"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice and the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year when the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick out a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as gospel.


--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200612/1