Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sidd

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
1) Let me ask a (perhaps naive) question addressed to the defenders of the Democratic Party.

Is there even a single incumbent Democrat running in 2018 whom they will admit as being in the thrall of plutocracts ? And should be opposed ?

2) " ... eliminating more than half of the existing Democratic party ... "

Oh, dear, things are worse then, than I thought. Is it really the case that more than half the party are corporate Democrats ?


As i have indicated elsewhere, i am not looking for perfect. Your definition of "good enough" is not mine. Your idea of the "game" is not mine. I will work with both Democrats and Republicans. If a credible primary opponent to Manchin can be found I will support him. If a Republican shows up with credible ideas to rescue those blasted West Virginia towns from coal, I will support him.

I guess I will do what I have to do, and others will do likewise. I have worked around politicians for too long, I have not participated in the election process for too long, and I now see the results. I am now at the point where I am taking an active interest in every political race, in every one of the little dying towns I have been through for all these years.


" ...  front position was close to the one in 2004/2005 ... "

 The calving front is not the same as the groundling line, is it ?

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 21, 2017, 08:52:28 PM »
" ... lay waste to our whole security apparatus and endanger the nation ... "

That security apparatus is a bunch of rectal feeders and accomplices. Laying waste to it is necessary, before it further corrupts the nation.

"Manchin votes with Republicans more often that most of us on the left would like but if we tried to run someone more liberal and lost we'd end up with someone who voted Republican 100% of the time."

If you never try, you never win. And after cecades of settling for lesser evils, eventually you wind up with a Hillary Clinton losing to a Donald Trump. I am looking for primary opposition to Manchin, and I will decide if that is a battle i want to fight.


Sherrod Brown is another anticorp Senator from Ohio up in 2018 whose loss would be a bad thing.  It's the same rodeo as in 2012, Josh Mandel, climate denialist, is running again, has buncha money already from out of state PACs, much probably from banks because Brown is strong supporter of Warren. I would love to think he can do it again, but can't afford to lose him, he can use help.


Joe Manchin, Democratic Senator from West Virginia. Senator for coal. Up for reelection in 2018. Vulnerable.
Ted Cruz. Republican Senator, Texas. Outright denialist. Reelection in 2018. Tough fight there to diselect.
John Barasso. Republican Senator, Wyoming. Another denialist. Up in 2018.   Tough fight.

As I have previously remarked, part of the answer is supporting with noncorp Democrats. Take Warren for example, although she faces no credible democratic challenger in 2018, i do not think her re-election is a lock. That's the kind of thinking that gave us Trump and I must admit that I succumbed as well, I could not imagine that even a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton and the DNC could screw up a campaign as badly as to lose to a grifter like Trump. But she did. Losing Warren from the Senate would be a severe blow.

I attach links to an article about various people who might run, and another to the results of a lukewarm poll. The Republican candidate will have unlimited funds. After the last debacle, i dont trust the Democratic Party to run a lemonade stand, Warren would do well to rely on Party support as little as possible, and get her own people out on the ground as early as possible. Send her some love and money if you are able.


Policy and solutions / Re: Biomass
« on: April 20, 2017, 11:32:15 PM »
Re: canola

I have and do raise canola. You do need fertilizer, unless you have seriously overfertilized on the previous crop. Irrigation depends on how far west you are, the 100W longitude is still a good cutoff. You can sorta intercrop by, for example, broadcasting seed into standing crop before harvest, but you have to get it in well before the first frost, so it can grow enough to survive under winter snow. Does not particularly help soil stabilization compared to other winter grasses, roots aint very deep, something like turnips are better. Canola is 40% oil by weight, but you do well to extract about 35% with a press, for more you need to go to something like xylene solvent, which i will not do. The meal can be fed to livestock, but not in excess, they get diarrhea. Canola oil makes pretty biodiesel especially if you use it fresh, but i send it thru the food service industry, collect 85% of it back as used oil for biodiesel.

