6 ms·
"Just this week, scientists reported that the Arctic had its second-warmest year — behind 2016 — with the lowest sea ice ever recorded. " Lowest sea ice ever r
by soperj 9y ago
"Just this week, scientists reported that the Arctic had its second-warmest year — behind 2016 — with the lowest sea ice ever recorded. "
Lowest sea ice ever recorded is verifiably untrue.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/09/arctic-sea-ice-at-minimum-extent-2/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/09/arctic-sea-ice-at-...
It was the 8th lowest in the 38 year record.
- mikeash 9y agoYour article refers to the minimum extent during the season, so I imagine this article was referring to something else. A quick search reveals that 2017 set a record for the lowest maximum extent, for example.
- soperj 9y agoHow could lowest maximum extent ever be confused with lowest sea ice ever recorded?
- negrit 9y agojournalism?
- greglindahl 9y agoScience, actually. The annual minimum and maximum extent of sea ice is one of the longest-duration satellite datasets available for study.
- nate_meurer 9y agoWould you prefer they say "lowest minimum extent" or "lowest average extent"? Is that really a significant improvement over "lowest maximum extent"?
- soperj 9y agoThey mean completely different things, so I don't know what you're getting at.
- nate_meurer 9y agoThe amount of see ice is a regularly fluctuating value, so the notion of "record low sea ice" can have more than one meaning. You seem to interpret it only as "lowest minimum extent", as per the article you cited. However, the WaPo cites NOAA's 2017 Arctic Report Card, which says this: > "The lowest winter maximum ice extent in the satellite record (1979-2017) occurred on 7 March 2017. The extent was 14.42 million km2, 8% below the 1981-2010 average. This was the third straight year of a record low winter maximum." The is a different meaning of "record low sea ice", but it's just as valid. So I'm asking you, would it address your concern if the WaPo article said something like, "record low winter maximum" instead?
- soperj 9y agoI disagree that it's just as valid. No one would actually have even looked that "record low sea ice" might mean that it had a low at it's maximum had I not pointed it out. Having a low at the maximum doesn't lead to conversations about less ice = less sun reflected = more warming, since it's basically total darkness during the maximum. Absolutely it would address my concerns if they actually wrote it correctly. >This was the third straight year of a record low winter maximum. Is also false since 2016 had more sea ice than 2015.
- mikeash 9y agoNor would anyone have thought that "record low sea ice" meant a record minimum if you hadn't brought it up. I'm sure most of us would have just assumed it meant a record low according to whatever standard measure is used, just like it does for global temperatures or anything else. I can understand the desire for more specificity. I can't understand assuming, based on nothing, that it must refer to something which makes the statement incorrect, rather than something else which makes the statement correct It's not total darkness during the maximum. The 2017 maximum occurred on March 7th, which is just two weeks away from the equinox. At that time, most of the arctic receives direct sunlight and all of it receives at least some sunlight.
- mikeash 9y agoRecords when referring to an entire year rarely refer to a record extreme. For example, when they say that 2016 was the hottest year on record, they don't mean that the hottest day of the year was hotter than the hottest day of any other year. They mean that the average was hotter than the average for other years. I expect sea ice extent would be similar.
- gerdesj 9y agoOK soperj, why not come out with your real snag with this article, rather than sniping around the edges. Are you seriously a sea ice height/depth soz - level fan?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- soperj 9y agoYes. I check it out nearly every day.