......
Good post, yes at the moment it seems to be mostly muslims who are performing despicable acts such as suicide bombing and terrorism. But you rightly say that the West have been doing similar "terrorism" for years, and not only against Middle Eastern countries (anyone remember the IRA bombings?)
And many hundreds of years ago, it was the Christians who were indiscriminately killing during the Crusades.
An important point to make is that this concept of "martyrism" and suicide bombing is an extremely new phenomenon - it only started in the second half of the 20th century, in part due to Western influences on Middle Eastern government. ......
Almost none of what you wrote is relevant to the situation today. Islam owns suicide bomber whackjobs, period. There's no rationalizing about how somehow that's the fault of "the west." It's not. It's what they do. They blow themselves up, often with NO clear purpose or goal. It's really quite laughable that you'd try to shrug it off. Or blame it on things that have zero relation to it. Sure. Let's ignore the part where West detroyed entire developed civilizations. Not like it is linked in any way woth Islam extremism. Ever heard of Iran? 40 years ago they were educated and developped in depth, they had no or nearly no extremism. Then West decided to take control of this zone and use the country for their own interest. Now it's the the center of one of the major centre of terrorism. But of course, it's just a coincidence. There is NO WAY that destruction of schools and institutions is linked whatsoever with rise of extremism. Yeah, you seem to just be making things up. Secular dictatorship under the Shah, or Theocratic Mullahs running Iran, so what? My guess would be the mullahs were and are anti-scientific. Center of terrorism due to them. They hated the west before they took over, they believe they will own the world and be it's caliphate. Basically primitive 6th century medieval warlords with a cleric's robe. Suuuuuuuuuuuure! Not like the USA had ANYTHING to do with that! What? USA providing weapons to Irak and Sadam hussen (officialy, I'm not talking about conspiracy theories here) in order to destabilize and isolate Iran. Not like they actively took part in the destruction of Iran. Nor like their implication led to the destruction of peace, institutions and diplomacy. Iran was in a complicated situation with a popular revolution. And just when they were starting to get their shit together, USA gave weapon, training and money to Alquaida to attack them. Leading to the only possible answer from them: getting nationalist as fuck . But no, USA DID THAT FOR FREEDOM OF.COURSE! NOT FOR OIL |
|
|
|
Isn't it normal if you have to leave everything to at least go for the best country you can find? Especially if the country has responsability towards the destruction of yours and hence has a responsability toward you.
So according to your logic, Germany (which has a population of around 80 million) must give refuge to some 30 million Syrians, and an additional 35 million from Iraq? IMO, they will be much better in Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Pakistan and Egypt can also be considered. No. According to my logic if you actively take part in attacking a country, without ANY REASON, and you're actively involved in the bombing of cities and civilians, you should expect to get a wave of refugees. I don't see what's shocking here. And I don't see how Egypt, Pakistan or whatever other country should take those refugees while they're not the ones destroying entire cities... The decision to support Al Qaeda and Jaysh al Islam in Syria was taken by Angela Merkel, without any referendum or public vote. So you can't blame the German people for the issues in Syria. If Merkel want, she can house as many Syrians she want at her residence. Ahahahahah I love how so many people think like you. So if your head of the state decided to attack a country or support a terrorist organisation and you didn't give a fuck, didn't protest or tried to revolt against such policy (or at least go on strike for god sake!) Then you're not responsible? So i guess you're responsible for nothing your government has ever done? Isn't it like recognizing you live in a dictatorship? Oh and by the way, international declaration of human's rights states clearly that a population has the DUTY to revolt against a totalitarian government. We ARE responsible. Don't act innocent. You can say "better them than us", yeah why not. But don't act like you're an innocent victim. You're guilty as fuck. |
|
|
|
Christians NO LONGER burn people alive?
Christians did much worse than what some Muslims are doing currently. But Islam is a religion 600 years younger than Catholicism.
Wanna know what we were doing 600 years ago?
That's right. Spanish inquisition.
So don't act like they're more barbaric than we have ever been k?
