Sat, Sep 20, 2014, 12:29 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


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

CenturyLink, Inc. Message Board

jj27713 76 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 18, 2014 7:33 PM Member since: Jan 11, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Looking like this might break down

    by lordofdoggtown Sep 18, 2014 2:19 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 18, 2014 7:33 PM Flag

    I see very few ways that the BB's can be narrow. Right now they are wide with the price being at the bottom of the bands. It is also sitting at a medium strength resistance level. The MACD looks to be close to a bottom, too. There might be a chance it will breakdown, but my bet is that it has about bottomed and the odds are better that it will rise again.

  • Reply to

    my latest cut and paste

    by jaketen2001 Sep 17, 2014 12:55 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 18, 2014 3:13 PM Flag

    OK Jake,

    If absolutely nothing changed besides CO2 concentration then a doubling of CO2 from here would add ~1.2 degrees to the global temperatures.
    Nothing else changes.
    Not the sun's energy output.
    Not the upper level winds.
    Not the sun's solar wind speed or density.
    Not the sun's magnetosphere.
    Not the Earth's magnetosphere.
    Not the clouds ...anything.
    Not the gamma photon impaction.
    Not the Earth's biosphere.
    Not the ocean's current.
    Not the je stream.
    Not the tilt, wobble or ellipsicity of the planet's orbit.
    Not he changes on the moon's orbit or tidal influence.
    Not volcanos or techtonic movement
    Not the ocean currents
    Not the changing dust or fire particulates
    Not the agriculture
    Not the population or it's activities.
    Not anything at all.

    Now tell me Jake, does focusing on only the CO2 level mean anything at all? Is the science settled? Can anything else possibly be as, or more important than, the CO2 influence?
    You would be foolish to say you know what the answers are...

    BTW...We don't have a true greenhouse effect as we don't have a convection bounded atmosphere. So 'greenhouse' doesn't really apply.

  • Reply to

    my latest cut and paste

    by jaketen2001 Sep 17, 2014 12:55 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 18, 2014 12:05 PM Flag

    Don't be ridiculous. The heat trapping properties of CO2 are clearly NOT settled. Don't you read anything? The models had the feedback factors (the increase in global warming per doubling of CO2) as high as 9 degrees in the earlier models, but the modelers have been reducing (forced to reduce?) those factors every few years over the last two decades. Currently they are down to an average of about 3 degrees. But all the work by the atmospheric physicists, up to and including the latest research papers, is that the correct factor should range from about 0.9 to 1.2 degrees. Guess what? If the models insert 1.2 degrees into their calculations most models come close to the current, actual, real world numbers of global temperatures! Surprise, surprise!!

    I don't debate that we have added billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere amounting to about 3% of the total turnover naturally. But while you argue it is BAD, I argue prove it! You have little evidence that it actually causes anything at all that would be considered bad. I'm not talking unsubstantiated talking points. I'm talking proof. I can't argue that it has caused much good either. EXCEPT the incredible growth in the world's biosphere, perhaps. It sure looks by all information that we may have been CO2 lean in the Holocene period and a little bit more CO2 has been just the ticket for the plant life (food for the population growth).

    Why do we have to act on any change? Why do we have to assume a little more CO2 is BAD and that a degree globally is BAD? Would you rather go back to the LIA? Was that GOOD?

  • Reply to

    The most urgent pressing problem facing the world

    by redshoe77 Sep 18, 2014 10:11 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 18, 2014 11:49 AM Flag

    The UN is soooo desperate to preserve the lie that they continue to spout the refuted facts. Continue to spread the fear. Continue to preserve the hysteria. Continue to ignore the faulty model outputs. Continue to ignore the latest evidence that refutes the 'story'. Just what would happen to the UN's precious initiative if the lost the war? Loss of huge quantities of taxes. Loss of mass wealth to be spread around. Loss of incredible world governance. Loss of substantial prominence. Loss of trillions of dollars to the researchers and universities...

    The UN will NEVER give up on this CO2 disaster storyline, redshoe. Despite how wrong they are. Despite all evidence to the contrary them. It's just worth too much wealth, power and control for them and their handlers.

    But if you still want to tag along holding on to their pantlegs...feel free...although I can't imagine why you give up so easily your independence and freedom's to political thugs.

