gains over the 10-15 year period, just like Mr. Hackett. What's more, even though what I say is not actually political, it will be taken that way, due to the dishonesty and close mindedness of others regarding the challenging of theories, predictions and models that have been utter failures. I am very confident, that unlike the "climate change" alarmists, who have no real skin in the game, I will put my money where my mouth is. And like Mr. Hackett, we will be rewarded. So, I would recommend --- follow the real money, those who put it in ideas and instances in which they have skin in the game. Best to all.
  • TJ
    Terry J.
    26 February 2020 @ 15:14
    Hurray for Shawn and for RV. As numerous fellow subscribers have already stated, you won't see content like this in many other places and certainly not on mainstream TV or financial news channels. Fortunately I came across similar arguments to Shawn's based on accurate research and science fact from Dr. Mark Sircus (https://coldclimatechange.com) several years ago, and knew the global warming / climate change nonsense pedalled by politicians was a scam to tax us even more. Well done RV and thank you Shawn.
  • DH
    Dabangg H.
    26 February 2020 @ 09:30
    So every 40 years the avg winter temp is expected to start fluctuating and moving up or down.
  • XF
    Xavier F.
    26 February 2020 @ 03:57
    thank you!
  • JM
    John M.
    25 February 2020 @ 17:46
    This approach appears to reflect the work of Theodor Landscheidt/Geoff Sharp (and others)/Henrik Svensmark.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 21:51
      There are a lot of brilliant minds who have done great work in this area like the ones you mentioned.
  • SS
    Simeon S.
    25 February 2020 @ 21:38
    I think I heard this same argument six years ago
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 21:47
      Not from me I can assure you. Have a super day
  • MM
    Michael M.
    25 February 2020 @ 19:52
    He is always great. Love hearing what he has to say.
  • JE
    James E.
    25 February 2020 @ 19:33
    Love this. I have been drumming this into anyone who will listen for years, if anyone with a scientific background would understand this. Well done to RV, this is why RV is so valuable to it's subscribers. Priceless.
  • CB
    Carl B.
    24 February 2020 @ 11:26
    Whats this guys view on how Nasa explains climate change? https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun: Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly. If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
    • JB
      Jon B.
      24 February 2020 @ 12:41
      +1 for this question. the scientific basis for mr hackett's hypothesis seems plausible and at first pass I'll buy it. BUT what about global warming? Doesn't mankind have a much bigger impact on climate change than a sunspot? So whilst we're in for a cooler period, isn't that temperature difference offset by our own contribution?
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      24 February 2020 @ 13:04
      Hi, Thank you for reaching out. We ran correlation coefficient statistical studies on Co2 concentrations against air temperatures going back during recorded weather history since 1850 and further out 500 years and 1000 years etc. The correlation coefficient was only 28% and only 18% from 500 years and further back. One needs a correlation coefficient of 75% to have a statistically significant result. When we used solar irradiation levels and pacific sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic (AMO) and the Pacific (PDO) against air temperature we achieved an 88% correlation coefficient. That is what the data shows much of which comes from Noaa and NASA's own databases. I hope this helps.
    • CB
      Carl B.
      24 February 2020 @ 13:46
      Appreciate the answer! According to nasa temprature has for the last 100 years increased. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ How does your hypothesis explain this?
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      24 February 2020 @ 15:31
      Temperatures have not increased. When we look at the actual data from NASA the trends do not support that conclusion. Unfortunately, much of the data that is purported to be true has been "homogenized". That means they went back and lowered the actual temperatures from the recorded data to make it look like temperatures have warmed. The minute you start tampering with data is when science no longer exists.
    • SW
      Scott W.
      24 February 2020 @ 15:34
      @Carl B and Shawn H. What does the NASA chart look like going further back in time? There are some data that suggest global average temperatures were much higher previously and that a warming trend can happen over a relatively short geological time frame and that the current warming trend when charted further back in time began prior to human CO2 emissions. I don't know if these data are correct or reliable. However, the anthropogenic warming crowd has a discernible tendency to cherry pick the start times of their visual proofs. This engenders suspicion, even if they're ultimately correct. I don't know. I'm willing to be convinced one way or the other.
