Get started

Co2

ECF CO2 Credits, Accumulation pattern?(Chart view looks weird, see image below instead) Here's a pattern I've enjoyed emerging for the past few months. It seems to not be following the usual rules regarding support and resistance lines, which is why I missed it at first. That is likely due to the nature of these CO2 credits and the way they are traded. To me it seems pretty clear that it at least follows a classic Wyckoff Accumulation pattern to some degree. Could be a coincidence, who knows? I've been lucky so far since finding this curious wyckoff similarity. It will be very interesting to see how well it will finish the schematic. I'm trading the certificate TRACK CO2 VON (Nordic MTF) for these movements.
ICEEUR:ECF1!Long
by virkot
1
Major climate change alarmist defects, apologizes for the scareGetting proven right again, I like it. You know you keep hearing you "can't be right all the time". You can. What you cannot do is predict with 100% accuracy what idiots are going to do. Even taking into account famous & hyped company being overvalued, as well as latest technology ones. You can't tell if you're human when suckers will stop buying Tesla (hype company and "new" 200 years old company) at 100 times its valuation. But being always right about reality, about hard facts ye that's easy. Climate fearmongers are defecting. What has gotten into them? Remorse? They believed the lies but those got so big they started questionning them? Maybe they saw the wind change direction and are following the new trend? Maybe they're afraid their extreme ridiculous fearmongering has started losing them support? Maybe the organisations saw Trump defund the WHO and as good scammers they want to make sure their primary goal is fulfilled: getting money? Or maybe they don't want to be laughed at in the future. Let me present to you Mike Shellenberger, a major climate change promoter. Time magazine Hero of the Environment, winner of the 2008 Green Book Award, founder and president of Environmental Progress, an organisation behind several public campaigns. So one of their top guys. How satisfying it is to write this. He recently released a book revealing the hoax, and a few days ago on Forbes he wrote an article where he apologized for the climate scare. Of course you know what happened, the article was immediately deleted and he is now a bad person. The article was reposted on the environmentalprogress.org and has not been cancelled since, you know, it's his site and all. Talking of the media dirty lies, it's getting pretty cold again damn, was cold in June - not a word by the media - then it started getting a little hot and OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING GO GO GO 5000 ARTICLES ARE OUT aaaaand nope, cold again, so media silence again 🤣. It's just so ridiculous. He is getting compared to Trump and braindead journalists that write about successful people and get envious whine that he is just trying to get people to argue rather than "look at the real issues" and he is just looking for attention. Haha. The defector made a list of climate hoax false claims: 1- Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”. 2- The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world” 3- Climate change is not making natural disasters worse 4- Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003 5- The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska 6- The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California 7- Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s 8- Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level 9- We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter 10- Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change 11- Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels 12- Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup and yup. Geee, I feel bad now, I did hours of research... All I had to do was wait to get it all for free, 0 mental effort. Here you have it. Feel free to enjoy looking and laughing at dumb sheep shout "climate denier" at this guy. The world will not stop using Oil. In particular west Africa (the gold coast) should develop faster as the westerners lose their grip on them, preventing them from using fossil fuels. Of course this takes time, the reversal trend of climate alarmism has only started. People started having doubts and doing their own research (including me) when the fearmongering got to really absurd levels "we all gunna die we must sacrifice the babies to appease the sun god". Oil will remain cheap during the depression, then as economies recover, price will go up. No agriculture countries (Zimbabwe) and in particular no agriculture and heavilly reliant on Oil countries (Algeria) will starve to death, but it will be followed by a big bright recovery. Even the biblical black death in Europe was followed by a mighty recovery. Edit: Brainwashed idiots love to come up with incredible arguments such as "Ooga booga gravity is just a theory so go jump off a tall building then" Here is how to humiliate them: Let them know that Newton theory of gravity was WRONG. Einstein proved that it was wrong. They'll be in denial and still argue but if there are other people around they should point at the clown and laugh with you.
