How Cool is the trend of Obama hitting new highs and GOP "leadership" hitting new lows?
without fox fake news spinning lies to their idiot audience, that trend would be even more long-running.
but fox fake news convinced its mentally impaired audience to protest higher taxes two months after Obama lowered their taxes.
To the moron that thinks (R)'s won the House - in reality they got more than a million fewer votes.
Extreme gerrymandering after the B.S. elections of 2010 allowed (R)'s to LOSE the election, but keep the house.
to the conservative idiot who thinks each budget is bigger than the last. WRONG, fool.
why do none of you slow cons understand the concept of inflation?
Yes, the growing season may be extended, however, the cooling forcings on the planet as a result will not be anywhere near enough to counteract the amount of warming forcings resulting from human greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the extreme weather events resulting from climate change are just as likely to destroy both the crops and the soil quality. On top of this, many crops are already demonstrating an incapacity to thrive in higher temperatures.
Is it more realistic to lower green house gas emissions or to sequester them out of the air?
i'm really skeptical of sequestration.
down unused oil or gas wells?
deep in the ocean?
several years ago, denver tried to dispose of it's sewage by pumping it underground. pretty soon they started to have earthquakes. when they stopped, so did the quakes.
in the ocean is worse. there's considerable life there, that would likely not do well when subjected to the increased CO2 levels, and the acid that would form in response to the added CO2.
it's just time to realize that "free" energy (maybe not politically correct this year) will not last forever, and get moving on it's replacement. then everybody wins. even those who deny that there's a problem.
Okay so the FED has been stimulating for a while and promises to hold interest rates near zero until?
The Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine has been ignoring the facts about the contraction of the economy. They won't admit they've been lying since the November election results.
Last night they held a huge pep rally on the Big Three networks bragging about the booming housing market. I hope that report is true. Housing is the biggest industry in America and results in more jobs and more creation of wealth over a wider sector of business than any other industry. That would be great.
Lets wait and see if this report is true for a change.
If the economy surges, inflation can't be far behind.
Bob Woodward reports Obama & Lew concocted the sequestration; how can you blame others?
I guess you don't remember the Super Committee or the Budget Control Act passed Congress.
Now for some facts:
Republicans in Congress also voted for the law that set up the possibility of sequestration . In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)
How large an effect is Brazil's clearing of rainforest for agriculture in the amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere?
Probably a difficult question to answer.
By clearing rainforest and planting crops for grazing or harvest you are replacing one CO2 sink with another.
A crop of corn is producing oxygen and using CO2 just like the rainforest is.
Do you think it is right for the world to criticize Brazil for developing its resources the way the USA and Europe developed theirs?
It is a republican terrorist weapon. Or they'd like it to be. Right now they have a bargaining position of basically zilch.
President has all the cards, and all the skill in a contrived confrontation wherein the GOP is trying to get the middle class to continue to pay for the sins of the dishonorable wealthy.
If nothing is done, the 10 year old Bush tax cuts which have crippled the U.S. economy will end. To make up for the damage done during the Republican feeding frenzy, taxes on the wealthy will have to not only go back to their former level but be increased. All that wealth that has been shipped out of the country needs to be made up somehow. The Republican solution of slave labor is not acceptable.
We may need some innovative tax solutions, like taxing capitol gains as income when above $1million, charging a 25% tax on all money sent to offshore banks. Nationalization of the corporations that have failed to serve the nation but rather mined wealth from it irresponsibly.
What we really need is the Iceland solution.
My son, who was born with spina bifida, had surgery on his back when he was not quite a day old. I cried all day, as I had a c-section and they wouldn't let me see my son until after his surgery. Finally, after 36 hours, they let me see him, and I never let him stay away from me for that long ever again. It's scary, but babies are quite resilient. Hang in there, the anticipation is the worst part.
Is generation time of bacteria shorter than the time taken to replicate DNA?
> Is generation time of bacteria shorter than the time taken to replicate DNA?
Yes. The bacterial chromosome is being replicated all the time, and as soon as the replication fork moves off the origin of replication, a new replication fork can get started. So a bacterium may have its chromosome, part of a daughter chromosome, parts of granddaughter chromosomes, parts of great-granddaughter chromosomes (etc.) at the same time.
