Polar Ice Extent

[BornFromTheVoid]

This thread has been going quite well for a while now. Can I ask for people to stop throwing around insults again!? Deriding someones opinion just because you don't agree with it isn't going to help anything. Trying to add to the debate by using reasoned explainations and link/sources to back up your idea's is a lot more constructive than hit and run insults. Makes someones argumnet appear weak if they feel the need to resort to name calling....

Sorry for going off topic!

[weather eater]

GW I have to say I agree with TWS and VP, whether you are right or wrong only time will tell, but shouting your view point at every opportunity, is not having any effect in convincing anyone that your opinion is the correct one, its just getting the backs up of even those that broadly agree with you. You may find that a more subtle approach would work better. I guess its down to what you want achieve, if its an attempt to convince doubters, then a change of approach would be a good way to go about it. If however all that you are trying to do is follow your conscience, so that at least in a worse case scenario you can tell yourself that you tried your hardest, then carry on. Arguably it makes for a lively debate even if you are not winning any votes, personally I would find that frustrating and look for an alternative method.

[VillagePlank]

I think, like with most things in the world, confirmation bias isn't an absolute thing. There are certainly positive aspects to it ...

The chances are that most things us human beings get up to (I said most, not all!) are there for positive reasons, since evolution doesn't select death!

1, can't in a lunchtime... 2, I think it is possible to do so, I suspect it was used to discover what we know as laws of (nature/physics etc - realities). I think there a discoverable realities about what is around us. Ok, we can get lost in 'we're in a matrix' or 'what is reality' stuff but the (um ) reality is there are laws that make the world go round, and they will when we're gone and other people are doing the observing.

I can wait

In the meantime, nice to see ice increasing a bit. Do we have any figures for maximums handy? Are maximums relevant?

[Methuselah]

I'm with Ian (TWS), here.

Confirmation bias is universal. It's simply the way we are all made.

My view is that it is hard-wired into our brains since confirmation bias is a form of generalisation. Consider this: if you go into the woods to get some fruit, and that fruit makes you ill, you will generalise that those particular woods produce bad fruit. This is a good thing, since, if it is true, you will live longer. Any attempt to falsify that assertion risks death, and thus a mechanism for generalisation that results in a particular bias has evolved to such a degree it is hard-wired.

And so it remains, today.

I am also with you on that, guys. IMO, the very best we can do is to look for ways of minimizing said bias?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think Pete has it nailed on there- indeed I think it's part of a general truism that humans can never be 100% "perfect", but can certainly strive to minimize their own failings. Btw, re. natural selection, it's often the case (I think, anyway) that our traits that help us with simple survival and security are not necessarily positive when used in tackling complex issues- often the desire to find the simplest solution falls foul of the H.L.Mencken quote, neat, plausible and wrong.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[VillagePlank]

I think Pete has it nailed on there- indeed I think it's part of a general truism that humans can never be 100% "perfect", but can certainly strive to minimize their own failings.

Yeah.

I think it is impossible to be objective. At the very outset, how do you decide what to investigate? It all just carries on from there .... unless we live in a totalitarian state where research is assigned, by computer, and all the trees are kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw.

I don't see a lack of objectivity as necessarily a bad thing. It takes all people of all sorts of different flavours to make the world go round and keep our mere 70-odd years of existence, interesting. And, after all, by hook or by crook, concern of the quality of those 70 years is largely why we are all posting on here. My view is simply to accept that subjectivity is the name of the game.

There you go - I've managed to avoid maths for nearly four hours

Edited September 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

I've just had a funny thought: what if the NAD is becoming more diffuse because the reduction in Arctic ice is allowing for an ever-larger corridor for movement?

PS: I acknowledge my assumption that the NAD is 'becoming more diffuse'?

[BornFromTheVoid]

The chances are that most things us human beings get up to (I said most, not all!) are there for positive reasons, since evolution doesn't select death!

I can wait

In the meantime, nice to see ice increasing a bit. Do we have any figures for maximums handy? Are maximums relevant?

Yesterday I put up a few figures with regards ice gains in the second half of September since 03, averages, large daily gains and stuff. It's 2 pages back if it's of any use!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't see a lack of objectivity as necessarily a bad thing. It takes all people of all sorts of different flavours to make the world go round and keep our mere 70-odd years of existence, interesting. And, after all, by hook or by crook, concern of the quality of those 70 years is largely why we are all posting on here. My view is simply to accept that subjectivity is the name of the game.

I think that might be the point at which we start to strongly differ.

When debates occur that actually help to determine what action we take in going forward, an excessive amount of subjectivity can result in distinctly sub-optimal decisions being made. This particularly applies when we develop strong consensus views on topics based on largely subjective analysis and the masses blindly follow them.