  • Reply to

    my latest cut and paste

    by jaketen2001 Sep 17, 2014 12:55 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 18, 2014 9:47 AM Flag

    You assume a lot and so do the models! Unfortunately, the reflected/returned fractions are a subject of great unknowns. Along with cloud fraction, cloud density, cloud type, cloud altitude, etc. They have recently put up a couple state of the art satellites to try to better resolve this exact issue.

    The models have introduced a zillion CO2 variables...most of which apparently overstate the impact of CO2 on increasing global temperatures. Why? Because the atmospheric physicists are always producing data to show that the modelers assumptions are way too high AND by the fact that the modelers have been slowly ratcheting down their feedback assumptions with every new IPCC report. Maybe in another three reports they will be back down to the levels that are repeatedly being verified by the atmospheric physicists and the models will be closer to matching the real global temps? We can always hope.

    The models are attempting to provide the correct correlation of CO2 to 'reflected' heat. But so far they are still wrong. In the last 10 years there are about 14 new satellites placed in orbit to better understand all the things we still don't have a handle on.

    Look jake, the IPCC has been wrong with just about every prediction they have made in 20 years. They rely on models that have been over aggressive in correlating CO2 concentrations with global temperatures. The models are slowly getting closer to reality and the IPCC is ratcheting down the implied CO2 threat each report. The science is NOT settled despite comments to the contrary. The implied degree of threat of CO2 is diminishing every year.
    It is not as bad as you think. CO2 is a political whipping boy and the easily swayed are still clinging to the disaster theory as justification for dollars, control and influence. But it appears they are becoming more mis-guided every passing day.

    Which side should you be on? Political fervor or solid science?

  • Reply to

    my latest cut and paste

    by jaketen2001 Sep 17, 2014 12:55 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 17, 2014 9:15 PM Flag

    There are surely many micro climates that are changing as a result of man. Taking water out of the Colorado river for irrigation or consumption, the same for the Aral Sea and other smaller bodies of land-locked reservoirs, the area behind a large group of windmills, creating large reservoirs behind dams, de-forestation, re-forestation, the building of cities, agriculture, black carbon particulates, etc. Some of these practices increase/decrease humidity, rainfall and/or temperature in a relatively local area near the activity. In the case of carbon black maybe a much larger area. But no-one so far has definitively said that these effects are cumulative or globally significant. Or at least has quantified it.

    The Earth accumulates, and dumps, absolutely huge quantities of heat every day from the sun and into space. The quantification of man-made heat sources doesn't seem to come within a whisper of these huge numbers. The number crunching for CO2, waste heat, energy conversion inefficiencies, etc. has been done a number of times. Yes, we are adding heat to our system, and CO2 is 'trapping' a small quantity of heat, but the percentages are very tiny overall and don't justify the scarier numbers from some climate 'experts'.
    Look at the model predictions and then look at the actuals. The models are wrong. Look at the raw temperatures and then look at the 'adjustments' made to the temps by the 'experts'. Why do they almost always adjust the old data cooler and the new data warmer? Many climate scientists can't find any justification for doing so. Look at the dire predictions that have come and gone as miserable failures to match reality. Even now we have really no explanation why the global temps have not risen for 15+ years. Something other than CO2 must have a much more powerful effect on influencing the temperatures...


  • Reply to

    my latest cut and paste

    by jaketen2001 Sep 17, 2014 12:55 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 17, 2014 3:28 PM Flag

    It has been established that it took about 200 years to roll over the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age (ad 1300 - 1500). If it takes the same 200 years to rollover from the Little Ice Age to the current age then we might not be finished warming until 2050 (ad 1850 - 2050).

    Jake, since the vast bulk of all the databases have been in place only after the LIA was transitioning to a warm cycle, what makes it so unusual to you and other warmers that almost everything that is happening over the measurement period from 1850 is not due to anything but a natural warming cycle?

    Warming atmosphere? Check.
    Warming oceans? Check.
    Lower ocean pH's? Check.
    Melting glaciers? Check.
    Rising oceans? Check.

    All of these things 'will' happen on average when the world slowly warms from a colder period to a warmer one. Nothing to see here. Its natural. Its normal. It's logical. It's rational. If we were going into the LIA all these would be doing the opposite.

    Within these 'medium length' cycles we are starting to see' shorter length' cycles. Sometimes the ice grows and sometimes it shrinks. Sometimes the global temperatures rise and sometimes they fall.

