Pittsburgh Pete
Elite Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Pennsylvania
The Premier Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
-
Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?
- Thread starter Terrel L. Shields
- Start date
- Status
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Colder weather drives forecast of 2014 energy-related CO2 emissions 1.1% above 2013 level
In the long term, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are driven by economic and efficiency trends and changes in the fuel mix. But weather fluctuations, which drive the level of energy use for both heating and cooling, are a very significant factor affecting year-to-year variation in fossil fuel consumption and their resulting emissions.
EIA's most recent monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), issued on October 10, forecasts U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions for 2014 and 2015 at 5,457 million metric tons (MMmt) and 5,436 MMmt, respectively, both higher than the 2013 emissions level of 5,396 MMmt. The forecasted 1.1% rise in CO2 emissions for 2014 relative to their 2013 level reflects a combination of historical energy use data already in hand for more than half of the year and forecasted energy use for the remaining months.
Very cold weather early this year contributed to an increase in total energy use and CO2 emissions for the first six months of 2014 compared with the same period the year before. EIA ran simulations using the STEO model to estimate how much lower emissions would have been had the weather in the first half of the year instead been more like the previous 10-year (2004-13) average.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18611
Seems those global warming scientists have got it wrong. More human CO2 is emitted because of cold weather.
In the long term, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are driven by economic and efficiency trends and changes in the fuel mix. But weather fluctuations, which drive the level of energy use for both heating and cooling, are a very significant factor affecting year-to-year variation in fossil fuel consumption and their resulting emissions.
EIA's most recent monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), issued on October 10, forecasts U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions for 2014 and 2015 at 5,457 million metric tons (MMmt) and 5,436 MMmt, respectively, both higher than the 2013 emissions level of 5,396 MMmt. The forecasted 1.1% rise in CO2 emissions for 2014 relative to their 2013 level reflects a combination of historical energy use data already in hand for more than half of the year and forecasted energy use for the remaining months.
Very cold weather early this year contributed to an increase in total energy use and CO2 emissions for the first six months of 2014 compared with the same period the year before. EIA ran simulations using the STEO model to estimate how much lower emissions would have been had the weather in the first half of the year instead been more like the previous 10-year (2004-13) average.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18611
Seems those global warming scientists have got it wrong. More human CO2 is emitted because of cold weather.
Ida S. Romo
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Illinois
Would never waste my time with anything you post Ida. Have been there and done that--wasted time I'll never get back!
Uh-oh
http://appraisersforum.com/forums/t...-of-warming-clima.199950/page-24#post-2460473
Elliott
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Oregon
Combining Darwin-style and Malthus-style thinking, the "climate change" problem will eventually be solved with a starving population even if the climate-types are absolutely right in their theories.
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Chinese Solar Makers Bid Wall Street Goodbye Amid Sliding ADRs
With its market value slumping, the world’s biggest photovoltaic manufacturer is moving to go private, the second solar company this year and probably not the last.
Trina Solar Ltd. announced a buyout bid Monday from founder Jifan Gao that offers shareholders a 21.5 percent premium. JA Solar Holdings Co., the fifth-largest panel maker, received a similar offer in June.
The offer “reflects the company’s frustration of being undervalued despite its growth prospects,” Patrick Jobin, an analyst with Credit Suisse Group AG, said in a research note. He said Gao owns 5.9 percent of Trina, as of the end of March.
Gao and a group backed by a unit of Industrial Bank Co. of China offered $11.60 per ADR for the outstanding stock they don’t already own, 21.5 percent above the Dec. 11 closing price. The company has formed a committee to examine the offer, which would value the company at $1.07 billion based on 92.2 million ADRs outstanding, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
“Gao may be considering the benefit to Trina’s business if it no longer needs to please investors on a quarterly reporting cycle,” Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said by e-mail. The company’s market position means it hardly needs the increased brand transparency and exposure that comes with listing, she said.
Plunging oil prices have been a drag on the solar industry, sapping investor confidence in renewable energy even though the fuels typically don’t directly compete.
Solar share prices are “linked to the oil price,” Angelica Jarvenpaa, an analyst Raymond James Financial Inc, said in an interview Monday. “It’s unfair and it has nothing to do with the fundamentals” of solar companies.
