If you believe the article that we have "record-low" ice extent, do you also believe that we had record high?

The first sentence says it all

<<<The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has melted to its smallest point ever in a milestone that may show that worst-case forecasts on climate change are coming true, US scientists said>>>

This is a stupid lie and only ignorant alarmists would defend it and they certainly did.

Generally speaking, people don't start talking about something being a "record" low or high until there are at least a few years of measurements to compare it to. In particular, if there is a new way to measure something--for example, satellite pictures--it will generally be more or less calibrated against data from older methods for 5 or so years before any findings from it are considered significant.

However, after there are a few years to compare it to, you can meaningfully start talking about record highs and lows. Particularly if older methods also suggest that a condition is unusual.

edit:

that's flunky, as in "assistant", not flunker, as in "person who flunks". To my knowledge I have never failed any science-related classes in my life.

and as far as it being disingenuous...

1. 34 years is enough time to meaningfully talk about an event being unusual.

2. I believe current conditions are also unusually low compared to *non-satellite* ways of measuring ice extent, which would be records that go back a lot further than 34 years.

Yeah, this is a real conundrum...

Records cover a period of time + current sea ice is lowest in that record = lowest recorded sea ice.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

The other option would be to tack the instrumental record onto proxy records but we all know how you guys get your panties in a twist over such outrageous things, don't we?

That is of course unless it supports your view point:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak6xj...

and then it's A-OK

Sounds reasonable. Since you are starting from zero, every immediate change would be a high or a low.

Example: If you started recording and the ice area was 10 sq. ft. and Summer came and it went to 9 sq. feet. That would be a record low with 10 sq ft. a record high. Then December came and increased to 11 sq. ft. That would be another record high.

Logic not your strongest point, Spider Boy?

PS You managed to have me thumb-up Sagebrush's answer here which is an extremely rare event.

when i lokc on YA you scream like a BUSTA!

Facts and reason go out the window in the name of ideology. The environmentalist agenda uses ignorance to launch it's openly evil policies of depopulation.

It doesn't matter what the environmentalists state, millions will follow them because they believe in a cause, the majority of them being atheists seeking spirituality and guidance from the new age religion of environmentalism.

its not even record low, according to NOAA, who I trust much more over NASA in examining the arctic ice, the ice extent is 6.1 not 4.1

Yes. Of course. Stupid question.

I would ask who said this.

They use doctored records to scare us into giving Gore money.