And yet in Nuuk, Greenland yesterday they had a high of 37 F, 16 F above average. While you've been freezing Arctic sea ice is still melting in some areas. Highly unusual for this time of year.
Yes, of course, I was just trying to simplify the concept for the average/.'er. My point is that it's the first step in accepted science, not the last.
While you're freezing your ass off there was rain in Barrow, Alaska in mid November and temperatures in Western Greenland have been around 18 F higher than normal for this time of year. Arctic sea ice for November was the 2nd lowest on record after 2006 which preceded the record sea ice minimum of 2007. December isn't doing much better.
Regarding your comment "There hasn't been any statistically significant global warming for 15 years..." here is the exact transcript excerpt of what Phil Jones said that is the source of that denier meme:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
The warming trend that Phil Jones calculated may not have reached the 95% confidence level of statistical significance (a somewhat arbitrary distinction) but it was over the 90% confidence level.
And 2010 may still set a new record for global temperature. It's sure to be in the top 3 years of the instrument record.
I honor your folks and your wife. There are many dedicated people like them in teaching thank goodness. But I'm sure they know teachers who shouldn't be teaching.
I think in the US (but not just the US) education is run on an industrial model, like an assembly line that fails to take into account the different learning styles that children have. It works fairly well for most children but plenty fall by the wayside.
The teachers I know often spend part of their summer getting continuing education at their own expense. They end up after a few years with the equivalent of a Masters degree. They make less money than I do with an Associates degree.
Within 20 years there will probably be so little Arctic sea ice left in the mid to late summer that an aircraft carrier can cruise there without a problem.
No, the aircraft are still hooked up by the nosewheel to the catapult. It's as blackraven said. They can control the acceleration more finely with a linear induction motor than with a steam driven catapult.
Until a couple of hundred years ago the majority of educated, literate people were either priests or members of the aristocracy who generally worked together to maintain their power. Not only that but it could be dangerous to your existence to proclaim a non-belief in the prevailing religion.
You know, Venus's day is longer than its year so maybe God didn't spin up the Earth until He realized that it would get too hot on one side and too cold on the other once he created life.
If you want the best people to be teachers then you need to pay them like you mean it. It takes an extremely dedicated person to accept the relatively low level of pay teachers receive if they have opportunities for much higher pay in other fields.
All peer review means is that the paper has been vetted for obvious errors. It's sort of like a spellchecker for science. It is merely the first step on the road to accepted science.
Well, I pretty much agree with what you said here although I suspect I find the Constitution a bit more malleable than you do. It isn't the same world we live in as it was when it was written. I too have voted for Republicans in the past but I just haven't found any lately worth voting for. Any R I might find palatable isn't very likely to make it past the party primary.
Well, according to George W. Bush the Constitution is just a God Damned piece of paper. I don't think disregard of the Constitution takes political sides.
The persons making grant decisions for the National Science Foundation are independent experts in relevant fields of study. I think they are qualified.
Social Security is so far in the black it will be in the mid to late 2030's before it completely spends its surplus funds. That is unless the Federal Government defaults on what it has borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. If the US does that what does it do to our credit rating around the world? Defaulting would be a disaster.
On the NSF, science is the basis of our technology. It's hard to tell ahead of time what scientific study will lead to. It's dangerous to the future of the USA to not fund scientific research.
Charge 0.01 (US) cent per page view. The Wikipedia article on Wikipedia says they get 25,000-60,000 page requests per second depending on time of day. If they average 25,000 page views per second (yes, I know not every page request results in a page view) that amounts to over $78 million per year.
But, I wouldn't object to the level of advertising I see on/. either.
While the VA does offer specialized care for disabled veterans it also offers the complete range of medical care for any veteran who was not dishonorably discharged and to the spouse and children of veterans who are disabled or died in service to the country.
I think it could scale. The VA is already one of the biggest single health care providers in the country. But with the current political climate of the country it's a non-starter.
Here is my answer. The new model does not contradict older models. I merely adds a new factor to be considered. If it proves to be good science then it gets added to them to make them better.
Sounds to me like you're grasping at straws there. Regardless of the reasons for a shortfall a hospital will have to raise the rates on those who do pay to remain solvent. Here's a couple more links on the cost of the uninsured.
What the new study suggests, though, is that providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients. Its analysis found that families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra and individuals $410 extra in health-care premiums each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills.
This page has links to a 2003 Kaiser Family Foundation study on the issue. I particularly direct your attention to "Link to full report, Who Pays and How Much? The Cost of Caring for the Uninsured". It's 7 years old but I imagine it still pretty much accurate if you account for the cost inflation in medical care and the increase in the numbers and percentage of the population that is uninsured.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet in Nuuk, Greenland yesterday they had a high of 37 F, 16 F above average. While you've been freezing Arctic sea ice is still melting in some areas. Highly unusual for this time of year.
Yeah, it's offtopic but I was just responding to budgenator's BS.
