Der Handel mit binären Optionen

Der Handel mit binären Optionen ist seit dem Bekanntwerden des größten Brokers namens anyoption in Verruf geraten.

Den anyoption hat es geschafft innerhalb weniger Jahren ein Multi-Millionen Business aufzubauen und das Ganze hat er mit dem Handel von binären Optionen bewerkstelligt.

Dementsprechend ist anyoption einerseits eine schillernde Persönlichkeit für viele Händler und Käufer von binären Optionen, als auch ein abschreckendes Beispiel dafür, dass binäre Optionen ein hohes Risikopotenzial an Manipulationen beinhalten. Entsprechend probiert die EU seit dem Jahre 2012 diesen Markt verstärkt zu regulieren. Zypern ist mit eines der ersten Länder, die den binären Handel über Anyoption als eines ihrer Finanzinstrumente regulieren. Im Jahre 2013 zog der Staat Malta nach. Der binäre Handel in Malta wurde vor 2013 von der Glücksspielbehörde reguliert und liegt nun unter staatlicher Finanzaufsicht. Der binäre Handel wird oftmals von erfahrenen Broker als „Wetteinsatz“ verunglimpft. Als Käufer wird einem sehr schnell die Gewinnchancen auf dem Tisch gelegt, wobei hingegen die hohen Verlustrisiken gar nicht ihre Erwähnung finden.

Die einzige Seite, die bei einer Kaufabwicklung von binären Optionen profitiert ist der Händler selbst. Denn vollkommen unabhängig davon, ob der Investor Gewinne oder Verluste erzielt, wird der Händler in beiden Fällen seine Gebühren einnehmen oder gegebenenfalls auch seine Prämie erhalten. Nicht nur die Tatsache, dass der Handel mit binären Optionen eine außerbörsliche Plattform zur Verfügung braucht, sondern eines der Umstände, weshalb der binäre Handel in Verruf geraten ist, ist die Tatsache, das die Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen der Händler für den Laien durchsichtig seien. Erfahrene Broker sind der Meinung, dass mit dem Handeln von binären Optionen langfristig keine all zu hohen Gewinne zu erwarten sind.

Sondern für den Käufer eher das hohe Verlustrisiken bergen. Daher wird oftmals der Handel mit binären Optionen abgeraten. Im Jahre 2013 lief in den USA ein großes Verfahren gegen etliche Banken, die gegen die Vorschriften des amerikanischen Finanzmarktes mit dem Handel von binären Optionen verstoßen haben. Drei Jahre später, also im Jahre 2016, wurden die besagten Bank zu einer Zahlung von Schadensersatz an die Anleger in Höhe von 7,1 Millionen US-Dollar bestraft und eine weitere Geldstrafe von 2 Millionen US-Dollar. Der Handel mit binären Optionen zieht viele Broker an die eine hohe Risikobereitschaft aufweisen. Aufgrund dieses Umstandes einer hohen Risikobereitschaft mit dem Handel von binären Optionen, wird die binäre Optionen Broker nicht nur in Verruf gebracht, sondern bietet auch etlichen Händlern die Möglichkeit den Handel von binären Optionen zu manipulieren


The Axis of Climate Evil controls future of life on Earth

So what else is new?

At this point the evidence for human-caused global warming just keeps getting more overwhelming, and the plausible scenarios for the future — extreme weather events, rising sea levels, drought, and more — just keep getting scarier.

In a rational world, urgent action to limit climate change would be the

overwhelming policy priority for governments everywhere.

But the U.S. government is, of course, now controlled by a party within which climate denial — rejecting not just scientific evidence but also obvious lived experience, and fiercely opposing any effort to slow the trend — has become a defining marker of tribal identity.

Put it this way: Republicans can’t seem to repeal Obamacare, and recriminations between Senate leaders and the tweeter in chief are making headlines.

But the GOP is completely united behind its project of destroying civilization, and it’s making good progress toward that goal.

So where does climate denial come from?

Just to be clear, experts aren’t always right; even an overwhelming scientific

consensus sometimes turns out to have been wrong.