    • RM
      Robert M.
      24 February 2020 @ 18:16
      Shawn lost me on the comment below that temperatures haven't increased. Glaciers aren't melting either I guess. We are talking money here, hard to invest in a thesis with these types of responses. Your research appears to be in the minority from scientific organizations. Maybe you are the contrarian, just not putting my dollars into that thesis based on the responses.
    • SW
      Scott W.
      24 February 2020 @ 21:19
      @Chris H. He's not saying that temperatures haven't risen or that glaciers aren't melting in absolute terms, he's saying that in relative terms. If you measured the temperature rise from 8am until 3pm on your average day in July (northern hemisphere), that trend would appear to be alarming. The same concept holds when you compare temperature and CO2 over much longer time frames. The same general (alarming) slopes appear in historical data well before cars and beef herds and power plants. It's therefore plausible that current curve attributes fit within natural patterns and cycles.
    • WG
      Wade G.
      25 February 2020 @ 00:28
      In discussion of correlations, Shaun stated, "One needs a correlation coefficient of 75% to have a statistically significant result." I don't have a dog in this fight. I haven't studied climate change and I've remained agnostic to the sweeping remarks both camps routinely make. Frankly, I wouldn't render an opinion if I didn't spend a few thousand hours studying it, since I've spent 10 times that thinking about finance and markets, and still consider myself a novice. But Shaun, what on earth do mean by that remark? Statistical significance renders a conclusion, based on probability, whether an observed statistic can be attributed to chance, or is so improbable that "science" concludes that it "matters". Frankly, its less interesting than a confidence interval computed for said computed statistic, but it's a common approach, so fine. What is your unit of analysis in the correlation, and what's your sample size? I find it hard to believe that the correlations you mentioned (r=.28 & .18) are not both statistically significant, and more importantly, practically so. Let alone the seeming non-sequitur "one needs an r of 75..." that you state. Thanks.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 11:09
      our research does not support those claims. Please show me the data that you are referring to so that we can take a look at it and research it further. Thx so much for reaching out.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 11:13
      Thx Chris M for your responses. Please provide us with any data that you have used to make your claims and we would be happy to look at it closer to discern a better understanding. Learning is a lifelong process and we all need to work together to discern the truth as best we can. opinion has no weight with us as we are research-based. Have a great day and once again many thx for your contributions to this discussion.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 11:16
      wade G Please let me know specifically what you would like us to provide you regarding correlation statistics and we will do our best to provide you greater granularity. Great comment and I really appreciate your desire to seek data integrity.
    • WG
      Wade G.
      25 February 2020 @ 18:56
      Hi Shawn, thanks for your reply. The simplest thing might be if you're willing to share a write up of both studies you referenced... I presume they would describe the data sets and analysis results in some detail, and answer all of my questions. The key language from your prev remark is the following: "We ran correlation coefficient statistical studies on Co2 concentrations against air temperatures going back during recorded weather history since 1850 and further out 500 years and 1000 years etc. The correlation coefficient was only 28% and only 18% from 500 years and further back. One needs a correlation coefficient of 75% to have a statistically significant result. When we used solar irradiation levels and pacific sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic (AMO) and the Pacific (PDO) against air temperature we achieved an 88% correlation coefficient." I would love see any write up those two studies... the Co2 work based on different time frames and the solar irradiation work referenced in your last sentence. Thanks in advance.
  • SJ
    Sean J.
    25 February 2020 @ 01:31
    Please, for the love of God, RealVision….change the roll in/out music. 1.) The volume level is completely out of phase relative to the content. 2.) It is not conducive to learning. Rather, it is extremely abrasive and the furthest thing from sonorous. That said, great content, as always.
    • CS
      C S.
      25 February 2020 @ 03:39
      Jarring, yes
    • JV
      Jaco V.
