Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age

[GaryC 7]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

What do you think it is?

you don't think it will upset their global warming applecart?

Not necessarily. They were presented with data, and they responded. When presented with different data, they will just have to adjust their response.

Right?

Your a riot Troll!!

[IAMX 3,055]

Just remember, it's still cold in my freezer, so global warming is a farce and a religious belief.

Who's up for some cold ones?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

What do you think it is?

you don't think it will upset their global warming applecart?

Not necessarily. They were presented with data, and they responded. When presented with different data, they will just have to adjust their response.

Right?

Your a riot Troll!!

??

[one...two...tree 2,762]

??

explain.

Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction and Economics

• Failure is all around us - species, companies, brands and government policies fail. To understand success, "we must first understand the pervasive existance of failure".
• "Individual behavior is not fixed, like a screw or cog in a machine is, but evolves in response to the behavior of others. Control and prediction of the system as a whole is simply not possible."
• The world is complex, and in continuous evolution. People are, in turn, part of complex and constantly changing networks, and their ability to understand this environment is inherently limited. This is why things fail.
• Decentralized, "market like" systems may not deliver a perfect outcome, but they are the most likely to deliver a satisfactory outcome, compared with a centrally controlled model.
• "Innovation, evolution, and competition" are the hallmarks of a successful system.

.....

Nearly 100 years ago, the first true multinational corporations appeared in an age of corporate expansion that could be termed the “Edwardian Explosion”. Nearly all of those companies, many of which were just as large as the giants of today, are now gone. They failed despite having had millions or billions of dollars at their disposal, and management willing to innovate and respond to a changing world and markets. Of the 100 largest industrial companies in 1912, by 1995, 29 had gone bankrupt, 48 disappeared (mergers, acquisitions and so on), and 52 survived, but only 19 remained in the top 100. Once you discount the large number of small companies that fail in their first few years, the average lifespan for small companies is similar to that of large firms - and most of them eventually fail.

Most modern economics deals with “how to succeed”, “the correct strategy”, and so on, and looks very little at the persistance of failure, despite its pervasiveness. Economics prefers to deal with an idealized “state of equilibrium”, and to look at periods of change as a temporary pause between returns to the natural order of things. However, change is all around us, and is much more of a constant than any sort of equilibrium. For instance, economics textbooks often quickly cover the price of a product in relationship to the demand curve, as if it were easy for a company to determine the demand for their product at given prices. It isn’t, as the large market research and advertising sectors attest. Were it easier, firms wouldn’t need to spend such large sums of money attempting to determine what will sell and what won’t (and still end up wrong quite often). It isn’t easy for most firms to gauge production prices for complex products, even though the process is under their control, let alone gather accurate information about something so “basic” as the demand curve.

After looking at companies and their failures, and the difficulties of economics in dealing with the most basic aspects of a firm’s functioning, we look at government policies. Governments in nearly all western nations continue to grow. Government spending as a percentage of the economy was lower during the most socialist government Britain has ever had, in the 1950s, than under Mrs Thatcher in the 1980ies. Despite the public sector growing to be over twice as large in the post war years, the unemployment rate - the primary cause of poverty - was virtually unaffected. Higher spending on education as a means to increase social mobility has had similar results. Spending has increased, however, social mobility has not. By looking at the Gini Coefficient (a measure of the equitable distribution of wealth, where a higher number means more inequality, and 0 means complete equality) over time in the US, we see that, during the 20th century, it has changed - both increasing and decreasing, but in a fluid and dynamic way, with irregular fluctuations. When looking at the world as a whole, the Gini coefficient decreased for the first time in the history of capitalism, with the economic success of Asia lifting millions of people out of poverty. Various theories describing inequality have been proposed, from Marx to the mainstream general equilibrium theory, yet none convincingly explains the ebb and flow of inequality over time - either between citizens of one country, or between countries. The evidence points to this inequality moving in irregular, unpredictable ways. One of the main reasons why it is difficult to create a theory that successfully matches the evidence is that inequality in any society is the result of millions of interactions. There are so many interacting variables that predicting the outcome of the system is nearly impossible.

http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/2/w...n-and-economics

[GaryC 7]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

What do you think it is?

you don't think it will upset their global warming applecart?

Not necessarily. They were presented with data, and they responded. When presented with different data, they will just have to adjust their response.

Right?

Your a riot Troll!!

??

GW nuts changing their conclusions? Never happen. We could have glaciers overrunning NYC and they will say it's because of man's CO2 output. Everything supports their view and any counter to that view is dismissed as junk science. That is why GW is a religion to some.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

Your paste job doesn't address the subject of this thread. Solar activity.

Abort or Retry.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven,

Your paste job doesn't address the subject of this thread. Solar activity.

Abort or Retry.