And if someone offers a good-faith critique of conventional views, a serious effort to get at the truth, he or she deserves a hearing.

What becomes clear to anyone following the climate debate, however, is that hardly any climate skeptics are in fact trying to get at the truth.

I’m not a climate scientist, but I do know what bogus arguments look like

— and I can’t think of a single prominent climate skeptic who isn’t obviously arguing in bad faith.

Take, for example, all the people who seized on the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year to claim that global warming stopped 20 years ago — as if one unseasonably hot day in May proves that summer is a myth.

Or all the people who cited out-of-context quotes from climate researchers as evidence of a vast scientific conspiracy.

Or for that matter, think of anyone who cites “uncertainty” as a reason to do nothing — when it should be obvious that the risks of faster-than-expected climate change if we do too little dwarf the risks of doing too much if change is slower than expected.

The answer, I’d argue, is that there are actually three groups involved — a sort of axis of climate evil.

First, and most obvious, there’s the fossil fuel industry — think the Koch brothers — which has an obvious financial stake in continuing to sell dirty energy.

And the industry — following the same well-worn path industry groups used to create doubt about the dangers of tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, and more — has systematically showered money on think tanks and scientists willing to express skepticism about climate change.

Many — perhaps even most — authors purporting to cast doubt on global warming turn out, on investigation, to have received financial support from the fossil fuel sector.

Still, the mercenary interests of fossil fuel companies aren’t the whole story here. There’s also ideology.

An influential part of the U.S. political spectrum — think The Wall Street Journal editorial page — is opposed to any and all forms of government economic regulation; it’s committed to Reagan’s doctrine that government is always the problem, never the solution.

Such people have always had a problem with pollution: When unregulated individual actions impose costs on others, it’s hard to see how you avoid supporting some form of government intervention.

And climate change is the mother of all pollution issues.

Some conservatives are willing to face this reality and support market-friendly intervention to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

But all too many prefer simply to deny the existence of the issue — if facts conflict with their ideology, they deny the facts.

Finally, there are a few public intellectuals — less important than the plutocrats and ideologues, but if you ask me even more shameful — who adopt a pose of climate skepticism out of sheer ego.

In effect, they say: “Look at me! I’m smart! I’m contrarian! I’ll show you how clever I am by denying the scientific consensus!”

And for the sake of this posturing, they’re willing to nudge us further down the road to catastrophe.

Which brings me back to the current political situation.

Right now progressives are feeling better than they expected to a few months ago: Donald Trump and his frenemies in Congress are accomplishing a lot less than they hoped, and their opponents feared.

But that doesn’t change the reality that the axis of climate evil is now firmly in control of U.S. policy, and the world may never recover.

Environment reacts

Acid rain is quite a popular term these days. Environmental scientists describe it as an adverse effect of increasing pollution due to recent human activities. But even before humans started evolving on earth, proof of acid rains have been found. It was around 250 million years ago; the most devastating case of mass extinction in earth’s history was caused by acid rain due to volcanic eruption in the Siberian region. It eradicated around 90% of marine and 70% of terrestrial species.

Acidity of rain is measured using the pH scale. The scale considers water as neutral (pH – 7). A pH of less than 7 is acidic and a pH greater than 7 is basic. Coffee is slightly acidic (pH – 5.5) whereas lemon juice is more acidic (pH – 2.5). This is a logarithmic scale, which means pH 4 is 10 times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 time more acidic than pH 6.

Surprisingly, rain is always acidic compared to water. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gets dissolved in the clouds to form a weak acid called carboxylic acid. So scientists consider a pH of 5.6 as neutral pH in the case of rainwater. Sulphur dioxide and Nitrogen dioxide, emitted from cars and various industries, make rainwater more acidic. Falling raindrops capture significant amount of these gasses and particles suspended in the air to form a complex mixture before arriving on the ground.

So how acidic could rainwater be? Studies say it could be as low as pH 2. This highly acidic water can directly affect human eye and skin. Fish and amphibians can die instantly. Leeching of nutrients from soil due to long term acidic rains leads to destruction of forest ecosystems. But fortunately, rains with high acidity are very rare. Alarmingly, acidic rains in highly polluted cities are being recorded all over the world.

