Job creation is being stifled by administration policies, regulations, and the "reforms" that the president's party pushed though.
Job creation is stifled mostly by lack of demand. As middle and lower class wage increases have stagnated (since the 1980's) we have less and less to spend on things besides the basics of food and shelter. How can anyone expect the US to remain an economic powerhouse without a strong middle class with disposable income and time?
I think you need to be careful not to extend the findings on psychology studies to other sciences, particularly the physical sciences where objective measurements can confirm or reject a study.
Many of those poor kids live in areas that are food deserts where good nutritious food is difficult and expensive to obtain compared to fast food restaurants and mini-mart food. If it takes a lot of extra effort to obtain nutritious food many don't make the effort.
Poor kids may be more overweight but that just means they're getting a lot of calories. If the nutrition they're getting is otherwise poor that will be a factor in their learning ability.
FWIW, the highstand of the ocean during the last interglacial period roughly 120,000 years ago was probably about 8 meters (25 feet for speakers of American) above current sea level at Miami. That's without any help from human CO2 emissions.
It might be worth looking at the state of Milankovitch Cycles then and now to understand the difference. Since the different components of Milankovitch aren't in harmony with each other each glacial/interglacial cycle is different from others.
Silt is compacting and land subsiding in California's central valley from groundwater pumping but that isn't the case in Florida where the underlying bedrock is limestone. What groundwater pumping does in Florida is allow the ocean saltwater to intrude further inland contaminating existing freshwater supplied. Subsidence is not the issue in southern Florida.
It has to be the deep ocean because measurements of shallow ocean temperatures have not shown any excess warming.
What are you talking about? There has been lots of warming in the upper ocean. It is clearly shown at this NOAA page on ocean heat content.
Since heat only moves from a warmer object to a cooler object, the heat will never exit from the ocean until the atmospheric temperature drops.
Since over 90% of the heat energy from global warming goes into the oceans it only takes a slight change in how much goes into the ocean for major changes in atmospheric temperatures. For example 2015 is about to set a new temperature record because El Nino has reduced the amount of heat going into the ocean leaving more of it in the atmosphere.
I doubt it was much warmer during the Holocene Thermal Optimum than it is now. Most of the science I've seen says the temperatures may have been similar.
The article you cite is about the abyssal ocean below about 7,000 feet. There's a lot of water between 7,000 feet and the surface. As per usual simple analyses like yours are usually wrong.
Climate scientists agree on a lot. The IPCC report, particularly the WG1 report is what scientists agree on. As far as taxing it, anthropogenic global warming is a case of "you can pay me now" or "you can pay me later". Either pay for mitigation now or pay even more for adaption later.
Cook et al. 2013 doesn't matter. It's not climate science, just a survey of the climate science literature and the active practitioners in the field that wrote the papers.
What matters is the science and what we do with what it tells us. Meanwhile in the real world temperatures continue to rise as scientists said they would, the oceans continue to warm as scientists said they would, ice continues to melt as scientists said it would, sea levels continue to rise as scientists said they would and the oceans continue to acidify as scientists said they would.
I presume what you mean by "others in the same field" is climate science. Of course the paper you cited isn't really a climate science paper but more of a sociology paper. And on top of that nobody has yet shown that the paper is wrong, just a lot of technical complaints that show lack of understanding on the part of the complainer. But I will cede that the paper was probably a response climate science deniers claiming not all scientists support the current anthropogenic global warming paradigm. It clearly showed that in the climate science field the support for that is in the high 90 percentage.
Satellite temps ignored (which I am pretty sure is data and science all in one) NASA saying it has a 38% chance of being right...
Don't worry, 2015 will be the warmest year ever with about 95% chance of being right and if the El Ninos of 1982/1983 and 1997/1998 are any indication 2016 will be even warmer. Satellite temperatures are not ignored, just placed in their proper context. They do not measure surface temperatures and derive their temperatures from a proxy for temperature, microwave emissions of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere.
The people politicizing science are for the most part not scientists. I'd like to see some examples of studies that you think are designed to provide a talking point rather than doing science.
They are not even sure the rise has really increased, because they are using a new measurement system, it's really difficult to measure a signal that 1/1000th of what the noise is with confidence.
Sure, that's true with a few measurements but as the number of measurements add up the errors more and more cancel out and your confidence increases.
And yet the temperature of the Earth continues to increase, the sea level continues to rise, ice continues to melt and the oceans continue to acidify. All things expected to happen with global warming even if they don't get the exact number right.
I do know about the 9 things from the Dimmock case. I consider them for the most part nitpicking that doesn't disprove the main thrust of the message. Gore donated all of his proceeds from the movie to an educational campaign to spread the word about anthropogenic global warming.
From what I've heard the rate of sea level rise was about 1 mm/year in the early 1900s, 2 mm/year in the mid 1900s and since about 1992 it is about 3 mm/year. Are you confident the rate of sea level rise won't continue increase as time goes on?
