50 ms·

The 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

The 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Nor 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.
  - soperj 9y ago
    >Nor would anyone have thought that "record low sea ice" meant a record minimum if you hadn't brought it up You honestly believe that "record low sea ice" doesn't refer to the lowest amount of the year? There's no point in continuing to discuss it with you then. Alert receives 5 hours of daylight on March 7th. It receives 18-20 hours at the minimum. One makes it worth talking about, the other doesn't. Alert receives 0 hours of daylight as late as February 27th, so depending on the year, I'm not wrong.
    - nate_meurer 9y ago
      > "You honestly believe that "record low sea ice" doesn't refer to the lowest amount of the year?" That's right, and this shouldn't surprise you. As an example, when the news talks about about "record-low snowpack" in a temperate mountain region, do you think they're talking about the "lowest minimum extent", measured at the end of summer when it's normal for snowpack to be low or zero? No, that would be stupid. They're usually talking about the "lowest maximum extent", or the lowest at some point early in the year, because that tells us how much water will be available from snowmelt, how much reservoirs will refill, potential for flooding/drought, etc. I think you're insisting on your own particular interpretation for the sake of argument, but it's certainly no more statistically useful or grammatically proper than the other ones.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I honestly believe that. The article clearly meant it that way. Why are you so insistent on interpreting it in a way which is clearly not what was stated? When someone makes an ambiguous statement which could be either true or false depending on how you interpret it, the right thing to do is to use the interpretation which makes it true. If I say "the heaviest cat ever recorded was nearly 50lbs," you don't come along and say "that's not true, lions and tigers weigh hundreds of pounds." You realize that I'm talking about domestic cats and go from there. They stated that there was a record low sea ice extent without saying exactly what was being measured. One measurement was a record, the other wasn't. Thus, clearly, they were talking about the one that set a record.
    - soperj 9y ago
- Oletros 9y ago
  > Is also false since 2016 had more sea ice than 2015. 2016 was said to be the record low maximum last but a correction put it above 2015 for just 3.000 km^2. And the extent was 14.52 MILLION km^2 So, perhaps, as NSIDC writes, Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year
  - soperj 9y ago
    It was only a correction because they were talking about it before the winter season was over, they knew by the end of March 2016 that the correction should be made. We shouldn't be even talking about it in December 2017. They can easily say lowest 3 years on record but they choose not to. WHY?
    - Oletros 9y ago
      Ask the Washington Post. By the way, the fracking diference between 2015 and 2016 low maximum was less than 0.02%. I ythink, you're trying to find anything to deny the data, even the most absurd minute word, why?
      - soperj 9y ago
        I'm the one that's agreeing with the data. 2017, 2015, 2016. that's how it goes, despite the difference that is how it is.

soperj 9y ago

I 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 ago
Nor 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.
- soperj 9y ago
  >Nor would anyone have thought that "record low sea ice" meant a record minimum if you hadn't brought it up You honestly believe that "record low sea ice" doesn't refer to the lowest amount of the year? There's no point in continuing to discuss it with you then. Alert receives 5 hours of daylight on March 7th. It receives 18-20 hours at the minimum. One makes it worth talking about, the other doesn't. Alert receives 0 hours of daylight as late as February 27th, so depending on the year, I'm not wrong.
  - nate_meurer 9y ago
    > "You honestly believe that "record low sea ice" doesn't refer to the lowest amount of the year?" That's right, and this shouldn't surprise you. As an example, when the news talks about about "record-low snowpack" in a temperate mountain region, do you think they're talking about the "lowest minimum extent", measured at the end of summer when it's normal for snowpack to be low or zero? No, that would be stupid. They're usually talking about the "lowest maximum extent", or the lowest at some point early in the year, because that tells us how much water will be available from snowmelt, how much reservoirs will refill, potential for flooding/drought, etc. I think you're insisting on your own particular interpretation for the sake of argument, but it's certainly no more statistically useful or grammatically proper than the other ones.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I honestly believe that. The article clearly meant it that way. Why are you so insistent on interpreting it in a way which is clearly not what was stated? When someone makes an ambiguous statement which could be either true or false depending on how you interpret it, the right thing to do is to use the interpretation which makes it true. If I say "the heaviest cat ever recorded was nearly 50lbs," you don't come along and say "that's not true, lions and tigers weigh hundreds of pounds." You realize that I'm talking about domestic cats and go from there. They stated that there was a record low sea ice extent without saying exactly what was being measured. One measurement was a record, the other wasn't. Thus, clearly, they were talking about the one that set a record.
  - soperj 9y ago
Oletros 9y ago
> Is also false since 2016 had more sea ice than 2015. 2016 was said to be the record low maximum last but a correction put it above 2015 for just 3.000 km^2. And the extent was 14.52 MILLION km^2 So, perhaps, as NSIDC writes, Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year
- soperj 9y ago
  It was only a correction because they were talking about it before the winter season was over, they knew by the end of March 2016 that the correction should be made. We shouldn't be even talking about it in December 2017. They can easily say lowest 3 years on record but they choose not to. WHY?
  - Oletros 9y ago
    Ask the Washington Post. By the way, the fracking diference between 2015 and 2016 low maximum was less than 0.02%. I ythink, you're trying to find anything to deny the data, even the most absurd minute word, why?
    - soperj 9y ago
      I'm the one that's agreeing with the data. 2017, 2015, 2016. that's how it goes, despite the difference that is how it is.