NYMEX:CL1!
by MrRenev
3
Food prices to keep getting cheaper [+Photosynthesis tuto]Seems like an easy prediction. With rising levels of CO2 agri prices will keep going down. And I guess interest in soft commodity futures will keep going down. Especially noobs, they could not care less, they want to chase the next high tech big thing that will make them rich, er typo I mean that will make them lose their shirt. Statistically they are better off playing lottery or going to the casino. Until we run out of fertilizers (At current consumption levels, we will run out of known phosphorus reserves in around 80 years, but consumption will not stay at current levels). Unless we replace those by a new type of fertilizer OR find more phosphorus. Brace yourselves for yet a new mass hysteria clownery "the world will end soon because we will run out of phosphorus". Remember "we will run out of water" "world will get overpopulated" "co2 will cause mass extinctions" "acid rains will destroy everything" and so on. I think fertilizers support half of the planet population, this means they double yields. And CO2 increased yields by something like 20% I think. I can 100% guarentee without a single doubt there will be a "science settled very serious" mass hysteria fear about fertilizers (P) levels getting low in the future lmao. This is what plants need: Plants also need magnesium and sulfur. Not sure what else. I think they can synthesize all vitamins from C H O N but I really don't know for sure. I just know those are the typical atoms in vitamins. Expressed in dollars, the monetary benefit: www.co2science.org An extract: I think that to produce 1kg of grain something like 100 liters of water is required. Just because that's how it has been for centuries does not mean it is "normal". If one is actually able to think out of his little box and little dogmas, he would realize agriculture uses huge amounts of water, and also, many plants (C4 type - not to be mistaken with the explosives) have even evolved to be more water efficient and to survive with very little CO2. I think also when you measure the CO2 around crops during the day you notice they sucked it all up (concentration is down a big amount maybe 50%). So anyway, as CO2 goes up, plants will use less water (or use the same amount to grow bigger). There is going to be possibly new plants evolve, the old world plants will make a comeback, and alot more but I'll save this for another idea. The CO2 famine is over for plants they're going to take over. Here is corn & sugar: I don't know how agr companies work... Better productivity means they get more productive? But prices drop so they make less? They probably are undervalued right? At least compared to high tech for sure. Of course this is all cancelled if primitive monkeys of abysmal stupidity remove CO2 from our atmosphere "to save the planet".
CBOT:ZS1!Short
by MrRenev
2
Speculating on global warming amount, and future trendHello, in this pseudo-science idea I try to get a vague idea of how unrealistic is thinking earth will just turn into a fireball, and quantify all this. It's all unprecise and no idea what the real numbers are but I'll work with worse case scenarios and min max, as to get an idea of what order of magnitude to expect. The idea is really not to get a precise estimate but an idea of the possible MIN and MAX. I'll assume the following: Between AD 1000 and 1800 CO2 atmospheric levels were around 280, and from 1800 to 2000 they rose to 400, let's assume all 120 was manmade (past 10,000 years levels have been very slowly going up so it makes sense to believe it was mostly manmade). We have enough fossil fuels to burn to raise earth atmosphere levels by 1000 ppm including idk 200 from melting ice. I haven't been able to find how much co2 would melting all ice release (what a surprise) and neither a good estimate of how much burning all reserves would do (you'd think they would bother looking at this if their lives were threatened). But considering 6.66 times what we emitted already since 1800 I think is fair. Some data: Earth's atmosphere contains 3,200,000,000,000 (3.2 trillion) tonnes of CO2 (0.04%). Earth mass = 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg. The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. No atmosphere there (10 metric tonnes...). Moon mass = 7.347 x 10²² kg (1.23% earth). Water is earth bigger warming contributor. When CO2 goes up, plants may be able to take more H20 in, also NASA has observed earth and it is greener. So, when CO2 goes up, water, the top global warming gaz, gets sucked up from the atmosphere. No idea how big of a difference this makes. Temperatures: Earth 289°K Venus 743°K Mercury 700 degrees Kelvin in the day, minus 93 K at night. Average temperature of 440 K. Mars 213 deg K or 218K??? Moon 379°K at day, 90°K at night. Pressures: Earth 1- Considering there is a direct correlation between CO2 quantity & temperature. a- Compared to Mars Mars is 11% the size of earth, and 95% of its atmosphere is CO2. There is 23,750,000,000,000 (23.75 trillion) tonnes. +6 degrees assuming all of those 6 degrees are cause by CO2, means an increase of 0.25263°K per trillion tonne of CO2. Also we assume earth has the same correlation. So say you increase earth CO2 up to 1400 ppm. The quantity of CO2 goes from 