View Single Post
Old 10-02-2018, 03:30 PM   #3064 (permalink)
NeilBlanchard
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,892

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,440
Thanked 2,921 Times in 1,830 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
Riddle me this. Why do people obsess over a less than 5% variation on a 40 year sample size on a system that is at least a few millions years old?

If we watched it for 200 years we may find that 15% ice coverage change is perfectly normal.
5% ? Where is that coming from? The average Arctic minimum ice COVERAGE was 6.341 million square kilometers, and the 2012 minimum was 3.397. That is about 46.5% lower.

The VOLUME of Arctic ice is down over 80%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
The ipcc said they had been over estimating the effect that CO2 had in the climate by double what it actually is.
Is the ipcc not at least backed up by a bunch of scientists?

People have been saying man made global warming is settled science for years now. But then the ipcc says virtually everyone has been wrong all along about the effects CO2 has.
How is it settled science if stuff keeps changing and only a small part has measurable values assigned?
I'm assuming some where some one has assigned measurable numbers to at least some things. But no one can seem to find them. So when I say "some", it's the benefit of the doubt.
Where / when did the IPCC say they were off by 2X?
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Last edited by NeilBlanchard; 10-02-2018 at 03:37 PM..
 
The Following User Says Thank You to NeilBlanchard For This Useful Post:
aerohead (10-03-2018)