Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 527
» Latest member: kristine51
» Forum threads: 3,121
» Forum posts: 22,911

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 35 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 35 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
No matter what you do pol...
Forum: Politics
Last Post: doubletroublejim
30 minutes ago
» Replies: 7
» Views: 75
Wuhan Coronavirus - anyon...
Forum: Misc
Last Post: iamhe
10 hours ago
» Replies: 31
» Views: 415
Forum: Markets, Money & Investing
Last Post: andrew_o
Yesterday, 06:18 PM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 136
Biden is screwed
Forum: Politics
Last Post: doubletroublejim
Yesterday, 04:19 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 29
Forum: Gloves Off
Last Post: DaveGillie
Yesterday, 02:43 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 106
Biden on immigration
Forum: Politics
Last Post: andrew_o
01-26-2020, 07:40 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 31
Clinton comments on Sande...
Forum: Politics
Last Post: andrew_o
01-25-2020, 06:49 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 43
The paradox of plenty
Forum: Politics
Last Post: andrew_o
01-25-2020, 05:56 PM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 212
Canadian climate data
Forum: Politics
Last Post: DaveGillie
01-25-2020, 04:40 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 39
Funny photo of the day
Forum: Misc
Last Post: andrew_o
01-24-2020, 04:30 PM
» Replies: 628
» Views: 142,907

Posted by: DaveGillie - 01-14-2020, 03:16 AM - Forum: Misc - Replies (2)

says it all about the difference between Conservatives & Liberals

[Image: 82788022_10156393453556222_5244438712351...e=5E94376E]

Print this item

  97% of scientists say what?
Posted by: andrew_o - 01-13-2020, 08:13 PM - Forum: Misc - No Replies

15 minute video is good background:

Print this item

  C3 and C4 photosynthesis
Posted by: andrew_o - 01-13-2020, 08:10 PM - Forum: Misc - Replies (2)

Before you yawn and click to another place, you need to get your head around this because it matters. Understand it and you will be ahead of the game:

First a quick cut & paste for the basic background:

The majority of plants and crop plants are C3 plants, referring to the fact that the first carbon compound produced during photosynthesis contains three carbon atoms. Under high temperature and light, however, oxygen has a high affinity for the photosynthetic enzyme Rubisco. Oxygen can bind to Rubisco instead of carbon dioxide, and through a process called photorespiration, oxygen reduces C3 plant photosynthetic efficiency and water use efficiency. 
In environments with high temperature and light, that tend to have soil moisture limitations, some plants evolved C4 photosynthesis. A unique leaf anatomy and biochemistry enables C4 plants to bind carbon dioxide when it enters the leaf and produces a 4-carbon compound that transfers and concentrates carbon dioxide in specific cells around the Rubisco enzyme, significantly improving the plant's photosynthetic and water use efficiency. 
As a result in high light and temperature environments, C4 plants tend to be more productive than C3 plants. Examples of C4 plants include corn, sorghum, sugarcane, millet, and switchgrass. However, the C4 anatomical and biochemical adaptations require additional plant energy and resources than C3 photosynthesis, and so in cooler environments, C3 plants are typically more photosynthetically efficient and productive.

1. Photorespiration is a wasteful pathway that occurs when the Calvin cycle enzyme rubisco acts on oxygen rather than carbon dioxide.

2. 95% of are 3C plants, which have no special features to combat photorespiration.

3. So 3C plants are less drought tolerant

Why does this matter?

Although C3 plants are not as adapted to warm temperatures as C4 plants, photosynthesis of C3 plants is limited by carbon dioxide; and as one would expect research has shown that C3 plants have benefitted from increased carbon dioxide concentrations with increased growth and yields.

