[Pretzel Logic]

I violated my own rules and originally posted this OT rant in the Market Thread. As a result, I have given strong consideration to banning myself, but I've decided to merely issue myself a warning THIS time, since I occasionally make some nice contributions to the discussion.

For the record, my wife wanted me banned immediately with no second chances.

I realized when I posted this that my post below is only the beginning of a debate, not the end of one -- so I can't blame anyone for responding. There's much more to my viewpoint than the simple few facts than outlined here -- there are many additional supporting facts to be added, and I'm happy to address the issue further as I have time.

I researched this issue in depth for several years before solidifying my opinion on it, and approached it with the same dilligence with which I approach most everything (i.e.- I have several hundreds, if not thousands, of hours behind my viewpoint) -- but at this stage, I'll have to work to dig up my sources again (those bookmarks and scientific papers are long-gone on an old computer).

So... I've created this thread to continue the debate for those who wish to. If any community can take a polarizing issue like this and discuss it productively, it's ours. And I'm certainly always open to hearing the other side and any new evidence.

I stopped reading when I got to this sentence in the first paragraph:

"The steady depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, along with the accelerated pace of climate change, will... thrust us into a global depression."

There is no evidence to support "accelerated pace of climate change" -- in fact, the opposite is true. The presupposition is faulty; thus the conclusions are bound to be faulty.

In 2000, the UN's IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) predicted that by 2010, global temperatures would rise one degree. In reality, global temperatures declined during that time period, and are still falling. If the "man made global warming" theory worked, then the theory would have generated accurate scientific predictions; not predictions which were 180 degrees reversed from the outcome.

Other scientists accurately predicted the fall in temperature from 2000 to 2010, using science that was based on natural solar cycles and not based on the incorrect theories of man-made global warming. That alone should settle any debate, but it doesn't, because Global Warming is more of a religion than a science -- which is why I'm probably stepping on someone's cherished belief system with this post...

In the 70's, "global cooling" was the fear du jour, because the global temperature fell from the late 1940's until the late 1970's. There was a lot of fossil fuel burning going on in that time period... but global temperatures fell anyway, because burning fossil fuels has no appreciable causation to temperature.

Man-made climate change is one of the biggest fallacies currently being perpetuated on the global public, IMO. I don't wish to open THAT can of worms in the market thread, but I've done a ton of research on the subject and am wholly convinced that "climate change" is simply a natural ramification of living on a giant ball of rock which hurtles through space at 486,000 MPH (actually much faster, if you count galactic motion) and orbits an unfathomably huge and slightly unstable nuclear reactor (the sun) which goes through its own cycles.

The point is: the universe is a harsh place, and viewing climate as something that never changes is not in line with reality -- climates change occurs naturally and cyclically. The sun is the driving force behind earth's climate, not man-made atmospheric emissions.

The climate of earth changes over time, since solar activity changes over time; that's been well documented, and earth appears to cycle between periods of warming and ice ages. We are still in-between ice ages -- thank goodness, because that means food is plentiful.

In the past, it has sometimes been much hotter on earth; and it has sometimes been much colder. In fact, the island of Molokini (off the coast of Maui) has wave-erosion notches hundreds of feet beneath the current ocean surface level, left over from when sea level was much lower than it is today. The rise to current sea levels occurred long before we started burning fossil fuels. Why would anyone expect it to simply "Stop right there! Don't ever change again!"?

As far as anyone knows, the earth has the most moderate climate in the entire galaxy (which isn't saying much): most planets are subject to daily/nightly changes in the hundreds of degrees, and some planets regularly have storms with wind speeds in the thousands of miles per hour. To even expect that the earth should have some type of bizarre "never-changing" climate system in a universe this violent is simple silliness.

The whole theory is complete hubris in my mind, and many of the smartest scientists in the field -- at least those who aren't on the government payrolls (follow the money -- research which suggests "climate change" gets you awarded with Federal grants) -- agree.

Earth's climate changed long before we were here, and it will change long after we're gone. It's not going to stop changing now, just because we want it to -- whether we burn fossil fuels or not.

Man-made climate change is not a scientific issue; all the evidence refutes the whole theory. It is a political issue, and I think it has become a religion for many of its public followers.

Sorry for the OT rant, but I have researched both sides of the argument in depth over the course of several years... and it's something of a pet peeve. I don't like seeing the public misled about anything -- attempts to mislead the public, whether they come from "The Beard" or the UN, simply bother me.

[Pretzel Logic]

Burning fossil fuels does have more tangible effects. In Richmond CA near the century-old Chevron refinery, 1 in 3 kids has asthma. Vehicles that use lots of gas make their drivers more susceptible to price shocks when gas spikes up. So there are arguments to moderating fossil fuel use that get lost in the climate change theory argument. I hope our nation can learn to mix up our energy sources. The availability of leased solar panels in CA has made installations take off here. I love mine because I'm sending PG&E much less money every month (I despise them, but that's another rant).

I agree that pollution is an issue worthy of attention; I simply disagree with tactics that "back up" such arguments with faulty or inconclusive science. In other words, I'm all in favor of letting people make an educated decision with facts -- I'm not in favor of distorting the facts so our "handlers" can push certain agendas. The ends do not justify the means.

[RockR]

A couple. Of other items:
Fossil fuels are a myth, minerals are abiotic and produced by the earth. This will never be mentioned in school books or mainstream media. Also, the chemicals being sprayed into the jet stream by the govt is playing a major role in earth changes. The amount of sunshine reaching the earth is less every year and the damage to crops from these sprays is destroying the soil.

[TraderAndy]

I realized when I posted this that my post below is only the beginning of a debate, not the end of one.

I researched this issue in depth for several years before solidifying my opinion on it, and approached it with the same dilligence with which I approach most everything (i.e.- I have several hundreds, if not thousands, of hours behind my viewpoint) -- but at this stage, I'll have to work to dig up my sources again (those bookmarks and scientific papers are long-gone on an old computer).

So... I've created this thread to continue the debate for those who wish to. If any community can take a polarizing issue like this and discuss it productively, it's ours. And I'm certainly always open to hearing the other side and any new evidence.

I voted "undecided" because it gives me pause that you have come to the conclusion that there is not a man-made component to global warming. When you get a chance to dig out some references I would really like to read those which you found most compelling

[Pretzel Logic]

I voted "undecided" because it gives me pause that you have come to the conclusion that there is not a man-made component to global warming. When you get a chance to dig out some references I would really like to read those which you found most compelling

I'm honored that you value my opinion, and will work on digging up those references. It will likely take me a bit of time, as I did much of my research a few years ago, and have since lost the bookmarks and downloaded research. But I will work on this as I have more time to do so.

[Mkx41]

I encourage everyone interested in the subject to give these three articles (all about the same experiment) a good reading. If you are technically inclined, the first article has a link to the actual paper. I am technically inclined, and still didn't understand the paper itself. But the readers digest versions are fascinating. Keep an open mind:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/sv...-on-earth/
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219...-to-thrive
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...14017.html

[arnie]

Applying a MACD to global temperature anomalies -as estimated by NASA's GISS in this case, which is monthly data- shows that since 2009 there's a steady decrease (MACD crossed over from above and both MACD and signal line are pointing downwards).

The fact that the MACD exactly captures the increase in temp. anomalies from 1910s to 1940s; captures the decrease from the 1940s to 1970s; and captures the increase from the mid 1970s to ~early 2000s (corresponding to the orange vertical lines that hit the 6th order polynomial where trend changes occur) strongly suggests that the MACD also correctly has identified a (the?) top in temp. anomalies (it remains however unclear if the top is temporary or not, with temporary meaning several years to a decade) in the mid 2000s. Unless global temp. anomalies start rising again, and rise quickly, the MACD will continue to go down. Note that the only time the MACD went down since the mid-70s uptrend was in the mid 1990s due to Mt Pinatubo's eruption (volcano) causing it's emissions in to the atmosphere to cool the globe temporarily. It's actually amazing to see the MACD is able to capture that event too! Hence, the current down turn is unique and rather unprecedented since there haven't been any major volcanic eruptions lately; besides those in Island which were minor compared to Mt. Pin. The reason for the current down turn is IMHO due to a shift in the ENSO cycle going from an el nino dominated multi-decade cycle to a la nina dominated cycle. The effects of the past 2 la nina's are already evident in the global temp. anomalies.

IMHO this is an elegant and simple tool to show the past and current trend in global temps. However, I don't know the MACD's predictive power in this case. But, there is NO reason why a MACD cannot be applied to this type of data, since it is simply based on EMAs. EMAs are indifferent to the underlying data set. In this case I used the monthly values as closing prices. Hence, the MACD clearly shows there has been no warming over the past few years (decade), which linear regression of the data set also shows.

An SSTO can be calculated from this data too, also showing a "sell signal". If interested I can post that plot too.

[TraderAndy]

I'm honored that you value my opinion, and will work on digging up those references. It will likely take me a bit of time, as I did much of my research a few years ago, and have since lost the bookmarks and downloaded research. But I will work on this as I have more time to do so.

Thanks!

[Forgiven]

Interesting stuff, I knew nothing about this. Don't know if this could play into Global warming or not, but this is something I knew nothing about til recently. I suppose if you cook the ionosphere it may have the potential to disturb the earth in ways that may be detrimental.

We may never be able to prove either way if this warming is cyclical or man made, so my opinion is why not stop the things that are man made to be sure our part has been removed.

http://www.haarp.net/

[arnie]

It's been a while since I posed something about this topic. But I just saw that the British HadCRUT global temperature data set (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) was updated with the global land ocean surface temperature anomalie for Nov. '12: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temper...rut3gl.txt

The HadCRUT data set is believed to be the most reliable, and correct none-satellite data set (NASA's GISS for example, is NOT).

So with the 2nd to last month of the year 2012 on the record, we can start to say something meaningful about 2012's overall average temperature, longer term trends etc.

How does 2012 compare to the past 5, 10, 15 and 20 years?
If we leave Dec blank, then 2012 ends up with an anomalie of 0.417C. If we fill in the highest Dec temp on record (0.523) it will be 0.427. If we fill in the lowest (-0.818) it will be 0.314. Hence, it is rather safe to assume that 2012 will end up between 0.417 and 0.427C on average.
That would make it the 3rd warmest year over the past 5 years
That would make it the 6th warmest (or 4th coldest) year of the past 10 years (6 years: 2005, 10, 3, 4, 9 and 6 were warmer)
That would make it the 9th warmest (or 7th coldest) year of the past 15 years
That would make it the 9th warmest (or the 12th coldest) year of the past 20 years.

On an annual basis, 2012 wasn't a record year. It was more on the cold side for the past 10 years, smack middle for the past 5 years, below average for the past 15 years, and just made it into the top 10 of the past 20 years. All in all, nothing special, not much warmer, not much colder than the past 20 years... (while CO2 levels are now data-record high...)

How would that look like if we plot these monthly values? The y-axe show the temp. anomalies, the x-axe time. The red linear regression line is for all data over the past 20 years, the green line for the past 15 years and the blue for the past 10 years. As you can see, the globe has been cooling over the past 10 years. Has remained warm over the past 15 years but not getting any warmer or colder (flatlined) over the past 15 years, and only when we look 20 years back has it been getting warmER. This means that all global warming has occurred more than 15 years ago and has now stopped. Which is interesting since CO2 levels continue to increase and in fact are now almost 10% higher than they were 20 years ago. What we see here are natural cycles at work, from ENSO to solar, to PDO, AMO etc etc. Most likely most are ocean related, since the atmosphere responds to the ocean and not the other way around.

Given the current development in the ENSO 3.4 region (defines el nino or la nina), the current "la nada" (neutral) state of the equatorial pacific ocean and decreasing trend in sea surface temperatures in that region, I'd be hard pressed to see the temp. anomalie for Dec. '12 coming in above that of Nov. '12, further lowering the 2012 average temp. though only slightly and not affecting this count by much.

Regardless, the conclusion is that over the past 10 years the globe has gotten colder (which is contrary to what you will read in the media, but folks this is the real data! this is what defines global warming or not), has remaind warm (but NOT warmER) over the past 15 years, and we now have to go back more than 15 years in time to detect any form of warmING...

Next year's ENSO cycle (neutral, la nino or el nino) will determine the globe's temperature fate.
N: more stable temperatures
LN: continued lower temperatures
EN:decreasing trend may reverse.

So not only will 2013 be very important for the markets, it will also be very important for the global warming theory. Maybe those Mayan's were onto something when they predicted the end of the world (as we know it)

[10506871ltd]

Hi everybody, this is a test post, my first one.

I voted both; Earth warming is due to the Sun (orders of magnitude more powerful than us measly humans), and it's being politicized to gain further control over slaves. Facts are facts.

[Pretzel Logic]

Hi everybody, this is a test post, my first one.

I voted both; Earth warming is due to the Sun (orders of magnitude more powerful than us measly humans), and it's being politicized to gain further control over slaves. Facts are facts.

Hi, and welcome to the board! The daily market thread is where most of the action happens.

Current thread: http://deepwaveanalytics.com/forums/show...p?tid=1373

[Wholebeing]

In 2013, there were 10,883 peer-reviewed scientific studies to the effect that global warming is real and caused by humans. In the same year, how many such studies took the opposite position? Exactly Two. From this article:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/10853_ou...happening/

"As geochemist James Lawrence Powell "to the People" continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell "to the People" went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming."

Powell "to the People" himself is quoted as saying:

"Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it."


I know I'm unlikely to get any rep points for supporting the view that global warming is real and caused by human activity - much less have this post noticed by most on this board. That's discouraging for me, as I see the pervasive influence of fossil fuel corporation propaganda in the marketplace, and I'm committed to reality - and for me it's clear that the overwhelming evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. I'd ask you, why is there so little questioning in this thread of the self-serving motivations of those same fossil fuel corporations in funding the so called "arguments" "against global warming"? IMHO, the arguments against global warming are so persuasive, despite their lack of observational support, because they don't require any proactive change on our part. We can continue blithely doing business as usual, without facing the massive implications for change in our way of life implied by global climate change. In denial, there's also the added short-term benefit that we don't have to feel the pain of having to admit that, as a civilization and as individuals, we've altered the earth's climate for the worst.

Not only is man-made global warming a legitimate scientific concern (any theory is "legitimate" and worthy of testing by observation), I'm convinced it's also happening, with profound implications for our future quality of life.

Yes, I admit that TPTB are using both sides of this issue to gain further advantage in their power and wealth, as they will use almost any issue. And I abhor this. A marketplace in "carbon credits" is a perfect example. Yet this manipulation implies nothing about the reality of global warming.

Please consider what I've said above. What if it's true? A failure to proactively prepare yourself and your family for these changes might be pretty costly.

[aweedram]

Pretty much sums up my thoughts...

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Unse...2&ie=UTF-8

PS - Link through google bypasses WSJ signin

[Wholebeing]

Evidence for Exxon's warping of climate change science:

http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exx...-Not-Taken

"After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this multi-part history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time.

"It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed."

[aweedram]

Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW?

Hansen limited his research and climate models to human causes of climate change. He made two projections that argued CO2 would continue to increase. In doing so, he predetermined the outcome. He confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. It produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years. This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming.

[aweedram]

To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.

CARBON DIOXIDE: The good news [PDF]

[Wholebeing]

Today, Nov. 17, 2015, John Brennan, director of the CIA, said the following at the opening session of the Global Security Forum 2015:
(http://csis.org/files/attachments/151116...ession.pdf)

"Across the globe, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, governments are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the demands, realistic or not, of their skeptical and restive populaces....Mankind’s relationship with the natural world is aggravating these problems and is a potential source of crisis itself. Last year was the warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer. Extreme weather, along with public policies affecting food and water supplies, can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of the most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia."

It's real folks - and it's happening.

[Wholebeing]

I urge you all to watch Before the Flood, National Geographic's movie about climate change and global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm3R6eZVUKM
or here
https://www.beforetheflood.com/screenings/

[Wholebeing]

Global Warming: the bad news - why it leads to more fish die-off:
https://theconversation.com/the-ocean-is...orse-66192