Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (960305)	8/30/2016 9:52:50 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576826

Huma Dumps the Weiner By Rush Limbaugh Huma Abedin has announced that she is separating from the husband, Carlos Danger. Carlos Danger was caught tweeting photos of his crotch with a child next to him. So Huma says that's enough. Did Huma Abedin Weiner really not know she had a deviant taking care of her child? She may not know what's best for herself, but she apparently knows what's best for Hillary Clinton. I mean, she's in line, she's chief aide now. She's presumably gonna be Hillary's chief of staff. But she has not been chief of her husband's staff, obviously. It's interesting to note this, too. Did Hillary try to talk her into staying? Hillary didn't do this. Hillary hung in there. But Huma has had enough. Huma has chosen Hillary over Weiner. Obviously in more ways than one. I mean, the idea, the possibility of becoming Hillary's chief of staff is obviously a very attractive thing, particularly when Huma has not been chief of her husband's staff, obviously, for quite a while. But the contrast here, no bimbo eruption unit here. Huma Abedin not arising and trying to find out who these women are texting with her husband and then trying to destroy them. That's Hillary's M.O. But Huma, I guess she just doesn't want to deal with it, doesn't want to put up with it. And they're very sad in the Drive-By Media. It's almost fly the flag at half mast day. Jeff Zeleny, CNN, just a moment ago: ZELENY: He is more than a spouse. He is a central player, of course, to Huma Abedin, though. But one cannot understate the importance of her to the Hillary Clinton campaign. There is no one who is -- Note the tone here. It's like somebody died. ZELENY: -- at the candidate's right hand more often than Huma Abedin. This really is a personal matter, not a campaign matter; but it is really angering some people on the campaign I have spoken to this morning when this New York Post report came out. They were hoping that he would not embarrass this campaign, embarrass Huma. But that is what has happened here. But, you know, there are so many aides and so many people who work on a campaign; but, again, no one closer in every respect to Secretary Clinton than Huma Abedin. One can only imagine the personal conversations that Huma Abedin is having with Hillary Clinton... I wonder if Jeff Zeleny there understands what he really just said when he says, "One can only imagine the personal conversations that" -- what does Huma have in common with Hillary? What in the world could this possibly be about? It's obvious. Horndog husbands. So they all know, they all obviously know, but Huma has chosen a different route. She's distancing herself and separating herself. I guess she figured there's no future in the last name being Weiner, whereas Hillary knew there was a future with the last name being Clinton. Here is Brian Stelter, the media whiz at CNN. STELTER: It's perplexing, it's mystifying, and now just downright sad. People have had fun with this story, they've exploited this story. The New York Post, among others, certainly have. But now to have a child involved, have a child on the cover of the New York Post with his father in bed with him taking lewd photos, that is just sad. Well, who made it possible? Didn't Weiner make it possible? Anyway, you can expect a lot more hand-wringing. You can expect a lot more sorrow. You can expect much sadness in the days ahead as this story continues to bounce around and reverberate through the presidential campaign. And, of course, what will it mean for Hillary, what will it mean for her campaign, and what will Trump do with it? Yes, everybody will be very, very concerned at whatever tactless, tasteless thing Trump tries to do with it, this in their point of view. directorblue.blogspot.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (960305)	8/30/2016 10:35:50 AM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By Stock Puppy Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576826

"You failed to find anything that blamed lightning strikes on fossil fuels" No FF's were consumed in the making of this legend However, lightening is on roids, too. More lightning with global warming By Robert Sanders, UC BerkeleyFriday, November 14, 2014 Credit: iStock Today’s climate models predict a 50 percent increase in lightning strikes across the United States during this century as a result of warming temperatures associated with climate change.Reporting in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science, UC Berkeley climate scientist David Romps and his colleagues look at predictions of precipitation and cloud buoyancy in 11 different climate models and conclude that their combined effect will generate more frequent electrical discharges to the ground. “With warming, thunderstorms become more explosive,” said Romps, an assistant professor of Earth and planetary science and a faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “This has to do with water vapor, which is the fuel for explosive deep convection in the atmosphere. Warming causes there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and if you have more fuel lying around, when you get ignition, it can go big time.” More injuries, more firesMore lightning strikes mean more human injuries; estimates of people struck each year range from the hundreds to nearly a thousand, with scores of deaths. But another significant impact of increased lightning strikes would be more wildfires, since half of all fires — and often the hardest to fight — are ignited by lightning, Romps said. More lightning also would likely generate more nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, which exert a strong control on atmospheric chemistry. While some studies have shown changes in lightning associated with seasonal or year-to-year variations in temperature, there have been no reliable analyses to indicate what the future may hold. Romps and graduate student Jacob Seeley hypothesized that two atmospheric properties — precipitation and cloud buoyancy — together might be a predictor of lightning, and looked at observations during 2011 to see if there was a correlation. “Lightning is caused by charge separation within clouds, and to maximize charge separation, you have to loft more water vapor and heavy ice particles into the atmosphere,” he said. “We already know that the faster the updrafts, the more lightning, and the more precipitation, the more lightning.” Precipitation — the total amount of water hitting the ground in the form of rain, snow, hail or other forms — is basically a measure of how convective the atmosphere is, he said, and convection generates lightning. The ascent speeds of those convective clouds are determined by a factor called CAPE — convective available potential energy — which is measured by balloon-borne instruments, called radiosondes, released around the United States twice a day. “CAPE is a measure of how potentially explosive the atmosphere is, that is, how buoyant a parcel of air would be if you got it convecting, if you got it to punch through overlying air into the free troposphere,” Romps said. “We hypothesized that the product of precipitation and CAPE would predict lightning.” Using U.S. Weather Service data on precipitation, radiosonde measurements of CAPE and lightning-strike counts from the National Lightning Detection Network at the University of Albany, State University of New York (UAlbany), they concluded that 77 percent of the variations in lightning strikes could be predicted from knowing just these two parameters. ‘Blown away’“We were blown away by how incredibly well that worked to predict lightning strikes,” he said. They then looked at 11 different climate models that predict precipitation and CAPE through this century and are archived in the most recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). CMIP was established as a resource for climate scientists, providing a repository of output from global climate models that can be used for comparison and validation. “With CMIP5, we now have for the first time the CAPE and precipitation data to calculate these time series,” Romps said. On average, the models predicted an 11 percent increase in CAPE in the U.S. per degree Celsius rise in global average temperature by the end of the 21st century. Because the models predict little average precipitation increase nationwide over this period, the product of CAPE and precipitation gives about a 12 percent rise in cloud-to-ground lightning strikes per degree in the contiguous U.S., or a roughly 50 percent increase by 2100 if Earth sees the expected 4-degree Celsius increase (7 degrees Fahrenheit) in temperature. This assumes carbon dioxide emissions keep rising consistent with business as usual. Exactly why CAPE increases as the climate warms is still an area of active research, Romps said, though it is clear that it has to do with the fundamental physics of water. Warm air typically contains more water vapor than cold air; in fact, the amount of water vapor that air can “hold” increases exponentially with temperature. Since water vapor is the fuel for thunderstorms, lightning rates can depend very sensitively on temperature. In the future, Romps plans to look at the distribution of lightning-strike increases around the U.S. and also explore what lightning data can tell climatologists about atmospheric convection. Romps’ co-authors are Jacob Seeley, also of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley, and David Vollaro and John Molinari of the Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at UAlbany. The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and the National Science Foundation. universityofcalifornia.edu