Do you require this 2.25 billion years of data when you're trading on EOD data? Excellent point -- humans have a pretty much unblemished record when it comes to dealing with catastrophes. Actually, yes, the government does except they're called "fines."
so, cap-and-trade will prevent extinction? just goes to show a sucker is indeed born every minute im through with this tired, worn out, exposed nonsense
A good cycle analyst requires long count waves, to model data. So I would prefer 6 K-waves worth of data as a minimum for good analysis. Gann turned to modeling astro data, as good stock data does not go back that far. So now were are talking about "geo waves" where one year equals a thousand would b a good place to start. I would want 50 geo years up and down per wave. That's 100 geo years. Or 100,000 years, per wave, for a minimum of 6 cycles. So I guess ur right, 2.5 billion is not needed. 600,000 years will do, if 6 cycles can b derived from that amount of data. Do we have 6 cycles worth of global warming data, based on those criteria? I have an open mind Fines are quite different than taxes my friend. Fines are intermittent or not at all if compliance is met. Taxes are constant and independent of performance.
Umm... I'll desperately try to avoid discussing anyone who uses "astro data" to predict market moves because I hate having to clean my laugh-spittle off my screen. LOL. Stop it! You're killing me! Well just scroll back in the thread a few pages and you'll see that scientists have measured data back 800,000 years and the CO2 levels are unprecedented in that time frame. Yes. Based on the measure of "geo-cycles" derived from a guy working with "astro-data." But yes. That's a good point, and since the current cap and trade measures are not independent of performance, by your definition they are not a tax.
Ad hominem Appeal to Ridicule Appeal to Spite Cmon, bigdave, keep the logical fallacies down If ur gonna present an argument that anyone hears, do so without so many logical fallacies. That said, do we have six cycles within that time frame? Less than six full up and down oscillations would b all but guessing the outcome of the next peak or trough. Which is what u Greenies are doing
I know what you mean. These followers are so blind and utterly ignorant of facts/science that sometimes you just throw up your hands in exasperation. The public schools and t.v. have created a nation of morons.
Alright, I'll keep my chortling to myself. I'm not sure what the "greenies" are doing, but here's a point-by-point response: 1) 600,000 years of data to predict the next few hundred years is statistically wildly excessive. If you like I can find you a few statistics papers to illustrate the point. 2) That there needs to be six naturally occurring "cycles" (presumably of temperature and not CO2?) to predict a non-naturally occurring "cycle" is wrong. If one did need to use hundred thousand year cycles to predict a hundred thousand years into the future, then six would be an insufficient sample size anyway (assuming that you're wanting to sample into a normal distribution.) 3) You need nothing more than current measurements of massively increasing time, and massively increasing CO2 to show that the globe is warming currently, and there is no need to "predict" anything at all -- it is occurring today.
From what I have seen of the argument, which I will admit is not my expertise, the question is not the temp change, the question is it man made? That would require prediction. I would want to know if this trend is a normal oscillation, and whether or not the rate of acceleration of the trend will exceed prior peaks by a significant amount. To do that correctly, I will want to c some prior peaks, quite a few of them.
There's no question about that at this point, as it's been proven that the CO2 comes from man via isotope measurements. I'm not sure why, as even if the temperature was higher a few hundred thousand years ago that doesn't help us if we're trying to live in those conditions today.