“Math makes a research paper look solid, but the real science lies not in math but in trying one’s utmost to understand the real workings of the world,” says Professor Kimmo Eriksson of Sweden’s Malardalen University.
He decided to find out what effect complicated math had on research papers. So, he handed out two abstracts of research papers to 200 people with graduate degrees in various fields. One of the abstracts contained a mathematical formula taken from an unrelated paper, with no relevance whatever to the matter being discussed. Nevertheless, the abstract with the absurd mathematics was judged most impressive by participants. Not surprisingly, the further from math or science the person’s own training, the more likely he was to find the math impressive.
Yes, red, this is the current problem with the global warming fanatics. They don't know anything behind the science of the topic, but when someone says they have complicated mathematical models that are predicting dangerous 'climate change/global warming' then the masses jump to believe such models/scientists... Even though all the models have failed miserably in predicting temperatures, and have all guessed way too high, the believers, like yourself, CONTINUE to believe in the models. You find errors impressive, mistakes awe-inspiring, erred predictions worthy of new dogma.
Red, there is no measureable global warming from CO2 that can be definitively separated from normal climate changes. Without the 0.6 degrees added to the raw data over the last 30 years, it is not even possible to determine whether there is any statistical warming occurring at all. Right now if you still believe in that 'science' of CAGW you are being hauled along by your own ignorance since the real world data does NOT support the models incorrect predictions. You are believing in failed math. You are being puppet-ed by CAGW fanatics...scientists or not. Open your eyes...
Salt Lake is the remnant of a much larger lake from 30,000 years ago...from the depths of the last Ice Age. It was formed from glacial runoff and cooler and wetter climates from that period. As the Earth warmed up from the Ice Age, the glacier runoff dropped to near zero and the weather warmed up to desert conditions in the area. The lake is continuing to dry up over time, though it fluctuates many feet from year to year depending on the weather and the rains. It has been shrinking continually for 15,000 years and has nothing to do with 'global warming'.
The Russian Aral Sea is drying up entirely because the feed rivers were diverted to the desert region for agriculture (very similar to Lake Mead). A completely man-made problem, but again no 'global warming' involved.
The Lake Mead water levels have absolutely nothing to do with supposed 'global warming'. It has everything to do with population/agriculture growth in Arizona and California. Drought cycles are completely normal events based roughly on the PDO phase. Right now the PDO is bringing dryer than normal conditions to the west and wetter than normal conditions to the east. That switches about every 10-20 years. The massive consumption of water from this region was rose from almost nothing in the mid 1930's to completely unsustainable today. This albatross has been known for decades and with every drought cycle the situation became worse. This time, this drought and ferocious water consumption rates will likely break the camels back and permanent water shortages will develop for all the rivers consumers even when the weather cycle returns to a more normal condition.
It's just too much consumption of finite resources and failed government resource policies. It has nothing to do with your failed global warming hypothesis.
Despite most pumping to the company, BLDP is still a microcap company with a small base of products and income sources. Its products are 99% in demonstration mode and will be for some time. Actual sales continue to slowly improve every quarter, but don't be overly gleeful at the percentage increases/decreases as they are coming off a very small base. Hence the earnings, earnings per share, product revenues, engineering support revenues and RD spending are still highly variable and a small change in any one of those can effect a big change in the apparent gains or losses in that, or any other, category. Such changes also affect the overall sentiment of the pumper and detractors excessively. Ballard always says things are going according to 'plan' but any long time follower knows that the 'plan' has changed many times over the years...
Ballard continues to grow slowly and probably will do so for another several years until more demo projects are completed. Don't be overly concerned about any particular quarter's numbers. Watch out for the competition...BLDP is not guaranteed to win the big prize.
I think the stock is a bit overpriced at $41. I would prefer to add more at a $36-38 level, but I don't really know if it will get down there any time soon. It is a popular stock to own and the buying psychology has been strong for this steady dividend payer...
This is just another in a long line of nonsense 'facts' on your part spoken by someone who really doesn't have any clue what they are talking about.
Here is one for you... I have been selling puts on Ballard recently. The latest are the Nov 4's. Whether or not I take possession of new Ballard stock by the strike date, the premium on the put sales is very rich and has been well worth my time. So far I do not own any additional stock as a result of my option transactions, but someday I might.
There...no bashing and moderately bullish. Aren't you ashamed of yourself for being always wrong about me?
I AM enjoying OHI. Up to 1500 shares now. Selling puts to try and acquire each round of shares at net below market. Probably 500 shares more will be my last buy for now.
(O/T) Speculatively bought tiny RMGN at $1.18 after a huge dump following an earnings miss. I think the ride will take me to the $ 3+ range after earnings announcement this quarter (I'm banking on much better guidance). Still heavy in the oils and related businesses, dry bulk/LNG shipping and sin stocks, but now looking for a few mineral conglomerates to nibble on. Missed out completely on the transportation sector run-up :(
The impostor syndrome (also spelled imposter syndrome), sometimes called impostor phenomenon or fraud syndrome, is a psychological phenomenon in which people are unable to internalize their accomplishments. Despite external evidence of their competence, those with the syndrome remain convinced that they are frauds and do not deserve the success they have achieved. Proof of success is dismissed as luck, timing, or as a result of deceiving others into thinking they are more intelligent and competent than they believe themselves to be. - Wikipedia
Anytime you wish to grow up and act like an adult would be greatly appreciated.