“I think that people are looking at the disconnect in valuations in mainland China versus the U.S. and the ease of capital-raising there versus here,” Jeffrey Osborne, a Cowen & Co. analyst, said in an e-mail.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...o-take-biggest-solar-company-private-ii5ybuhr
Without government subsidies and coercion, solar cannot compete with fossil fuels. Therefore when the price of oil drops, the value of solar drops. Dumb simple but people believe the governments will continue with their subsidies and mandates for solar. As long as there's a glut of oil and falling prices, so goes solar.
- Trina second Chinese solar company considering going private
- `The market isn’t properly valuing these securities'
With its market value slumping, the world’s biggest photovoltaic manufacturer is moving to go private, the second solar company this year and probably not the last.
Trina Solar Ltd. announced a buyout bid Monday from founder Jifan Gao that offers shareholders a 21.5 percent premium. JA Solar Holdings Co., the fifth-largest panel maker, received a similar offer in June.
The offer “reflects the company’s frustration of being undervalued despite its growth prospects,” Patrick Jobin, an analyst with Credit Suisse Group AG, said in a research note. He said Gao owns 5.9 percent of Trina, as of the end of March.
Gao and a group backed by a unit of Industrial Bank Co. of China offered $11.60 per ADR for the outstanding stock they don’t already own, 21.5 percent above the Dec. 11 closing price. The company has formed a committee to examine the offer, which would value the company at $1.07 billion based on 92.2 million ADRs outstanding, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
“Gao may be considering the benefit to Trina’s business if it no longer needs to please investors on a quarterly reporting cycle,” Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said by e-mail. The company’s market position means it hardly needs the increased brand transparency and exposure that comes with listing, she said.
Plunging oil prices have been a drag on the solar industry, sapping investor confidence in renewable energy even though the fuels typically don’t directly compete.
Solar share prices are “linked to the oil price,” Angelica Jarvenpaa, an analyst Raymond James Financial Inc, said in an interview Monday. “It’s unfair and it has nothing to do with the fundamentals” of solar companies.
“I think that people are looking at the disconnect in valuations in mainland China versus the U.S. and the ease of capital-raising there versus here,” Jeffrey Osborne, a Cowen & Co. analyst, said in an e-mail.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...o-take-biggest-solar-company-private-ii5ybuhr
Without government subsidies and coercion, solar cannot compete with fossil fuels. Therefore when the price of oil drops, the value of solar drops. Dumb simple but people believe the governments will continue with their subsidies and mandates for solar. As long as there's a glut of oil and falling prices, so goes solar.
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Lying Liars and the Dupes Who Believe Them
If you are a person who still believes even some of what you hear and see from the mainstream media and its lackeys on the “alternative” Left, then you deserve everything you get from them. If you are not, then you are probably as disgusted as I am with the outright lying that goes on in the name of “news reporting” from the cultural Marxists and other elements of the radical Left.
Two recent stories in particular highlight the blatant dishonesty of the Left in its efforts at pushing its agenda.
The first of these is the recent “tweaking” of climatological data by “scientists” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). See, one of the most difficult “anomalies” for global warmists to explain in their quasi-religious belief in man-made global warming has been the presence of a 17-year (not 15-year) hiatus in warming, beginning in the late 1990s and continuing to the present day. The warmists spent years tying themselves in knots about this. First they tried to deny that the hiatus even existed. Then, when it became so apparent that it could not be denied, they then tried finding ways to explain it away while still hanging onto the overall “warming” narrative. This attempt failed as well. However, instead of simply admitting their theory is wrong, “scientists” at the NOAA hit upon a new way to deal with the hiatus—change the data so that the hiatus goes away!
That this is exceedingly poor science ought to be obvious even to non-scientists (even science "boy" with a small "b"). Everything you learned in school said that the scientific method involved developing a hypothesis, putting it to the test by experimentation, gathering the data, and then judging the strength of the hypothesis by the results. This is, indeed, the way science is supposed to be done.
But it’s not how “progressive” science is done. Instead, progressives “do science” by framing a hypothesis demanded by their overarching political narrative, gathering data only from sources considered likely to support that hypothesis, and then changing or selectively winnowing the data until it says what they want it to say. That’s what we’re seeing here with the NOAA “reinterpretation” of the temperature data in question. Data didn’t support the narrative, so the data needs to change. Because Neil DeGrasse Tyson or something.
Unfortunately, that’s the way most things work with people on the Left.
