Articles on this Page
- 12/17/18--17:17: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--17:18: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--17:28: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--17:47: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--18:25: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--19:06: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--19:37: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--20:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--20:32: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--20:37: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--21:00: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/18/18--05:14: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/18/18--06:36: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/18/18--06:36: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/18/18--07:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/18/18--07:31: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/18/18--11:51: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/18/18--12:43: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/18/18--12:51: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/18/18--12:52: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--17:17: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/17/18--17:28: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/17/18--17:47: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/17/18--19:06: Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech
- 12/17/18--20:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/17/18--21:00: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/18/18--05:14: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/18/18--06:36: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 12/18/18--06:36: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ulric Lyons
- 12/18/18--07:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/18/18--07:31: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/18/18--12:51: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/18/18--12:52: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
Total healthcare spending, all sources, is supposedly 3.5 trillion dollars. The Canadians would spend ~1.3 to 2 trillion to do the same basic thing. MedicareForAll is supposedly 4 trillion.
What a piece of garbage!
The authors are clueless as to what actually causes El Ninos and La Ninas, which is simply changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, primarily due to the random occurrence of VEI4,or higher volcanic eruptions.
"La Nina cause El Nino".
NO, La Ninas are normally caused by large Volcanic eruptions, and appear on average about 15 months after the date of the eruption, after its SO2 aerosols have circulated around the globe. A few have also been man-made.
El Ninos form after the volcanoe's SO2 aerosols have settled out of the atmosphere (after ~ 18-24 months after the eruption) , cleansing the air, and often resulting in the formation of a volcanic-induced El Nino. A few El Ninos, especially the 2014-2016 El Nino, have also been man-made.
Not having a plan is no hindrance. Here's my plan, we are going to vanquish the other team. And do slightly better than we have in the past with policy. We are going to tweak, so we can get elected and still get campaign money.
Here's a nice article:
The plan was for her to be President. Now that that didn't happen, we have a new plan, and never wanted her to win anyways.
All she is saying its it's Obamacare, which was already in place.
Near the end of the midterms Republican candidates were in bed with Obamacare. They suddenly loved it, but forgot to get the message to their ultra extremist activist federal judge here in Fort Worth.
I wrote: "At equilibrium pre-industrially, we had something like 0.6, 2.1 and 3.9 TtC – about 1.4% in the air.
I meant: At equilibrium pre-industrially, we had something like 0.6, 2.1 and 39 TtC in the air, land and ocean respectively – about 1.4% in the air.
dpy6629 the warming oceans have been absorbing CO2, not releasing it into the atmosphere.
Wish you could reword this better.
If CO2 is being increased with human emissions which seems likely then of course oceans will absorb some of it.
On the other hand warming oceans do release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Always have and always will.
net flow I will defer to you but .... it could be a moot point.
Does a 0.3 C rise emission balance a 130 ppm increase in CO2?
The Economist: "The moral assumptions embedded in economic models of climate change." A once-great periodical (from 1843 to about 2000) has descended to clap-trap.
So many once great magazines have descended into worthless rags.
"The most energetic patterns of extratropical variability in the lower atmosphere are the annular modes—the Northern Hemisphere annular mode (NAM), or Arctic Oscillation, and its counterpart, the Southern Hemisphere annular mode (SAM), or Antarctic Oscillation.
Positive values of these indices correspond to strengthened subpolar westerly winds and weakened subtropical westerlies and, therefore, to increased wind stress curl over the midlatitude ocean gyres. Positive trends in
the amplitude of both annular modes over two or more decades have been described, beginning about 1970 in the case of the NAM (Thompson et al. 2000) and 1979 or earlier in the case of the SAM (Thompson et al. 2000; Marshall 2003; Renwick 2004). The decadal trends, plus large interannual variability represented in the northern and southern annular modes, have provided a substantial fraction of the low-frequency wind forcing for subtropical and subpolar ocean circulation variability." https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JPO3004.1
Polar annular modes are modulated by - inter alia - solar intensity. Low solar intensity increases wind stress and spin up sub-polar gyres enhancing upwelling on the eastern margins of north and south America in the origins of cool Pacific surface conditions. All the rest is feedbacks in resonant coupled ocean and atmosphere dynamics. Including cloud in the dominant global source of cloud cover variability (Clement et al 2009).
There is a playlist - be patient - it is worth it.
We have been doing 'sponge cities' for decades - and frequent flooding can be minimized. But major flooding is a force of nature that can't be ameliorated with practical stormwater systems.
The best that can be done is to calculate flood, minimise development in floodways and have pragmatic evacuation plans. Over hyping it creates unrealistic expectations.
On the other hand...
Here's what I think I know:
MN Care is good for those that have it. Cheap or no cost. Have Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) less than about $33,000 for a married couple.
