They don't move because it is often more expensive elsewhere. But there's a reason so many wealthy in Europe "reside" in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monaco, and other tax havens - because they save money and minimize their taxes. If we increase income taxes to pretty much the highest level in the 1st world, do you think most wealthy would continue to keep their income in the US, or move it overseas? You don't have to physically relocate to economically relocate...
Sea ice in the Arctic tends to reach its lowest during September. Meaning if you're going to be ice free, that's probably the month when it will happen. Yet the IPCC's own models do not say it will happen, just that there is a chance it could. In fact, RCP 2.6 says it probably will not happen (at least most of the tolerance range is well above the "ice free" level of 1MM km of ice in the Arctic).
See that link a few posts up in this thread? No? Here it is again. This is all 90 of the IPCC models graphed versus actual data. Not just one or a few models - ALL of them. And you see pretty much ALL OF THEM (well, 88 of 90) overestimate the warming. It's not just a model - it's pretty much all of them.
Show us your math, "smart" guy. The models are open, where are the "natural effects" discounted, specifically?
PRECISELY THE POINT! There are no "natural effects" in the model. That's the problem. We know the planet has dramatically cycled up and down by several degrees in just the last few centuries (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period). How do we know that isn't happening now? Well - the IPCC cannot consider that question by its own charter.
Science is about the geniuses. If your model or theory doesn't hold up to the data - then it's wrong. I would suggest watching this video by Richard Feynman about theories and proof as well.
What's to stop them from moving out of the country? With the required level of taxation, even Norway or Belgium would be a lower-tax jurisdiction. What's to stop them from moving away?
And yet - the quotation as stated at NPR is 100% correct. Wars were running when President Obama was sworn into office, he expanded them, and none ended during his tenure. All 8 years - continual military action. Never done before...
Correct - satellites measure air temperature, which is more accurate than surface temperatures which are affected by urban changes. For example, the USHCN network - the largest and "best" network of temperature monitoring systems - has less than 3% of its stations completely within operational specifications. Most (70%) are accurate to just +/- 2 deg C at best.
And the "average" they calculate is simply taking the peak and the minimum and averaging them together. Now, I don't know where you live, but I've lived in places where it wasn't uncommon to have a day be 75 deg F from 6 AM to 9 PM - then a cold front move in and drop the temperature to 30 degrees by midnight. Was the average really 52 deg F? Nope. Likewise, starting the day, working up to 65 deg F, then having a cold front move in by 10 AM and dropping the temperature below 40 deg F from Noon on - was that really 52.5 deg F? Nope.
How about adding sea surface temperatures to land temperatures? Interpolating over 1000 km away? Is that more accurate than a satellite and radiosonde record - both of which closely agree - taken over a larger, more evenly spaced section of the Earth?
And yet, for all that - the cost of electricity has increased as the shift to renewables has happened. Tariffs - targeted taxation - are required to make renewables "competitive", but of course that's just a stealth way of hiding the costs, isn't it?
Looking at the satellite data, the models are barely hanging on right now, as the data tends to oscillate in and out of the lower border. The models are running hot, on average. Hotter than the data.
Looking at the satellite data from your link, it is pretty clear all the models, on average, heavily over-estimate the warming as the measured data lives in the very bottom of the tolerance range (thankfully it's a REALLY WIDE range so they can still claim "we're accurate!"). The averages seem to run about 0.4 deg C too hot - and if you look at the satellite data, it shows a big spike in 1998, and we're just now getting back up to that level again (meaning the 15 year pause was real - even though it wasn't in any of the models).
Looking at a plot of the average of each model versus actual measurements shows the same thing - most models overestimate warming, but only by having wide tolerance windows (on the order of the base estimation itself) can they claim "accurate".
Appeals to the masses didn't stop Einstein and he was correct in his rebuttal. And even your contention of 95% is actually false as the original "study" was highly flawed in methodology, to such an extent it should never be heard from again.
Currently we see models increasingly diverging from measured data, and the biggest suspect is the value used for climate sensitivity to CO2. Most models assume 3 deg C, but research shows it to be about half that.