> does that mean bacterial genome replication was started before the previous cell division was completed?
Will Republicans get away with blaming Obama for the military and defense cuts they forced into the sequester?
They certainly are trying -- by referring to it as "Obama's sequester" but it doesn't look like this will be a successful strategy. The Republican party seems to have finally reached the end of the rope with what is approaching zero credibility. A current poll shows that the Republicans in congress do not even have the approval of the Republican party and have a record low approval overall -- approaching Bush like numbers!
If you're interested in a job in the marketing field, of course an MBA with a focus in marketing is the most obvious pick, and it's a good choice according to research (see the link to MarketingHire.com , a job board that specializes in marketing and features articles with professional advice and trends). But marketing is undergoing a lot of change right now and big data is increasingly important as marketing professionals have more and more data input from things like internet marketing, interactive advertising, research, CRM, etc. Consequently, a masters that relates to data can be very valuable if you're pursuing a career in marketing, as would an MBA in strategy. The marketing roles with the greatest amount of new hiring for 2013 tend to be mobile marketing, social media and data related, and its certain that big data is going to play an increasingly important role for all marketers in the future. IDC had a great study and presentation on how big data is transforming marketing, which considering your question, I think you'll find worth reading. I've linked to it below.
How can I fart less so that I can reduce my carbon footprint?
Not farting is unhealthy for you! But if you're really dedicated to expelling your gasses less think about your diet. Also, don't forget that whenever we breathe we exhale carbon dioxide, so if you're that concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide you release then invent an environmentally-safe way for us humans to breathe.
when will nuclear fusion power plants start to appear?
Who knows, could be 20 years could be never. The major problem with fusion is initiating it, you need incredibly high pressures and temperatures to produce a fusion reaction. At the moment fusion produces less energy than it takes to create the conditions required for it to occur, at least in a controlled fashion. Once (if) people work out how to actually get a significant net energy gain from it then we'll probably see power plants. Also, it is being pursued further, there is an experimental reactor (ITER) currently being built in France.
Carbon sequestration is not strongly enforced because it's not proven on large scale. We still have very little idea how the carbon dioxide moves through the subsurface once it's injected and no reliable monitoring techniques for gas leaks from the storage sites. In addition, moving CO2 from the plant to the storage site is a pain as it needs to be maintained as a supercritical fluid in order to be efficiently transported. This isn't a particular problem over a short distance but most plants are a fair way away from the old gas wells where the CO2 would be stored. Despite what you hear about it, it's still very much an infant technology.
When people Say: "Carbon Capture", Are they Referring to Geologic Sequestration of CO2?
Yes, usually. But it's still largely fantasy with the technology unproven and its potential "collateral damage" undefined and avoided. It seems funds and energy are available for anything that might support business as usual, but very little for different, sustainable, options that are already available - even when they require comparatively little change to the way we live (leaving aside the major changes that will obviously be required to deal with over population and climate change in reality). However there are currently experimental CO2 installations around the world - one of them in Victoria Australia pumping CO2 into naturally capped strata, far away from the CO2 source electricity generators. Sequestration proposals typically depend on CO2 compression, and transport by road - using fossil fuels, of course! It seems avoidance and insanity knows no bounds.
How does carbon sequestration have an effect on the environment?
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, which has been linked to global warming. Other carbon compounds in the atmosphere can be harmful to humans.
It is believed that the increase in carbon dioxide gas produced by burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, so people have been looking for ways to sequester, or store the carbon after they have burned things, in order to cut down on the amount of greenhouse gasses that are present.
For this reason, we've been pumping Carbon dioxide into old oil wells, and doing various other things to trap the carbon dioxide in places where it cannot gather the sun's heat into our environment.
Why Do Democrats and Obama followers feel that Republicans are the cause for Sequestration that is on its way.?
There is tape out there of Obama's insisting on the sequester and his insisting that it must happen.
Here is a very short video from 2011 when he said that he would veto any attempt to evade the sequester:
How does carbon sequestration have an effect on the environment?