MN Sure is Okay. AGI more than about $33,000 but less than about $66,000 for a married couple. Net premiums vary. With more income they are higher. I have seen them ballpark $200/month but they can be higher. This can be complicated when filing income taxes. Most of my clients have me looking at what happens to their 1040 when they make traditional IRA contributions and/or HSA contributions? These people generally love the new deal. I've said somewhere, before this deal, premiums were high. Now they seem high for those above about $66,000 for a married couple. These numbers of mine apply to Minnesota. For those less than about $66,000, life is good in my opinion. Better than if the ACA did not exist. But this applies to Minnesota. Don't ask me about North Dakota. I assume the ACA is pretty standard across states, but I don't know. So you are correct. The Republicans should no longer make this an issue. Though, there is a rural divide. If you live in our sticks, where all the food is grown, network problems. Drive 40 miles to see your doctor. We have seen a few providers drop out. That is the insurance companies. Not sure where that is going. The product is good. Any people generally want it to continue assuming they can make the income thresholds. Now the people above the income thresholds have nothing. No credits. Market prices. People plan their post 60 life around health insurance. A lot of them do anyways. Once they make it to 65, life is good again because of Medicare. I don't think blowing this thing up would work for the Republicans. They've painted themselves into a corner. But say Trump has done that too. All he needs to do is change his mind. Because what people think about him doesn't matter to him in many cases, he can do that. Pelosi rain manned this the other day. They'll work together on this and fix it. It will be the best healthcare ever. She said the MSM has gone nuts and fixates on Trump 24/7. She wants to be remembered as the person who took down the President? No. My best example was the day after they took back the House. I forget what it was, but no one talked about that. It was something Trump did. He has them mesmerized. It's the greatest thing that ever happened. They are going liberally insane. This will be in the history books. The end of the MSM.
You live in a very progressive state. Try Alablackhola or MIsserrysippi.
I bet the climate chaos propaganda made her feel like taking her own life. Read what her father said:
'SVANTE THUNBERG: Oh, in every possible way, I’d say. It started maybe four years ago. She was very sort of—she got herself in a position where she was learning a lot about the climate change. And she was finding out that everyone was saying one thing and doing the exact other thing. And that, she could not cope with. So, she fell into a depression. She stopped eating, stopped talking. And she fell out of school and stayed at home for almost a year. And my wife and I sort of—we stayed at home with her, of course, and we did everything—I stopped working completely, and we spent, you know, all our time with her.'
The $10 Trillion comes straight from IRS. The Tax Foundation is using IRS numbers. The $17 Trillion comes from Bureau of Economic Analysis, which I trust implicitly.
I’ve read various definitions of “personal income “ . I know exactly what the IRS Adjusted Gross Income is since the IRS tables show all components. In reading the definition of “personal income “ there aren’t any obvious differences except for things like some Transfer Payments that an individual wouldn’t necessarily put on their 1040 form. None of the differences are obviously making up the $7 Trillion difference. But doing that also could be a double accounting entry. Not sure.
If we want to know how much Income is actually available to “spend” by the individual, then the IRS number is more appropriate. But I can’t reconcile the HUGE difference between what people are reporting on their tax returns and what is shown in US personal income. It must relate to some government transfer payments and some obscure share of GDP attributed to the aggregate income for all citizens.
Personal income also includes non cash contributions from employers to insurance, pensions, 401 (k) and other benefits. But still seems very big difference.
A very slick presentation of completely erroneous conclusions, with respect to the cause of El Nino formation!
Essentially all El Ninos can be clearly associated with random, decreased SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, which causes increased surface warming, leading to their formation.
BH:It would be nice if you would refer ( only one time is enough) to peer reviewed papers instead of your own ( erroneous) wild guesses!
"This confirms that the time scale for full adjustment of the deep ocean is about 3000 yr (e.g., Stouffer 2004; Danabasoglu 2004). It is set by the diffusive time scale estimated for the deep ocean using the very small model diapycnal diffusion coefficient below the thermocline."
Diapycnal diffusion is based on consideration of the collapse of gravity waves at the surface and the creation of small regions of turbulent dispersion to depth. The theory is of course that greenhouse gases slow the release of ocean heat to the atmosphere resulting in warming oceans. Some of that heat is then transported to depth resulting in accumulation of the tiny instantaneous increase - some 10^-9 W/m2 - in greenhouse gas forcing that sums in this simple conceptual model to the total average warming rate of oceans - some 0.8 W/m2 currently.
But what happens if heat transport to depths through mesoscale eddies basin wide and 1000's of meters deep is much faster? The variation of solar input on an annual basis of +/- 10 W/m2 as a result of current orbital eccentricity provides a way of tracing heat transfer through ocean layers in Argo data.
This chart is helpfully provided by Ole Humlum and shows rapid translation of very large energy input variations to depth.
"We therefore suggest that previous estimates of these important characteristics of the global ocean require reconsideration." https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL068184
The other source of heat to oceans is of course from the Earth's interior - at some 0.06 W/m2 on average although with hot and cool regions based on geology.
Conceptually the increase in greenhouse gas forcing marginally reduces heat loss from oceans - oceans and atmosphere stay warmer and there is no 'heat in the pipeline'. The corollary is that current energy imbalances seen in CERES are natural - mostly related to cloud over the eastern Pacific (e.g. Loeb et al 2018) and a temporary reduction in volcanic SO2 emissions. And no doubt other things in the multiply coupled dynamical complexity of the Earth system.
Done it again... https://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoWorldOceanSince200401%2065N-65S.gif