The two extremes are chalk and cheese. Whatever variation or uncertainty there might be won’t close the gap between them 

Measurements based on data.

Two distributions, totally different. Asking for error bars is ludicrous.

Just accept it: AGW has cut a swathe through the Arctic and is still doing so. Error bars are to distinguish between similar datasets, similar (statistical) populations—is the variance wide enough that we have two different if overlapping populations or is there one population and we are just looking at experimental uncertainty? That is where error bars, uncertainty and variance are important. Not in the case of the two distributions of arctic ice thickness.

We have seen how Arctic sea ice extent for April has decreased over the years. We see how the amount of thicker ice has drastically diminished. There is no need for error bars for goodness sake!

Read ”Statistics for Dummies!”

You are so transparently desperate, Lees. Oh yeah, the two distributions are so similar have to really test if they are the same  I mean, just LOOK!



Don’t feel too bad tho Lees, Booby would look at the above then say “Mt Baw Baw is at {whatever typical temperature for the time of year} so clearly we are in an ICE AGE! Booby told me he has a house full of stuff for the Ice Age. Loony toons. You are just desperate, Lees, pathetically so.

You said only you and me read this board. That then logically means you are posting all the denialist crap you do just to convince yourself. 

Can't wait for Booby's Mini Ice Age to kick in.

May 22nd. Greenland melt is at 1981–2010 median level.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 11:08pm:



Wow. two model simulations. Am I supposed to be impressed?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 11:08pm:



Please quote that directly. We know you have trouble with the written word. Remember 40deg F above normal?

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2017 at 10:16pm:

Lee doesn't even know what a model is