Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
m:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

"CRM" wrote in
:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no
sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was
Chuck G pushing this BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834



I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi
thtr end.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6

strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last
couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for
1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction
in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the
article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it
before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect
to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank
account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned.

You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it
was first published.

Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by
observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in
sea ice based on statistical average.

35,000 square miles to be exact. :)

This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point.

No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway-
500
000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/


But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different
research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly
different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and
oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not
explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a
legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his
question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a
technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he
did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as
far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's
reference.