Increasing CO2 in air is making deserts greener

Another cut & paste:

"Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.
“Lots of papers have shown an average increase in vegetation across the globe, and there is a lot of speculation about what’s causing that,” said Donohue of CSIRO’s Land and Water research division, who is lead author of the new study. “Up until this point, they’ve linked the greening to fairly obvious climatic variables, such as a rise in temperature where it is normally cold or a rise in rainfall where it is normally dry. Lots of those papers speculated about the CO2 effect, but it has been very difficult to prove.”
He and his colleagues present their findings in an article that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
The team looked for signs of CO2 fertilization in arid areas, Donohue said, because “satellites are very good at detecting changes in total leaf cover, and it is in warm, dry environments that the CO2 effect is expected to most influence leaf cover.” Leaf cover is the clue, he added, because “a leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2.” That is the CO2 fertilization effect.
But leaf cover in warm, wet places like tropical rainforests is already about as extensive as it can get and is unlikely to increase with higher CO2 concentrations. In warm, dry places, on the other hand, leaf cover is less complete, so plants there will make more leaves if they have enough water to do so. “If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves, and this should be measurable from satellite,” Donohue explained.
To tease out the actual CO2 fertilization effect from other environmental factors in these regions, the researchers first averaged the greenness of each location across 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness and then grouped that greenness data from the different locations according to their amounts of precipitation. The team then identified the maximum amount of foliage each group could attain for a given precipitation, and tracked variations in maximum foliage over the course of 20 years. This allowed the scientists to remove the influence of precipitation and other climatic variations and recognize the long-term greening trend.
In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”
“The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on plant function is an important process that needs greater consideration,” said Donohue. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect.”
Via American Geophysical Union

So this is not just crackpot theory

  • More food
  • Lower food prices
  • Less acreage needed for farming
  • Greening of deserts
This is good climate change !

Print this item

  How to test someone's green credentials
Posted by: andrew_o - 01-13-2020, 12:14 AM - Forum: Markets, Money & Investing - Replies (14)

When someone you know is droning on about the 'climate emergency' ask them if they're in favour of nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions.

(Then watch their head explode)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Germany Solar and Wind is Triple the Cost of France’s Nuclear and Will Last Half as Long

Quote:France’s nuclear energy spending was 60% of what Germany spent on renewables. France gets about 400 Terawatt hour per year from nuclear but Germany gets 226 Terawatt-hours each year. 45 Terawatt-hours of Germany’s renewable power comes from burning biomass which generates air pollution.

Germany’s solar farms will have to be rebuilt every 15-25 years. The wind farms will need to be rebuilt every 20-25 years. Nuclear plants can last 40-80+ years. This means that it guaranteed that the solar and wind farms will have to be rebuilt in 15-25 years. The maintenance costs will increase as wind turbines or solar panels are replaced. The old turbines and solar panels will need to be replaced.

Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

Print this item

  A rebuke for China
Posted by: andrew_o - 01-12-2020, 08:18 PM - Forum: Politics - No Replies

U.S. and Taiwanese Officials Celebrate President Tsai’s Re-Election Victory Over Pro-Beijing Candidate

Quote:WASHINGTON, DC — American and Taiwanese officials celebrated President Tsai Ing-wen’s reelection on Saturday, in what is widely considered a rebuke to China.
Tsai won in a landslide victory over pro-Beijing candidate Han Kuo-yu, the mayor of Kaohsiung, the second largest city in Taiwan.
“The people in Taiwan proved that democracy works,” said Ambassador Stanley Kao, Taiwan’s top representative in Washington, D.C., at an event marking the election.

and linked to this:

Seb Gorka on Trump Doctrine: Beijing, Pyongyang, Moscow, Tehran ‘Now Know’ America’s Strength

Quote:America’s adversaries know there is “no worse enemy” than the United States under President Donald Trump’s leadership, assessed Sebastian Gorka, host of the America First radio show and former deputy assistant to the president, offering his remarks in an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Saturday with host Matt Boyle.
Gorka reflected on his work with Trump’s presidential transition team.
“One of the first things we did on the official presidential transition team working for General Flynn, that great American patriot, and after the election, we were authorized — as transition teams are — to reach out to heads of state who wanted to congratulate the president-elect, and who the president-elect wanted to establish good relations with.”

Gorka continued, “One of the most important objectives we had, especially in the Asia region, was to assure all of our friends [and] allies who had been intimidated for decades by Beijing — by communist China — who were very, very worried after eight years of capitulation under Obama — who traveled the world apologizing for America — our job was to reassure them that America is back, not the imperialistic America, not a colonizing America, but an America that follows in the footsteps of that great saying from President Ronald Reagan; ‘that shining city on a hill.'”