    Right now there is not a single 17 year old that has experienced global warming in their lifetimes. They have only seen flat to down average temperatures. When I was born up until I was 17 I only experienced a definite cooling trend. I remember all the talk about the world going into another 'ice age'. If you were born in 1972 you would only have experienced a rising temperature trend by the time you were in HS.

    Guess what? Now it looks as if we are entering another short term cooling cycle that will last until 2050 or so. The glaciers are starting to show signs of slower recession. Global ice is showing a turn back to more normal levels. The oceans rise is slowing. The chance of an ice free Arctic in the near future is near zero.

    So where exactly does CO2 fit in?


  • jj27713 jj27713 Sep 16, 2014 3:38 PM Flag

    It's quite noteworthy that the UN has finally come around to admitting what all the non-warmist scientists have been saying all along. The real world data can not distinguish any deviation of weather/climate outside natural variations. So if there is any man-made 'climate change' occurring, it is too small, too ethereal to be statistically distinguishable. The models are wrong.

    Levy, getting this? The ONE thing that does stand out is the vast improvement in crop yields from adding 0.01% CO2 to the atmosphere.

  • Reply to

    Republicans off the record on AGW

    by jwogdn Sep 15, 2014 4:02 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 16, 2014 10:25 AM Flag

    Except that we have zero evidence that there is a man-made 'major climate change' issue. In fact the climate change problem is so slight that it can't even be differentiated from any normal/cyclical natural climate change pattern based on all available data. The facts are that it was warming since ~1970, but now it has rolled over since 1999 and is now cooling since 2002. This cycle and duration is completely similar to earlier cycles going back to the mid-1800's.

    If the cycles look similar, if we can't tell if we have finished warming up from the LIA, if we can't explain why we are cooling despite increased CO2 in the air, if we can't explain why the models are getting more wrong by the day...then we have NO basis to say we have any sort of climate crisis at all.

    Who really are the idiots? The ones who are consumed by the fear can't see the political nature of the argument and can't explain the discrepancies between the actual data and the predicted data? Or the ones who admit that there might well be no problem whatsoever and acting on an imaginary problem is a foolish proposition?

    If the predictions don't come close to the actual data, and the actual data is much less than the predictions...exactly what are we claiming is a 'major climate change' issue?

  • Reply to

    Bldp's price is slipping!

    by jj27713 Sep 15, 2014 11:06 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 16, 2014 7:44 AM Flag

    Sorry long, but TSLA, AAPL, FCEL. HYGS and PLUG not in my portfolio to compare. Or did you miss that note? But the point made is valid. Not all tech stocks dropped today and some that did, didn't drop nearly as much as BLDP (or other FC companies for that matter). And I am not calling others idiots when they disagree with someone else. Nor do I put anyone on ignore. But that's can put all who don't agree with you on ignore. That's a surefire way to be ignorant of potentially useful viewpoints yourself.

  • Reply to

    Cutting Dividend Scenario....

    by play_tow Sep 15, 2014 1:45 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 15, 2014 10:32 PM Flag

    How about I take the 6% dividend as well as the doubled stock price? Just sayin'.

  • Reply to

    Bldp's price is slipping!

    by jj27713 Sep 15, 2014 11:06 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 15, 2014 10:19 PM Flag

    Hi red,
    Idiots? All tech stocks dropped today? Here are some more in the family portfolio...
    AMAT Down 1.12%
    CSCO Down 0.40%
    INTC Down 0.23%
    LRCX Up 0.67%
    IBM Up 0.28%
    vs. BLDP Down 7.92%

    So you are wrong again...on several levels. But at least we can count on your vitriol, name-calling and overall rudeness to grace an otherwise reasonable discussion board.

    Good luck tomorrow. Please find some good articles to publish.

  • Reply to

    Bldp's price is slipping!

    by jj27713 Sep 15, 2014 11:06 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 15, 2014 11:30 AM Flag

    Hey long! BLDP down 10% so far today. The market doesn't like something about BLDP. Why don't you tell us what it is? I am long this stock, too, so I am looking for some wisdom from any of the long line of BLDP proponents. Might as well start with you...
    Please don't provide an 'empty message from an empty person' like yours above.