One recurring reason why many injustices in the world aren't reduced in extent, despite the fact that they can be, is the very popular attitude "well, we can't completely eliminate them, so the best approach is just to accept them as part of life, and that they can't be helped because that's just the way it is". The key hole in that argument is the equating of "can't be avoided" with "can't be helped", and the bit in bold strongly reminds me of that line of thinking.

The debates on how we should tackle non-sustainable use of resources often run up against arguments of that form, often when people criticise over-reliance on the free market as the sole means of getting us out of trouble, or even just try to suggest that we can do something about pollution and non-sustainable practices (which, too, can't be completely eliminated for as long as humans are around).

[Methuselah]

That's odd???

If I take VP's point as my start-point, I am naturally drawn (through my-own convoluted logic) to Ian's conclusion??

We are indeed all different!

[VillagePlank]

I hasten to add ... I think objectivity cannot exist (for reasons briefly outlined above) and that therefore all human endeavour must necessarily be subjective.

That does not preclude being rational though. It's sort of what I was getting at with Dev's point: I think he was mixing objectivity with being rational. I don't think they're the same - scientific papers, for instance, require rational thinking, not absolutism.

If you are objective you cannot be wrong since pure objectivity is a pure description of the facts outside our being (incidentally, science is not a collection of facts, it is a process - that is why science is in decline in our education system; it is taught as a vast intractable body of facts - which is utter rubbish)

Therefore we are left, if you want to be right more times than you are wrong, with being rational. But you can still be rational and utterly incorrect. It is not a panacea.

Well, that's my entrenched ( ) view, anyway.

Edited September 21, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Thundery wintry showers]

I should mention that while I see lack of objectivity as a bad thing (in the sense of it being something to minimise, rather than eliminate, as the latter is infeasible), I don't feel the same way about subjectivity in itself.

There are various reasons for this, e.g. it is possible to have different preferences for things and be both subjective and objective about it at the same time, and also, it is useful having people able to form different viewpoints on subjects that we have no definitive answer to as we can often learn from others' viewpoints to help us to inch closer to the real truth. Nobody (no, not even me lol!) has the time or capacity to consider every angle to every issue.

Upon reflection I think the main problem here is really closed-mindedness, the reason why confirmation bias can be a problem is that it often contributes heavily to people being closed-minded. But even closed-mindedness falls into the "can be helped but can't be totally stopped" category.

Perhaps my previous response was in error as it doesn't look like VP's initial post was actually equating a "can't be avoided" with a "can't be helped", I may have got the wrong end of the stick.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[Methuselah]

And I'm off for a wee think. Back tomorrow.

[WindWatcher]

Another small increase in extent today of 14,000km2. On the IJIS concentration images you can see the ice now beginning to reverse its direction awat from Greenland yesterday. Over the coming week I expect this to icrease, along with growth in extent figures.

It appears this increase has been revised again to a 36,718km2 increase. It appears that at the moment it isn't worth looking at the daily figures until the second pass has been updated, I am not sure what is causing these large revisions, but would be interested to find out.

Steve

[MR EXTREMES]

i am strongly in favour of active hurricaine seasons and our recent el nino pushing warmer temps up an around the arctic area through the ocean current and wind patterns.

im not at all concerned about the sate of the arctic although loses are clearly happening at larger rate this could be also be likely due to +pdo,

the other factor that could be of concern is the el nino and la nina events are they stronger than in earth history,

lets face it science is still in its infancy.

i think i once see something on the el nino and la nina had strengthened over the past 50 years or so but id be hard stretched to find this info.

something not sure if it has any relivence http://www.esrl.noaa...aus.wolter/MEI/

maybe decoding this lot might find some answers. http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/en/elnino.pdf

Edited September 21, 2010 by badboy657

[BornFromTheVoid]

i am strongly in favour of active hurricaine seasons and our recent el nino pushing warmer temps up an around the arctic area through the ocean current and wind patterns.

im not at all concerned about the sate of the arctic although loses are clearly happening at larger rate this could be also be likely due to +pdo,

the other factor that could be of concern is the el nino and la nina events are they stronger than in earth history,

lets face it science is still in its infancy.

i think i once see something on the el nino and la nina had strengthened over the past 50 years or so but id be hard stretched to find this info.

something not sure if it has any relivence http://www.esrl.noaa...aus.wolter/MEI/

maybe decoding this lot might find some answers. http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/en/elnino.pdf

Despite the recently active hurricane season, very few strong depression have effected the Arctic this summer. There have been some warm air plumes but nothing out of the ordinary. So we can rule out the hurricanes as a cause of reaching the 3rd lowest extent and second lowest area on satellite record.

Infact, past 80N, (forgetting the problems with trying to read surface temperature over melting ice), some have claimed it's been the coolest summer on record. So warm air temperatures can probably be ruled out.