Print this item

  Prince Harry & Meghan
Posted by: andrew_o - 01-12-2020, 08:13 PM - Forum: Politics - No Replies

After all the fuss in social media, this classic quote:

Quote:All those flights–
So, it turns out that British people really aren’t that fond of hypocrisy. And one of the most obvious forms of the art this century has come from the media class, lecturing the ordinary folk on not taking flights while on jet aircraft themselves.
Meghan — and by extension, Harry— has turned out to be an absolute master of the genre. Flying to Africa to hector the rest on climate change was a highlight — working to save the world, one private jet at a time.

Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

Print this item

  FBI & CIA ran agitprop against your President
Posted by: andrew_o - 01-12-2020, 08:02 PM - Forum: Politics - Replies (8)

Revealed: McCabe Pushed to Highlight Trump ‘Golden Shower’ Rumor in Public Russia Report — and Comey Approved

Quote:An email proves disgraced ex-FBI Director James Comey personally approved an FBI effort to have the wild and unsubstantiated “golden showers” claim about President Trump included in material to be considered for publication in the U.S. Intelligence Community’s official report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Quote:The Comey email, which has not received media attention until now, was revealed inside the Justice Department’s recently released 476-page Inspector General report on the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation.
The IG report further discloses a separate email in which Andrew McCabe, who served under Comey as the FBI’s deputy director, specifically wanted dossier author Christopher Steele’s unverified “pee” charges against Trump to be included in the body of the January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report, known as the ICA, assessing alleged Russian interference efforts.
McCabe opposed a CIA compromise to only reference Steele’s controversial dossier in an appendix of the ICA report, with McCabe arguing for it to be included in the body of the report where it would clearly get more attention.
Regardless of whether you like Trump or not: Think about that. The FBI running a campaign against their own President. 
So who is in charge here Huh Huh Huh

Print this item

  2020 Election in 3 Graphs
Posted by: aqua - 01-12-2020, 05:28 PM - Forum: Politics - Replies (3)

The 2020 Election in Three Graphs

Posted on January 11, 2020 by Yves Smith
"By Thomas Ferguson, Director of Research, Institute for New Economic Thinking, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Boston; Paul Jorgensen, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Texas-Pan American and Jie Chen, University Statistician, University of Massachusetts. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

Recent events make it obvious that the threat of a larger war in the Middle East now hangs like a black cloud over the 2020 election. Not for a moment do we want to distract attention from the potentially world shattering consequences that could grow from that. But the breakdown of the post-war international system is not the only tidal force shaking the American electoral landscape as the first primaries loom. We think three rip tides wholly Made in America are indispensable to understanding what is about to crash over all of us.

The first is the San Andreas Fault-like division that now runs through the Democratic Party. Everyone has heard that Michael Bloomberg is preparing to spend up to $400 million dollars by the time of the “Super Tuesday” Democratic primaries in March. Less widely trumpeted is the evidence that Dark Money now courses through the Democratic Party apparatus on a scale previously identified in the past with Republican donors like the fabled Koch “group.”

But for the first time in living memory there is more than a lone voice in the wilderness not preoccupied with supplicating the 1% in the race for the White House. This year, the split in the Democratic Party between candidates dependent on big money (or hoping to be) and those who aren’t is obvious, generating something like a billionaire’s panic.

Political money is reported with long lags and seriously processing it takes time. But we expect that when the data is all in, 2020 will look like our graph for 2016, except this time two Democratic candidates – not only Bernie Sanders, but Elizabeth Warren – will show like Sanders in our graph of the 2016 race.[1] They will stand apart from all the other candidates and – note this well – the Congressional leadership in both parties.
[Image: 00-election-1.png]

Source: Authors’ calculations based on FEC and IRS data; adapted from Ferguson, Jorgensen, Chen, “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections: Linear Models of Money and Outcomes,” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.09.005

But the Grand Canyon that now yawns within the Democratic ranks is not the only giant force impinging on this year’s election: Among many voters, the Trump presidency has generated a revulsion every bit as fierce as the more extensively discussed reaction among Republicans in favor of the President. This counter-mobilization is not news: the Democratic surge in the 2018 elections (and some others since) made it front page news in the days as the votes came in.

