Some here seem to be missing my point; I'll have to chalk that up to a failure of mine to communicate properly. So one more time:
Yes, daily numbers can be noisy. They can be inaccurate. And, if one wishes, they can be discounted. HOWEVER--for purposes of declaring record values, those numbers are literally all we have. More importantly, they're all we've ever had. Now, an intellectually honest person will discount all those daily numbers if they're going to discount any; they won't declare only those numbers that validate their (sometimes) overzealous forecasts as true and correct, and dismiss as "inaccurate" and "corrupt" any numbers that show otherwise. Doing so is called "cherrypicking", of course, and it's --rightly--frowned upon in scientific circles. So, either we reject all minimum/maximum sea ice records based on all daily numbers being suspect, or we reject none, acknowledging that they may or may not precisely reflect reality, but that biases have been accounted for.
Which will it be?
(As a recap, this particular thread began a few days back when I noted that Wipneus's shadow area numbers had gone up for two consecutive days, and one member responded that area had NOT gone up, based on the fact that Wipneus's numbers for those two days only were corrupt and inaccurate.)