Carbon sequestration does not have an effect on the environment. It serves only to create a bunch of BS jobs that end up costing the consumer 4-7X what they would normally pay for the same non-carbon sequestered commodity.
Why are Democrats trying to put the blame on Republicans if sequestration happens?
You might want to do a little research outside lying MSNBC. The President proposed it,,,,,,that's ONE,,,,the Senate voted for it,,,,,,that's TWO,,, and the House voted for it,,,,,that's ONE,,,,,,so the score is,,, 2 to 1 democrats. And, the asker is correct, the House has put out a budget, but the dems won't even discuss it, change it, work on it, or even vote on it. ONLY A PARTISAN IDIOT BLAMES THE MINORITY PARTY FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS.
Sequestration doesn't actually cut anything but make a dent in the rate of growth?
Mainly because our President does not lead, but campaigns. Continuously.
Sequestration, which was introduced initially by Obama, really had nothing to do with the budget, since as we know, Obama is not interested in budget matters, but everything to do with making the Republicans look bad. And when you have the media in your pocket, it's easy to do.
And just in case no one has noticed, this is how many crisis situations that have faced this President? Just one more crisis to not let go to waste. One more in an ever increasing line of "The Sky is Falling" opportunities for the Democrats.
Would encouraging more uses for paper increase carbon sequestration?
i think the sequestration time would be a bit short. even my dad chucks paperwork out after 50 years or so.
Furniture, made to last generations, now that would be good. we could get back to the idea of pitying people who had to buy new furniture (having none to inherit). My good stuff is all between 50 and 100 years old, that's the way i like it.
Do you support or oppose budget sequestration for the United States?
I don't agree with all that is being cut but if we don't start cutting and stop ridiculous spending soon, we will be bankrupt. Obama has no intentions of cutting anything. He must be forced to stop his tax and spend agenda. Obamacare alone will drive us in to bankruptcy.
what is the leftover product of carbon sequestration?
What is Carbon Sequestration?
Carbon Sequestration is capturing and securely storing carbon dioxide emitted from the global energy system.
Hydrodynamic Trapping: Carbon dioxide can be trapped as a gas under low-permeability cap rock (much like natural gas is stored in gas reservoirs).
Solubility Trapping: Carbon dioxide can be dissolved into a liquid, such as water or oil.
Mineral Carbonation: Carbon dioxide can react with the minerals, fluids, and organic matter in a geologic formation to form stable compounds/minerals; largely calcium, iron, and magnesium carbonates.
How can we get Government Grants to start a carbon sequestration business?
It is hard to find grants to start a business. One possible exception is for companies developing or exporting agricultural goods, including food and forest product. Another exception could be the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/sbir/index.html , which fund the research and development of technological innovation that meets specific government needs.
If you can get your business to be approved for STTR or SBIR programs, then you might get a chance to get grants for this new business.
Your best bet actually will be from the states if they offer grant programs for women (or any other special interest groups -- minorities, women, disabled, veterans, etc). Or check with non profit organizations, particularly women organizations if they offer grants. Examples include
Iowa Women's Foundation http://www.iawf.org/
New Mexico Women's Foundation http://www.nmwf.org/guidelines.html
Even SBA does NOT give out grants. From the SBA website http://www.sba.gov/mostrequesteditems/CON_FAQ2.html
"The U.S. Small Business Administration does not offer grants to start or expand small businesses, although it does offer a wide variety of loan programs. (See http://www.sba.gov/financing for more information) While SBA does offer some grant programs, these are generally designed to expand and enhance organizations that provide small business management, technical, or financial assistance. These grants generally support non-profit organizations, intermediary lending institutions, and state and local governments."
Nonetheless, you can go to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) http://www.cfda.gov and Grants.gov http://www.grants.gov - these are two sites created by the federal government to provide transparency and information on grants. Browse through the listings and see if you can find any grant that would support a for-profit venture.
Here is a listing of federal grants for small businesses. See if there is any available for individuals for starting a business -- THERE'S NONE.