      25 February 2020 @ 06:38
      what else do you suggest?
    • JO
      JOHN O.
      25 February 2020 @ 15:00
      I love the music! This and a double espresso is what gets me ready to take on the day!
    • PM
      Paul M.
      25 February 2020 @ 17:11
      Agreed! Why do we always need a soundtrack to our lives? How about silence? It’s amazing what truly awaits there.
  • JO
    JOHN O.
    25 February 2020 @ 13:15
    I remember one of the macro discussion tables at the Real Vision event in the Bowery last January proposed this very topic. At the time I had never heard of it in the context of its effects on climate, only its effects on communications (Ham radio enthusiast). Was that you Shawn? Its a fascinating thesis that every long term investor should consider, IMO. That said, I think as a global society we should also continue to try to be kinder to the environment. Having recently spent two weeks diving near Raja Ampat where a sat phone was the only way to call home, it was very disheartening to see piles of plastic water bottles, flip flops, fishing gear and other discards of modern civilization piled up on the windward side of every single tiny island in the area. Even the most fervent climate change denier has to admit that filling the oceans with garbage and environment with poisons probably won't be appreciated by the great grand children.
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 16:54
      Pollution is an entirely different discussion than what causes climate to change over time. I am with you 100% on reducing pollution and garbage etc. But CO2 is not a pollutant but a natural fertilizer that without it life could not exist. Great comment and greatly appreciated.
  • CS
    C S.
    25 February 2020 @ 04:20
    I'm 50 and for my lifes duration this argument about mans effect on climate, global warming, has been agonsingly ongoing. I do wonder why the global warming set dont take another tact - global pollution is an undeniable issue, and addressing this would likely address concerns for CO2 emissions also. Why the insistence on flogging a dead, or at the very least, a terminally intoxicated 'AGW' horse? Also, if the productivity of marginal latitudes is affected as per Shauns research, food-value moves back toward the centre of the globe, a boon of sorts for the EM regions.
    • JV
      Jaco V.
      25 February 2020 @ 06:36
      100% agree with you. Scientists cannot even agree on the root cause of global warming. What we can ALL agree on is pollution is bad. Let's attack that angle, then if we find out CO2 does play a major role, we have accomplished reduction by reducing pollution, and if it turns out we were wrong about CO2 then we've reduced pollution anyway.. it's the only win-win solution we have that moves us all forward. I find the solar cycle fascinating
    • DS
      David S.
      25 February 2020 @ 14:28
      A+ to both C S. and jack f. Pollution is the common ground argument. Thanks. DLS
  • FK
    Firoze K.
    25 February 2020 @ 08:55
    Loved this. Thanks!
  • MC
    Michael C.
    25 February 2020 @ 08:43
    Nailed it RV ! Well laid out investment thesis with analytical substance. No hype or emotional tag line. Shawn presented a balanced and level headed argument with historical context to back up his claims. What I would expect from a professional with skin in the game and interest aligned with his clients. Well done and thank you.
  • RP
    Rahim P.
    25 February 2020 @ 04:09
    Greenhouse gases are a much greater impact than the sun. This made little sense to me.
    • JV
      Jaco V.
      25 February 2020 @ 06:34
      on what basis do you say this?
    • DM
      Doss M.
      25 February 2020 @ 07:27
      https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2945/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-2019-second-warmest-year-on-record/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 08:37
      Please provide the data that supports your conclusion and we would be glad to study it.. Have a super day
  • JP
    John P.
    25 February 2020 @ 04:54
    So let’s say this thesis turns out 100% accurate. Wouldn’t that mean that the most extreme weather events are still 20 years out?
    • SH
      Shawn H. | Contributor
      25 February 2020 @ 08:35
      Grande solat cycle minimums are cumulative and get worse the further in you get. The answer is yes. But the next few years will be the first stage of this increased weather volatility extreme trend.
  • Am
    Alex m.
    25 February 2020 @ 06:33
    Dragon portfolio looking pretty good here!
  • DS
    Dimitri S.