Re: switchgrass

I looked at miscanthus several times, but the cellulosic ethanol process is still not up to snuff, and i dont want to go through a gasification stage. I'd rather put the land in pasture and run livestock on it.

Re: coppicing

this is promising, but needs the gasification stage also, before fuel can be made.


Dean flipped on health care and is a pharma shill these days. Tanden has form, suppressed oppositon to Israel at CAP, advocated seizing oil from Libya and Iraq, and is part of the very corporate power structure we are discussing here. Some of us can stomach working with people like these. I cannot, and I will work against them.


"But refusing to collaborate with people of goodwill who work within the system is, I'm convinced, a way to encourage strife and lose the bigger battles."

Agreed. Who are these people ? I suspect your list is different from mine.

I am willing to work with some and not with other Democrats. Unthinking lockstep adherence to the Party line is not for me. (And similarly, I am willing to work with some Republicans, but that's not germane to this thread.)


Warren is up for reelection in 2018. The election is a critical one, without her the CFPB would have been gutted long ago. The banks hate her, whoever her opponent is will have the big, big bucks. If reelected she is in the Senate till 2024. I think she is as valuable or more valuable in the Senate than as president.


Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: April 20, 2017, 07:53:37 PM »
The most shocking quote from that article :

"Realtors in Florida face no legal requirement to warn potential buyers about those flood risks."

the real estate industry has learned nothing from 2008 meltdown.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: April 20, 2017, 05:48:21 AM »
Re: sensitivity

You are correct, I was wrong. From AR5, summary

"The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO 2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) [Ref 16] . The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TS TFE.6, Figure 1; Box 12.2} "

This paper clearly pushes the high end out. I misremembered the high end in AR5, and should have looked it up first. Sorry.


Re: Warren and medical tech bill

Not enuf to make me lose support for her. I am no absolutist, i pick the ones i will support and those i consider beyond the pale. For example i am looking at house democrats in ohio for 2018. I dont trust beatty or fudge, and tim ryan is pretty far out there on some of his positions, but i trust him more than the other two.


1) I am not excusing Ryan, Gorsuch or anyone else.  I will be glad to discuss getting Republicans out of power on another thread.

2) And, of course, happy birthday Susan !


Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:17:56 AM »
Re: "The linked reference essentially means that the lower end of the AR5 range for ECS is not valid ..."

Disagreed. From the abstract " best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.9 °C (1.7–7.1 °C, 90% confidence). " This agrees with AR5. It disagrees with some lowball estimates by Lewis and others based on energy balance considerations.

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:14:13 AM »
And a paper showing evidence for meltwater stabilization of an ice shelf (?!) doi:10.1038/nature22048

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:12:32 AM »
New paper about surface meltwater in Antarctica doi:10.1038/nature22049
I attach Fig 1

Re: Last presidential election

ANES survey just came out, major points:

1)Clinton got the rich and lost the poor From the Washington post article:

"2016 was plainly an anomaly. While the wealthy are usually most likely to vote for the Republican, they didn’t this time; and while the poor are usually less likely to vote for the Republican, they were unusually supportive of Trump. And the degree to which the wealthy disdained the 2016 Republican candidate was without recent historical precedent."

2)racists swing vote actually went for obama in  2008 and 2012. From the Booman tribune

"This data can be compared to previous elections going back to 1988. What’s surprising isn’t that Trump voters are more racist than Clinton voters, because the same finding is there for people who voted for Romney, McCain, Dole and the two Bushes. In fact, on three of the four questions that test racial attitudes, Trump’s voters were less racist than their Republican predecessors (the fourth question was a tie).