But its colossal dimensions are worth a closer look. Those raise questions about the alacrity with which many commentators are awarding the election to the President as the new year comes in. Our Figure 2 displays a statistic that one almost never sees amid the graphs filling media commentaries: The Democratic share of the total potential vote – that is, including non-voters. The seesaw pattern of voter turnout across elections is well recognized and of long standing. As a consequence, the Democratic share of that vote normally falls off a cliff because turnouts in off year elections run so much lower than in presidential election years. In the off year election of 2018, though, turnout soared – it was almost as high as in 2016. Including voters who switched from GOP to the Democrats, the total swing in favor of the Democrats was so enormous that their total vote glittered even by comparison with many presidential elections. That swing did not come cheap: the Democrats broke all records for their spending in off year elections and actually outraised the Republicans.
[Image: 00-election-2.png]

Figure 2: In 2018 the Democrats Mobilized a Larger Share of the Total Potential Vote Even by Comparison With Many Presidential Election Years Source: Burnham, 2010 https://www.academicapress.com/node/20 ; United States Elections Project http://www.electproject.org/

This deep current of revulsion may be compared to a potentially immovable obstacle in the way of the President’s chances for a second term. But there is a real question as to whether it really is immovable. Parts could shift or even collapse.

It is way too early to make reliable turnout predictions. In contrast to many analysts in the mainstream press, we doubt that the population as a whole is as much in love with “centrist” Democrats as is often claimed. We think there is a real chance that if one of the billionaire backed candidates prevails turnout could fall just enough to lose.
But our clinical appraisal is that the revulsion against the President President Trump in 2020 will be, as in 2018, gigantic and deeply felt. Indeed, one may wonder if the intensity of the of opposition among the superrich to the prospect of Warren or Sanders as the nominee derives precisely from fear that a vigorous Democratic campaign can readily topple Big Rocket Man, even from left of center.

That is speculation. What is clear is that the White House and the Republican Party see the potential problem. The various vehicles of the President’s campaign are raising money at a break neck pace.

Which brings us to the most telling graph of all for understanding this year’s presidential election. In 2016 Trump was outspent, but not by much – his total spending down the stretch was especially impressive, considering how late his campaign put out the begging bowl.[2]

But as he battles a wave of revulsion, what happened in the last two weeks of the 2016 Senate campaign may be critical to understand. Figure 3 is adapted from an article of ours in the journal Structural Change and Economic Dynamics.
[Image: 00-election-3.png]

Against All Odds: Daily Price of Contract on Republican Senate Victory 2016 Shaded Fan Shows Forecast Values as of October 25 Bottom. Blue Line – Contract Price of a Republican Victory. Red Vertical Line – October 25th Source: See Text

This graph takes off from a fact now widely acknowledged – that if you are looking for evidence about the state of expectations on average, published gambling odds from sources like the Iowa Electronic Markets are very useful indicators. Here we can set aside the lengthy scholarly arguments about whether they are better than polls for predictions – we are skeptical about both, actually, for reasons that 2016 illustrated vividly. For now, the point is simply that the published odds provide some independent, outside evidence about expectations.

Our figure repeats what the handful of news stories that followed events closely at the time were also saying: Republican chances of holding onto the Senate had been dropping fairly steadily since Labor Day. On Oct. 25th: $7.10 would buy contracts worth a $100 if, somehow a miracle happened in barely two weeks.[3]

With both polls and contract prices suggesting that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was doomed, McConnell and Republican donors knew they needed a miracle to save the Senate.

Amid brave talk about going down with guns blazing (Isenstadt, 2016); (Troyan & Schouten, 2016), “panicking GOP” Senate leaders embarked on a “last-ditch attempt to stop Donald Trump from dragging the entire GOP down with him” (Isenstadt, 2016). The response was overwhelming: many of the GOP’s most celebrated donors, including Blackstone’s Stephen Schwartzman (who contributed $2,200,000 on October the 25th, after donating $370,000 a week earlier; Sheldon and Miriam Adelson (listed as contributing $7,500,000 each on the 24th; Paul Singer ($2,000,000 on the 26th), numerous members of the DeVos family, and various oil companies and executives all pitched in. In the end, the GOP floated to victory on a massive wave of late money.

Thus the title of our essay. The surging indignation that cost the Republicans so many seats in 2018 is still running, “strong” economy or no (that is a topic for another day). But the President and his advisors have plainly taken to heart the lesson of 2016. His campaign is raising funds at a prodigious rate.

So what happens when the munificently funded tide of public dismay that dominated 2018 collides with the record setting stream of political money that Trump will conjure up this year?

