|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 26, 2021 0:53:36 GMT
With me you got 3 singular choices ... he, she & it.  "They" requires that you talk to yourself. I suppose that "you" would work. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jul 26, 2021 1:53:27 GMT
With me you got 3 singular choices ... he, she & it. "They" requires that you talk to yourself. I suppose that "you" would work. YOU obviously need sensitivity training.  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 26, 2021 2:02:48 GMT
With me you got 3 singular choices ... he, she & it. "They" requires that you talk to yourself. I suppose that "you" would work. YOU obviously need sensitivity training. My sensi is fine. It's the tivity that could use some levitation.  |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jul 26, 2021 12:47:16 GMT
YOU obviously need sensitivity training. My sensi is fine. It's the tivity that could use some levitation. You obviously don't understand the gravity of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 26, 2021 13:39:53 GMT
My sensi is fine. It's the tivity that could use some levitation. You obviously don't understand the gravity of the situation. it's true ... but I know that really sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 28, 2021 16:41:46 GMT
Was reading a Zerohedge article and it occurred to me whether the following is true of climate models (and their outputs) as well. Billions of dollars later and they still aren;t worth a damn at projecting a trend. Perhaps some high-dollar gamblers could produce better results. Fire the professors and hire some mercenaries. www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-07-28/treasury-yields-crash-experts-scramble-clues-trend-followers-profitSo why don’t trend following still get no respect?
While the conventional econometric research tends to produce analyses that can take a great deal of time and effort to digest, systematic trend following produces the ultimate product of market analysis: clear, unambiguous, executable decisions. Furthermore, the effectiveness of systematic decisions can be accurately measured. This trait alone should make them very valuable to investors. But in spite of all this, the expert class continues to regard trend following with a certain disdain as though it does not merit the inclusion in the curriculum of serious market professionals.
The reason for this is not performance-related, but largely cultural: namely, most of today’s market professionals were trained in the Cartesian tradition which validates rigorous scientific method aimed at uncovering linear cause-and-effect relationships that supposedly allow us to understand and explain world events. But the whole objective of investing and managing risk is to generate positive returns, not to craft sophisticated discourses about markets. Evidence and experience strongly suggest that in spite of the enormous resources and intellectual horse-power involved, “fundamentals” research has failed to offer effective and reliable decision support to market participants. Chart analysis and systematic trend following undeniably have. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jul 28, 2021 20:52:15 GMT
Was reading a Zerohedge article and it occurred to me whether the following is true of climate models (and their outputs) as well. Billions of dollars later and they still aren;t worth a damn at projecting a trend. Perhaps some high-dollar gamblers could produce better results. Fire the professors and hire some mercenaries. www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-07-28/treasury-yields-crash-experts-scramble-clues-trend-followers-profitSo why don’t trend following still get no respect?
While the conventional econometric research tends to produce analyses that can take a great deal of time and effort to digest, systematic trend following produces the ultimate product of market analysis: clear, unambiguous, executable decisions. Furthermore, the effectiveness of systematic decisions can be accurately measured. This trait alone should make them very valuable to investors. But in spite of all this, the expert class continues to regard trend following with a certain disdain as though it does not merit the inclusion in the curriculum of serious market professionals.
The reason for this is not performance-related, but largely cultural: namely, most of today’s market professionals were trained in the Cartesian tradition which validates rigorous scientific method aimed at uncovering linear cause-and-effect relationships that supposedly allow us to understand and explain world events. But the whole objective of investing and managing risk is to generate positive returns, not to craft sophisticated discourses about markets. Evidence and experience strongly suggest that in spite of the enormous resources and intellectual horse-power involved, “fundamentals” research has failed to offer effective and reliable decision support to market participants. Chart analysis and systematic trend following undeniably have." Fire the professors and hire some mercenaries." ... and some historians? |
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 29, 2021 3:03:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 29, 2021 5:04:18 GMT
The Yale thing is one of the poorest book reviews I have ever read. It is based on the idea that climate change is detrimental. Climate has never been static. The review misses that fact by a mile. Large uncertainty ranges of climate models isn't bad per se. It means they have flunked the scientific method which requires duplication of output given an identical set of parameters. Not sure who wrote this review, certainly someone not qualified to understand the scientific method. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 30, 2021 17:59:44 GMT
The Yale thing is one of the poorest book reviews I have ever read. It is based on the idea that climate change is detrimental. Climate has never been static. The review misses that fact by a mile. Large uncertainty ranges of climate models isn't bad per se. It means they have flunked the scientific method which requires duplication of output given an identical set of parameters. Not sure who wrote this review, certainly someone not qualified to understand the scientific method. It was written by a former student of the author. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 30, 2021 18:36:13 GMT
The Yale thing is one of the poorest book reviews I have ever read. It is based on the idea that climate change is detrimental. Climate has never been static. The review misses that fact by a mile. Large uncertainty ranges of climate models isn't bad per se. It means they have flunked the scientific method which requires duplication of output given an identical set of parameters. Not sure who wrote this review, certainly someone not qualified to understand the scientific method. It was written by a former student of the author. First name of Grant? |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 30, 2021 23:48:10 GMT
The Yale thing is one of the poorest book reviews I have ever read. It is based on the idea that climate change is detrimental. Climate has never been static. The review misses that fact by a mile. Large uncertainty ranges of climate models isn't bad per se. It means they have flunked the scientific method which requires duplication of output given an identical set of parameters. Not sure who wrote this review, certainly someone not qualified to understand the scientific method. It was written by a former student of the author. I recognize that fact. Doesn't change my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Aug 3, 2021 14:31:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Aug 6, 2021 18:02:22 GMT
It was written by a former student of the author. First name of Grant? NO? It is Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by code on Aug 6, 2021 18:06:14 GMT
I am enjoying the book.
Quote:
"The earth's temperature results from a crucial balance between warming by sunlight and cooling by heat radiated back out into space."
The earths' reflectivity (albedo) is about .30 but if it were to increase to .31 because of say cloudiness, the additional reflectivity would largely compensate for the warming influence of doubling of the atmosphere's CO2.
|
|