The big difference is among Democrats, or Hillary Clinton voters, who are far less racist in their attitudes than the Democrats who voted in any recent election, including the two for Barack Obama. The implications are bizarre, suggesting that a lot of racially bigoted people were willing to vote for Obama against an opponent who didn’t appeal too directly to their racism, but who flocked to Trump when he made “political incorrectness” central to his pitch. To be explicit here, a lot of racist Democrats voted for Obama and didn’t vote for Clinton, and they did it because of racism."

The first point is why supporting Corporate Democrats will lose elections.

Re:  "Without corporate funding, Democrats would be hopelessly out-gunned by well-financed Republicans."

Obama and Bernie crowdfunded their campaigns.

Re: " the idea that Ryan is anything but pure evil is gobsmacking!"

I said nothing about Ryan's moral standing. My point was that he is not as much of a corporate slave as the three others in my statement.

I accept that some think that there is no alternative to supporting Corporate Democrats. Well, I suppose this thread is not for them.

Back to the topic at hand: Who are the corporate democrats coming up for reelection in 2018 ? Who are their likely primary opponents ? If none exist, can an opponent be found and persuaded to run in the primary ? Pelosi is coming up for relection in the House, she has large sacks of money but no one is invulnerable, as the Hillary loss proved. I note with regret that Schumer is not up for reelection for a while.


The rest / Re: Media photos of glaciers, ice streams, fjords
« on: April 19, 2017, 10:57:40 PM »
Nice pics with references at doi:10.1130/GSATG293A.1

Susan, we are allied on some issues and not on others. My point was exactly that not everybody is aligned with sinister foreign influences when we call out the corporate Democrats.

Are you a corporate Democrat ? I doubt it. Do you support some ? I think so. But lets move on.

You ask: Why must we "get rid of" Schumer and Pelosi, rather than Ryan and McConnell?

The first two and the last are corporate slaves, Ryan is actually not.  But this thread is about Democrats. I would be glad to discuss how to rid the Republican party of the corporate whores on another thread. Or perhaps Neven could change the title of this one and broaden the thread.

Elizabeth Warren has my support. She's up for reelection, but i dont get up Massachusetts way much. I have been sending CFPB detail on credit and mortgage fraud by the banks and whenever Cordray returns to OH politics he has my support.

Lets talk about 2018.


Re: Do you really think that our admiration for "The World's Most Respected Politician" makes us "Fellow Travelers"?

What who which ? Are you including me in "our" admiration for somebody ? And could that somebody be Putin ?

Ifso i disagree. Putin is a hard man in hard times, but i do not admire him. I recognize his motivations and his actions.


"As a Canadian I'm prohibited from sending American politicians anything but my best wishes ... "

Oh, come now. Just set up a company in Panama and a cutout in Texas ($2200 a pop for each, according to the Panama Papers) and send as much as you want to the PAC of your choice.


Re: " the simplistic left " : I think that would be me
Re: " what threats " : the threat of choking off the money pipeline to the Democratic party leadership.
Re: " who is using whom " : I am a fellow traveller and useful idiot manipulated personally by Czar Putin.
Re: " ... Pelosi and Schumer are working hard to promote a left-leaning 'populist' economic message ... ":
i'll believe it when i see it, they've lied too many times.

Now, apart from press releases from proven liars, the "simplistic left", "threats" and such, lets talk about 2018. I think part of the answer in supporting noncorp Democrats and unsupporting the corporates. I address some of the states i know well.  US Senator Sherrod Brown is coming up for relection in 2018 in Ohio. I will send some love and money and net traffic and eyeballs  his way.  Bob Casey in PA is coming up for reelection too. Unfortunately wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade so no love for him, lets see if and who he has for primary opponent. Bob Menedez in NJ is exposed as a corrupt crook who probably wont run, so lets see who shows up as the Democratic candidate. Gillibrand in NY needs to crawl out of the pocket of Wall Street, so i will look for primary opponents there as well. Screw the DNC , I already replied to one of their begging letters telling them exactly why I was not supporting any but individual campaigns. (Don't get me wrong, i bribe the right kinds of Republicans too, but this is a thread about corporate Democrats.)


Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: April 19, 2017, 01:36:27 AM »
Re: "I want to know what data we have ..."

dear god did you even read Purkey and Johnson ? Thats a beautiful paper, and has links to the data. Even the abstract included in the post sez

" The analysis uses highly accurate, full-depth, ship-based, conductivity-temperature-depth measurements taken along repeated oceanographic sections around the Southern Ocean. "

At this point all i can say is "Can you read ?"


The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 19, 2017, 01:32:25 AM »
I've been watching Trump since the eighties, and when he first ran for president back then, I thought  he got the idea from the election of Reagan. What the hell, he thought to himself, if that cheap second rate actor can get to be prez, why not a cheap huckster from New York ?


Getting back to the topic of this thread, how do we get the corporates like Pelosi and Schumer out ?

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 18, 2017, 10:04:50 PM »
" ... we deserve to know whether our President is a conman."

O that's easy. Trump is a conman. Does anyone not know that ?


Permafrost / Re: Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
« on: April 18, 2017, 09:50:17 PM »
Nice paper in PNAS point to decline in OH- ions rather than increase in CH4 emission as the cause for recent rising methane concentrations. I suspected as much, but this is the first hard evidence i have seen.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616426114


Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 18, 2017, 09:04:58 PM »
Speaking of run of the river hydro, couple hundred MW of run of the river plants going in on the Ohio.


Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 18, 2017, 05:35:25 AM »
I also should mention that in Budischak's comment on limitation of hydro in PJM, there are already feeders from Hydro Quebec into PJM and James Bay hydro is wheeled at least as far south as South Carolina. So not so much a big problem, considering if you look at James Bay on satellite, you see the huge hydro projects, 16 GW according to wikipedia.


Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 18, 2017, 05:18:19 AM »
Re: " $3 trillion on high voltage DC transmission? "

That is from the other paper i commented on at realclimate, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2921 , MacDonald et al. Nature Climate Change 2016 , not in Budischak (2012). As I commented, I think  Budischak(2012) has the more compelling vision. And as he says, " Hydropower makes the problem of high penetration renewables too easily solved and little is available in many regions, including PJM." But i recall an estimate that 12 GW can be added to presently unpowered dams ( so that helps ...


Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 18, 2017, 12:26:50 AM »
Re: 2013 study grid in the USA

Is that the paper   doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054 Journal of Power Sources, Budischak et al. 2012  ?

I like that paper, I commented on it and another one last year over at realclimate. It was a long comment so i wont repost, but you can find at


Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 17, 2017, 07:55:03 AM »

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 17, 2017, 07:50:57 AM »
Now this is interesting. April 10th article from the AZ republic about our favorite bankrupt coal company  Peabody trying to sell the navajo coal generating station under the utility currently operating it, who want to close it down. The thing is a monster, and the major eater of coal from a peabody mine.

and then we have the IRS notice on april 12th that "For calendar year 2017, the credit period for Indian coal production has expired."

Goodbye Peabody. Can't say I'll miss you.


The forum / Closed forum or mailing list
« on: April 17, 2017, 07:25:06 AM »
Prof. Ding is being abused in return for his generous participation on this forum. Is it possible to set up a mailing list here so that a more civilized discussion can continue ? I will do it if necessary, but it would be easier here since all of the (constructive) participants already have accounts here.


Prof. Ding there are many on this forum who greatly value your participation and wish you to continue. You have certainly sharpened my thinking on the state of the arctic. If you can, please disregard the personal attacks. If you cannot, I would love to continue this discussion on a mailing list which I would be glad to set up if our host Neven cannot.


Consequences / Re: Qué se ficieron ?
« on: April 17, 2017, 01:10:55 AM »
Remember Gina Haspell. And those she tortured like Abu Zubadayah, who turned out to have nothing to do with Al Quaeda. For her services, she has ascended the post of new deputy rectal feeder of the USA.