Oh, and if you'd actually look at those linked pages, you'll finds lots of links to real published data, peer reviewed and everything.
More and more research is showing that the estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is quickly falling, making the projections based upon a much higher sensitivity value less and less accurate. Most of the IPCC models assume 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2, but research since 2012 basically supports a value about half that. And it would explain why there is a divergence between models and measurements.
Not a lie - a series of reports that only look at one part of the equation. The IPCC:
is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
By its own charter, it cannot consider non-human-induced climate change. Natural effects are discounted. When you have an equation, W = N + H, and you want to limit W to a certain value, you must know both N and H. Looking only at H is irrelevant, and tells you nothing. But that is exactly what the IPCC does.
They are not lying - they are just following a bad charter and are ignoring half (or, as it is increasingly turning out, more than half) of the actual issue - what would Nature do on its own?
President Obama is the first president to serve eight years and preside over American wars during every single day of his tenure. And that includes starting new "actions" in Syria, Iraq, and Libya.
Hmmm... I just posted financial data from the Government itself saying it has enough money for roads. And you post a link to an advocacy group saying otherwise. Read the Government financial data itself - there is enough. The issue is that Government tends to slush those funds around and steal from road taxes/fees to fund other things. That's what the actual data shows.
So how much heating is natural? If we're to stop "heating the Earth", then we need to know how much is natural (meaning - we cannot control it), right? How much is natural? What does the IPCC say about that?
You're talking marginal, not effective, tax rates. Look up the difference. In fact, back in the 1950s when we had those sky-high marginal rates, the average person paid (adjusted for income) about half the tax to the Federal Government as they do today. Effective rates are what I'm talking about there, and they would more than double - making them above just about every other nation on the Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't move because it is often more expensive elsewhere. But there's a reason so many wealthy in Europe "reside" in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monaco, and other tax havens - because they save money and minimize their taxes. If we increase income taxes to pretty much the highest level in the 1st world, do you think most wealthy would continue to keep their income in the US, or move it overseas? You don't have to physically relocate to economically relocate...
Sea ice in the Arctic tends to reach its lowest during September. Meaning if you're going to be ice free, that's probably the month when it will happen. Yet the IPCC's own models do not say it will happen, just that there is a chance it could. In fact, RCP 2.6 says it probably will not happen (at least most of the tolerance range is well above the "ice free" level of 1MM km of ice in the Arctic).
See that link a few posts up in this thread? No? Here it is again. This is all 90 of the IPCC models graphed versus actual data. Not just one or a few models - ALL of them. And you see pretty much ALL OF THEM (well, 88 of 90) overestimate the warming. It's not just a model - it's pretty much all of them.
Natural effects are discounted.
Show us your math, "smart" guy. The models are open, where are the "natural effects" discounted, specifically?
PRECISELY THE POINT! There are no "natural effects" in the model. That's the problem. We know the planet has dramatically cycled up and down by several degrees in just the last few centuries (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period). How do we know that isn't happening now? Well - the IPCC cannot consider that question by its own charter.
Science is about the geniuses. If your model or theory doesn't hold up to the data - then it's wrong. I would suggest watching this video by Richard Feynman about theories and proof as well.
Why do you think the UK would have a worse passport Visa deal than the US?
That is one MASSIVE water balloon! Now we need to figure out the size of the funnelator needed to shoot that thing to Mars....
What's to stop them from moving out of the country? With the required level of taxation, even Norway or Belgium would be a lower-tax jurisdiction. What's to stop them from moving away?
And yet - the quotation as stated at NPR is 100% correct. Wars were running when President Obama was sworn into office, he expanded them, and none ended during his tenure. All 8 years - continual military action. Never done before...
Correct - satellites measure air temperature, which is more accurate than surface temperatures which are affected by urban changes. For example, the USHCN network - the largest and "best" network of temperature monitoring systems - has less than 3% of its stations completely within operational specifications. Most (70%) are accurate to just +/- 2 deg C at best.