When comparing humans and their actions and interactions with evolution in the biological sense, one of the chief differences is that people act consciously in response to their environment, whereas animals clearly cannot guide their own evolution. Even so, people face massive uncertainty, something that standard economics doesn’t take into account, working instead with rational agents with nearly perfect information about decisions they must make. This is fine in certain circumstances in order to have a clearer view of a specific problem. “Bounded rationality”, where agents do not have access to all information increases the relevance of economic theory. In reality, “maximizing” (obtaining the absolute best result) is difficult or impossible compared to “satisficing” (obtaining a good enough result). In games such as chess, where it is impossible even for computers to calculate every move, grandmasters often make the most reasonable move, avoiding obvious traps, rather than trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the best possible move in light of all possible moves that the opponent might make.

http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/2/w...n-and-economics

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

When comparing humans and their actions and interactions with evolution in the biological sense, one of the chief differences is that people act consciously in response to their environment, whereas animals clearly cannot guide their own evolution. Even so, people face massive uncertainty, something that standard economics doesn’t take into account, working instead with rational agents with nearly perfect information about decisions they must make. This is fine in certain circumstances in order to have a clearer view of a specific problem. “Bounded rationality”, where agents do not have access to all information increases the relevance of economic theory. In reality, “maximizing” (obtaining the absolute best result) is difficult or impossible compared to “satisficing” (obtaining a good enough result). In games such as chess, where it is impossible even for computers to calculate every move, grandmasters often make the most reasonable move, avoiding obvious traps, rather than trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the best possible move in light of all possible moves that the opponent might make.

http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/2/w...n-and-economics

Number of instances of the word solar: 0

Number of instances of the word sun: 0

Abort or Retry.

[HAL 9000 96]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

Yeah I know. The sun couldn't possibly effect our climate. It just HAS to be our fault regardless of how it changes.

All I know is the nice case of heat stroke I got on vacation... definitely effected by the sun. But most likely caused by my ignorance of the signs: excessive heat, a lack of shade, and not enough hydration.

[Scott & Lai 12]

So which U.S. industry is causing the Sun's output to diminish? They must be punished

[HAL 9000 96]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

What do you think it is?

you don't think it will upset their global warming applecart?

Not necessarily. They were presented with data, and they responded. When presented with different data, they will just have to adjust their response.

Right?

I guess it boils down to being able to read data and understand its sampling accuracy. And relevance.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

What do you think it is?

you don't think it will upset their global warming applecart?

Not necessarily. They were presented with data, and they responded. When presented with different data, they will just have to adjust their response.

Right?

I guess it boils down to being able to read data and understand its sampling accuracy. And relevance.

que

[IAMX 3,055]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

What do you think it is?

you don't think it will upset their global warming applecart?

Not necessarily. They were presented with data, and they responded. When presented with different data, they will just have to adjust their response.

Right?

I guess it boils down to being able to read data and understand its sampling accuracy. And relevance.

Erm, they're not conducting a poll to see who thinks it's correct.

*facepalm*

[HAL 9000 96]

it's junk science, that's that the gw crowd will call this thread.

What do you think it is?

you don't think it will upset their global warming applecart?

Not necessarily. They were presented with data, and they responded. When presented with different data, they will just have to adjust their response.

Right?

Your a riot Troll!!

??

GW nuts changing their conclusions? Never happen. We could have glaciers overrunning NYC and they will say it's because of man's CO2 output. Everything supports their view and any counter to that view is dismissed as junk science. That is why GW is a religion to some.

By definition 'junk science' is when you can't get substantiation, reproducibility, or when the 'scientist' performing the given set of experiments is running them based on preconceived conclusions. Which is what you get when you get members of the scientific community as well as lay people that are prone to political pressure when it should be well known that science is not politics either.

So which U.S. industry is causing the Sun's output to diminish? They must be punished

Good one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Evolution is random. Genes do not mutate of their own accord, and species do not choose how to evolve. The fittest individuals and species only evolve over long periods of time thanks to random mutations and natural selection. On the other hand, in the “perfect world” of classic economics, agents know everything and thus are able to choose the absolute best option. This would make comparing the two difficult, but for the sake of argument, we can imagine two players betting on coin tosses. There is no real way to tell whether either of the players is really a better performer, or just lucky. Individuals and firms must lie somewhere on this continuum, between pure randomness and omniscient decision makers. There is strong evidence that the truth is closer to random actors, that, however, do glean some advantages in terms of information from time to time, and thus are more likely to survive as the ‘fittest’ of their generation.

Like economists, biologists often look at the survival of the ‘fittest’, rather than extinction. An interesting finding regarding success is that a particular gene’s likelyhood of “invading” a population (becoming present in all or most individuals over time) is very low. Extinctions, like we saw earlier with company failures, happen at irregular intervals - many at once, then fewer, then many again, but without an entirely predictable pattern. The frequency of species extinction, does, however, fit a power law curve, meaning that the frequency with which we see a given number of extinctions decreases according to the square of the size. Interestingly, the failure rates of firms fit the same pattern - almost as if they were just as random as extinction amongst species that are, unlike firms, completely unable to plan their own futures.

http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/2/w...n-and-economics