    25 February 2020 @ 01:33
    https://electroverse.net/greenlands-smb-gained-7-gigatons-yesterday/
  • SM
    SHAYNE M.
    24 February 2020 @ 19:00
    On the verge of a global cooling cycle, Govs and CBs are tripping over themselves to allocate budgets and set policy to fight climate change. Could be one the greatest heists of all time. Great stuff, Shawn. Thanks RV.
    • NR
      Nelson R.
      25 February 2020 @ 00:00
      The AOC’s Green New Deal and the rise of Greta might just be the top tick of the cycle Hacket is predicting.
  • AD
    Abhijit D.
    24 February 2020 @ 23:52
    Stunning video. Absolutely loved the content. Goes to show how less we (the mainstream) understand the cosmos and how we are affected by the heavens. Thanks Shawn. Thanks RV!
  • NR
    Nelson R.
    24 February 2020 @ 23:18
    Awesome content, well done lads.
  • RV
    Ryan V.
    24 February 2020 @ 22:49
    Well this sucks. Western. Canada gonna take it on the chin again.
  • DD
    Dwayne D.
    24 February 2020 @ 21:11
    On a grand scale people will say for the sake of your children and grandchildren care about CC, but no such scale when talking about the national debt. The difference between a spending program and a savings program, maybe?
  • DS
    David S.
    24 February 2020 @ 18:45
    Predicting medium and long-term weather patterns for the Earth is one of the most important issues of the day. I applaud Mr. Hackett for laying out his model, variables and predictions. Surely there is time to tell if the proposed climate changes will affect the cost of commodities mentioned. I do not see any reason to rush out and by coffee today. The weather of spaceship Earth is a difficult and complex system. Mr. Hackett has proposed his hypothesis and forecasts. Weather patterns can be analyzed to see the predictive quality of his thesis. Let us hope this will add to our understanding and predictability of our weather in the medium and long term. DLS
  • PG
    Philippe G.
    24 February 2020 @ 18:18
    Great stuff. I've learned quite a bit from Mr. Hackett's contributions to RV!
  • KJ
    Kevin J.
    24 February 2020 @ 18:18
    Wow. Thank you for presenting your findings. I can imagine my PC college classmates starting a riot if they heard this. We have to consider all viewpoints skeptically and make as rational a decision as possible (both on agricultural commodity investing and this climate change debate). Hope you can come back on Real Vision and elaborate more on your research. Will definitely check out your research reports.
  • DG
    Dave G.
    24 February 2020 @ 17:01
    Absolutely fantastic video. I have for years always believed that the sun is the driver of our weather patterns. One of the best RV videos for me to date.
  • DB
    Douglas B.
    24 February 2020 @ 16:39
    Absolutely brilliant, Shawn. Thank you for your in-depth analysis and willingness to share.
  • SH
    Sean H.
    24 February 2020 @ 15:56
    Dude was fascinating. Great piece. No matter where you stand. Thank you.
  • MC
    Ma C.
    24 February 2020 @ 14:00
    Interesting to correlate this one to a few financial ructions too: https://en.es-static.us/upl/2018/12/Sunspot-activity-observation-dec6-e1544118001987.jpeg
  • SG
    Sven G.
    24 February 2020 @ 12:13
    this guy is not getting on any other financial content platform... his views are a bit too off topic. Another reason why I love RV, they bring on so many interesting and diverse people who bring with them interesting & unique points of view. NICE WORK!
  • bm
    brian m.
    24 February 2020 @ 06:53
    Natural Gas looks like a good buy regardless, even a forecast of cold weather can do wonders to the price in the winter and the contango looks relatively smooth.
  • GE
    Glenn E.
    24 February 2020 @ 06:47
    Thank you for having the courage to present this video.
  • SH
    Stephen H.
    24 February 2020 @ 06:34
    I am pretty sure we are not allowed to talk about this
  • SS
    Shanthi S.
    24 February 2020 @ 06:25
    Awesome! Would have liked to hear more.