[litespeed (OP)]

I have been researching sea ice and have two sources, one from NOAA and one from University of Colorado Snow and Ice Data Center. These two sources do not even come close to matching. What am I missing here.....

Fall 2006, NOAA reports: "... decline of 10% per decade in the Arctic perennial ice cover and the 7% per decade retreat in the Bellingshaussen/Amundsen Seas ice cover in the Antarctic."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.C52A..04C

February 2009, Colorado reports a decrease of 4.1% per decade decrease in Arctic ice and an increase of 0.9% per decade in Antarctic ice.
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

[LeeE]

This is the problem with summaries like these: you really need to be made aware of the statistical methods and the reference datums they're using.

Ideally, the raw datasets that were used should be made available for independent analysis; no idea if that's the case or not, but without independent peer review any such statements and conclusions are pretty meaningless.

[litespeed (OP)]

LeeE - You wrote: "...without independent peer review any such statements and conclusions are pretty meaningless."

Such huge discrepancies in such an esoteric field of study seem incomprehensible. The principle ice cover researchers could hardly number more then a few dozen world wide. They should all be on a first name basis! Its a level of carelessness that seems more and more endemic to the entire field of climate study.

Now we learn: "The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html