The bulk of the human race has kind of moved on and advanced over the last 600 years, just waiting on one religous group to catch up to the rest of us. Seems like you are justiftying current attrocities by pointing out events from hundreds of years ago. Or maybe I'm the only one trying to answer the thread question? The question is about Islam RELIGION being a religion of hate and violence. All I'm saying is that Islam isn't mature enough compared to a religion which is 600 years older! If you want to talk about Muslims then that's a DIFFERENT subject! Islam and Muslims are not the same thing, so don't try to make me say what I didn't say. And I would add that human race evolved yeah, but some parts of the world were a bit too busy with our armies bombing the shit out of them last decades, so they no longer have any kind of education because they no longer have the buildings to teach anything... And humans without education are not far from the middle age people. So what? now religions are like wine? They are all fucked up, except some were smart enough to adjust to the changing times or lose membership. Islam is rigid as it was written by a guy nicknamed Allah in the 6th or 7th century, the guy called himself God. And he put it down: "To all motherfuckers out there, do not try to change my shit. blah,blah...". So Muslims are stuck. They cannot just ignore some quotes without ignoring the rest of these scribblings. Of course not. You think that the bible you can read today is the same as 600 years ago? And you think christians interpreat it the same way? Do you realize that the Bible also states how you should kill a woman who cheated on her husband? It's juste that after 2000 years they stopped doing it. But even 100 years ago, thanks to christians, post european countries were treating homosexuality like a disease that must be erased. So don't start stating that Christianity is peaceful but Islam is violent. They're both violent as fuck, but Christianity has the luck to developp itself for 600 more years. |
|
|
|
......
Good post, yes at the moment it seems to be mostly muslims who are performing despicable acts such as suicide bombing and terrorism. But you rightly say that the West have been doing similar "terrorism" for years, and not only against Middle Eastern countries (anyone remember the IRA bombings?)
And many hundreds of years ago, it was the Christians who were indiscriminately killing during the Crusades.
An important point to make is that this concept of "martyrism" and suicide bombing is an extremely new phenomenon - it only started in the second half of the 20th century, in part due to Western influences on Middle Eastern government. ......
Almost none of what you wrote is relevant to the situation today. Islam owns suicide bomber whackjobs, period. There's no rationalizing about how somehow that's the fault of "the west." It's not. It's what they do. They blow themselves up, often with NO clear purpose or goal. It's really quite laughable that you'd try to shrug it off. Or blame it on things that have zero relation to it. Sure. Let's ignore the part where West detroyed entire developed civilizations. Not like it is linked in any way woth Islam extremism. Ever heard of Iran? 40 years ago they were educated and developped in depth, they had no or nearly no extremism. Then West decided to take control of this zone and use the country for their own interest. Now it's the the center of one of the major centre of terrorism. But of course, it's just a coincidence. There is NO WAY that destruction of schools and institutions is linked whatsoever with rise of extremism. |
|
|
|
I'm tracking BTC rates and they are all different??
Different platforms of exchange mean different transactions so different prices! But what's interesting is that it's a very specific job of trading to balance the prices. It's called arbitrage trading, the goal is to use those little differences (I'm saying little even if they can be of 30$ because you have to consider the fees in each exchanges) to exchange btc and/or dollars from platforms to platforms. You buy where price is low and sell on a platform with higher prices. It's difficult, needs you to have a very good knowledge of the fees ^^ |
|
|
|
What softwares are you using for Bitcoin trading?
i don't use any software like MT4 or anything else, i only use platform in the market itself and i don't use any of bot for now but i used bot in the past. i decide to not use bot again is because i can not learn trading because its automated by bot so i want to learn more and i hope i can trade with good like other people.
I think it's best for MetaTrader software. Would you recommend these things for a newcomer?
yes its worth for you to try but you need to learn how to use the software so you don't confuse how to make your analysis as you want. there many guide that you can found in many websites. Do we increase our chances of winning when using bots in trading? The only fact that you're asking such question is the proof that you shouldn't trade. Or at least expect to lose everything you invest in trading. Bots are tools. Basic tools like the one you're given can only do basic work and I wouldn't recommend it. The best bots are those you prog yourself which gives you much more latitude to act. But remember that it's a matter of years before being experimented enough to actually earn money with trading. |
|
|
|
Right on! Even Jesus said similar. It happened when the woman anointed his feet with some expensive oil (maybe it was spikenard), after she had washed them with her tears and dried them with her hair. Some of the people around Jesus (particularly Judas Iscariot) condemned the woman, saying that the oil could have been sold for as much as a year's wages, and the money given to the poor. What did Jesus answer? From Mark 14:7: The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.  Noooooooooo? That can't be true you're kidding me? I mean, Jesus actually said "don't take care of the poors, take care of my feet"? If that's the case that makes him a real ass hole xD |
|
|
|
Yes, mostly.