Forms of Acid Deposition

Wet Deposition

Wet deposition is what we most commonly think of as acid rain.  The sulfuric and nitric acids formed in the atmosphere fall to the ground mixed with rain, snow, fog, or hail.

Dry Deposition

Acidic particles and gases can also deposit from the atmosphere

in the absence of moisture as dry deposition.  The acidic particles and gases may deposit to surfaces (water bodies, vegetation, buildings) quickly or may react during atmospheric transport to form larger particles that can be harmful to human health. When the accumulated acids are washed off a surface by the next rain, this acidic water flows over and through the ground, and can harm plants and wildlife, such as insects and fish.

The amount of acidity in the atmosphere that deposits to earth through dry deposition depends on the amount of rainfall an area receives.  For example, in desert areas the ratio of dry to wet deposition is higher than an area that receives several inches of rain each year.


Acid rain battle must be continued

Why should New Yorkers care about what’s going on in Maryland?

Because what affects Maryland also is affecting the state’s vast Adirondack Park.

It’s called acid rain.

Earlier this week, the Adirondack Council joined with the state of Maryland and a coalition of environmental and health organizations to file a notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its failure to require Midwest power plants to turn on already-installed pollution control equipment at power plants that burn coal.

Turning on the equipment is required under the Clean Air Act. Air pollution from the Midwest smokestacks harms the Adirondack Park and sensitive areas throughout the Northeast. Many Adirondack lakes — and the fish and plant life they support — have been devastated over the years by acid rain, created when the coal-burning plants spew sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air. The toxins are carried east by prevailing winds and fall to earth as acid rain, virtually wiping out aquatic life in many lakes and ponds throughout the park.

Back in the 1980s and 90s, former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New Hartford, led efforts to pass landmark clean-air legislation to battle what he called “a cancer in the sky.” But acid rain is an insidious enemy, and even decades after clean-air legislation took effect, many lakes have been slow to recover.

Nature heals slowly. And in ensuing years, other legislators representing parts of the Adirondack Park — former Rep. John McHugh, R-Watertown, and former Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica — worked to strengthen clean-air legislation to protect the park.

The EPA’s failure to enforce use

of the already-installed pollution control equipment at power plants that burn coal is a giant step backward. As the Adirondack Council rightly notes: Acid rain has killed high-elevation forests and destroyed wildlife habitat. It alters forest soils, releasing toxic metals from otherwise harmless compounds. These metals harm tree growth and destroy fish gills. Fish that survive accumulate mercury in their flesh, as does everything that eats fish, including people.

Smog, too, the Council notes, has been identified as a problem in parts of the Park. Air pollution generated in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky, for example, is carried by upper air currents across Adirondack mountaintops. Climbers and hikers who venture above 3,000 feet can find themselves breathing air that is far smoggier than the air at base camp. Maryland’s smog problems cannot be solved without cuts from upwind polluters.

The Council, in partnershjip with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), lead the effort to force the EPA to take action. It’s a mission that must be pursued. Acid rain has been a scourge for too many years, and while some progress has been made, we still have a way for go. Protecting the environment that includes our precious Adirondacks must not be compromised.






A tornado is a rapidly rotating column of air that is in contact with both the surface of the Earth and a cumulonimbus cloud or, in rare cases, the base of a cumulus cloud. They are often referred to as twisters, whirlwinds or cyclones,[1] although the word cyclone is used in meteorology to name a weather system with a low-pressure area in the center around which winds blow counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern.[2] Tornadoes come in many shapes and sizes, and they are often visible in the form of a condensation funnel originating from the base of a cumulonimbus cloud, with a cloud of rotating debris and dust beneath it. Most tornadoes have wind speeds less than 110 miles per hour (180 km/h), are about 250 feet (80 m) across, and travel a few miles (several kilometers) before dissipating. The most extreme tornadoes can attain wind speeds of more than 300 miles per hour (480 km/h), are more than two miles (3 km) in diameter, and stay on the ground for dozens of miles (more than 100 km).[3][4][5]

Farmers advised on water and soil management

While no one knows exactly which mix of factors and to what extent those factors are causing algal blooms on Lake Erie, it’s clear among the scientific community that, in the western basin, farmers are at the very least playing a significant role.