Yes I am aware of it. The question is were you being deliberately misleading by commenting on ice sheets and citing an article on sea ice or were you just to dumb to know the difference?
Nothing that Gore said in "An Inconvenient Truth" would be expected to come to have come to full fruition in a mere 10 years. For instance you mentioned sea level rise. What Gore said in the film was that if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt it would cause about 20 feet of sea level rise. That is an accurate statement but he didn't put a time frame on it at all. The scientific literature says it would take as least several centuries for that to happen.
I know about the Dimmock case and the "9 errors" although the judge in the case called them inaccuracies. Gore may have been a bit hyperbolic in overstating some things but none of them are demonstrably absolutely wrong.
Floodwalls may not work very well in Florida where the underlying bedrock is porous limestone (kind of like Swiss cheese). The water can just come up from below.
Seems like the "climate change" alarmists are willing to constantly manipulate their data and revise their models to reach the preordained conclusion.
As opposed to climate science deniers who are willing to constantly accuse thousands of climate scientists from around the world of fraud in there science when in actuality science is one of the most intensely competitive activities that humans engage in. The way to make your name in science is to come up with something new that no one else has discovered. If any scientist were able to come up with that in the climate field you can be sure it would get plenty of publicity.
The GRACE satellites which measure changes in gravity show that Antarctica is still showing a net loss from the ice sheets. The research you cite is probably a good study but needs more work before it is confirmed. There are some issues with the measurements that come from two different satellites, one using a radar altimeter and the other using a laser altimeter. There was no overlap between the two satellites so it's impossible to cross correlate them. Also the assumptions on compression of the snow was modeled on computers with little on the ground confirmation of the correctness of the model. And finally the study ends in 2008 so it says nothing about what's happening now, 7 years later.
You mention Antarctic ice sheets yet the link you provide is talking about expanding sea ice, a completely different subject. You should spend some time understanding the difference between land based ice sheets and sea ice. On top of that the article was about 2014. In 2015 Antarctic sea ice extent was less than in 2014.
The problem with guys like you is you never pay close enough attention to the time frames that are put on those predictions. You just assume it's going to happen "soon". Or it's possible you are deliberately ignoring the time frames attached to the predictions so you can make silly statements like that.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the PRIVATE charities step up first and show they can do the job, then we can reduce the government run programs.
Job creation is being stifled by administration policies, regulations, and the "reforms" that the president's party pushed though.
Job creation is stifled mostly by lack of demand. As middle and lower class wage increases have stagnated (since the 1980's) we have less and less to spend on things besides the basics of food and shelter. How can anyone expect the US to remain an economic powerhouse without a strong middle class with disposable income and time?
I think you need to be careful not to extend the findings on psychology studies to other sciences, particularly the physical sciences where objective measurements can confirm or reject a study.
Many of those poor kids live in areas that are food deserts where good nutritious food is difficult and expensive to obtain compared to fast food restaurants and mini-mart food. If it takes a lot of extra effort to obtain nutritious food many don't make the effort.
Poor kids may be more overweight but that just means they're getting a lot of calories. If the nutrition they're getting is otherwise poor that will be a factor in their learning ability.
FWIW, the highstand of the ocean during the last interglacial period roughly 120,000 years ago was probably about 8 meters (25 feet for speakers of American) above current sea level at Miami. That's without any help from human CO2 emissions.
It might be worth looking at the state of Milankovitch Cycles then and now to understand the difference. Since the different components of Milankovitch aren't in harmony with each other each glacial/interglacial cycle is different from others.
Silt is compacting and land subsiding in California's central valley from groundwater pumping but that isn't the case in Florida where the underlying bedrock is limestone. What groundwater pumping does in Florida is allow the ocean saltwater to intrude further inland contaminating existing freshwater supplied. Subsidence is not the issue in southern Florida.
It has to be the deep ocean because measurements of shallow ocean temperatures have not shown any excess warming.
What are you talking about? There has been lots of warming in the upper ocean. It is clearly shown at this NOAA page on ocean heat content.
Since heat only moves from a warmer object to a cooler object, the heat will never exit from the ocean until the atmospheric temperature drops.
Since over 90% of the heat energy from global warming goes into the oceans it only takes a slight change in how much goes into the ocean for major changes in atmospheric temperatures. For example 2015 is about to set a new temperature record because El Nino has reduced the amount of heat going into the ocean leaving more of it in the atmosphere.
I doubt it was much warmer during the Holocene Thermal Optimum than it is now. Most of the science I've seen says the temperatures may have been similar.
The article you cite is about the abyssal ocean below about 7,000 feet. There's a lot of water between 7,000 feet and the surface. As per usual simple analyses like yours are usually wrong.
