jcd11235

Your comment reminded me of this op-ed. The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're asking about the details of state regulations that have yet to be written. No. I'm asking whether these folks have typically been included in the "officially reported" unemployment rates and, if so, whether or not they will continue to be included even if they not now required to seek a job as a condition of their continued participation. Nothing to do with regulations. Either they have been counted or they have not. I'm just asking the question because I don't know. Currently, as I understand it, if they are unemployed and actively seeking employment, they are ideally counted in the unemployment rates. I say ideally, because the actual counting methods may miss (or overcount?) some small percentage of them. There is no way of knowing if the same counting procedures will be continued in states that develop alternative programs under a waiver, since those programs have yet to be developed or approved. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're asking about the details of state regulations that have yet to be written. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In Thursday's policy directive, the department said the states may seek a waiver from the work component of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, in order to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families." HHS stressed that any alternative should still aim to get welfare recipients into gainful employment. Any plan that "appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families," will not be approved, the memo said. It looks like the waivers are intended to allow individual states to be laboratories of democracy, to allow them to test programs that might more effectively put aid recipients back to work. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not so sure they will. Look at the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. The jury, having seen all of the evidence, did not see things the same way as those who followed the case through the media. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Thanks. I just took some time away. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I have no reason to believe he picked a fight with him. The facts of the case, as reported by the media (which means they should be taken with a grain of salt) seem to indicate that is exactly what happened. However, I wasn't there, and I strongly suspect you weren't either, so neither of us know for certain. I disagree. Some Florida state legislators have also stated that the stand your ground law was not intended to protect from prosecution people who do such things. * * * * * Let's say, for arguments sake, that Zimmerman did start the fight in some manner or another. His conviction of 2nd degree murder or felony manslaughter would be the best thing that could happen for the right to carry lobby. It would provide an example that they could use to show that those who carry and use guns irresponsibly can and do face consequences, so fears that such laws will result in more violence are unfounded. On the other hand, if Zimmerman gets away with it, it's a huge propaganda win for the anti-carry lobby. It will be portrayed as "proof" that a concealed carry license is really just a license to murder. And enough people will believe it that that councilpersons and legislators will have to listen to them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If I pick a fight with someone (even if I antagonize them into throwing the first punch) who is just minding their own business, and then start getting my ass kicked by that person, do you think I have a right to pull out a gun (that I'm carrying legally) and fatally shoot them without any legal consequences? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's a vacuously true statement, since average temperatures are not 3-4 degrees higher now in urban areas than in rural areas. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You should read my posts better before criticizing them. Of the record low daily temperatures we have seen, though there haven't been (nor did I imply that there had been) many, many of them have been observed in well developed areas that would be prone to UHI effect. You provided a hypothesis, and have argued vehemently that that hypothesis is correct, but you have failed to provide any data at all supporting that hypothesis. At first glance, I thought the hypothesis seemed reasonable enough to be worthy of further investigation, so I looked at data to look for patterns that would be expected should the hypothesis be correct. Such patterns are not readily noticeable, and certainly are not as prevalent as they would be if the UHI effect affected the record high/low ratio to the extent that you implied when you wrote, "Hell, I'm surprised the ratio is as low as 11:1." Now, if we were discussing a ratio of 3:2, or even 2:1, we might need to examine the data more closely. But with a ratio of 11:1, if the UHI effect was a significant factor, it would be blatantly obvious from the graphical representations of the data. It isn't. We see neither an abnormally high proportion of urban areas with record highs or an abnormally low proportion of urban areas with record lows. I stand by my original statement: "In an average year, we would expect to see as many record lows as record highs. If there are lots more record highs than record lows, then we would expect it to be a warmer than average year. 11:1 is a pretty significant imbalance." I would concede that it is plausible that we might expect slightly fewer record lows than record highs in an average year, due to UHI effects, though the ratio should still be close to 1:1. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And yet we still see plenty of the broken daily low record temps in well developed areas, which we would not expect if the UHI were the significant factor you claim it to be. The most logical explanation, which is confirmed by other data, is that the majority of broken records being from daily high temperatures is due to higher than average temperatures. But, like I said previously, feel free to provide data supporting your hypothesis. None of the data seen thus far does that. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You can say that, but the evidence we've seen so far isn't consistent with your hypothesis. Another consequence of your hypothesis is that there would be few record lows in metropolitan areas, since the temperature difference between developed and rural areas, due to heat island effect, is greatest at night. Here we see well developed locations like Jacksonville, Daytona Beach, Orlando, Sanford, and St. Petersburg, Florida all setting record low temperatures. If you know of a legitimate dataset that does support your hypothesis, I'm certainly willing to take a look. (The onus is, of course, on you.) Absent such evidence, it's best to stick with the most logical and probable explanation for the high ratio of record highs to record lows, that the temperatures in the US this year have been above average (especially since we know that to, in fact, be true). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Don't forget to check out the Miami metro area, which suffers badly from urban sprawl, which would certainly result in the effect that you hypothesize if your hypothesis were true. Also, notice the abundance of record highs in areas with lots of farmland and few cities. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Fair enough. The graphic I used would actually favor your hypothesis if that hypothesis were true, but we'll go with a graphic that plots only record highs instead. We still don't see the expected correlation here. That's just a map of daily record high temperatures. We can (still) safely reject your hypothesis. The record daily temperatures that we are discussing are considered weather, not climate. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The effect would be very, if not most, prominent in highly populated areas, where there isn't lots of farmland surrounding the cities, requiring a much larger percentage of the temperature readings to come from cities instead of farmland. That's not the pattern observed. We can rule out the heat island effect as a significant reason for the abundance of record highs. When we see in a sample more outliers from one side of the distribution than the other, e.g., more record highs than record lows, that often correlates with a sample mean higher than the population mean. I agree that counting outliers is not the best way to determine if the sample mean is greater than or less than the population mean, but it's far from a useless method. In this particular case, it is consistent with the fact that "the first six months of 2012 were the warmest on record for the contiguous United States." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, we would expect to see that if all of the thermometers were in rural areas. But most are in fairly urban or suburban areas. Even in rural areas they are often at airfields. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/urban-heat-island.htm There's your explanation. And as paradise gets paved over and parking lots are put up, expect more highs and fewer lows in more places. I don't think kallend or skiskyrock would disagree with this as a pretty plausible and highly scientific explanation for this phenomenon. Hell, I'm surprised the ratio is as low as 11:1. That's a fair hypothesis. We can test it pretty easily. If the heat island effect is responsible for the record high temperatures this year, we would expect the locations of those record high temperatures to be clustered around areas of high population density. Let's check: Population density Record temperatures As you can see, there is little correlation between locations with record high temperatures and areas with high population density. We can therefore reject your hypothesis that the abundance of record high temperatures is due to the heat island effect. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

the earth is flat (circa a long ass time ago) That was my point, high levels of confidence can always be proven wrong in the future when someone makes a new discovery. You're overlooking the fact that between the flat earth era and now, the scientific method was developed. Our knowledge of global temperatures, especially those of the last century, is based on systematic experiments and sound logic. No new discovery will change their validity. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Science knows nothing with absolute certainty. That's just not how science works. It is known at a very high level of confidence that the atmosphere is warming. The consequence of that warming may not be fully understood, but scientists have a pretty thorough understanding of various ways to measure temperature. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not necessarily. With record highs and lows, we are talking about daily temperatures. Therefore, "so far this year" represents about 200 units of time. And for each unit of time, there are two important data points (daily high and daily low) for each of many different geographic locations, each of which has its own temperature records for comparison, to see if a record has been broken. In an average year, we would expect to see as many record lows as record highs. If there are lots more record highs than record lows, then we would expect it to be a warmer than average year. 11:1 is a pretty significant imbalance. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Because the average temperature trend is not monotonic (due to variance and confounding variables), we can select a short time period with endpoints chosen specifically to "show" that the average global temperature was not increasing over that period. The greater the variance from one time period to the next (in this case, from one year to the next), the more important it is to use longer time periods if we wish to observe any statistically significant trends that may exist. In other words, short time periods of 10-15 years are pretty useless for observing long term temperature trends. So statistics caused the temperatures to flatten out and not some environmental reason? By carefully selecting beginning and endpoints of a short time period, we can "see" a trend of level temperatures that isn't really there. It's a neat trick to fool people who don't understand statistical analysis well enough to understand what is going on. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Because the average temperature trend is not monotonic (due to variance and confounding variables), we can select a short time period with endpoints chosen specifically to "show" that the average global temperature was not increasing over that period. The greater the variance from one time period to the next (in this case, from one year to the next), the more important it is to use longer time periods if we wish to observe any statistically significant trends that may exist. In other words, short time periods of 10-15 years are pretty useless for observing long term temperature trends. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Really? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You realize that the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution is the only definitive one, right? It is literally impossible for them to misinterpret the document because of that fact. Not that the Federalist Papers have any legal weight, but the most prolific writer of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, "maintained the [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." Source Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Note that this was his opinion on the Constitutionality of a central bank, but it's an accurate description of how he viewed the concept of "implied" powers in the constitution. You would be better served studying how the SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution than how Jefferson interpreted the document. You are aware that Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention, right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!