The article links to the Senate torture report, if you can stand to read it. No names in the Senate report, but heres some more to go with Gina Haspell. Alfreda Bikowski, Jose Rodriguez, James Mitchell, Bruce Jessen, all sheltered and nurtured by the Peace Caesar. And guess what, if you pay taxes to the USA, you are paying for the legal defense for the last two.


Consequences / Re: Hansen et al paper: 3+ meters SLR by 2100
« on: April 16, 2017, 07:38:46 PM »
From the Bintanja paper:

"Rain causes more (extensive) permafrost melt [Refs. 7,26], which most likely leads to enhanced emissions of terrestrial methane [Ref. 27] (a powerful greenhouse gas), more direct runoff (a smaller seasonal delay) and concurrent freshening of the Arctic Ocean [Ref 18]. Rainfall also diminishes snow cover extent and considerably lowers the surface albedo of seasonal snow, ice sheets and sea ice [Ref. 9] , reinforcing surface warming and amplifying the retreat of ice and snow;in fact, enhanced rainfall will most likely accelerate sea-ice retreat by lowering its albedo (compared with that of fresh snowfall) "

They do not look at the effect of increased rain on the mass balance of Greenland, but I think the result will not be pretty. The Greenland ice sheet gains mass through precipitation, if this precipitation does not remain on the ice sheet but promptly runs off to the ocean, then the mass balance will go even more negative even quicker.


1) Re: "We are going to have to agree to disagree ..."

2) Re Obama: He was already showing signs of wall street lizardlike behaviour in his senate vote flip on telecom immunity. I waited for his treasury and attorney general appointments, and then i knew. He could have put in Bill Black to Treasury, who actually sent bankers to jail after the savings and loan crisis. Or Michael Hudson who would have had no problem breaking up the banks. But no, he went with Summers and Geithner. He could have appointed an attorney general with backbone, but no, he showed up with a whiteshoe corporate lobbyist sellout like Holder. 

I knew then, as certainly as I knew the sun would rise in the east that no banker was going to jail, no torturer brought to justice. I still hoped for some relief for homeowners, and those sons of bitches didn't even throw them a bone, in fact they watched the banks rip the poor bastards off  some more through fraulent loan mods and robosigning. They watched the banks let entire neighborhoods of repossessions fall into ruin.  They were celebrating hope and change with champagne parties on K street while families I knew and loved were thrown out on the street.

The guy didnt even try. And after eight years even the dumbest yokel in Nowhere, Ohio figured out what electing corporate whores gets you.


Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but India...
« on: April 16, 2017, 01:26:04 AM »
Heeheehee. What Goyal's statement tells me is that Adnani has fallen out of favor in New Delhi, and it will be a cold day in hell before he sells any australian coal in india. Poor, dumb bastard. Mark down Adnani Group debt as a short.

Consequences / Re: Qué se ficieron ?
« on: April 15, 2017, 09:25:55 AM »
Remember the people of Mississippi.

How do you steel your heart to reject 98.58% of all that apply for help. That help is the princely amount of a maximum of $170 a month for a family of three, or let us say, generously, $60 a month per person.

11,717 applied. 167 were approved.  If you gave all 11,170 of them the maximum it would be 25 million a year.  Couch change for a nation that spends more per day bombing foreign lands.


1) blaming the victim : who are the victims ? From personal experience, it's the guy in PA who died last year from black lung after being denied both disability and VA treatment. The dozen or so families I know who lost their houses and their marriages, dozen or so more families that lost just their houses. It's all the drivers I know that live hand to mouth, lowballing haulage rates, making less than minimum when all is said and done, just to stay alive. It's the several dozen farmers that are hanging on by their fingernails in the face of worsening climate, rapacious seed and fertilizer companies, rentier agribusiness and predatory banks. And the several more that have already lost their family farms and survive as rental labor for agribusiness. It's my neighbor who collapsed on a landscaping job yesterday morning, no insurance, and rushed to emergency. He was one of those families i was talking about.