Sadly, this isn’t the first time that climate “scientists” have manipulated, and even straight up lied, about the data they use to substantiate global warming. A few years ago, hackers broke into the email accounts of several climate “scientists” at the University of Sussex and released them to the public, revealing that they had been colluding with other “researchers” all over the world to basically cook the data so as to make it support the argument for global warming. At around the same time, the famous “hockey stick” that supposedly pointed to a dramatic upswing in temperatures worldwide in recent decades, thus showing the industrial revolution’s devastating effect on our environment, was also thoroughly debunked by the revelation that it was built off of cherry-picked data, and often from data that was simply invented out of whole cloth.
If these guys worked in the pharmaceutical industry, they would be in jail by now, and their names would be at the top of the FDA’s debarment list of people who are not allowed to work in that industry for, among other reasons, manipulating data and lying to the public.
And yet, they still lie about all of this, as if simply repeating the lies often enough will result in their becoming reality. For many people—the dupes—the lies ARE reality, since they don’t know about better (that would be (science "boy" with a small "b"). They hear “global warming” over and over and over again, and are convinced by it. That’s the whole point to the progressive “science.” It’s not to arrive at what is true or correct. It is to convince people to believe what is politically expedient for the Left.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/lying-liars-and-the-dupes-who-believe-them
Climate Science Computer Model projection of temperature change
Reality of temperature change
If you are a person who still believes even some of what you hear and see from the mainstream media and its lackeys on the “alternative” Left, then you deserve everything you get from them. If you are not, then you are probably as disgusted as I am with the outright lying that goes on in the name of “news reporting” from the cultural Marxists and other elements of the radical Left.
Two recent stories in particular highlight the blatant dishonesty of the Left in its efforts at pushing its agenda.
The first of these is the recent “tweaking” of climatological data by “scientists” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). See, one of the most difficult “anomalies” for global warmists to explain in their quasi-religious belief in man-made global warming has been the presence of a 17-year (not 15-year) hiatus in warming, beginning in the late 1990s and continuing to the present day. The warmists spent years tying themselves in knots about this. First they tried to deny that the hiatus even existed. Then, when it became so apparent that it could not be denied, they then tried finding ways to explain it away while still hanging onto the overall “warming” narrative. This attempt failed as well. However, instead of simply admitting their theory is wrong, “scientists” at the NOAA hit upon a new way to deal with the hiatus—change the data so that the hiatus goes away!
That this is exceedingly poor science ought to be obvious even to non-scientists (even science "boy" with a small "b"). Everything you learned in school said that the scientific method involved developing a hypothesis, putting it to the test by experimentation, gathering the data, and then judging the strength of the hypothesis by the results. This is, indeed, the way science is supposed to be done.
But it’s not how “progressive” science is done. Instead, progressives “do science” by framing a hypothesis demanded by their overarching political narrative, gathering data only from sources considered likely to support that hypothesis, and then changing or selectively winnowing the data until it says what they want it to say. That’s what we’re seeing here with the NOAA “reinterpretation” of the temperature data in question. Data didn’t support the narrative, so the data needs to change. Because Neil DeGrasse Tyson or something.
Unfortunately, that’s the way most things work with people on the Left.
Sadly, this isn’t the first time that climate “scientists” have manipulated, and even straight up lied, about the data they use to substantiate global warming. A few years ago, hackers broke into the email accounts of several climate “scientists” at the University of Sussex and released them to the public, revealing that they had been colluding with other “researchers” all over the world to basically cook the data so as to make it support the argument for global warming. At around the same time, the famous “hockey stick” that supposedly pointed to a dramatic upswing in temperatures worldwide in recent decades, thus showing the industrial revolution’s devastating effect on our environment, was also thoroughly debunked by the revelation that it was built off of cherry-picked data, and often from data that was simply invented out of whole cloth.
If these guys worked in the pharmaceutical industry, they would be in jail by now, and their names would be at the top of the FDA’s debarment list of people who are not allowed to work in that industry for, among other reasons, manipulating data and lying to the public.