3.2 trillion tonnes to 11.2, or 8*10^12 tonnes are added. ==> +2°K/°C or + 3.6°F. An increase of 120 ppm using this formula would cause + 0.2425°C or 0.4365°F. Since industrial age temperature went up 0.7°C if I recall. So it seems plausible that a third of it was due to human activity (and 2/3 because of natural activities). Not sure how much it went up since the end of the little ice age in 1850. Mercury has +4 degrees. What if we assume Mars has the same? And so then CO2 only amounts to + 2 degrees? Then: + 1000 ppm in earth atmosphere ==> +0.666°K/°C or + 1.2°F Since the industrial age ==> +0.08°K/°C or 0.144°F Which seems plausible and reasonable. b- Compared to Venus Venus has ridiculously high levels of CO2. +503 degrees (K/C) for 460 million trillion tonnes of CO2. H20 is too small to be relevant here. So same, we just assume direct correlation. For every trillion tonne of CO2 added, temperature goes up 1,093478e-6 (0,000001093478) °K. + 1000 ppm ==> +8 trillion tonnes = 0,00000875 degrees Since the industrial age ==> + ~ 0,000001 degrees 2- And I won't go further but we could include planet size, atm pressure, other factors... For example, since mars is much smaller than earth, one could assume that 1 tonne of CO2 has a greater effect on Mars than on Earth. 3- What about comparing to earth? If we assume all warming since the little ice age was man made? First I doubt this is true. Temperatures were in the low area of support historically. And it started going up before emissions. But say we assume 0.8°K were the cause of human activities. In the 1950/1960 to 2000 period, when harmful chemicals were being released in the atmosphere (CFCs etc), temperature went up about 0.65°K. So outside of this we got a +0.2°K in 100 years? And temperature has flattened or barely went up since 2000. Well that depends how "adjusted" your data is. So without CFCs what? +0.25°K for a 120 ppm increase? It's all speculation, this is so unscientific. So at most +2.08°K for a 1000 ppm increase. This is consistent with the estimate using mars. For me, the absolute max, if all of earth warming was manmade is 2 degrees for an increase of 1000 ppm (8.33 what man has emitted until now). How much can CO2 concentrations go up realistically? Between 2000 and 2020 the level went up from 370 to 410, so +40. Between 1980 and 2000 the level went up from 340 to 370, so +30. Between 1960 and 1980 the level went up from 320 to 340, so +20. USA emissions have peaked in 2000 or the early 2000s and is declining. China peaked if I recall. Europe peaked. Then the big ones are India and Africa. Well anyway, let's say it keeps going up a bit then peaks at double what is is now, 80 every 20 years. Let's say for the next 100 years this is what we get. 5 * 80 = 400 ppm. This would lead to an increase of 400 ppm. Maybe a bit more with ice melting, but this won't be hundreds. We probably will get at most half of the 1000 I used in my examples. So if I were to bet money, I would not bet on an average of more than 1 Kelvin for the next 100 years. At the very most, but probably under that. The effect of CO2 on °K has to be more complex than a simple linear correlation, and there has to be diminishing returns. It is a shame we don't have historical water contents, not that I know of. All I know is that CO2 and H20 were super high billions of years ago when life appeared. But anyway, that 0.00014% to 33% of the rise in temperatures since the end of the little ice age can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 seems reasonable. 1 to 10% seems the most reasonable but this isn't a fact. Also there is the small detail that earth temperature went up sharply exactly as Chlorofluorocarbons levels went up, and after their levels topped in 1990, earth temperature topped... Tiny irrelevant detail I know. Here are all the greenhouse gases concentrations (except water): cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov Methane is pretty annoying I don't see how we could stop this one without all starving. Red meat is a big problem, and for some reason people are obssessed with red meat. We can't increase methane levels tremendously forever. I'm not too worried about CO2, we'll run up of fossil fuels eventually, and raising the levels a bit helps plants grow, I just don't see how bad it can be. CFCs and other crap (Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), PFC-14 (CF4)) have thousands of times the global warming potential CO2 has even according to "the establishment" that hates CO2, and stay in the atmosphere for millenias. BUT we finally stopped trolling and polluting the planet with this crap. That was really insane. Methane thought... that one could be a big nuisance. Agriculture is releasing levels so huge. It disappears fast but does it just turn to CO2? If it peaks at a few thousands parts per billion, that's only a few ppm, and this disappears in 25 years, it would not add much CO2. A constant methane level that does some warming and then a tiny increase of CO2 level, maybe that's not that scary. Over the long term thought what would happen? All of this also agrees with the global warming going on Mars. With all the crazies that think they are going to die you'd think we'd know more on the subject... www.nasa.gov You also got Pluto that is warming while it