Ok, if you'll let me cornhole you afterward.
Seriously though, peer review has its ups and downs but it still works fine for the most part.
Yes, of course, I was just trying to simplify the concept for the average /.'er. My point is that it's the first step in accepted science, not the last.
While you're freezing your ass off there was rain in Barrow, Alaska in mid November and temperatures in Western Greenland have been around 18 F higher than normal for this time of year. Arctic sea ice for November was the 2nd lowest on record after 2006 which preceded the record sea ice minimum of 2007. December isn't doing much better.
Regarding your comment "There hasn't been any statistically significant global warming for 15 years..." here is the exact transcript excerpt of what Phil Jones said that is the source of that denier meme:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
The warming trend that Phil Jones calculated may not have reached the 95% confidence level of statistical significance (a somewhat arbitrary distinction) but it was over the 90% confidence level.
And 2010 may still set a new record for global temperature. It's sure to be in the top 3 years of the instrument record.
Yeah, the negative global cooling trend.
I honor your folks and your wife. There are many dedicated people like them in teaching thank goodness. But I'm sure they know teachers who shouldn't be teaching.
I think in the US (but not just the US) education is run on an industrial model, like an assembly line that fails to take into account the different learning styles that children have. It works fairly well for most children but plenty fall by the wayside.
The teachers I know often spend part of their summer getting continuing education at their own expense. They end up after a few years with the equivalent of a Masters degree. They make less money than I do with an Associates degree.
Within 20 years there will probably be so little Arctic sea ice left in the mid to late summer that an aircraft carrier can cruise there without a problem.
No, the aircraft are still hooked up by the nosewheel to the catapult. It's as blackraven said. They can control the acceleration more finely with a linear induction motor than with a steam driven catapult.
Until a couple of hundred years ago the majority of educated, literate people were either priests or members of the aristocracy who generally worked together to maintain their power. Not only that but it could be dangerous to your existence to proclaim a non-belief in the prevailing religion.
You know, Venus's day is longer than its year so maybe God didn't spin up the Earth until He realized that it would get too hot on one side and too cold on the other once he created life.
(Said with tongue firmly in cheek.)
Who knows if time and causality as we know them has any meaning outside of the universe we live within?
If you want the best people to be teachers then you need to pay them like you mean it. It takes an extremely dedicated person to accept the relatively low level of pay teachers receive if they have opportunities for much higher pay in other fields.
All peer review means is that the paper has been vetted for obvious errors. It's sort of like a spellchecker for science. It is merely the first step on the road to accepted science.
Well, I pretty much agree with what you said here although I suspect I find the Constitution a bit more malleable than you do. It isn't the same world we live in as it was when it was written. I too have voted for Republicans in the past but I just haven't found any lately worth voting for. Any R I might find palatable isn't very likely to make it past the party primary.
Well, according to George W. Bush the Constitution is just a God Damned piece of paper. I don't think disregard of the Constitution takes political sides.
The persons making grant decisions for the National Science Foundation are independent experts in relevant fields of study. I think they are qualified.
Well, government sponsored research led to the internet. That's got to be worth more than $24,000,000,000.
Social Security is so far in the black it will be in the mid to late 2030's before it completely spends its surplus funds. That is unless the Federal Government defaults on what it has borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. If the US does that what does it do to our credit rating around the world? Defaulting would be a disaster.
On the NSF, science is the basis of our technology. It's hard to tell ahead of time what scientific study will lead to. It's dangerous to the future of the USA to not fund scientific research.
Charge 0.01 (US) cent per page view. The Wikipedia article on Wikipedia says they get 25,000-60,000 page requests per second depending on time of day. If they average 25,000 page views per second (yes, I know not every page request results in a page view) that amounts to over $78 million per year.
But, I wouldn't object to the level of advertising I see on /. either.
While the VA does offer specialized care for disabled veterans it also offers the complete range of medical care for any veteran who was not dishonorably discharged and to the spouse and children of veterans who are disabled or died in service to the country.
I think it could scale. The VA is already one of the biggest single health care providers in the country. But with the current political climate of the country it's a non-starter.
Here is my answer. The new model does not contradict older models. I merely adds a new factor to be considered. If it proves to be good science then it gets added to them to make them better.
Sounds to me like you're grasping at straws there. Regardless of the reasons for a shortfall a hospital will have to raise the rates on those who do pay to remain solvent. Here's a couple more links on the cost of the uninsured.
From a 2009 article Do Your Premiums Help Cover the Uninsured?.
What the new study suggests, though, is that providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients. Its analysis found that families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra and individuals $410 extra in health-care premiums each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills.
This page has links to a 2003 Kaiser Family Foundation study on the issue. I particularly direct your attention to "Link to full report, Who Pays and How Much? The Cost of Caring for the Uninsured". It's 7 years old but I imagine it still pretty much accurate if you account for the cost inflation in medical care and the increase in the numbers and percentage of the population that is uninsured.
Good luck getting Canada to let you in.