And the "average" they calculate is simply taking the peak and the minimum and averaging them together. Now, I don't know where you live, but I've lived in places where it wasn't uncommon to have a day be 75 deg F from 6 AM to 9 PM - then a cold front move in and drop the temperature to 30 degrees by midnight. Was the average really 52 deg F? Nope. Likewise, starting the day, working up to 65 deg F, then having a cold front move in by 10 AM and dropping the temperature below 40 deg F from Noon on - was that really 52.5 deg F? Nope.
How about adding sea surface temperatures to land temperatures? Interpolating over 1000 km away? Is that more accurate than a satellite and radiosonde record - both of which closely agree - taken over a larger, more evenly spaced section of the Earth?
And yet, for all that - the cost of electricity has increased as the shift to renewables has happened. Tariffs - targeted taxation - are required to make renewables "competitive", but of course that's just a stealth way of hiding the costs, isn't it?
Looking at the satellite data, the models are barely hanging on right now, as the data tends to oscillate in and out of the lower border. The models are running hot, on average. Hotter than the data.
Here you go.
Looking at the satellite data from your link, it is pretty clear all the models, on average, heavily over-estimate the warming as the measured data lives in the very bottom of the tolerance range (thankfully it's a REALLY WIDE range so they can still claim "we're accurate!"). The averages seem to run about 0.4 deg C too hot - and if you look at the satellite data, it shows a big spike in 1998, and we're just now getting back up to that level again (meaning the 15 year pause was real - even though it wasn't in any of the models).
Looking at a plot of the average of each model versus actual measurements shows the same thing - most models overestimate warming, but only by having wide tolerance windows (on the order of the base estimation itself) can they claim "accurate".
Appeals to the masses didn't stop Einstein and he was correct in his rebuttal. And even your contention of 95% is actually false as the original "study" was highly flawed in methodology, to such an extent it should never be heard from again.
Currently we see models increasingly diverging from measured data, and the biggest suspect is the value used for climate sensitivity to CO2. Most models assume 3 deg C, but research shows it to be about half that.
Oh, and if you'd actually look at those linked pages, you'll finds lots of links to real published data, peer reviewed and everything.
More and more research is showing that the estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is quickly falling, making the projections based upon a much higher sensitivity value less and less accurate. Most of the IPCC models assume 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2, but research since 2012 basically supports a value about half that. And it would explain why there is a divergence between models and measurements.
And yet, we see that costs of electricity increase as solar and wind deployments increase. More expensive power is not generally good for people, and low cost power is key to fighting poverty.
Not a lie - a series of reports that only look at one part of the equation. The IPCC:
is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
By its own charter, it cannot consider non-human-induced climate change. Natural effects are discounted. When you have an equation, W = N + H, and you want to limit W to a certain value, you must know both N and H. Looking only at H is irrelevant, and tells you nothing. But that is exactly what the IPCC does.
They are not lying - they are just following a bad charter and are ignoring half (or, as it is increasingly turning out, more than half) of the actual issue - what would Nature do on its own?
Yep! But somehow 15-20cm of sea level rise over 100 years is a major, civilization-destroying event...
President Obama is the first president to serve eight years and preside over American wars during every single day of his tenure. And that includes starting new "actions" in Syria, Iraq, and Libya.
Ignoratio elenchi. I never claimed regulations were good or evil, you are the one assigning morality.
Hmmm... I just posted financial data from the Government itself saying it has enough money for roads. And you post a link to an advocacy group saying otherwise. Read the Government financial data itself - there is enough. The issue is that Government tends to slush those funds around and steal from road taxes/fees to fund other things. That's what the actual data shows.
So how much heating is natural? If we're to stop "heating the Earth", then we need to know how much is natural (meaning - we cannot control it), right? How much is natural? What does the IPCC say about that?
You're talking marginal, not effective, tax rates. Look up the difference. In fact, back in the 1950s when we had those sky-high marginal rates, the average person paid (adjusted for income) about half the tax to the Federal Government as they do today. Effective rates are what I'm talking about there, and they would more than double - making them above just about every other nation on the Earth.
And when "the rich" are gone - where do you get the taxes to pay for your UBI?