  • Come on guys... sven, jake, red, swift, long, poseidon, frio, ready, harry, zaran, hispos, exge, stewart, sbacc, drballard, kristian, oxygen, ski and all you daytraders! Time to start pumping this stock a little harder. Link more articles promoting FC's. Link more articles bashing EV's. Link more articles how CO2 is devastating the climate. Find more hydrogen breakthrough papers. Make Ballard shine!!
    (Just doing my part to rally the troops...)
    Have a great day.

  • Reply to

    Today.... what has happened to make this drop??

    by wklsw Sep 12, 2014 1:58 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 12, 2014 3:22 PM Flag

    Right now investors are pricing PSEC as if it will lower its dividend from $1.33 annually to ~$1.15 annually although there has been no official talk of a dividend reduction. The feeling is the latest internal financial reorganization, several BDC analyst prognostications and possible Fed moves will take their toll. I really have no idea what will all shake out.
    The thought to consider is, even if the dividend is cut to 9.5 cents per share per month, the stock is already priced for that and that is still the long term payout level...approximately...of 11.5%. So even though your initial investments in PSEC have dropped a buck, any new investment will still be earning 11.5%. So, if you are in an accumulation mode, you can now pay less than before and still reap 11.5%. If you are looking for cap app, there is some chance that this will not get back to $ 11.5 a share.
    I am in the same situation as you, but I am looking to acquire a large position in PSEC for the dividends...not for the appreciation potential. I just want a fairly stable base of an 11.5% dividend payer. Of course the entire market might be wrong and they don't cut the dividend. In this case you (and I) will be purchasing the stock at a discount right now.
    Good luck with your decisions.

  • Reply to

    FCEL monetizing

    by jaketen2001 Sep 10, 2014 10:37 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 10, 2014 9:55 PM Flag

    I was being philosophical about it. Not literal. I don't think the social media stocks should have any meaningful value. You post pics, brag, cuss others out, chat unproductively, ruin your spelling, grammar and face to face social skills, get involved in unsavory issues and do some shopping. A manufacturing entity makes hard goods, boosts productivity, creates new products, improves living conditions, provides for the common good, provides jobs at all levels and provides a sense of self-worth. Not all things are exclusive, but almost so. I don't see the fundamental reason for a social media company to be inherently more highly valued than a fuel cell company stock.
    You might guess that I am not a member of any social media fraternity (except Yahoo mail and BB's) and I must say I see little that I am missing by not being with one. (Yes, I still hike and drive with map and compass...)

  • Reply to

    FCEL monetizing

    by jaketen2001 Sep 10, 2014 10:37 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 10, 2014 3:25 PM Flag

    It is rather stunning that a fuel cell that has product, manufacturing and a real potential to reduce overall energy consumption and pollution...can have so little book value. But something with almost no redeeming purpose, like Facebook, has a street value of over 200 BILLION dollars...


  • Reply to

    AGW news not so good

    by redshoe77 Sep 9, 2014 9:03 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 10, 2014 12:17 PM Flag

    Everybody should agree that our climate is changing. Try to find one piece of hard evidence that the weather is becoming more extreme due to CO2...(crickets)

  • Reply to


    by zbgb952 Sep 9, 2014 1:38 PM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 10, 2014 9:47 AM Flag

    The secret to accumulating wealth...
    Buy low.
    Collect dividends.
    Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

    CTL is solid for now. It is buying back shares which increases the long term value of the shares. It also increases the possibility of dividend increases. Stocks don't always go up from the moment you purchase them, you know. Take advantage of the dips and watch your nest egg grow and grow.

  • Reply to

    O/T US Debt and Economy

    by jj27713 Sep 9, 2014 11:08 AM
    jj27713 jj27713 Sep 9, 2014 11:49 AM Flag

    I'm with you. Unsustainable. That's why I want impress that the 'individual' better make ready for economic and fiscal craziness that is likely to result from an out of control government. They will only seem to make everything worse for you as they try desperately to fix it. About all one can do is protect your assets as best you can and be as fiscally free from debt as you can. I personally think that deflation is a bigger probability than inflation and that doesn't bode well for trying to keep an economy on the mend.

40.75+0.23(+0.57%)Sep 19 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

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.
TC PipeLines, LP
NYSEFri, Sep 19, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Concur Technologies, Inc.
NasdaqGSFri, Sep 19, 2014 4:00 PM EDT