Arctic Ice Watch

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jan 2016, 18:28

Yes, but they were predicting 2 and not 12. Hence it is wrong by 10 degrees C.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 06 Jan 2016, 22:02

Err, who wrote the original prediction? It says 50 degrees, but does not give a scale. Could it be by a lazy USian who assumed we know they are talking Fahrenheit not Celsius ?

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jan 2016, 22:07

42*9/5=75.6

(and I have seen figures quoted in Kelvin as well, which has the same differential as Celsius.)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Jan 2016, 22:29

PS_RalphW wrote:Err, who wrote the original prediction? It says 50 degrees, but does not give a scale. Could it be by a lazy USian who assumed we know they are talking Fahrenheit not Celsius ?

No they were using Celsius.

John's point is that the difference between the 'average' temp he found on a website of -40°C and 0°C is 40 not 50°. But the script read 'normal' not 'average'. -50°C is quite normal at the north pole - it it not the average temperature we are concerned about. After all, the average temperature includes days like last week when its 0°.

Hence the original line was plausibly true and not an exaggeration.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jan 2016, 22:41

biffvernon wrote:Hence the original line was plausibly true and not an exaggeration.

I presume you at times criticise politicians for stretching the truth ....

It is clearly 8C out.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 07 Jan 2016, 02:57

I find it amusing the amount of time members here have spent dancing around what constitutes exaggeration. For example the point made about the word "May" . Now a lawyer or other clever debater will use the term "May" so that whatever comes later he or she will never be found to be clearly wrong, but at the same time the use of the word "May" implies that the subject is likely to happen and at much more then a fifty/ fifty chance or there would be no point in bringing the subject (In this case a severe storm) up.
The rag papers use exaggeration in every issue to pump up circulation and there is nothing wrong with that as long as intelligent readers take what they read with a grain of salt.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Jan 2016, 08:02

biffvernon wrote:
I don't think this is very important, in the grand scheme of things,

Though my point about the difference between 'average' and 'normal' is important in that it could have applicability in other situations.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jan 2016, 10:15

biffvernon wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
I don't think this is very important, in the grand scheme of things,
Though my point about the difference between 'average' and 'normal' is important in that it could have applicability in other situations.

I am sure if someone else tried that ploy you would criticise them. If there is a range that is "normal" and the centre (mean) of that range is "average" to use the extreme of "normal" would be misleading. Say the range of normal is -50C to -30C then 2C would be 32C above normal, not 52C.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Jan 2016, 10:24

johnhemming2 wrote:to use the extreme of "normal" would be misleading.

but to use, say, two standard deviations from the mean, would be, er, normal.

Now let's talk about something more important.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jan 2016, 10:50

However, you should not pick the variation that gives the largest difference, but instead the variation that gives the smallest difference.

If you say to someone "Wow the difference from normal is a massive 52C when it is in fact 32C then that is a misleading exaggeration".

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 23 Jan 2016, 20:42

Checking back in on this after the holiday data break I see that the arctic above 80 degrees North is about nine degrees C above the historic average of record but still a long way below freezing. Troubling enough for sure but not quite the event they were making it out to be.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 25 Jan 2016, 22:25

http://quidnon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/s ... .html#more

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 26 Jan 2016, 06:36

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/ ... nimum.html

With the Antarctic sea ice returning to long term trend area, the global sea ice area is within a gnats whisker of reaching its all time minimum value, which happens at the antarctic ice minimum period.

Yet another anti-warming straw man bites the dust.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 26 Jan 2016, 16:08

Little John wrote:http://quidnon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/s ... .html#more

I suppose you could say that we are facing a meltwater pulse but only in geological terms. Even I realise that there won't be a meltwater tsunami. The pulse will be in geological terms which means over between 20 minimum and 100 years as Hansen is positing. Chris will obviously say it will be nearer 100 years. Pulse is probably the wrong word to use to uninitiated laymen who would think in terms of a tsunami.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 26 Jan 2016, 17:10

I have looked at the graph linked in the article and it is interesting to see the variability year on year.

2013 for instance - the yellow line - is either in the middle or above the average for the whole year in terms of global sea ice extent. That was only two years ago. Just trying to read the data dispassionately....