Chilidawg wrote:Satellite records began in 1979.
Other records of sea ice go back to the 1950's
Which as I said, is zip, zero, nada in terms of a climate argument.
Chilidawg wrote:Prior to that there are no direct measurements. Proxy measurements using ocean sediment cores and other indicators have been used to reconstruct sea ice levels.
And do you think that the variation was only on the order of ±10% or do you think that there may not really be 95% confidence in their 95% confidence interval? Although over the course of 14 hundred years a good scientist would expect the 99% confidence interval would have been exceed about 14 times?
Now this is the 40 year average so we are smoothing out the annual variations so we would expect to exceed it less if it was perfectly correctly, which is never true.
All records with a time resolution smaller than 40 years were interpolated to 1 year and then smoothed with a 40-year lowpass filter.
Why did they smooth out the 1 year variations?
I just find it highly unlikely that the variation was so limited, given that the annual variation in sea ice around the mean seems to be about 30%, especially given that there looks like one year variations of the high and low on the order of 10%. Look at the first peak and the 4th peak and look at the first min and the 3rd min. Those are some big short term changes for the extent of the range over longer time periods to be so small. I'm just skeptical and is that not what scientists are supposed to be?
While I have studied most of the underlying physics, this is not an area I have ever had any particular interest. Maybe there is some strong proof here, but there are a lot of things going on here with the numbers that may be totally legitimate, but they also may be misleading. not implying intent, but after the climate gate e-mails
There is a reason that double blind studies are necessary for SCIENTISTS, and not just laypersons to avoid biasing results to the point of uselessness and it is not because they are inherently dishonest.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.