5 ms·
that's over a 10% difference between 2020 & 2012, and it was the only year under 4 million, so my point still stands.
by soperj 4y ago
that's over a 10% difference between 2020 & 2012, and it was the only year under 4 million, so my point still stands.
- cheath 4y agoWhat is the point that still stands, exactly? There are peaks and troughs with a clear downward trend. If your point is that in that trend, some years over 10 year periods look similar, then you would be correct. But in making that point, you risk drawing the wrong conclusion from the data.
- soperj 4y agoMy point was that you shouldn't base a prognosis on a melt year that has happened once in a 40 year record, when it so far has been an anomaly.
- bobkazamakis 4y agodata that I don't like is an abberation. data that I do like is proof!
- soperj 4y agothat's nonsense. It hasn't happened again in a decade despite the last 5 years being some of the warmest on record, and there was a cyclone that ripped through arctic dispersing sea ice in early August that year. It's clearly an anomaly.
- Retric 4y agoBeing 2 standard deviations from the trend line is hardly an anomaly, just expected variance over a sample that size. 0.05 * 40 = 2.
- carrychains 4y agoYour definition of "really even close" is either absurd or you don't much care about the data nearly as much as the point you wanted to make.
- soperj 4y agoDo you understand the point I'm trying to make? Because it doesn't really seem like it.
- praestigiare 4y agoThe 20 years leading up to 2004 the average was > 6 million square km. 2012 was 3.4. 2020 was 3.8. In the context of the previous average, that does seem close. What was your point?
- soperj 4y agoMy point was don't base a prognosis on an anomaly, but clearly everyone has taken it as something else entirely, based on the tones of the replies.