Climate scientists agree on a lot. The IPCC report, particularly the WG1 report is what scientists agree on. As far as taxing it, anthropogenic global warming is a case of "you can pay me now" or "you can pay me later". Either pay for mitigation now or pay even more for adaption later.
Cook et al. 2013 doesn't matter. It's not climate science, just a survey of the climate science literature and the active practitioners in the field that wrote the papers.
What matters is the science and what we do with what it tells us. Meanwhile in the real world temperatures continue to rise as scientists said they would, the oceans continue to warm as scientists said they would, ice continues to melt as scientists said it would, sea levels continue to rise as scientists said they would and the oceans continue to acidify as scientists said they would.
Thats pretty easy.
Cook et Al. 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
And many others in the same field.
LOL, I should have expected that.
I presume what you mean by "others in the same field" is climate science. Of course the paper you cited isn't really a climate science paper but more of a sociology paper. And on top of that nobody has yet shown that the paper is wrong, just a lot of technical complaints that show lack of understanding on the part of the complainer. But I will cede that the paper was probably a response climate science deniers claiming not all scientists support the current anthropogenic global warming paradigm. It clearly showed that in the climate science field the support for that is in the high 90 percentage.
Satellite temps ignored (which I am pretty sure is data and science all in one) NASA saying it has a 38% chance of being right ...
Don't worry, 2015 will be the warmest year ever with about 95% chance of being right and if the El Ninos of 1982/1983 and 1997/1998 are any indication 2016 will be even warmer. Satellite temperatures are not ignored, just placed in their proper context. They do not measure surface temperatures and derive their temperatures from a proxy for temperature, microwave emissions of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere.
The people politicizing science are for the most part not scientists. I'd like to see some examples of studies that you think are designed to provide a talking point rather than doing science.
They are not even sure the rise has really increased, because they are using a new measurement system, it's really difficult to measure a signal that 1/1000th of what the noise is with confidence.
Sure, that's true with a few measurements but as the number of measurements add up the errors more and more cancel out and your confidence increases.
I'm confused as to what you think I lied about.
And yet the temperature of the Earth continues to increase, the sea level continues to rise, ice continues to melt and the oceans continue to acidify. All things expected to happen with global warming even if they don't get the exact number right.
I do know about the 9 things from the Dimmock case. I consider them for the most part nitpicking that doesn't disprove the main thrust of the message. Gore donated all of his proceeds from the movie to an educational campaign to spread the word about anthropogenic global warming.
From what I've heard the rate of sea level rise was about 1 mm/year in the early 1900s, 2 mm/year in the mid 1900s and since about 1992 it is about 3 mm/year. Are you confident the rate of sea level rise won't continue increase as time goes on?
Yes I am aware of it. The question is were you being deliberately misleading by commenting on ice sheets and citing an article on sea ice or were you just to dumb to know the difference?
Nothing that Gore said in "An Inconvenient Truth" would be expected to come to have come to full fruition in a mere 10 years. For instance you mentioned sea level rise. What Gore said in the film was that if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt it would cause about 20 feet of sea level rise. That is an accurate statement but he didn't put a time frame on it at all. The scientific literature says it would take as least several centuries for that to happen.
I know about the Dimmock case and the "9 errors" although the judge in the case called them inaccuracies. Gore may have been a bit hyperbolic in overstating some things but none of them are demonstrably absolutely wrong.
Floodwalls may not work very well in Florida where the underlying bedrock is porous limestone (kind of like Swiss cheese). The water can just come up from below.
Seems like the "climate change" alarmists are willing to constantly manipulate their data and revise their models to reach the preordained conclusion.
As opposed to climate science deniers who are willing to constantly accuse thousands of climate scientists from around the world of fraud in there science when in actuality science is one of the most intensely competitive activities that humans engage in. The way to make your name in science is to come up with something new that no one else has discovered. If any scientist were able to come up with that in the climate field you can be sure it would get plenty of publicity.
The GRACE satellites which measure changes in gravity show that Antarctica is still showing a net loss from the ice sheets. The research you cite is probably a good study but needs more work before it is confirmed. There are some issues with the measurements that come from two different satellites, one using a radar altimeter and the other using a laser altimeter. There was no overlap between the two satellites so it's impossible to cross correlate them. Also the assumptions on compression of the snow was modeled on computers with little on the ground confirmation of the correctness of the model. And finally the study ends in 2008 so it says nothing about what's happening now, 7 years later.
You mean the expanding ice sheets in Antarctica ?
https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...
You mention Antarctic ice sheets yet the link you provide is talking about expanding sea ice, a completely different subject. You should spend some time understanding the difference between land based ice sheets and sea ice. On top of that the article was about 2014. In 2015 Antarctic sea ice extent was less than in 2014.
The problem with guys like you is you never pay close enough attention to the time frames that are put on those predictions. You just assume it's going to happen "soon". Or it's possible you are deliberately ignoring the time frames attached to the predictions so you can make silly statements like that.