Most of the federal grants are given to specific target groups with specific requirements (e.g. minority business owners involved in transportation related contracts emanating from DOT - Grant#20.905 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Short Term Lending Program
Grants are also often given to non profit groups or organizations involved in training or other similar activities (grant 59.043 Women's Business Ownership Assistance that are given to those who will create women's business center that will train women entrepreneurs
how does carbon sequestration make an application of the coase theorem?
Pardon me for pointing this out, but your question belongs in Higher Education and not in Special Education. I'm sorry I do not know the answer to your question. When I entered those words into yahoo's search engine, the following site popped up.
Can natural gas power plants use carbon sequestration?
Sure. IMO, every new fossil-fuel plant should be capturing and sequestering their carbon. There are a number of techniques to do that; for example, if you pump CO2 more than 500 meters deep into the ocean, the pressure will liquify it, and being heavier than water it will sink to the bottom and stay there.
Can anybody give me a very basic explanation for Carbon Sequestration?
We burn fossil fuels everyday. Gasoline and diesel in our engines for transportation and coal in our boilers for power. Without fossil fuels our entire society would collapse.
The whole idea with carbon sequestration is to prevent global warming by storing carbon dioxide underground instead of releasing it to the atmosphere. It is considered a clean coal technology and is being experimented heavily in the coal fired power plant industry. Scientists well know that excess CO2 in the atmosphere leads to trapping of solar radiation on earth (the greenhouse effect) so it was decided that storing underground could be beneficial. They have also discovered that they could use this method to extract even more oil (how convenient!).
I hope this explains it.
How is Obama planning on stopping the Sequestration law he signed?
LOL... I already explained this to you...
CONGRESS DOESN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN... just like the gov. shutdown...
to avoid it they just have to agree to the amount of cuts in the bill... which they will do by fudging the numbers... as always...
THIS WAS THE KEY NOTE LEGISLATION OF THE TEA PARTY HOUSE... do you think they want it to end up with huge military cuts? NOPE... and dems don't want that either...
EDIT: politically speaking... it's highly unlikely it will happen... not impossible, just highly unlikely... much like the gov. shutdown was...
EDIT2: lol... guh...
after the election is over... THEY CAN FINALLY STOP POSING FOR THE VOTERS AND ACTUALLY GET SOME WORK DONE...
are you saying that the con house is so stubborn that they will harm the troops to put mud on Obama's face even after the election? lol
even... THEY are not that stubborn, if they WERE they would have shut down the gov. long before they even did this...
any other questions?
there's "compromise"... and then there's "compromise"... issues that impact voters DIRECTLY and issues that have very indirect and shady impacts over years...
the ONLY possible problem I could imagine is if Romney was elected and the senate dems decide they want to watch the world burn on their way out... lol
EDIT3: the answer to your question lies in this question:
Why didn't the house shut down gov. over spending and why did they extend unemployment benefits for tax breaks?
the answer is... some things even cons don't want to mess with... seniors on SS (thus they were afraid to shut down the gov., even if benefits would still be available, they didn't want to deal with the fear of it), tax cuts for the rich... and MILITARY CUTS... those are third rails even for the GOP house...
What do you think about the use of Sequestration as a tool to motivate congress to do their job?
"consequences to the politicians" .. How about term limits? Like someone said, A bad idea whose time has come.
I don't care for the sequestration idea. How many bills have we had rammed down our throats lately because of artificial deadlines? "Obama-Care", NDAA, and NOW they're trying to rush Gun Control!
I'd rather have no bills passed than the hurry up and hurry up bullchit we've witnessed lately.
Edit: No actually you're making a lot of sense :)
Good points. Especially Re: The baby and King Solomon
I remember right after they passed sequestration, a writer on the left did a piece on the subject. His main point was basically 'Don't sweat it, neither side is serious and when the time comes they'll find a back door around any real cuts'. I agreed with that assessment at the time. And now that you got me thinking about it, I believe it more now. Why? Because Most in DC are thinking about jobs alright..THEIR JOBS. Notice how they're tripping over each other to pass "immigration reform". They may not be worried about covering Our asses but they're sure as hell gonna cover Theirs!
Now I'm rambling lol. My point is, most of them are going to avoid making the hard choices.