We shall all understand that some tax is necessary to keep streets and roads safe and clean, but it takes very little tax money to pay for this useful service. Most of the tax money goes to useless or real bad things like welfare. Welfare is the biggest crime manhood has ever commited on nature. There are probably some 40 millions people living off welfare on Europe, they should all die. The sooner, the better. Only the strong shall survive. Ethiopia is a much nicer place with gentler people. Most Europeans now believe it is a God given right to spend their whole life without working, with an allowance from the state to have a decent life. Tax money has corrupted their minds. Sometimes I wish the whole economic system would just crash. People would be forced to work, just as it was a century ago, or as it is today in Ethiopia.
Thank you for bringing social Darwinism here. This is something that is commonly said in ALL medias and that people believe nowadays. But this thesis has nothing to be based on. There is NOTHING that proves that only the strong should survive. People say that like it's some kind of magical sentence that allows them to go for a completely free market where the strong eats the weak, but that is a complete nonsense and a failure from an evolution perspective. It has been scientifically proven that Humanity is based on COOPERATION far more than on personal strength. Our entire evolution and development is NOT based on conflict but on helping each other. By the way, the correct sentence isn't "only the strong should survive" but "survival of the fittest" which is entirely different. This kind of behaviours and thinking is currently leading us to the end of our evolution. Yes, there are several formulas. I've also seen survival of the smartest, or survival of those who can best adapt to change. That last one is probably the one I like most. I don't believe the strong shall eat the weak, why? Actually, the weak is just getting more and more... Useless. 100 years ago, the rich needed the poor to work in huge factories, not anymore. Have you seen the thousands of migrants living in the streets in France, Germany, Italy? Have you traveled in Africa, or India? I've traveled a lot, and I've seen too millions in need of help. Can you help them all? Myself, I'll stick to help my family and my few friends. There are more and more people on this planet, needing more and more resources, this can't keep on going. We see thousands of animal species disappearing, I wish it would be millions of humans. What you're saying is partly wrong for one simple reason: you talk like we hadn't the means to help everyone. We do. Not only we do but we have what is needed to help everyone and to make sure everyone will have a decent life. Do you even realize that the vast majority of ressources, money and materials are possessed by only an incredibly tiny part of the population? Population is a problem that's right, but that's far from being the only one or the most important. Oh and something else important: you take care of your family, fair enough. That's how you should live. But don't act like you're not responsible for what's happening in the world. We all have a part of responsibility. Which is not something bad in itself! It's not bad if you hurt someone to make yourself better... It's a choice that's all. The worst part is that here we destroy the world and get nothing in return! We're being exploited like the rest of 3rd world, we just get more in return... |
|
|
|
Seems like we are recovering quickly from this last shakeout of the weak hands. But why are those periodic with nearly exact time intervals?  screen shot pcWell I'm not sure about a parabolic rise. The reasons come down to the very technical problems of bitcoin. I made a transaction 3 days ago and mempool was so full it took 14h to complete. Oh my fees maybe weren't the best but they were clearly not non-existent, I paid 30 cents for a transaction that took 14h... So there can't be a parabolic rise without a massive adoption and there can't be a massive adoption with such important problems! But I agree, you have to be completely crazy to see anything else but and upper trend in this... |
|
|
|
I am saying you cannot pick the data and date ranges that only support your argument, if a longer series throws that into question. Look at the second chart in this article for historical CO2 patterns. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/Specifically my assertion is that we could, just for fun, use a nonvariant 280 ppm from 1880-1957, and then use the Hawaii data from then forward. That would allow taking a correlation between T and CO2 for that longer time series. Realize your correlation will go way, way down. Look, this is not complicated so let's please not act like it is, and let's not act or behave like the average guy cannot understand it. Sorry but English is not my native language so it WAS complicated to understand your grammar. Don't act all arrogant because we use a language you master better than me. I've got 2 problems with what you're saying. First: https://warmgloblog.blogspot.fr/2013/06/co2-and-temperature-changes-are.htmlFirst graph shows the correlation between CO2 and Temperature variations since 1850 as you asked. Clearly not a constant CO2 level. Second: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.htmlhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.htmlThe exact same graph as what you gave me but considering VARIATIONS and not absolute value. Clearly one of us is wrong. Either your graph or mine but one is complete bullshit. Or I missed something huge. Problem is that I can't check yours because the source of the graph is extracted from a book or a review (don't know) which I never heard of so... i can't tell if it's serious or not. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Soooooooooo... As some people tend to believe that Mein Kampf isn't "that bad" or that if you don't know who wrote it it's not horrible or things like that. So here are some of the most noticeable parts of Mein Kampf. If you don't see anything wrong with them, go talk to a psychologist "The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland with the ultimate idea of bastardising the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate." "The Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end…spying on the unsuspicious German girl he plans to seduce…..he wants to contaminate her blood and remove her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew hates the white race and wants to lower its cultural level so that the Jews might dominate." "Only an adequate large space on this earth assures a nation freedom of existence." "We must eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area…… Some of this land can be obtained from Russia….. We must secure for the German people the land and soil to which they are entitled." "(The state) must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one’s own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world; and one highest honour : to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the nation." "When you tell a lie, tell big lies. This is what the Jews do, working on the principle, which is quite true in itself, that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility…" |
|
|
|
Wahou, seems like lots of people don't like Yobit  Well I used both and I'd be less critical toward Yobit. Yobit is cool and on average a very good site I think. They are invested in cryptocurrencies in general. But Polionex is more... Professional I'd say? It's a cleaner design and easier and smoother to use. Yobit has the hand concerning altcoin trading. They're clearly the best there. So if only bitcoin, I suppose that Polionex is slightly better. But Yobit isn't that bad :3 |
|
|
|
And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.
Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.
In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...
I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.
You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.
A study and a correlation from 1958 forward is not enough if the prior hundred years ALSO SHOWS A VERY SIMILAR WARMING PATTERN. Only by cutting that out can you produce the "Alarming Data" from 1958 forward. If you agree that the prior hundred years was a constant CO2, then we could do a proper correlation, by taking the beginning Hawaii data from 1958 and running it backwards. Agreed? I don't understand your sentence. You mean that before 1917 it was a constant CO2 level that's what you mean? Well the answer is obviously no because CO2 level changes constantly. But it was mainly a natural change if that's what you mean. And before 1850 it was only natural (or at least on a vast majority I suppose). But first thesis stating that CO2 could lead to global warming are back from 1870's if I remember well. So no or few human produced CO2 before 1850 I agree with that. |
|
|
|
i think it's probably the same as 'a brief history of time'. i'll bet good money that less than 5% of readers ever got past putting the book in a prominent place on their bookshelf to impress the ladies.
I don't want to know what kind of lady is impressed by this book... I do hope that people who buy it will at least read it! The contrary would be... Abnormal and even dangerous. Having this book just to show off is the proof that your both a stupid human and of poor tastes. Wether if you read it at least you'll gain some experience and some insights of how Nazism worked and how they thought. |
|
|
|
truth to be told i'm am one of the buyers  The new release ("special edition") in book form has a scientific and educational reason. The book includes a lot of additional comments and information. No uprising and a 4th Reich... yet. But no need for much conspiracy when people already think that the EU is the new evil german plan for a 4th 1000 year old kingdom /edit here is the amazon link - feel free to support the german economy: https://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Mein-Kampf-Eine-kritische/dp/3981405234 ahah that "... yet." at the end of a sentance. Well I didn't have a doubt that it's because of it's value and the writer, since it has been approved to be republished one year ago? Or was this all a plan to return to the old glory, to gather up the people of Germany as one again? Arent you an east european? Why are you laughing? If i remember correctly eastern europe got rekt pretty hard by nazi germany... Those guys tend to have a very selective memory... They actually believe that Nazis were great and united Germany only killing jews and homosexual. They forget about the high number of Germans killed and tortured by their own government, the interdiction of numerous books and philosophical trends, the lack of freedom in general and freedom of expression or politics in particular, the fact that every German worked as a slave to the government without being rewarded in any way except at Berlin where most wealth was gathered... |
|
|
|
|
And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.
Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.
In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...
I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.
You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.
So go on in your lie, after all people like you are closer to religious fanatics than the terrorists so it's useless to try to ARGUE with you with things like logic.
|
|
|
|
..... I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you. Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please. Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't. No, you did not "show any correlation." You've now been forced to grapple with proving your argument from the actual data, haven't you? Still ignoring my posts... I'm wondering if you even bother reading? I've given you links towards multiple and precise studies showing a clear correlation between Co2 rise and temperature rise from 1958 and you never answered to that. You just claimed that it was not enough for you and wanted to challenge me on other things. Well, here is your chart with your scaling factor, but with the temperature series extended its full and proper length. Now you see the slight temperature increases occurring LONG, LONG before your "alarming increase in Co2." An honest researcher at this point would say something like "Maybe the difference in the slope of the lines is Co2. But not you. You want to claim the entirety of a trend.
Lol, I take the time to try to understand and work with your dataset without you giving me the slightest explanation on where they're from or what do they represent or how they were recorded, I give you my vision of the work that should be done and rather than explaining me why or where my work is mistaken you accuse me of bad faith? If you want to make a perticular point then make it! Don't make me look for it in the middle of more than 25 different datasets and then accuse me of chosing "the wrong one"! Yes. That's the idea of correlation. In the correlation calculation you can scale and offset your data as much as you want... That's the main point of showing correlation... Not my fault if you have no knowledge about mathematical methodologies... Correlation is to show a relation between variations of 2 datasets. Thus, offset and scaling processes have NO INFLUENCE on the result! Whereas Normalization is a non-linear application which means that it can't be used. If you normalise the different trend that means you destroy the variations! Do you even know what correlation means? By normalizing what you're trying to do is showing there is no LINEAR CORRELATION between the sets of data, and of course there is none! who claimed anything like this?  So please, check the definition of correlation, what is a linear application and why you can't use non-linear applications in correlation calculation. |
|
|
|
hmm... You can't click on a link? :/ And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it? Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it: http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75 http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdfA Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^ Do you want the dataset? So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades. These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming? I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward. Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958. Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958. I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart. A correlation coef can be done from this. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300ahahahahaahahahahah xD Ok ok ok... Wtf is this temperature recording? Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2? And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give. If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim: There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958. If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective. Take your pick of the datasets available, look on right hand side. Here we go with satellite temperatures. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/rssYes I can show Co2 datasets prior to 1958. But your Warmeristas do not like those because they don't support your religion. As an example. http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.htmlI see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you. Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please. Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't. |
|
|
|
hmm... You can't click on a link? :/ And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it? Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it: http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75 http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdfA Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^ Do you want the dataset? So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades. These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming? I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward. Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958. Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958. I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart. A correlation coef can be done from this. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300ahahahahaahahahahah xD Ok ok ok... Wtf is this temperature recording? Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2? And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give. If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim: There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958. If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective. |
|
|
|
Hello people!
I have a question, does anyone understands anything to the "lucky jack" game? The thing we can do once a day!
Because I don't understand what it is or how it works!
I just go there, click on the button and then pseudo start appearing and most cases are filled with "not identified"
And that's all ^^
There is FAQ tab, you know? Anyway, just click "try luck" button and if you are lucky you will see your username there and win piece of cake  I know I read it! But I don't find all the informations I want: 1/ do you have to deposit 10mbtc every time you want to try the game? 2/ Why do I see some pseudo appearing but not on all slots? 3/ Does that mean that every grey spot is an available possibility to win? So it's better to do it early? 1.As far as i know you have to deposit only once. 2.The names you see highlighted are the lucky winners(who has claimed the prize). 3.No, you won't win just because you tried your luck early lol. the winners are preselected from the database. i hope this is helpful to you! It was very helpful thank you! So it's cool! I thought I had to wake up early just to play with maximum chance :3 Then it's a great giveaway. I hope I'll win it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
