Valanz

$NIO I always keep an eye on the R&D expenses and the main loss. The industry range on R&D per vehicle sold is between $2K and $7K, while NIO has $8K at the current sale rate. Net loss had been increased, but also the cash used for strategic moves. (- values for ilustration)

@NIOSwitzerland great comeback today. 8 is coming soon I reckon

NIO Bulls, good job so far.

@NIOSwitzerland no other option. Swiss don't want to work cleaning 🤣

😂😂😂😂😂👇

@NIO_Romania @NIOSwitzerland guys, chill out, there's a long weekend ahead.

@NIOSwitzerland Stop bashing competition man

Li Auto ONLY +2.45% YoY growth March 2026: 41,053 vehicles Q1 2026 total: 95,142 vehicles Q1 2025: 92,864 vehicles Q1 2026: 95,142 vehicles

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon In the context of the conversation, yes. I do not think there is a GW driver in the atmosphere, though. Is all based on the IPCC baselines, which are ridiculous

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Valanz brazenly lies with: "I never said WV drives warming". Yes, you did. You moreover said water vapor is the "main driver" of warming. Now you're lying that you didn't & are trying to move the goalpost. Again you don't know what you are talking about. x.com/valanz_m/statu…

You may have seen this graph floating around claiming to be Marcott (2013) — it isn’t. Not sure what the source is, but it’s clearly been altered. The real Marcott et al. 2013 Holocene global temperature reconstruction figures include uncertainty bands, multiple methods, and no cartoon labeling of “Roman” or “Medieval” warm periods. It also misrepresents the y-axis — Marcott does not show the Holocene Thermal Maximum at ~+1°C relative to 1961–1990. The actual peak is less than half of that. And critically, the proxy stack doesn’t resolve modern warming at all — which is conveniently omitted. In short: not the original figure, and not an honest representation of the data.

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Neither CO2. I never said WV drives warming, I said it's contribution is more important than CO2. besides, CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere, Is insignificant, and any absorption, can be done by the other 95% of the CO2 in oceans. Your brain is not braining.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon "I agree... The amount of water in atmosphere is controlled by temperature." Ergo, water vapor cannot drive global warming. Your false claim that CO2 doesn't cause global warming is also a major "tell" that you don't have the science education that you claim.

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon I agree, that statement is correct. The amount of water in atmosphere is controlled by temperature. However, water droplets, unlike CO2, retain energy while absorbed IR light. that in itself, is a energy addition to the system that CO2 can't do and is overlooked

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Call me skeptical. Any Chem E student would learn in their first year why water vapor cannot drive global warming. Here's the American Chemical Society explaining in lay terms why: web.archive.org/web/2023022613…

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Chemical Engineering.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon I am an environmental scientist who studied atmospheric physics in grad school. Here's the textbook I used, which also says (& explains in exacting detail) increasing atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. amazon.com/Atmospheric-Ch… And your formal scientific education is... what?

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon It seems you are more a journalist than a critic or a thinker. Probably your background is anything but scientific.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Why not go all the way with your science denial and insist the earth is flat? Every climate scientist in the world says increasing atmospheric CO2 causes global warming, including the relatively very few who are "skeptics." Every. Single. One.

@NIOSwitzerland I have no rush to wait to fill the gap at $58. LFG

Bro not all gaps get filled. This March 10 earnings gap was the initial catalyst This earnings release is exactly what created the breakaway gap It was a classic breakaway/breakout gap price broke out of the recent consolidation range on strong fundamental news..... -Common gaps Small, random, often in sideways/choppy markets. These frequently fill quickly. -Breakaway gaps Occur at the start of a strong new trend (e.g., after major news or breakout). These often do not fill for a long time, or ever, because momentum carries price away. -Continuation (or runaway) gaps Appear in the middle of a strong trend. They tend to continue the move rather than fill. -Exhaustion gaps Happen at the end of a long trend. These have a higher chance of filling as the move reverses. But we never know with wallshit games.....

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Warming is not driven by any gas concentration, however, WV has more effect than traces of CO2.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Valanz props up a strawman: "Energy balances don't care how the energy is stored" If you think I was saying that you are even more deluded than you already obviously are, which is no easy feat. Again WV can't *drive* global warming. Good luck with basic science comprehension.

@CaptainAdvance1 @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon there is no global climate. Climate is regional.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Rejecting the concept of an average global temperatures is an article of faith from the sceptic cult. A regional temperature is a calculation too. So do we only report single weather stations? Models do grid map effects of regional features. Our climate system is interconnected.

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon you are delusional. Energy balances don't care how the energy is stored but in and out flow. WV affects way more than CO2 in warming the earth, whether is the atmosphere, oceans, etc.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon "The IR energy absorbed by WV is not disappearing because it rain, but transferred." What you are talking about there is WV global warming feedback, which the IPCC, NASA, etc. all incorporate. That doesn't change the fact that WV does not and cannot drive global warming.

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon That is a simplistic view for the masses and a manipulation for their own model. The IR energy absorbed by WV is not disappearing because it rain, but transferred. Basic thermodynamics.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon As water vapor cannot drive global warming of course the IPCC discards it as a main driver. Like I said: you are belying a deep ignorance in what you are talking about.

@TWTThisIsNow @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Let me complete the sentence. IPCC discards water vapor as main driver of warming despite knowing its contribution.

@valanz_m @TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon You are belying deep ignorance in what you are talking about. Amongst other things the IPCC does NOT "discard water vapor," but do try to prove your patently false claim.

@TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Evidence of manipulation? mmm all the assumptions and analysis of the IPCC discards water vapor. that is solely a fact that models can be manipulated.

@TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Movement of energy by default is not inherently a balanced system, all the opposite. I'd not call it balance if is that fragile of a system that can change with traces of a gas that is massively present on the oceans and far from being saturated.

@HmGinYYCisBack @SchneidGabriel Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change scirp.org/pdf/ijg_202403…

But never before has there been such a cause of CO2, CH4 and other GHG's outgassing like us. Lags reflect natural feedback mechanisms but do not contradict CO2's primary role as a GHG driver, as confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed studies including those from the IPCC AR6, which attribute ~100% of recent warming to human-emitted CO2. #ClimateBrawl

“Maybe the Earth system is even more sensitive to changes in CO2 than we have understood,” she says. “That’s a little bit of a scary thought and something that I would say that our record can’t answer yet.” #ClimateInformation #ClimateBrawl newscientist.com/article/251977…

@TheGlobalWarmer @bootcanyon Climate is not global. Making a smoothy out of temperatures is just misrepresenting what it really is, specially using single point measurements/spikes on a +-0.5-1C magnitud. proxis are regional, data is regional. models are not, and models can be manipulated at will

You seem to be implying that smoothing in Marcott et al. 2013 Holocene global temperature reconstruction is masking repeated ~1°C global ups and downs on decadal–century timescales. Do you have any evidence for that? Not regional records (e.g., Greenland), but global reconstructions. Because those don’t show anything close to that magnitude or rate of change. Without evidence, it’s just an opinion — and given the physics (ocean thermal inertia, radiative forcing), it’s highly unlikely.

@NIOSwitzerland @NIOGlobal @WilliamLiNIO 136% YoY WOW

NIO Q1 2026 😂😂😂😂 @NIOGlobal @WilliamLiNIO

$NIO 35.486 deliveries in March. UP 136% YoY, 70.6% MoM