This will be the central question of this year’s election – unless one of the candidates who represent true popular movements of citizens who are not from the 1% — Sanders or Warren – gains the nomination. At that point, just as in the recent British election, where many well-heeled UK business people decided that Boris Johnson, whose policies on the European Union they abominated, was the lesser evil, we may witness yet another dramatic natural experiment in the power of political money.

The views expressed here are the authors’ own and not those of any institution with which they are affiliated.
[1] As of the early fall of 2019, both of these candidates had raised very large sums, with more than sixty percent of their hoards coming in the form of donations too low to require individual reporting.

[2] We showed long ago that stories that he did not spend his own money were simply false – Trump spent considerably more than, for example, Mitt Romney did in 2012. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectiv...hite-house

[3] The contract is technically for a Republican sweep of both the House and the Senate. But virtually no one expected the Republicans to lose the House; the action was on the Senate. For this and other details, see Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.09.005

The figure uses a standard issue forecast model to project the range of outcomes that donors could reasonably hope for based on the campaign’s course thus far on October 25. We include it because we are tired of hearing that most big money follows polls or the odds, instead of preeminently shaping these as our investment approach maintains."

Print this item

  FED shrinks it's balance sheet
Posted by: aqua - 01-12-2020, 05:00 PM - Forum: Markets, Money & Investing - Replies (3)


Friday, January 10, 2020
Just a Friendly Heads-Up, Bulls: The Fed Just Slashed its Balance Sheet

Perhaps even PhD economists notice that manic-mania bubbles always burst--always.

"Just a friendly heads-up to all the Bulls bowing and murmuring prayers to the Golden Idol of the Federal Reserve: the Fed just slashed its balance sheet--yes, reduced its assets. After panic-printing $410 billion in a few months, a $24 billion decline isn't much, but it does suggest the Fed might finally be worrying about the reckless, insane bubble it inflated:

[Image: fed-BS1-10-20a.png]
Just to review the numbers, which you can ponder on this chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED).
August 28, 2019: $3.760 trillion
December 25, 2019: $4.165 trillion
January 1, 2020: $4.173 trillion
January 9, 2020: $4.149 trillion

There are two noteworthy items here. One is of course the panic-printing of $410 billion between September 1, 2019 and January 1, 2020 as the Fed's assets zoomed from $3.760 trillion to $4.173 trillion in a mere 17 weeks.

But also note that the Fed only added a paltry $8 billion in the final week of 2019. Given the hundreds of billions of expansion being promised, this works out to a monthly run-rate of around $30 billion--not quite the $60 billion promised as a baseline, or the $100 billion per month panic-printed in Q4 2019.

Bu-bu-but wait--the Fed promised us $100 billion a month forever! Buying the SPX at 3,280 and Apple at $312 only makes sense if the Fed promised us SPX 3,500, 4,000 and 5,000, and AAPL $350, $400 and $500.

While all the faithful were busy bowing to the Fed's mesmerizing Golden Idol, maybe the mortals in the Fed awakened from their dreams of omnipotence and realized that their "insurance against a recession" panic-printing had inflated the mother of all manic-mania bubbles.

Perhaps even PhD economists notice that manic-mania bubbles always burst--always. And just before they burst, devastating all those worshiping the Fed's Golden Idol, pundits always declare "this time it's different," "the Fed has our back," "stocks have reached a permanently high plateau," "stocks have plenty of room to run higher," and other platitudes mumbled by the Fed faithful.

Blinded by their own hubris, the Fed's economists refuse to accept the impossibility of gently deflating the bubble they so recklessly inflated, and so their plan is to real quiet-like reduce the balance sheet, hoping nobody notices.

Perhaps they imagine they can lock the S&P 500 in at a permanently high plateau around 3,250, and that will be enough to banish the demons of a business/credit-cycle recession.

Maybe, maybe not. Can a Golden Idol control not just the stock market but the karmic consequences of hubris and false idolatry? The curtain just opened and the second act of the tragedy is just beginning."

Print this item

  what happens when you
Posted by: iamhe - 01-12-2020, 04:47 PM - Forum: Misc - Replies (5)


"cannibal club at the hollydale"


and you get the people are meat link, which you can't open....but then if you click cached, you get this


which seems to have a website full of rich dudes who run a resturaunt where they eat people.....er' what?

it just funnier and funnier....lol


Print this item