I'm wondering when u are going to understand that no one is going to change their ways without proof.. which is in short supply. You and this dumb fuck babu seem to think u KNOW something I don't but I don't see the proof. If you are so educated then u would understand that 200 years of data is statistically irrelevant when compared to the total population. So no i don't give a shit that CO2, which hasn't been proven to LEAD temp, has gone up 40% in the last 200 years because we don't know what the historical norm is. AGW believers are making multiple claims of future events.. in order for anyone to believe that this isn't bullshit they are going to have predict events in the short term with accuracy. Anything less is speculation given the amount of data that they actually have.
The first article shows at the present time what happens in water acidified to different degrees, because of the CO2 naturally coming up in that area of the ocean. It's a natural example of what to expect worldwide at each level of CO2. The CO2 levels actually present in the atmosphere now are published, and you can predict with ridiculous ease where they will be x number of years from now. So, given present reality, all of this is determined. As for warming itself, given that all of the figures are published, and so too are the formulas, it once again is a very easy exercise to both figure out the correlations and whether they hold up, and then to figure out the future effects. Did this all for myself a while back, and I know I'm no math wizard. I do like to see for myself though, especially if, as they do on this issue, they give me all the data. None of what I know to be true in this case is stuff I took on faith. FYI, I do use the CO2 data in my trading. It works very very well for determination of certain prices in the market, way better than anything else I've ever found. And the data is free for the taking. Doesn't get any better than that. No, I'm not telling you which prices. You'll just have to figure that out for yourself. Meantime, if you require more proof than what was in that first article I posted, and the publicly available figures and formulae, you're both hopelessly illiterate and lazy. I'm not wasting any more time on you, anyway.
Wait are u saying that you can make those predictions RIGHT NOW? Then just do it for the record. Also are u saying that you use CO2 data, itself, in your trading.. lol i was referring to the methods used not the actual CO2 data itself. I don't need/want to know how u trade dude cause you are totally full of shit haha.
HOLY CRAP, now that is funny. Why don'y you start your own hedge fund called "AGW fund" . All the lemming liberals will pile into your fund
If a man like you would like to think that I'm an idiot I cannot say that I would be particularly troubled over it. I don't feel compelled to prove anything to anyone and the beliefs and biases of a fellow of your type just doesn't change my priorities one bit and never will. You've shown up here abruptly and immedietely set to insulting folks and yammering about some very dubious ideas and you seem to expect people to adopt your state of panic and profusely express their extreme gratitude for your wisdom. Its laughable, a poor attempt at humor at best and the delusion of a warped mind at worst. My job is to live my life as I see fit. If you want to live a low-carbon lifestyle then you are free to do so. Your insistence that I alter my lifestyle doesn't deserve any consideration whatsoever and it will receive none. I happen to have a fairly solid formal technical education and a rather lengthy technical career relating to oceanography and meteorology including tenure at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the National Weather Service. I've been the recipient of many grants funding my work in these areas and have done original work in the "space weather" field. I claim no expertise regarding AGW but I reckon that I am equipped to interpret data or graphic depictions of data and other data products competently. Why anyone should think I would be overwhelmed by postings made by anonymous people in a political internet forum seeking to incite alarm and panic based on data and analysis they barely comprehend isn't clear. The poster futurecurrents seems to hold a very high opinion of his undergraduate degree in "environmental science" and your academic background is unknown to me but I don't think that either of you is in a position to call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Your posts and his make both of you seem foolish to me and I'm not going to waste my time discussing real science with either of you. Neither of you is fit to mow my lawn much less have a conversation with me about the relevant subjects.
piggybank: 1.005^n where n = the number of years. The average for the last few years is at right around 1.005, and the world economy is sort of muddling through, so it's a reasonable mean expectation. Start from 394, around where we are now. That gives you the CO2 level for any given year in the future, to within a few ppm either way, depending on how fast the global economy grows. You'd probably have to raise the rate in a few years, since it is parabolic; a global economy muddling through in the early nineties would have given you a rate of around 1.004, for instance. Once you know that, and you've already got parts of the ocean where the CO2 levels are where they will be at different atmospheric concentrations because of natural CO2 vents, you know what to expect in the ocean. If you take the CO2 data and correlate it to global temps, you'll also have a pretty decent idea of where temps are going too. Both past global temps and past CO2 levels are available for the last 50 or 60 years, so you know, if you're not lazy you can do it pretty easily. As for how I use it to trade, given your bottomless stupidity it would take me a lifetime just to teach you the basic arithmetic. It would waste my time and annoy you.
Dude I entirely doubt that u are a profitable trader.. even if u were I would never trade the way u are suggesting lol. It has no basis in anything whatsoever. If u are profitable it because you have solid position management skills and has nothing to do with your 'strategy'. This formula doesn't seem complex enough to incorporate all of the relevant factors that would be needed to predict climate change. I understand that it may be used as a rule of thumb, but for all we know we are caught in 1000 year cycle that has previously gone undiscovered. We know by your post that it relies on somewhat subjective data, because the actual growth of the global economy can be muddled by misinformation (intentionally or not). There is no way with 200 years of data that this formula can predict much of anything. It will be right until it isn't and then the perceived correlation will no longer exist, same as your trading strat.
Wow, you must be smarter than all the world's climatologists!! I had no idea! I suggest you write a book about your theories and make a million. Just like I thought, an expert on some obscure specialty so you're an expert on everything huh? Full of blanket dismissals and bereft of any good argument or facts. Surely there must be some article from some denier site you agree with you could paste. I suspect you are afraid to be exposed as mostly hot air (yuk yuk). "There's now a staggering amount of research on the psychological and even the physiological traits of people who opt for conservative ideologies. And on average, you see people who are more wedded to certainty, and to having fixed beliefs. You also see people who are more sensitive to fear and threat -- in a way that can be measured in their bodily responses to certain types of stimuli. At the extreme of these traits, you see a group called authoritarians -- those who are characterized by cognitive rigidity, seeing things in black and white ways -- "in group/out group," my way or the highway. So in this case, if someone high on such traits latches on to a particular belief -- in this case, "global warming is a hoax" -- then more knowledge about it is not necessarily going to open their minds. More knowledge is just going to be used to argue what they already think. And we see this in the Tea Party, where we have both the highest levels of global warming denial, but also this incredibly strong confidence that they know all they need to know about the issue, and they don't want any more information, thank you very much."
The very nasty language and insults you are hurling here are a very large part of why you aren't able to convince anyone of the peril you perceive. You cannot cite anything you are doing to avert AGW. You likely drive a huge SUV, keep the thermostat in your home at 72 degrees summer and winter and fly in airliners to your vacation destinations. Why would anyone take you seriously? You've also got to admit that you have a pretty crappy degree. You should conceal your academic background instead of trying to use it as a credential. That degree is a source of shame not pride. You keep attacking my background when between the two of us I'm the one who is published and listed in the Science Citation Index for work on atmospheric phenomena. Have you published any of your work?