Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979, page 4

Did anyone think to check what the level of sea Ice was in te Arctic in 1979, the year we are comparing 2008 with.
Does anyone realise that because the AUTHOR of THE BLOG has no specific Arctic data and has used the GLOBAL ice DATA, and makes assumptions about the ARCTIC, that this does not discount the observed, recorded and ongoing trend of Ice loss in the world.
Dose one BLOGGED interpretation of one data source for one aspect of the whole environment mean that all the other observed changes are not taking place?
They have cherry picked a data point in 1979 and 2008, and 2008 was lower than 18 other years, even with six of those years and better than 5 years in the record. Out of 29.
Look at the graph linked to the blog it is GLOBAL, look at 1979 and look at 2008 and, try tell me they are the same! Look at the down trend over the record. The BLOG author makes his assumptions based on the end of the years where the artic recovers in winter. These points are both below the average. 79 was generally above average for the whole year, 2008 was severly under the average and makes a recovery that was still under that average.
Look at the graph linked to the blog. Look at the Red line on the Botton first, this is the GLOBAL average anomoly, see how it is trending down. There is only one point that is the same, the end of both years, there was alot less ice for the year 2008, but it recovered to the same point that was at at the years end of both 79, and 08
If you read the article, it says the melting was slower than expected, that was what caused the better than expected ice formation, they believed it would melt more because that is what has been happening pretty much over the last 10 (look at the red line on the bottom from 2000 to 2008 of the years in the record.

Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

This is not what usually happens.

However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

The value of the anomoly is under zero, a value less than the average which would be the zero mark to range the anomoly trends. As this lies under 0. Less Ice than the average trend over the period.
Anomoly, this does not mean global warming is a myth. What was the difference in the level of sea ice and the average? The anomoly is below 0, the average, Below. Under. Less. Decreased. Reduced.

That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Both points where below average, but in general 1979 had much more sea ice for the season. Look at the graphs.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008.

Who made these predictions, NASA, IPCC or was it the MEDIA?

Please, deny ignorance. The denial of Global Warming seems to have taken over as a motto for some.
OP's BLOG DENIAL SAUCE
National Snow and Ice Data Real Source

EDIT ADD SOURCES.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by atlasastro]