distances itself from the sun. www.newscientist.com But it could be a coincidence, that thing alarmists deny exists. Correlation does not imply causation, unless it fits your agenda. Also, there could be a snowball effect with CO2 increasing water level in the atmosphere, but if this was the case we can all be absolutely certain we would know about it. We would not hear the end of it. There is either no increase in water levels, or they are even diminishing. If it never gets mentionned there is zero data than it is that it does not fit their agenda. Ok I found something about humidity: www.climate4you.com Surface humidity stayed flat. It's tiring to have to fight throught tons of idiotic nonsense and fear mongering and half truths to get any crumbs of data. High up it has been flat or slightly downtrending. Actually went up a little when temperature did not. And down or flat when temperature went up. I figured CFCs caused the big uptrend in earth temperature from 1950 to 2000 but I actually found a paper claiming CFCs caused global warming? Weird I never heard of this... Censorship I guess. Haven't read it yet. phys.org So I guess the trend will continue, at least small: Slight cooling for the next decades as cancer chemicals in the air levels decline or maybe the warming trend overtakes the cooling one in any case I don't expect any major move, better farmland yields with more CO2, better living conditions as long as fossil fuel reserves are high. I also expect more "data adjustments", temperature charts with extreme isolated points rather than year averages, still no answer as to why ocean temperature went up, and more 12 year ultimatums lmao pathetic liers. Well that's enough thinking for now. All I know is I won't invest in renewable companies for now. Electric cars? Never. Biofuels are good but it's 50-100 years early. I really love the idea of hydroplants also.
NYMEX:CL1!Education
by MrRenev
3
Short sell the disgusting climate hoax"It's very hard for people to reject what they have been taught their entire life since they were children even when presented with the evidence". WEAK. Literally took me 1 second after seing the data to change my mind about the lies I was spoon fed my entire life since I was 5. Donald Trump administration finally went against the dogma. Retiring scientists (their careers cannot be ruined anymore) are standing up to the establishment. The truth is out and it will spread. We live in the internet age. They can try censoring it, but you cannot censor the whole internet. The truth will spread. And all the GARBAGE, wasting, nature killing (ironic) companies built on the lie will collapse. If you do not want an elite to control the world, push europe & na in misery, keep africa poor and even exterminate them, then you are a racist and a holocaust denier - er I mean "climate" denier. Climate change logic at its finest. They are actually dumber than middle ages witch burning peasants. And history does not exactly paint a very flattering image of those. Facts don't matter, "approved" facts is what matters to them. They disgust me so much. And why are they so eager for news not to cover their buddy Epstein? It might steal valuable time from the climate change "only 10 years left" urgency? It's all for the good cause right? Wait until we get the short interest on Tesla. Already shorting a company overrun by brainwashed cultists & Robinhood ignorant gamblers. Let's not also join a crowded short. Don't go against the herd, as dumb as they might be. In the past century there have been hundreds of stock market and real estate bubbles, stock bubbles happened in particular in "new tech" stocks that mainstream media talks about alot. In the past century how many bubbles have there been in corporate bonds? Take a guess. Zero. Not one. Tells you everything you have to know. If Bitcoin taught us something it's that retail is VERY SLOW to understand things and react, especially when it goes against what they want to hear. They can even ignore it. So I expect a downtrend to be slow. If institutions are the main player in something they are so fast that you can't even get filled so it's not good either :( Pros to short: Tesla is not profitable, it's a trash company based on hype and Elon being a manipulative celebrity. Climate change threat is an obvious lie. Literally takes 15 minutes to debunk 97% of their claims. Near ath resistance & 1.236 extension of a sucker rally. Cons to short: The stock market in general could be entering its last phase, the parabolic run up. Noobish morons cause bubbles, and will randomly buy anything. Overcrowded short (we will know this soon). Short at around 375 with a SL slightly above ath, or sell puts. Or be long DJI/SPX while short TSLA.
NASDAQ:TSLAShort
by MrRenev
36
GROW Double BottomDowntrend over last few weeks may be over as todays bullish engulfing shows signs of reversal. Watch for break of 0.35 to confirm bull break from falling wedge. Close above 0.35 would also be a hammer on the weekly chart. Good buy right now with strong support at 0.30, price target at recent tops of 0.51, potentially higher with any good news releases. Upcoming catalysts include new contract signings, approval for use of technology on cannabis and more agro-industrial partnerships.
TSXV:GROWLong
by Unlikely-Bite
1