The dipole which resulted in the large losses in 07 and the end of 05 have been mostly weak and fleeting this year so we can't really blame the winds.

The only thing left I guess must be the SSTs, or perhaps the ocean temperatures in general. There have been some very large positive anomalies across the Arctic this summer which may have done a lot of damage (or did they result from the ice loss???).

I'm guessing the hope then is that the negative PDO phase will cause much cooler air temperatures and cooler ocean temps across the Arctic throughout the year?

There are some incredible SST anomalies around the Bering side of the Arctic at the moment

The sea ice looks like been blown over this area during the next 7 days. Will that be a good thing insofar as the anomaly will be reduced or is it a bad thing the ice may begin to melt over the warmer water again as it spreads out?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Mean summer temperature anomalies in the Arctic for Summer 2010:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/composites/compday.139.222.229.12.263.10.37.55.gif

It doesn't look likely to have been the coolest summer on record judging by that anomaly map- just near average. Summer 1996 (a year of significant sea ice recovery following a sharp melt in 1995) was much cooler:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/composites/compday.139.222.229.12.263.10.35.52.gif

This doesn't invalidate any of the points you made, though, for this summer was still considerably cooler than either 2005:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/composites/compday.139.222.229.12.263.10.40.8.gif

...or 2007:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/composites/compday.139.222.229.12.263.10.40.37.gif

[cooling climate]

Mean summer temperature anomalies in the Arctic for Summer 2010:

http://www.esrl.noaa...63.10.37.55.gif

It doesn't look likely to have been the coolest summer on record judging by that anomaly map- just near average. Summer 1996 (a year of significant sea ice recovery following a sharp melt in 1995) was much cooler:

http://www.esrl.noaa...63.10.35.52.gif

This doesn't invalidate any of the points you made, though, for this summer was still considerably cooler than either 2005:

http://www.esrl.noaa...263.10.40.8.gif

...or 2007:

http://www.esrl.noaa...63.10.40.37.gif

None of that tallies with the DMI records and I know which ones I would trust more.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

[BornFromTheVoid]

None of that tallies with the DMI records and I know which ones I would trust more.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

They don't seem that far off this year at least. The DMI figures are nearly always the same throughout summer, but if anything, have been slightly cooler during the "naughties", which seems a little bizarre to me, unless melting ice can really take that much energy out of the air? But then why doesn't it show up on the ESRL images?

[Thundery wintry showers]

The near-constant summer temperatures on the DMI graphs look a bit suspect to me- I would certainly expect there to be less variability in summer, but would we really expect daily variability to be no greater than +/- 1 deg C?

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hi Folks,

The latest look at the Arctic sea ice data from Accu-weather ..... as well as a nice illustration on measuring temperatures back in the 1930's and 40' in the USA to the present day !!!

http://www.accuweather.com/video/611619325001/monday-morning-sea-ice-report.asp

You can see all of the graphs yourself without watching the video here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

Current arctic temperature look shows conditions a little warmer than average at the moment.

So ... all aboard for the big freeze up !!

Y.S

[knocker]

The Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps are melting at half the speed previously predicted. This finding has emerged from research by a joint US/Dutch team from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, TU Delft and SRON. The scientists have published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience.

http://www.sron.nl/i...mid=&Itemid=754

Forgot about glacial isostatic adjustment!

Edited September 21, 2010 by weather ship

[Gray-Wolf]

The Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps are melting at half the speed previously predicted. This finding has emerged from research by a joint US/Dutch team from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, TU Delft and SRON. The scientists have published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience.

http://www.sron.nl/i...mid=&Itemid=754

Forgot about glacial isostatic adjustment!

We've been here, done that!

I ,for one, do not believe the paper will stand. As they make quite plain they cannot provide the data for independent verification and though nice to hear we could do with other folk confirming that we are useless at working out isostatic readjustment in two of the most glaciated areas on the planet.

Of course, were it true, it would shine a new light on the raised beaches in Greenland. no longer would they signify a warm period with higher sea levels merely a c**k up in rejuvenation calcs........

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another increase in extent today of about 23,000km2. The IJIS conc images show the ice moving towards the Bering/Beaufort side a little quicker than yesterday. I expect this to speed up more during the week with possibly a few days with gains of over 50,000km2.

Unless we see some dramatic change in synoptics, I think we can confirm the minimum as 4,813,594km2 on the the 18th.

[stewfox]

Looks like 2 and 3 yr ice is growing again, will be interesting to see what it looks like March 2011

http://www.ourplanettoday.com/exclusive-scientists-track-sharp-drop-in-oldest-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-2010-melt-season-ends-likely-setting-the-record-for-lowest-volume