Along with sunlight, the release of soil nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen through farm field runoff helps create environments in waterways where harmful algal blooms can form, threatening health outcomes in the area and putting a major damper on the region’s tourism and fishing industry dollars.

That’s why former Kentucky farmer, Dr. Kevin King, research leader and supervisory research agricultural engineer with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service-Soil Drainage Research Unit was on hand at the Williams Soil and Water Conservation District’s Field Technology Day to discuss possible solutions and to enlist farmers’ help in further understanding the problem.

According to King, testing at 80 fields across 40 sites has revealed that drainage from tiles contains a phosphorus concentration of about .05-.06 parts per million (ppm), right at the level accepted through an agreement between the U.S. and Canada.

“Our tile is just about there,” King said, noting that some individual sites rich in phosphorous do contain much higher concentrations.

However, surface flow drainage contains concentrations of about 0.2 ppm on average.

While tile drainage accounts for anywhere from 40 to 95 percent of annual discharge, surface drainage’s higher concentration remains a bigger issue, according to King.

“Concentration is what really feeds the algal bloom,” he said.

King noted that the region has had 4,500 rainfall events since 2010 and that individual rainfall events totaling 1.5 to 2 inches or more cause the loss of 60 to 70 percent of all nutrients leaving test sites.

“If we can store 1.5 to 2 inches of rain in our landscape or at the edge of the field, then we can go a long way to reduce the amount of nutrients going downstream and eventually in the lake,” King said, listing possible solutions like elevating tiles at certain times of the year and planting cover crops, though he noted those ideas may not work for everyone.

King said for every 1 percent of organic matter in soil, 3 quarters of an inch of water can be stored. Organic matter can be restored through no-till practices and manure application.

When informally polled by King about who had water management plans, of the dozens of farmers in attendance only several raised their hands. A group of farmers estimated less than 50 percent of farmers practice water management.

However, King said 93 percent of farmers in the region test their soil at least once per crop rotation. Over-application of phosphorous-containing manure over many years is believed to be a contributor to the issue. Some 5 percent of farmed acreage in the western Lake Erie basin contains phosphorous levels of 150-200 ppm.

King mentioned a farmer who hasn’t applied phosphorous in five years who haven’t seen a drop in yield.

“It’s not a large percentage of the land, but we definitely don’t (need) to be putting fertilizers on those areas,” King said. “We can’t just look at our soil tests and say, “That’s what my level is.’ We’ve got to look at what the historical crop rotation is and start taking a more holistic approach, looking at the microbial biomass as well.”

He talked about the level of nutrient loss per acre the scientific community is asking farmers to achieve.

“It’s about a quarter-pound per acre, that’s what we’re striving to get to,” King said. “That ought to scare you. If we think about what you’re applying right now, you’re applying 15, 20 pounds an acre and we’re asking you to get down to a quarter of a pound loss.

“Right now, your losses are somewhere in the 1 to 1.50 pounds (range) an acre of loss.

“We’re already doing 90 percent recovery efficiency, so what do we do now to get us down 0.25 of a pound?” he said. “That’s the margin we’re working with … It’s that quarter of a pound an acre that’s causing the lake to be green.”

He recommended putting fertilizer on just before planting, if possible.

“What I would encourage you to do is turn off the hoppers when you fertilize for 100 yards in two or three spots,” King said. “Don’t wait on the science, it’ll be four, five, six years before we figure out and get those recommendations. Convince yourself that you don’t need that much phosphorous. There’s a lot in the soil.”

Joe Nester, owner of Bryan-based Nester Ag, as well as the test field where Thursday’s Tech Day was held, encouraged independent research among farmers and stressed the importance of organic matter and the use of gypsum which has been proven to effectively create bonded phosphates which don’t leave the field as easily in drainage.