And yet, they still lie about all of this, as if simply repeating the lies often enough will result in their becoming reality. For many people—the dupes—the lies ARE reality, since they don’t know about better (that would be (science "boy" with a small "b"). They hear “global warming” over and over and over again, and are convinced by it. That’s the whole point to the progressive “science.” It’s not to arrive at what is true or correct. It is to convince people to believe what is politically expedient for the Left.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/lying-liars-and-the-dupes-who-believe-them
Climate Science Computer Model projection of temperature change
Reality of temperature change
Terrel L. Shields
Elite Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Arkansas
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/league-of-denial/
With regard to quality of science today, I just finished watching a rebroadcast of "Frontline" regarding concussion in Pro ball players and how the NFL, when seeing a "problem" (like when Steve Young quit after his 9th concussion) created a select committee of "experts" to study the issue. It was led by a NY team doctor who was not a neurologist but rather a specialist in muscles and his team produced 16 "peer reviewed" articles in a Neurology magazine which was edited by yet another doctor who consulted to the NFL. They, of course, found nothing. Meanwhile, after a Medical examiner who was a neurologist had examined the brain of "Iron Mike" concluded there was a problem of real damage from reoccurring concussions. The same magazine did publish, but the committee launched an all out effort to repudiate the paper and basically ran the doctor out of town.
The overwhelming evidence is that at least 87 players are dead due to the punishment their brains underwent due to playing football.
My point? Experts are bought and sold. They work for whomever is paying them and it colors their conclusions. The so-called "experts" can be wrong. Anyone attempting to provide contrarian evidence is pillared and belittled in ad hominem attacks while the "experts" tout their version of the truth as the only alternative. The use of the term "denier" is a subtle reference to the holocaust and a deliberate attempt to discredit. The term denial is a reference to the process of defending the status quo by ignoring contrarian evidence. That process describes the concussion issue with the NFL and also explains why those who "believe" in Global Warming spew such vitriol against anyone who threatens their turf (and thus funding.)
p.s.- the scientific method is not a "belief" system. It is a systematic way of examining evidence and drawing conclusions, then testing those conclusions for confirmation. Hard to do when you "hide the decline" and claim the raw data from the 1990s was "destroyed" because it took up too much storage space...which in an ASCII file would have fit on a couple of CD disks.
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
On this issue of climate change believers, examining people like Obama, Al Gore, Tom Steyer, money men that fund politicians, politicians, etc., that profess to believe Anthropogenic Global Warming, why is it that these people all have carbon footprints many times the size of average people?
Even science "boy" with a small "b" does not drive an electric car, or have solar panels, LED lighting, non fossil fuel heating, all the things that reduce his carbon footprint. Yet he believes Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, and life threatening. Maybe he can explain himself why his actions does not match his belief? Is it too expense? Not convenient? Not practical? Or is it just fun for him to claim he believes and not explain why he believes, other than he is following the crowd?
Even science "boy" with a small "b" does not drive an electric car, or have solar panels, LED lighting, non fossil fuel heating, all the things that reduce his carbon footprint. Yet he believes Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, and life threatening. Maybe he can explain himself why his actions does not match his belief? Is it too expense? Not convenient? Not practical? Or is it just fun for him to claim he believes and not explain why he believes, other than he is following the crowd?
Randolph Kinney
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Professional Status
- Retired Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Current climate models misrepresent El Niño
Clues to the fundamental physics of the irregular climate pattern come from millennia-old corals and clams
An analysis of fossil corals and mollusk shells from the Pacific Ocean reveals there is no link between the strength of seasonal differences and El Niño, a complex but irregular climate pattern with large impacts on weather, agriculture, fisheries, tourism and air quality worldwide.
The finding contradicts the top nine climate models in use today, which associate exceptionally hot summers and cold winters with weak El Niños, and vice versa.
“The idea behind this link is based on very well-established physics, so it’s appealing to think that nature works this way. But our analysis shows that it’s not that simple,” said Julien Emile-Geay, lead author of a study contradicting the models and assistant professor of earth sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
His study was published on Dec. 14 in Nature Geoscience.
Emile-Geay checked the models against data collected by his co-authors on shells and fossil corals spanning the Holocene period — the last 10,000 years of Earth’s history. The period had similar geography, amounts of ice and levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, making it a good analogue for today’s climate.
http://news.usc.edu/89793/current-climate-models-misrepresent-el-nino/
Gee, climate models are not based on reality, how about that?
And, no human CO2 component in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago but similar amounts (from nature). Sort of shoots the H*LL out of Anthropogenic Global Warming,
- Status