What are your thoughts on the updated Arctic sea ice data?

Whenever the slightest glitch is discovered in data, there always seems to be a feeding frenzy from political hacks who ridiculously hype the error, regardless of how insignificant it might be.

My thoughts, it's online, it's accurate and it's business as normal. When you look at the graph it seems our earlier concerns about going below the 2006-2007 ice coverage were a bit premature. However, it appears present concerns could be justified as ice area is decreasing and possibly accelerating and now on the verge of breaking daily records. It appears that unless the decrease quickly stabilizes we have now seen the maximum coverage of this winter season. This could be even more interesting http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images//daily_images/S_timeseries.png

who says their sensors were not wrong back then or still today?

Unfortunately, their data has lost a lot of its credibility..... like the surface station data that has been corrupted by .... among other things..... Manipulation. The Warmers have already admitted that it's okay to exaggerate their claims in order to get people's attention. I don't know about people on the Left-Coast, but in the Midwest we call that Lying!

The data shows that there's still ice there and its still a huge amount and not showing any particular signs of having reached a tipping point. personally I think the biggest thing to have come from the NSIDC reporting error is that is wasn't scientists who brought the problem to the attention of the NSIDC. I'm not claiming for one moment that Dr Meier and his team were ignoring the sudden drop in sea ice extent from around 16th Feb (errors will happen from time to time), but it's strange how such a large drop in sea ice over a day or 2 wasn't picked up on pretty much straight away ? This, I feel is proof that although you may not have a science degree or a degree in climatology, or similar, you are still able to check data and make comments on a given subject (by way of questioning data if there's any doubt about its authenticity) Finally - warmers and skeptics should accept that errors will happen in data collection. I'm sure that this type of situation isn't the first and I'm certain it won't be the last.

i heard the difference was the size of california seems not that small to me strange they keep changing data all the time but you never hear about anything that has colder weather on the news

Of course one minor flaw doesn't affect the overall results. With greenhouse gas levels being so high, how could Arctic sea ice overcome the long term warming trend? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 ...as noted by Thomas Stocker “We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.” Look at how slowly CO2 rose at the end of each glacial period compared to now. In the Dome C core EPICA 17,000 BP it was 190 ppm and took 5400 years to rise to 250 ppm: