[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[Tee Kay]

Makes sense; the population of Sub-Saharan Africa has roughly doubled between 1981 to 2005, and there was little social mobility or economic growth during those years, so generally the children of the poor stayed poor.

Graph should've shown percentage of people living under the poverty line, not absolute numbers and this $1.25 thing.

 

[Mise]

should've shown ... people living under the poverty line ... not ... this $1.25 thing

Well it's at 2005 PPP, so it's fine as it is. People who live on less than $1.25 at 2005 PPP means "people living on less stuff than you can buy today for $1.25", not "people who live on less than $1.25".

should've shown percentage ... not absolute numbers

I think the point is not so much that Africa has gotten "worse overall", or whatever, but more that there are a crapload more people who can barely afford to feed themselves now than there were in 1980. In otherwords, the sum total of human suffering in Africa has increased markedly in 25 years.

 

[Monsterzuma]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...s-santorums-housing-bubble-theory.php?ref=fpb

This looked interesting to me because it relates to this video from Jeff Rubin we discussed in the peak oil thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smRo7UFUuwM&list=FL7V3JbkxiaxApLJBktd6s5w&index=38&feature=plpp_video

not sure I agree with this. The price of gasoline did multiply by 2.5 from 2002 to 2006/2007. That's 150% inflation in a very important commodity (around 20% a year). It plateau'd at the (then) historical extreme of 3$ when the housing decline accelerated. Who cares if it got even higher after that?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

One concept I use in the lab. Multiplicity Of Infection (MOI) is the ratio of viral particles to susceptible cells. As the graph shows, if there are 8 times as many viruses as cells all of the cells will be infected.

 

[Monsterzuma]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577253691991108830.html

http://www.tradersnarrative.com/where-has-all-the-volume-gone-4286.html

The trend in declining volume has continued.

How to interpret this? Is the market being bid up on the basis of unhealthy fanaticism by a smaller and smaller number of investors while the sane majority bails out? Or does this mean a massive rally can ensue any time now when the volume returns?

In the 1982-1983, 1987, and 2001-2002 bear markets, volume expanded with volatility. The only other bear market that has occurred in declining volume was the one during 1973-1974. This is not the first study I that have done that strongly parallels 2008-2009 to 1973-1974. The question then becomes, “If the declining volume is legitimate, what occurred in 1973-1974 that is similar to the last bear market?” That is a study in and of itself.

Inflation might have something to do with that. The surge in inflation in the 70s may have validated the optimism of the bulls in nominal terms. I do mean to remember that the 1970s inflation was more of a supply deficit phenomenon than a demand surge one, which doesn't fit this explanation all that well.

 

[Monsterzuma]

The last three pages of this paper have some good graphs on the change in income distribution over time. Earlier in this thread we discussed how the 2008 crisis has made the wealth of the top 1% and 0.01% drop substantially. More recently both have resumed their long term rising trend:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf

 

[Cutlass]

I think the thing to look at is bubblefuel. That is, there's a huge amount of money out there looking for a rate of return without the messy need to actually do some work. So instead of being invested, it's driving up asset prices.

 

[Murky]

 

[Winner]

One would say that in the 21st century, we should be able to discern what is a fact and what is not by something more... scientific than a public poll.

I know, I am being naive.

 

[Quackers]

I googl'd "average global tempreture 10 years" and I got: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html so these 62% of people are actually...wrong?!

 

[Winner]

Yes.

There is absolutely no certainty about what is *happening* with the climate, except that it is changing (as it has always done for the past 4 billion years). Whoever says they know for sure anything pertaining to climate change is lying. Of course, the green fundies will never admit that. Why do things that actually help the environment when they can rant about global warming all day?

 

[luiz]

Yes.

There is absolutely no certainty about what is *happening* with the climate, except that it is changing (as it has always done for the past 4 billion years). Whoever says they know for sure anything pertaining to climate change is lying. Of course, the green fundies will never admit that. Why do things that actually help the environment when they can rant about global warming all day?

Amen to that. This is what annoys a lot of "skeptics"; the certainty some scientists place in their predictive models.

 

[Murky]

One would say that in the 21st century, we should be able to discern what is a fact and what is not by something more... scientific than a public poll.

What you talking about? The only facts you can discern from a poll are the statistics it represents.

I googl'd "average global tempreture 10 years" and I got: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html so these 62% of people are actually...wrong?!

You are cherry picking the time period. Try average global temperature since 1880.

Yes.

There is absolutely no certainty about what is *happening* with the climate, except that it is changing (as it has always done for the past 4 billion years). Whoever says they know for sure anything pertaining to climate change is lying. Of course, the green fundies will never admit that. Why do things that actually help the environment when they can rant about global warming all day?

There are decades of research into climate change. The fundies are the ones who think it's all a hoax without any supporting evidence.

Amen to that. This is what annoys a lot of "skeptics"; the certainty some scientists place in their predictive models.

What annoys a lot of real skeptics in the certainty some fake skeptics have about their global warming conspiracy theories.

 

[luiz]

There are decades of research into climate change. The fundies are the ones who think it's all a hoax without any supporting evidence.

What annoys a lot of real skeptics in the certainty some fake skeptics have about their global warming conspiracy theories.

The fact here is that none of those computer models predicted the temperature stabilization of the last decade, which is a pretty major event as far as climatology and GW go. The people who make prediction with certainty "by 20XX there will be no more permafrost in XXX" do not deserve to be called scientists. And the people who believe in that sort of nonsense are indeed green fundies.

 

[Murky]

The fact here is that none of those computer models predicted the temperature stabilization of the last decade, which is a pretty major event as far as climatology and GW go. The people who make prediction with certainty "by 20XX there will be no more permafrost in XXX" do not deserve to be called scientists. And the people who believe in that sort of nonsense are indeed green fundies.

Can you cite an example of a climate scientists who said, "by 20XX there be no more permafrost in XXX with 100% certainty?"

Model predictions for short time periods are uncertain. If you examine the data over a longer time period, the upward trend is easy to see.

 

[Monsterzuma]

from a passing glance I can tell that almost half of the decades in the century before had stable or falling temperatures. it's silly to even treat it like an anomaly.

 

[luiz]

Can you cite an example of a climate scientists who said, "by 20XX there be no more permafrost in XXX with 100% certainty?"

Of course nobody says "with 100% certainty", but many scientists have said absolutely ridiculous things with regards to GW, and they have on occasion made their way even to IPCC reports. See:

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.

Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas."

 

[Murky]

Of course nobody says "with 100% certainty", but many scientists have said absolutely ridiculous things with regards to GW, and they have on occasion made their way even to IPCC reports. See:

What one person speculates has little to do with the big picture of AGW theory.

 

[luiz]

What one person speculates has little to do with the big picture of AGW theory.

It made it's way to the IPCC report, the IPCC failed to retract on its own, and only after one month, after the IPCC was under heavy fire, did they acknowledge the mistake.

This goes to show how many holes there are in the IPCC's review process.

 

[Murky]

It made it's way to the IPCC report, the IPCC failed to retract on its own, and only after one month, after the IPCC was under heavy fire, did they acknowledge the mistake.

This goes to show how many holes there are in the IPCC's review process.

You missed the point. One flaw in a report doesn't invalidate the whole theory that took decades of independent lines of research to validate. We already have a GW thread if you want to take it there.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=452333