Remember 20 months ago when the MSM was all over the 16 trillion dollar national debt and the debt to GDP ratio that was at 97%? Now you don't hear a peep from them even though the debt has climbed to 17.5 trillion and the debt to GDP ratio climbed to 105%. Our growing tax income has helped reduce the deficit, but the CBO has estimated that we will be back in a growing deficit again in two years as the recovery peaks and interest rates rise sharply on newly issued debt (as the Fed stops buying and the world starts buying US debt again...)
There is an interesting article on Bloomberg this morning regarding increasing coal demand in the US lately. As the economy picks up, and electrical needs increase, the demand for coal for current consumption and for reserve replenishment is so great that East Coast coal plants are importing more coal than ever. US supplies aren't dwindling, but getting coal from mid country mining sites to the East Coast are too slow and too expensive for some coastal power plants.
Coal power is our one big way to supply lots of new energy to the economy quickly and reliably. Nat gas plants are coming on-line, but too slowly to provide the incremental power needs. Alternate energies are wayyy too insignificant and reliable to meet the growing needs for electricity. Coal prices slumped a few years ago and again when the EPA came out with their new 'rules', but now are climbing as demand both in the US and abroad is increasing. Natural gas prices are also climbing into the range where it is cheaper to run plants on coal again...
In 2010 the US became the world's largest natural gas producer. In the first quarter of 2014, the US produced over 11 million barrels of oil and liquids a day making it the largest producer of such in the world. According to the IEA the US output should rise to 13.1 million barrels a day in 2019. It is expected to remain the world's largest producer of oil and liquids until the early 2030's.
By many reports the business of algal-based oil is in a bit of a mini-boom right now. Algae-based oil is being seen as a possible replacement for crude in some circles. It hydrocarbon rich content makes it ideal for diesel replacement and it is completely a home grown replacement to isolate any country from oil shocks down the road. It is unclear how much algal oil can be produced to supplement fuel use, however. Some say as little as 15%, but some say all can be supplanted. It will be a few more years until there is a better view on this possibility.
Most all automakers agree that a liquid-based fuel would be the preferred replacement for gasoline due to its higher energy density than gases, but so far there isn't an obvious liquid substitute in the wings. There is time to develop one however as we will not likely need a reasonable wholesale gasoline replacement for 25+ years.
I see the author's point to a certain extent. It was noted today that worldwide installed solar PV will be almost 185 GW by the end of this year. The rate of installed PV has been increasing parabolically since 2005 with no lessening in sight. I really don't see where PV has serious reliability problems as the author has stated. You do have cleaning to do regularly and you will need to replace inverters about once every 10-12 years, but PV runs almost trouble free for decades primarily because there are no moving parts.
PV has tremendous room to grow for another 20 years, at least, so I expect it will be one of the major sources of electricity in the end.
Moving weight requires energy. The same energy per unit mass. It will shorten the range of batteries. It will shorten the range of hydrogen. I don't see heavy haul trucks using hydrogen or batteries. Energy dense hydrocarbons are still best for them. Heavy construction equipment as well. As you imply, fuel cells aren't really good for delivering high energy outputs over a short period of time ie. acceleration of hill climbing. Batteries are. That's why FC vehicles will generally require batteries (or super-caps) in addition to a fuel cell. The ratio of battery power/capacity to fuel cell power/capacity will be different for each vehicle class and its expected use.
Good batteries are necessary to hybridize with FC's. If battery technology improves, as it is expected to, which way does the pendulum swing for a vehicles power plant? More battery capacity or more FC capacity? Would a Tesla adopt a small FC, but keep the batteries for raw acceleration and speed? Would a Leaf adopt fewer batteries and a larger FC for longer range in the city? If batteries get good enough would not the vast majority of commuters have their needs met and just plug in at home and at work rather than fill up at 'gas stations'? It's a question that is not yet answerable, I believe.
If you are only going to own one car, an EV might not make sense. Unless, of course, you are willing to rent a non-EV car when you want to travel longer distances. If you are an urban dweller and EV might be a great idea. If you are a country dweller an EV might not make much sense at all. Suburban...more of a toss-up.
Musk thinks he can get 100% more range out of a future generation of lithium batteries. At 520 miles, a Tesla might change a lot of minds. It all depends on how fast one can build out a hydrogen fueling infrastructure as to how quickly the FC car penetration might be.
In the ongoing rivalry between batteries vs. fuel cells Tesla announced yesterday that demand is outstripping supply for its cars. Demand this year is up 10% over delivery capabilities. Tesla is on track to supply 1000 cars per week with the addition of a new, more efficient production line by the end of the year. The strongest demand is now coming from China and wait times are 4-5 months. Total production this year should be 35,000 cars.
Tesla is actually slowing supply to some regions in order to construct supercharging stations first. There are 97 superchargers in the US and 23 in Europe so far. The build out in China is not known. Musk is having an easier time installing his Tesla service centers and superchargers in Europe and he expects to continue building a Pan-European charging network over the years as he expects strong demand for his Tesla Model S in Europe. Currently, he is in discussions with most EV manufacturers about making the Tesla supercharger universally available to all electric car manufacturers and avoid having make-specific charging stations.
It's going to be a big battle for dominance between these two technologies!