Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 2:36 PM EST - U.S. Markets close in 1 hr 24 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

CVR Energy, Inc. Message Board

beachcomber9572 11 posts  |  Last Activity: 22 hours ago Member since: May 7, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 22 hours ago Flag

    Even those are pretty small in terms of overall radiative forcing. There is good evidence that each made winters colder in some areas (the present-day U.S. & Northern Europe) but also tended to produce mild winters in others (present-day Canada, southern Europe). The thinking is that somehow the solar effects present perturbed atmospheric circulation and changed the mean jet stream position, as I understand it.

  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 23 hours ago Flag

    No argument there. An awful lot gets pinned on climate change when it's really just garden-variety bad weather (*Superstorm Sandy*).

    Still, on our present course, sea level rise is likely to eventually seriously bite low-lying coastal areas in the #$%$ It's already cost Miami beach 100 million or so to get Alton Road back out of the water at high tide. That's an omen of what's to come.

  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 23 hours ago Flag

    This is pretty much dead on. Yes, solar activity effects solar output, and therefore the amount of radiation received by the earth, but those effects are small.

    For the record, average solar irradiance has been modestly decreasing since reaching a recent maximum in the 1960s (from 1900-1960, it increased). It does not correlate with global temperature change at all over that period, and the variance in the data makes those trends insignificant anyway.

  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 Nov 20, 2014 2:09 PM Flag

    No, it's not. The seasonal extent of sea ice is increasing. That is not remotely the same thing as what you are saying here. Overall ice mass of Antarctica is pretty much stable. Some areas along the margins are showing signs of increased melting, while snowfall appears to have increased somewhat in some locations in the interior (where the air is often so dry that snowfall has historically been limited).

    Ice dynamics in Antarctica are largely an academic exercise, anyway- while marginal glaciers can accelerate and therefore shed grounded ice into the sea (potentially contributing to sea level rise) that's a slow process- the best research is that we're already locked into a couple of meters or sea level rise from that source, but it'll take something like a thousand years, so we won't much notice. Interior Antarctica is far too cold to melt even in a warming world (i.e., if it's only -20 instread of -30, the ice doesn't much care).

    Greenland is where our concerns must lie. It is shedding mass fairly rapidly, especially in the south. If there is to be meaningful sea level rise from ice melt in our lifetimes (we also get rise from thermal expansion of the water itself) then Greenland is where we should be watching.

  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 Nov 20, 2014 11:51 AM Flag

    Any other hilarious ignorance you'd care to share today?

  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 Nov 20, 2014 11:48 AM Flag

    It very well might. Certainly, southern Greenland is losing ice mass rapidly. That's clear from satellite gravity measurements. It's probably going to make for great opportunities for archaeology up there, since presumably Viking artifacts will be found under retreating ice.

    The thing about the Medieval Warm Period is that it was an Atlantic basin phenomenon. It didn't change temperatures elsewhere (although it *did* apparently cause an 8-decade drought in the U.S. Southwest and Latin America). It probably was due to a disturbance in Atlantic circulation. What we are seeing now is global in nature.

  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 Nov 20, 2014 11:44 AM Flag

    Maximum seasonal sea ice extent is the largest it has been since 1978. That's not the same thing as "the Southern polar cap is the largest it has ever been." That ice melts in the austral summer. It is indisputably forming in waters that are also the warmest they have been since records have been kept.

    Meanwhile, permanent floating ice shelves in the Weddell sea that have existed for at least 12,000 years have disintegrated in the last two decades. So pick which signal you prefer.

    Ice extent, as best can be determined, is largely a result of wind stress in the Southern Ocean. Certainly, Antarctic winter temperatures are sufficiently cold that even a modest warming will not change seasonal ice dynamics there much at all.

  • Reply to

    WEATHER!

    by igurumo Nov 19, 2014 9:02 AM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 Nov 19, 2014 11:40 AM Flag

    With all due respect, quit being so provincial, folks. The contiguous U.S. occupies about 1.5% of the earth's surface. Just because it is momentarily cold here says next to nothing about the global average (although it *is* handy for U.S. natural gas prices). Globally, 2014 is tied with 1998 for the warmest year on record and this fall has been the warmest ever. Make of that what you will, but those are the facts.

    As far as 'no credible science' goes, I'd say it's clear from that comment you are not really informed on that subject.The science is pretty definitive: CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising due to fossil fuel combustion, and as such there is a high probability that the global average temperature will gradually increase, with a concomitant gradual rise in sea level. How much and how fast those things will happen is uncertain (based on human nature, 'official' predictions are likely at the alarmist end of the spectrum), but the trend and mechanism, not so much.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    question about lmt fusion reactor

    by hyperboreanconan Oct 28, 2014 5:35 PM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 Oct 31, 2014 3:33 PM Flag

    The short answer here is 'yes', if the proposed Lockheed fusion reactor actually works and can be built in a way that is at all cost-effective. They are talking about production-line type construction, so they should eventually be pretty cheap. So if they really do work, and can be built at reasonable cost, virtually all power generation will convert to fusion over the next half-century. As such, Lockheed will make a great deal of money (that's almost comedic understatement- this will be the biggest tech since AC power).

    The big question is, does it work? Lockheed has some very smart people working for them, but a lot of very smart people have spent the past seventy years trying to crack this problem with no success. Until they have an energy-positive prototype running, there is plenty of reason for healthy skepticism.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • beachcomber9572 by beachcomber9572 Oct 13, 2014 6:41 PM Flag

    It's pretty clear comparing charts that we're getting dragged down right alongside the price of oil. Oil hasn't found a bottom yet, so things may we get substantially worse before they get better.

    That said, there's reason to think this slide is emotionally driven and overdone:

    1. LINE has a production mix that is weighted towards gas (about two-thirds). Only a few short months ago, people were complaining about this as a weakness. Right now, it looks prescient. Gas prices are not participating in a sympathy sell-off with oil. They are actually fairly stable.

    2. Gas prices are almost certain to rise in the next few months. Inventories in U.S. storage are below seasonal norms. Meanwhile, North America has had the snowiest September since the 1960s, and northern Asia has also received above-normal snowfall already. Historically, that correlates with a colder than average winter- and higher than average gas demand.

    3. LINE is extensively hedged in both oil and gas. Oil prices are not collapsing due to inherent oversupply; rather, Saudi Arabia is using high production as a cudgel against competitors. Their budget is very heavily oil-dependent, and they depend on lavish spending to keep a very conservative Sunni Muslim population in line. The last thing they want is unrest that they cannot simply buy off. As such, while they may tank prices for a few months, it's unlikely they will want to depress the market past LINE's hedging period.

    The present prices look like a gift on a five-year time horizon (unless there are internal problems with the company, but management has seemed quite adroit lately and again, our move is more or less perfectly correlated with crude spot prices). I'm cautiously buying on the way down.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Seaspan stock price

    by fairlyamusin Oct 9, 2014 2:51 PM
    beachcomber9572 beachcomber9572 Oct 10, 2014 2:57 PM Flag

    It's also a reaction to the perceived slowdown in the global economy, especially China. Slower growth there means less shipping. Just sit back and collect the dividend. It'll pass.

    Sentiment: Hold

CVI
48.048+0.228(+0.48%)2:35 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.