The Clintons and the Obamas ? not so much. (But I do credit Michelle Obama for turning her husband from Syria attack.)

2) Agreed on voter suppression. A big part of that is gerrymandering. I have sent some love towards efforts to reverse in PA, this fight is at state level.

3) Disagreed on the statement: "To get rid of money in politics, we need Democrats, not Republicans"
Get rid of the corporate whores on both sides. Believe it or not, there are Republicans who dislike big money in politics as much as I do.

4) Re: Gorsuch : I actually think Gorsuch is better than that dinosaur Scalia who was his predecessor.


Susan, I did not want to presume familiarity by using your first name, but I shall if you prefer. My post was not an attack on you, merely on some of your positions. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I have decided on my own actions, my own battles, my own allies and my own foes. You are not one of the last, and perhaps some day you will be an ally. Or, I might change my mind too, heaven knows it happens often enough.

Now to address some of your points:

1) Agree that Warren is a fine person and an effective advocate, she has my support also.

2) Agree that Clinton (Bill) was not solely reponsible for Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Glass-Steagall was dying ever since the excemption for the Citi-Travellers merger. The republicans forced Gramm-Leach-Bliley, but Clinton appointed people like Rubin and Summers, reappointed Greenspan who forced Brooksley Born out, and Clinton signed the bill. Clinton wasn't just along for the ride, he shares blame.

3) Obama faced opposition, true, but his picks like Summers and Geithner spoke volumes. By his actions did I know him, as soon as I saw his appointments I knew the fix was in. He didnt even try to bring the bankers or the torturers to justice, he was content to let it ride. He didnt even try to help the homeowners, he let Geithner screw them. For those actions and inactions I do blame him.

4) Albright, Powers, Rice, Clinton are all proponents of Responsibility to Protect interventionist policies which have led to untold misery. You ask about the Balkans,Rwanda,Syria,Sudan and the Horn of Africa and in each case my answer is the same. The USA should stay the fuck out.

Thes of course are my opinions. You have yours, and others have their own. But that is precisely why we participate in this forum, to share our opinions and to consider those of others. Your participation has helped me see your views more clearly, and I welcome it. No disgust toward you was intended, and if my post conveyed any to you, I am sorry, and will try to mend my ways.


I say two years, not four.  Got 2018 elections, and primaries sooner. Throw the corporates out on both sides. Run your own candidates if you have to. And what the hell, send some bux to the right people yourself. Give em free geotargeted ads if you run a website. Microtarget if you got the data.

But, regardless of appearances, not everything happens online. Get away from the computer, talk to your neighbors. You get a lot of local history that way about local candidates  Especially if you do realworld  little things like plant trees or raincapture together with a bunch of locals. Even if you dont think you are changing minds, you can be surprised, sometimes many years down the road.

And definitely don't vote a straight ticket, check each one's funding and history first.


0) Perhaps there should be a thread entitled "The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out, but not before we empower them some more to depose Trump"  Or perhaps, in Augustine's words "O Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet," or "Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet."

But since there isn't yet, let me address some of Anderson's statements here:

1) Anderson argues that in view of the great evil of the Trump Caesarship, one must ally with corporate Democrats in order to depose him. But it is the evils wrought by corporate Democrats that caused their own voters to stay home and droves of rural voters to come out and elect Trump. Supporting those corporate Democrats again will lead to worse than Trump, this I do see clearly.

2) Anderson sees a " ... need to insult moderates in this thread, to gang up against natural allies and ignore the all too obvious real enemies ... insulting them only enables the Ayn Randians. " I see nothing moderate in the rapacity of corporate Democrats at all, and I do not consider them allies, natural or otherwise. And if it is insulting to point out their habitual vices, why, then yes, I do see a need to insult them. My enemies I choose for myself, and they include the "Ayn Randians." The same for my allies, and those do not include the corporate Democrats.  And my battles, I pick for myself also and right now I choose to oppose the evils of the corporate Democrats and those of corporate Republicans and those of Trump. Oddly enuf, I find that the same actions serve all three purposes.