“Gypsum’s not the silver bullet — There are no silver bullets and there are no smoking guns,” King said. “We don’t know what’s causing this problem. We know that in this watershed we see dissolved phosphorus going up. We don’t know why. It’s not just an Ohio issue, it’s a world issue.”

He provided the example of algal blooms in once-pristine Colorado streams.

“In this watershed, agriculture absolutely has a role in what’s happening, but it’s not explanatory for what’s happening around the globe,” King said.

“We have to keep taking a chance of failing and put yourself out there,” Nester said. “Find that breaking point on phosphorous on you operation under your management. Find that breaking point on nitrogen so we’re not contributing.

“The answer will come from farmers, not the legislature. We have to bring the answers,” Nester said.

A few farmers present at the discussion voiced their belief that factors like animal waste, human waste from cities and the changing chemistry of (acid) rain play roles that are not commonly acknowledged by the scientific community.

Currently, there are no tangible incentives from state or federal governments for farmers to implement best practices determined by research to limit algal blooms.

When asked, several other farmers indicated by-acre incentives for best practices would help more quickly increase implementation.

10 Acid rain questions

Why does acid rain occur?

Scientists have discovered that air pollution from burning fossil fuels is the major cause of acid rain.

What can solve acid rain?

Scientists have been trying to reduce the amount of sulfur oxides. This decreases the result of clean air. Scientist have to decrease sulfur oxides by 50% to be able to slow down or prevent acid rain.

What chemicals are involved in acid rain?

 Burning fossil fuels emit sulphur dioxide. When sulphur dioxide reaches the atmosphere it forms to be a sulphate ion. Sulphate ion then join together with hydrogen atoms which become sulphuric acid. This then falls to earth to become  acid rain

Where does it occur?

The united state sometimes experience acid rain and that is because ⅔ of SO2 and ¼ of NOX. These come from electric power generators which burn fossil fuels.

Why is acid rain harmful?

Scientists say that acid rain can be very harmful towards plants such as trees and the soil. Areas that show acid rain show a lot of damage towards nature due to its impact and burning ability.

What can humans do to solve or predict when it happens?

A research project called the integrated lake watershed acidification study the conduct of the electric power of acid rain. They observed the amount of acid rain and snow that is received there to show a comparison.

What is acid rain?

Acid rain is an effect of air pollution. When certain materials are burned they release certain chemicals that can mix within tiny droplets of water which can form sulphuric and nitric acids.

How acidic is acid rain?

Acidity is measured by a pH scale. the  scale goes from 0 to 14, making zero the most acidic and 14 the most alkaline. Rain is always slightly acidic because it mixes with naturally occurring chemicals.

How much damage does a building receive from acid rain?

Acid rain has corrosive effect towards limestone and marble buildings or sculptures. Wet or dry deposits of sulphur dioxide increases the rate of corrosion in marble and limestone buildings.

Why are humans doing something to solve acid rain?

Humans can help solve  acid rain if there are less air pollutants that are released into the air to prevent the form of sulphur dioxide. We can reduce air pollution by conserving energy, recycling paper, plastics, and aluminum cans.

Economic losses from natural disasters counted

Natural disasters around the globe have resulted in economic losses of roughly $7 trillion since 1900, according to a new calculation from scientists.

Their database, which contains some 35,000 events, reveals the catastrophes have also resulted in more than eight million deaths.

The analysis should assist governments with crisis planning and response, the researchers say.

Their results were presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting.

$7tn is equivalent to about £5tn or €6tn.

The team, led from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, scoured the media and old records for all the information it could find on floods, droughts, storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, and wildfires.

Reports in more than 90 different languages were assessed for the group’s Integrated Historical Global Catastrophe Database.

Over the 1900-2015 period, roughly 40% of economic losses are ascribed to flooding. Earthquakes accounted for about a quarter; storms for about a fifth; 12% was due to drought; 2% to wildfire, and under 1% to volcanic eruptions.

But although the economic losses in absolute terms have increased during the past century, these losses actually now represent a smaller fraction of the total value globally of buildings and other infrastructure.

It means, say the scientists, that in many instances, we are now doing better at mitigating the consequences of natural disasters.