Three or more Poker... pound cost averaging in effect, and never in amounts which keep you awake or shake out in the lows. And diversify. Mho. Buy and sell when you choose or Mr Market's in control and he's a right ....... one.
One day boomerbower it will dawn on you that insults do not support your caee and that terminology and subjects as a whole are not uni dimensional.
Here are some scientists writing in an article published on the web interface for one of the longest standing and most respected scientific journals in existence. Nature. A journal I was using at uni long before the internet was heard of. It discusses ice ages as I have described the term. Look through scientific literature, you will find it is an extremely common usage, more commonly in general use in fact.
Mick, I suppose I see why Sinn Feinn do not attend parliament but if they acknowledged the state of the world as it is now and the ultimate aim to unite Ireland they might have more influence in what happens now including brexit. Too many principles and not enough practicality are not always good things. NI is a case in point in general. A sign how easily things could get out of hand there was the gigantic bonfire the police were powerless to prevent near blocks of flats the other day.
In terms of naming o the period if time you are right and there us more than one use of the term.
The relevant point is not so what a geological period is named however or if some ice can be found on one or more polar ice cap. Even with a glacial period inside the Quaternary the consensus estimate is another will only be along in around 50,000 years. The term used in any meaningful sense in gpaciopogy and vlimate science refers to a period of glaciation. In most scientific litrrature on the subject you will find "last ice age" refers to the one 11k years of so ago and the next one a possible one most likely in 50,000.
So technically, you are right the geological age is called the Quaternary ice age. Fortunately you are not in the fire service or you would be refusing to believe people complaining of fires in "Smoke free zones".
Both house and senate vote on trade agreements. For heavens aake Bokmer thinks he knows more about the American government than American senators now, or hopes other people believe he does.
The Quaternary "ice age" is a notional construct - a name given to a period of geological time which has historically included repeated periods of the advance of glacial ice sheets followed by warming. In the terms you mean - glaciology terms capable of impacting climate however an ice age is regarded as the time when we can meaningfully use the term as then extensive ice sheets advance over significant portions of the two hemispheres, towards median latitudes. In meaningful glaciology terms the last ice age ended around 11,500 years ago during the advent of the Holocene. We are now in an interglacial, when glaciers are predominantly receding, exaggerated climate scientists would say by global warming. The Mer de Glace is receding at 7.5 metres per year. We have no way of foretelling when or even if a true ice age in glaciology terms will return. Forecasts from a few thousand years, to 50,000 years to never have been suggested. i.e. we can not meaningfully say what happens next. The Quaternary ice age is another case of a name being used when it is of relatively limited meaning. A bit like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Carbon dioxide being "plant food" btw tells us nothing about its other properties - water is good for life - unless its breathed in.
I will definitely leave this one with you as it is well off topic. Enjoy.
Ah, the great mystery. Will we really ever know ? Mind you isn't there a Chitty Chiity bang Bang song along these lines ?
"Which will yer 'ev two bob or a florin, a 'apenny or two farvins,
Tuppence or two pennies - 'arry up I'm starvin"
All sung while the cast caper around a chestnut stall trying to decide how they want their change
No ? Thought not. I think this board is sending me delirious -I need to get an entry in the hosts file on this pc for it - the smartphone's harder.
Anyway Breton - try reading Investopaedia or Stockopaedia on buy backs and share consolidations Breton - good name btw.
Boomer - I will not try and correct all your climatic howlers as I don't think you did your homework on photosynthesis yet.
I will just try and subtly feed in the odd fact from time to time in case it helps. In which vein - We are not in an ice age as you repeatedly suggest, deepening or otherwise. The last ice age ended 11.500 years ago with the Holocene glacial recession. We are in an interglacial. You are not quite up to speed yet. The little ice age - not really an ice age ended in 1870. On the GI portion of the GIGO processing pathway you are registering high still. Your GO score is worse. Good luck.
The companies turned itself round from losses in a short time, paid out £20 billion in ppi due to past bad management and yet it's still now turning out good profits, 6.5% dividend and make sensible acqiisitions and buybacks in a low interest rate tough economy. With P/e of 9.1.
The risks on bad moves fron no 10 are high but its obvious they are prepared to throw cash at it if it will save their hides. Let's assume some common sense prevails to reduce uncertainty one way or another..... I'm strongly tempted to buy some more of this soon. I rarely mention such things as I believe in each to their own risk profile and money management. Might approach it with staged buys to average out purchases.
Aaperger's fantasy portfolio posts are excellent. Simple fact based and admirable in their objectivity. They illustrate his point perfectly that Lloyds is a share as investable as any other. If people can not work out that capital increase on a share depends when you buy and when you sell or that 6% and rising is a good dividend return they shouldn't be in shares. Those who panic and itch to sell when external events - likely to ultimately be resolved - push a share with good business fundamentals down nd start to get their wallets out at all time highs probably ought to think whether investing is for them. 70+ billion shares are held, 200 million of those ard bought just as much as sold each day roughly speaking. If you would not buy then there is not much sense in holding either. Investment is a tough place unless you face facts and act sensibly.
It seems some who do not like tariffs and trade barriers here are not aware we carry out 65% to 70% of our trade practically tariff free at the moment due to arrangements we have.
Otherwise why would they recommend scrapping those arrangement in the hope we get a deal on 11% of our trade in two or three years with an unreluanle and aggressive country.