3) Anderson feels that it is  "awful to live in the US of A these days." Welcome to the club, some of us have been here for a very long time. We missed you all those long years when Peace Caesar Obama was killing people in several different countries. And I suspect that if and when the next Democratic Caesar ascends, we will miss you again.

4) Anderson fears that "burning down the house leaves you homeless." A fine figure of speech, but wake up,many many are already literally unhoused. The last Peace Caesar saw to that, rescuing and sheltering he banks and bankers while his minions like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner refused aid or recompense to those defrauded and evicted. The Peace Caesar, like every Chicago machine politician before him, knuckled under to the big money. The phone call came down, the fix went in, the bankers made out and millions of families were out on the street. That is a very big reason for Trump being elected.

5) I would like to pose Anderson a question: What will it take for you to disavow people like Neera Tanden and Howard Dean ? Do you agree with their attack on Rep. Gabbard ? Does Dean, lobbyist for pharma, have to personally fellate the CEO of Eli Lilly in Times Square before you draw the line ? Does Chuck Schumer have to do likewise for Lloyd Blankfein before you demur ?  Does Hillary Clinton have to dismember a few more countries like Libya before you call her warmonger ? Does Madeline Albright have to kill a few more children on stage in Carnegie Hall before you say "Stop!" ?


The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 14, 2017, 08:00:40 AM »
Oh, I entirely accept that Wikileaks is hostile to the CIA. If anything that is a compliment. Does anyone here really support the rectal feeders?

Policy and solutions / Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« on: April 12, 2017, 08:30:55 AM »
yes, hydrogen is mass 2, helium 4 so diffusion coefficients ( assuming equal reactivity, which is not the case) is sqrt(2) larger for H2

In my experience you can pick up on a mass spec the hydrogen signal on the outside of 1/8 inch red hot stainless wall confining H2 but not the case for He. Shortly after you pick up the H2 signal, you want to shut down everything becoz you have weakened the steel thru hydrogen embrittlement, it will break, and bad things will happen since H2 is explosive in air over a very large range of concentration.

Are you seriously proposing to cool a nuclear reactor using H2 ?


Policy and solutions / Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« on: April 12, 2017, 05:02:20 AM »
Re: helium confinement

In a past life, i dealt extensively with helium. It is a little noble gas molecule, say 3 Angstrom or so in size, doesnt like making bonds with anything, including itself.  There is a fascinating paper called "The Weakest Bond" about the tiny energy well of the bound state of the He dimer, two Helium-4 atoms in a mutual energy well,  which can be seen in diverging cross section for scattering states in He-He collisions at loooooow energy. I actually saw this effect in the lab and the observations were puzzling until the theory was developed some years later.

But to address the question: He is a slippery little bugger, the lightest gas other than hydrogen, and hydrogen is far more reactive than He, it makes H2 molecules, while helium doesn't make molecules at ll if it can help itself. So He is monoatomic. As far as "size" or crossection goes, He is actually harder to confine than H2. (However, if it gets out, you dont have to worry about explosion with He like you got to do with H.)

Confining He at high temperatures,pressures and radioactive levels is not for the faint hearted. The highest temperatures I ever had to deal with was around the same as in a pebble bed reactor, I used stainless steel knife edge into opposing copper gasket flanges, but i didnt have to deal with radioactivity, and if i lost confinement i didnt have to worry about a radioactive fire. Radioactivity degrates both stainless and copper, so you got to watch your duty cycles and replacement schedules much more carefully.

Gas cooling is tricky. They did something called AGR with CO2 in the UK  but not too many were built, too complicated.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22