"I suppose they could have written "there's sh!t loads more ice than this time last year" but then you wouldn't have posted it."
lol, Pighead. The Skeptologists would make such an action redundant. The important word is "trend", as in mean sea level "trend". Look at the data over several years and the trend is clear. But all the Skeptologists ever seem to notice are peaks preceding troughs.
Who but a Skeptologist would conclude that sea levels were not rising?
If 2009 doesn't beat 2007 I'd guess that the Skeptologists will be claiming that Arctic sea ice is recovering.
Here is a time series of Arctic sea ice extent from 1901 t0 1997 from
The 2008 minimum of 4.52 million square kilometres compares with an average of around 10 million square kilometres for much of the 20th century, and a minimum of around 8 million square kilometres a decade ago. Yet the Skeptologists cite obscure points in Earth's history, offering no insight into why these events occurred. I am more interested in the dynamics of the here and now.
