patrick.net

I'm a bit confused about the source for the S&P going back to the late 18th Century. Particularly because Standard and Poor's didn't devise a stock index until the 1920s, and didn't publish the S&P 500 until 1957.

I tried to check http://www.longwaveanalysis.ca/ but got an error.

Finally, Kondratieff is only looking at, to be generous, 2 or 3 documented cycles. We simply don't have enough reliable economic history to drill down and see specifics in 60-year cycles going back to the Classic Age (much less the Bronze Age or Neolithic).
It's an awful stretch to generalize way back into the past with only about 120-180 years (being generous) of good data.

thunderlips11 says

Finally, Kondratieff is only looking at, to be generous, 2 or 3 documented cycles. We simply don't have enough reliable economic history to drill down and see specifics in 60-year cycles going back to the Classic Age (much less the Bronze Age or Neolithic).

It's an awful stretch to generalize way back into the past with only about 120-180 years (being generous) of good data.

You mean like a few weather seasons of Global warming data, is being used to forecast weather for the next 8 to 20 thousand years?

CaptainShuddup says

few weather seasons of Global warming data

The big difference is that the global warming crowd does not believe in cyclical change and thus, are treating any data pertaining to warming as a linear effect.

The K-wave thing is still sort of based around economies and empires having cyclical patterns. Now, whether or not these patterns are determinative, like in Asimov's Hari Sheldon's Foundation, is the question here.

CaptainShuddup says

You mean like a few weather seasons of Global warming data, is being used to forecast weather for the next 8 to 20 thousand years?

Exactly.

It's the static state fallacy. That somehow there's this ideal average global temperature and it shouldn't fluctuate more than a few degrees F over the course of millenia.

There are seashells at the peaks of Appalachian Mountains. They didn't get there because Dinosaurs drove SUVs, warming up the planet and raising the ocean level.

I'm skeptical to how much global warming has to do with people, and how much it has to do with the last mini-ice-age ending in the 19th Century. The East River froze several times in the 18th and 19th, for example. Also, between 1930 and 1970 the temperature worldwide declined, when, if it's anthropogenic forcing being the lead cause, the opposite should have happened as the third world rapidly industrialized, electricity production skyrocketed everywhere, and cars became commonplace for 1/3 of the world's population. Yet nothing happened until almost 1980.

Anybody remember those "In Search Of?" series with Mr. Spock from the 70s, several episodes about the "Coming Ice Age" and Ehrlich was writing books about how there was going to be worldwide famines, caused by shorter growing seasons due to --- Global COOLING.

Enjoy. Newsweek 1975: "The Cooling World"
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

After all, only a denier would deny the world average temperature has been declining for decades, and we have the data to prove it!!

World Climate is measured in tens of thousands of years, not decades.

So basically, the whole global warming hype was a way to generate environmental political momentum, so that companies don't attempt to dump more dioxins into our rivers and lakes anymore.

In other words, a faux premise for the sake of limiting the polluters out there.

The cooling over those decades is thought to be due to SOx emissions, which have been reduced. Most people who are educated in climate science know about the cooling period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Global warming models are not based on a few weather seasons.

Rin says

So basically, the whole global warming hype was a way to generate environmental political momentum, so that companies don't attempt to dump more dioxins into our rivers and lakes anymore.

Dioxins aren't believed to be an element in global warming.

Dumping hexavalent chromium into the water supply is a separate issue.

Think of all the rotting biomass in the Amazon right now, fermenting and releasing CO2, or the beer bottle I just popped open, or the sugar-fueled CO2 reactor I have going in my aquarium to get my dwarf hair grass to grow. Yeah, CO2 makes plants grow like crazy.

I'm really, really skeptical that, coming out of an meta-ice age (approx 14,000BP) and a mini-ice age of the Early Modern Period (started circa 1300s until 1800s, MWP lasted 800-1300, also about 500 years), that seeing two degrees F average temperature increase over 150 years is something to get arsed about.

Rin says

So basically, the whole global warming hype was a way to generate environmental political momentum, so that companies don't attempt to dump more dioxins into our rivers and lakes anymore.

In other words, a faux premise for the sake of limiting the polluters out there.

prohibit building any factories or do any kind of manufacturing.....

save the world at the cost of US citizens starving to death...

and there is your choice... choice made by a small extreme group...

After years of being a denier, I'm taking global warming seriously in light of the arctic methane release problem. The thought of a methane "burp" releasing in one summer, more global warming gas than was released by all fossil fuel burning since the industrial revolution has me concerned.
Thing is: if that scenario develops - and it seems likely to - none of this Kyoto treaty shit will help even a little. It's just way too late already.

thunderlips11 says

Dioxins aren't believed to be an element in global warming.

Dumping hexavalent chromium into the water supply is a separate issue.

Yeah, but that's not the point. The idea is to create a political movement which prevents chemical companies from being active/passive polluters. And part of that is using a misdirection to enforce the real issue and that real issue is organic & inorganic pollutants into the environment.

thomaswong.1986 says

prohibit building any factories or do any kind of manufacturing.....

As a former chemical engineer, it is possible to design facilities which don't dump organic solvents and residues into the environment ala Love Canal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

Rin, the idea is to give the impressionable youth generation something to believe in, and rip them off in the name of their salvation. It's the good old "sacrifice"/"indulgence" business model.

Here's Rin's Theory ...

Global Warming is not proven, insufficient evidence.

On the other hand, pollution by industrial production is real and we must do, whatever it takes, to minimize it for the environment and ppl's habitat.

Rin says

thunderlips11 says

Dioxins aren't believed to be an element in global warming.

Dumping hexavalent chromium into the water supply is a separate issue.

Yeah, but that's not the point. The idea is to create a political movement which prevents chemical companies from being active/passive polluters. And part of that is using a misdirection to enforce the real issue and that real issue is organic & inorganic pollutants into the environment.

And why not enforce the real issue like it was done for ozone layer and acid rain? Why this particular issue needs deception and misdirection?

I thought the deception was the other way around: the gross polluters on the local environment can buy "indulgences" / blessings from the "mother teresas" to improve their public image.

Straw Man says

And why not enforce the real issue like it was done for ozone layer and acid rain? Why this particular issue needs deception and misdirection?

A lot of politics seems to involve deception vs the truth, to get at the issues at hand. In the case of W.R. Grace contaminating the grounds water in Woburn MA, see 'A Civil Action' below ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action_%28film%29

The solo lawyer against the system didn't result in W.R. Grace's conviction in poisoning the town, however, it did instigate a minor political move by the EPA, preventing others from doing a similar thing down the road.

Unfortunately, instead of aiming the wrath of the public on polluters, the general environmental wrath has been re-directed to a mythical global warming Armageddon of biblical proportions which now has all forces, aimed against both, the polluters and the C02 emitters, which are two distinct camps.

Rin says

Armageddon of biblical proportions which now has all forces, aimed against both, the polluters and the C02 emitters, which are two distinct camps

The only positive thing, which may come out of duplicitous politicking is an awareness of the general level of pollution, in lakes/rivers, of the recent increase in fracking activities in the Rockies/Plains.

And perhaps, that's all that we could hope for, because it would be a shame if landlocked fisheries & drinking water became unsafe for consumption in the next few decades.

As for CO2, I could care less.

BTW, all the water entering my home taps are filtered.