PV Gap

Bryan Said:

Stock tips?

We Answered:

Although solar remains a good play for the future; I continue to like names in the energy sector, these include:

ME (Mariner Energy)
VLO (Valero Energy)
ATPG (ATP Oil and Gas)

Mariner and ATPG are involved in some key deepwater projects in the Gulf of Mexico and both companies have rapidly rising reserves, as well as key personnel and equipment, some very sharp oil finding engineers.

Valero has been beaten down off its highs while at the same time, refiners continue to be pushed to the brink of their limits, and it does not appear that they are going to build alot more in the near future, especially with pressure from environmental groups.

Oil and energy prices continue to remain near historical highs and I feel it is only a matter of time before many of these stock prices catch up to their true intrinsic value.

Jennie Said:

Do i gotta ask this question twice? this is 911 help to me:)?

We Answered:

To do your homework in a way that meets the real purpose of the assignment, look at any general physics book and see what it talks about. That could give you millions of ideas. If you can't get to a library to look at a book, see the reference. If someone else gives you the title, then it's not creative for you.

Kimberly Said:

how many types of paranormal life exist?

We Answered:

Frankly, none of that has been shown to actually exist. You ask a question, you'll get an honest answer - if you don't want an honest answer, don't post in the science section or on this board at all. You don't get to dictate who answers your questions here. Saying this stuff doesn't exist isn't the same as calling you an idiot - lots of people believe in these things because they've never bothered really looking into the evidence for them and realizing there isn't any. Life outside our planets (aliens) could very well exist, and that's one avenue of research we're pursuing hotly - we'd love to find alien life. But we know it's not visiting us.

Christopher Said:

Given the data, what are the skeptics reasons?

We Answered:

Why would solar irradiance follow the temp trend? If solar irradiance is causing an imbalance between the amount of energy entering earth and the amount of energy leaving the earth, then the earth will warm until equilibrium is met. If you leave solar irradiance high, then the temps of the Earth will continue to increase until equilibrium. This would not follow the trend of solar irradiance. Any more than the temps in your model follow the increase in temps caused by just CO2 (because that would be logarithmic).

Further, do you think the climate models are so accurate and precise as to determine that the feedbacks are indeed correct, I've looked at them and do not. Otherwise you are tlaking about <1 degree change.

We should be working towards reducing CO2 for a 1 degree change, but certainly not to the point of trying to scare the public with nonsense like the end of humanity.

If you heat an object with continual energy it heats up until it hits an equilibrium point where it loses as much heat as it gains. Say for instance I put enough energy under a plate to heat it up to 100 degrees. If I increase that energy the plate will heat up to a higher temp and indeed will continue heating until it hit a temp that is high enough that it loses the same amount of energy to the air as it gains from the heating source. This would naturally create a lag between the change in the amount of energy and the temp hitting the highest temp. This lag, however, is not constant and changes based off of the differential between the energy needed to currently stay at equilibrium and the energy you are palcing into the system.

In response to Dana's comment
The lag is closer to 40 years from the data I have seen not 70, but that assumes this is the only reason, which I am not suggesting that it is, simply that it is one. I have no idea how long the lag would take with a combination of increased GHGs and a heightened solar irradiance. Do you?

Jeff M,
Outstanding question that depends upon the amount of feedbacks associated. Now looking at the literature that I have read, the amount of warming that has no current natural explanation amounts to about 0.3-0.4 degrees, depending on the source. Lets set aside other possible explanations, the unblinded data manipulations, and the problem with standardization among sites and say that the entirety of what can not be explained is both correct and falls under the three categories of CO2, methane and land use change (cutt down of forests, etc.) If you do this, then man-made changes account for all of the temp change, but it does so without any need for significant positive feedbacks. Look at Hansen's three scenarios from 1988. We fall under Scenario A and B, both of which assume significant positive feedbacks. Would this not mean the the positive feedbacks are being greatly overestimated?

Now look at the facts that most warmers agree with. For the last 30 years, we have had a 0.17/decade rise in temps, whereas for the last 15 years it has been 0.12/decade. That does not sound like exponential. Now of course you can make the argument that the time period is too small to tell, but I would make that same argument for stating an exponential rise in the first place. What gets really frustrating is looking at this data and having the scientists say that we are having temp rises faster than we expected. WHAT?!? If the temp are falling below both Hansen's scenario A and B, then it would be less than expected. When they say things like this, I do not see how they are not showing bias.

As for the lag I described above, realize that even if the lag is only ten years, this explains another at least 0.15 degrees of change. This mean that the unexplained amount that is attributable to man goes to 0.15-0.25 degrees K. The actually means that it is likely the negative feedbacks play a greater role.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that we do still need to reduce our CO2 output, because it is having an effect on Earth. The measures that we take to do so, however, must be in line with the risk. That is to say, we should not kill the economy by rushing an ill-thought out solution, if a much easier solution using future technology can be attained 10-20 years down the road with little ill-effects to the economy.

Benjamin,
Pick up any thermodynamics or physics textbook, and you will find that with more energy coming in, the object will heat until the amount of energy going in equals the amount of energy going out. This is so basic, that it does not need reference, but my "Mathematics for Physicists" textbook certainly covers it.

You will also note that I have proposed solutions to reduce CO2, which I would not do if I thought CO2 had no effect at all. The reason I fall in line with the skeptics so much is that many skeptics are willing to look at some reasonable solutions like a move towards e-cars and nuclear power. Plus if you look at even the worst skeptic saying 0 degrees of change and the worst warmer saying 7-9 degrees of change, then my 0.5 to 2.5 really falls closer to the skeptic side.

Also props to Bob,
It may indeed be the the time lags are hundreds of years. It may indeed be that are effect of the environemnt is even greater than we realize. One thing is very certain though. Many factors with hundreds of years time lag is not something that we really have a grasp on with our rather small amount of data. These are factors that role into each other making it extrordinarily hard to differentiate.

Dana,
You are looking at the Earth as if there is one factor that creates warming. You think I choose the sun, while you chose CO2. The fact is that both do, as well as many other factors. You can't look at the temps and point at one factor increasing and another factor increasing and say "thats it, that explains everything". It simply does not work like that. You know this though, or otherwise you would have abandoned CO2 causing temp rise with the temp decreases in the 70s. So really you are just assuming that I am stupid and do not know that many factors enter into the equation. I assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I am not quite that stupid.

Also you notice how often our thumbs up and down are exactly the opposite? Its like I have a nemesis. I have always wanted my own nemesis. YEAH!

William Said:

Please help me!! I wont type the right question cause everyone will think its boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

We Answered:

http://www.centreforenergy.com/education…

***I hope you checked this site out very carefully, clicking on all the buttons in each square. All the questions you asked are answered there.

June Said:

Stock advice?

We Answered:

Alternative energy is going to be huge in the coming years! There's a lot of ways to play this, solar stocks are just one way. Right now I prefer to get a more diversified approach, so I own GEX which is an alt. energy ETF with stocks from solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency, and other sectors.

FTEK, which works in the cleaning up coal plants business, I think will also be huge. That could be considered alt. energy.

Water and water infrastructure I believe will also have a lot of growth. I own some VE, which is more conservative, and am also looking to get into LAYN soon. There are water ETFs out there too, I believe PHO is one.