On Saturday, 17 September 2016 11:01:55 UTC+1, Dave Cornwell wrote:
On 17/09/2016 10:42, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 17 September 2016 10:29:04 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:
On Saturday, 17 September 2016 09:56:01 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 17 September 2016 09:49:50 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:
On Saturday, 17 September 2016 09:04:45 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
You sceptic you.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/...-days-earlier/

Thanks Lawrence!

I asked as many knowledgeable people as I knew who had an interest in sea ice to look at this data and see if I was going mad or just picking up the wrong data, but apart from Alistair no one replied. I sent that link in desperation, and although he never replied personally he published it. A mention on his site can certainly bring a massive increase in the stats for your blogs, but all I want to know is just what's going on!



I somehow got the feeling that you are not the bragging type, so felt obliged to bring your fame to the groups attention.


By the way Bruce is this that change in DATA reflected on the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly data

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...aly.arctic.png

Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick

From that graph I would have said the next ice age has just started!

So I'm reading the cart correctly its just now if its some artefact. a simple data mistake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a mistake is it. The data is correct. The statement about it
may be a mistake or it hasn't been made clear that they quote the
rolling mean. Either way it would be nice to see a cooling trend for a
change, especially after last December's apology of a winter month!
Dave

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The data is fine, as you say. You can see an analysis in more detail on Bruce's own site, with copious explanations, plus some excellent questions. The difficulty is in seeing where they say they use a 5-day rolling mean. Bruce's questions about 'why?' are cogent too.

Deniers will question all the data about ice extent and the declining summer trend, because of one tiny question about the data in 2016 - as W has just tried to do. And it's not a mistake, it's a question which has been well answered. It's what these people do. They have agendas to follow and it is why I call them idiots.

There is, however, no question about declining summer ice in the Arctic and the high probability is that we will reach a situation where there will be none, in September, apart from a few clogged channels away from the high Arctic. The only question is 'when'.