Interesting quote of the week:
If Global Warming were a stock, and you bought it in 1979 at zero (par) and decided to sell it this month to buy a house, 29 years later you aren’t very happy with your investment. At it’s peak in 1998, the temperature only went to a 0.8 increase, and in April it dipped to very nearly unchanged. (From Charles Noland, Blue Skies)
I never thought of it that way. Sell!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Actually its worse than that. In degrees Kelvin, the temperature rose from (about) 288 to 288.8 at the peak of the ‘bubble’. That’s a whopping 0.28% increase between 1979 and 1998.
You’d need a different trendline. A straight line segment connecting point of entry and final point only.
I am glad that I never said, “Buy!” However, Anthony is doing a great job of convincing people that selling is the right move on AGW.
….. Yeah, but in order to sell…. you’d need some sucker to buy..!
: )
D’oh…. I fergot……… There’s one born every minute…..
Bluddy must be, if Gore could sell AGW and get a Noble Peace Prize for it…
God….. now I’m depressed. : (
Don’t worry. The Nobel Beauty Prize has more prestige these days.
In the end, we may find that Gore sold warming at its peak.
It’s a pity that the buyers have the ability to levy taxes.
In other words:
Gore sold peaked warming.
Buyers bought it lock, stock, and barrel.
Now comes new taxes.
American colonial references sure take the Japanese accent out of haiku!
I think Gore sold us out. The way the candidates are talking, we’ll pay for it for a very long time.
OT: Anthony, how’s the fire situation? Heard Chico on the news, houses burning and such. Doesn’t sound good. That kind of warming we can do without.
REPLY: 6k acres, several homes burned, north winds still driving it…I’m ok it is south of me.
Looks clearly like a descending triangle with decreased support. The bottom is about to fall out of it!
As a skeptic, I hate to try and undermine an argument that tries to put things in perspective, but I also have to be honest… To be fair, this is really not a good analogy at all. The stock value is the cumulative effect of years of increases. If that cumulative value drops precipitiously in a month, it’s a tragic event that has just completely undid everything that was accomplished in the previous years up until that point. If temperatures track consistently high/low, and there is one anomalously low/high month, that one month doesn’t undo the cumulative effects of all those warm/cool months.
It might be more accurate to say that the anomaly of temperatures can be compared to the deviations of the stock market versus the average increase on a month by month basis, though I’m actually not sure what the value is in this line of comparison at all.
It may illustrate the point, but this analogy of temperature curves to the stock market is kind of apples-to-oranges misleading. Stocks return dividends on the investment as well as appreciation that is based on the productivity of the collection of companies in the market. That is, they convert human activity into value that accumulates. Temperature curves don’t include much of the productivity (ie, the little bit of sunlight energy remaining as new biomass and sequestered heat in the deep ocean after the vast majority has re-radiated into space).
Since many of us do not “own” AGW, we would have to sell short.
Potential buyers can be found on Andrew Revkin’s science blog in the NY Times. Most commenting there have touching, religious faith and simply do not believe facts which might undermine the accepted theory.
Yes, why was online trading on predictions, such as Intrade made illegal in the US? What a great way to put one’s money where one’s mouth was.
Gary (12:54:10) said:
“It may illustrate the point, but this analogy of temperature curves to the stock market is kind of apples-to-oranges misleading. Stocks return dividends on the investment as well as appreciation that is based on the productivity of the collection of companies in the market.”
And right about now, very few people are seeing any “interest” in this “prospectus”.
Henry-
And right about now, very few people are seeing any “interest” in this “prospectus”.
Buy low, sell high. 😉 The gov’t has caused a lot of the problems in the market just as it is about to cause a lot of problems with responding to warming (or potential cooling). The Fed devaluing the currency, the regulators encouraging the hedge fund speculation, the Congress wasting money on the “rebates”, etc. Save us from our “saviors.”
You guys are all wrong (dia. idiot, etc.). Stock price is based on future earnings. Stock price has no relation to past performance. Also, dividends have little effect on stock price even though companies that issue dividends like to think otherwise. Look at Microsoft or Dell (between 1991 and 2005), did they ever pay dividends? By doing so, did it ever hurt their stock price? No and No. Since following GW (or not) for the past 4 months, I can’t think of a better analogy than the stock market. People who don’t accept this analogy don’t seem to have a good understanding of the stock market, in my opinion.
Now, I’ll weigh in. Stock prices are a bubble driven by the Fed’s incessant creation of new money. What does a piece of common stock buy you except a small divident (sometimes) and the right to vote in shareholder meetings (seldom and rarely intelligently exercised) and the right to sell to a greater fool?
Speaking of stocks, if anyone is interested in making a reasonable long-term bet on decadel averages, myself, James Annan, Brian Schmidt, and a few others would probably be willing to take your up on it.
Tamino a fairly simple one awhile back :
“If annual average global temperature anomaly (land+ocean) from GISS exceeds 0.735 deg.C for two (not necessarily consecutive) years before it falls below the value 0.277455 + 0.018173 (t-1991) (where t is the year) for two (not necessarily consecutive) years, then the still-warming side wins; if it falls below the above equation for two years before it rises above 0.735 for two years, then the not-warming side wins.”
E.g. if the global mean annual temperature falls outside of two standard deviations of the 1975-2007 trend for more than two years, the no warming side wins. If global mean annual temperatures follow or exceed the current trend two the point where it exceeds two standard deviations above the “no warming” (zero slope) trend, the still warming side wins.
Of course, any bet of this nature would have to have a caveat that there is no sustained volcanic forcing outside the norm of the past 50 years or so. Similarly, any large meteor hits would also throw a wrench in things.
Ignore the decadel averages part, I changed my mind on what would be the best way to devise the terms halfway through writing, and didn’t proofread it before posting. Also, mia culpa on the formatting snafu.
Such a wimpy bet from Gavin and Tammiekins. Those ladies have no guts whatsoever.
A real bet? No caveats, either it warms or it doesn’t.
And I would insist on the UAH records not the mystery incantations coming out of Hadrut or GISS.
Exceeding two standard deviations over a no warming trend is a reasonable definition of “warming”. You aren’t going to get many people willing to bet that the third Tuesday in May 2013 will be warmer than the third Tuesday in May this year…
As far as caveats go, I’d argue that singling out exceptional sustained volcanism and meteor hits is perfectly reasonable, since neither can be predicted in advance and both can have significant climate impacts on a decadal timescale. Just make sure to strictly define what exactly exceptional volcanism would be, so its not a potential way to weasel out.
Sorry, those ladies have no…I’m really at a loss for finding family friendly synonyms, end of story.
Wait…Courage!
You know, for someone skeptical of the correlation between CO2 and warming, you certainly are quick to entertain a correlation between gender and bravery.
:-p
On a more serious note, its really not that complicated a bet. Hell, the picture is simple enough: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bet3.jpg