2010-10-12 08:22:01Advanced 60: Arctic Sea Ice is Back to Normal
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.153.44.253

I have started updating: Arctic sea ice part one which might make an advanced version for this argument?

I will update my "annual SSMI trends by month" video, and add the volume model chart and possibly the Shimada AMSRE video (the green one) from Arctic Ice part two.  Any thoughts on what could be pruned out?

Any other comments or new information/references? Thanks

2010-10-12 21:27:46
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.136.212

So much for the recovery. It's a death spiral!. Sorry, couldn't resist. A graph of the sea ice volume would be nice too, hard to spin that one into a "recovery". 

2010-10-12 22:06:21the videos
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.213

I couldn't get any particular conclusion from viewing the 1st and 3rd video: after all the flashing lights, what exactly was it that you wanted me to notice? For the non-expert in any field, this has to be explicitly pointed out. I hate it, even in articles where I have background, when the author just states laconically, "The results are shown in Figure X." What's the conclusion I should draw from Figure X?

The 2nd video had explanatory text in the caption; and also I found it easier to see the point anyway.

When I'm coaching my colleagues in giving presentations to technical standards bodies (a potentially hostile audience, since everybody there could be a competitor, or have a competing proposal), I emphasize the "Hollywood protocol": "Tell 'em what you're GOING TO show them. Then, tell 'em what you ARE showing them. Finally, tell 'em what you JUST FINISHED showing them." In written medium, it's not necessary to be so repetitive, but the essential point is the same: When confronting an unknown audience with diverse and unpredictable background, you need to provide the context for what you are showing them. NOTHING can be assumed to be obvious: there will be rank novices in the audience, as well as people with expertise in completely unrelated fields; as well as a few drop-in experts. It's a mistake to focus on the experts.

2010-10-13 08:40:27
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.157.9.88

Thanks again Neal. I admit to assuming that the point of the videos was obvious, ie they show diminishing sea ice in an "advanced" article about diminishing sea ice. I will try to be more explicit in the captions and text in the updated version. 

I have also been giving presentations to lecture halls full of paying competitors and customers for a while, I was always told to start with a joke, maintain eye contact - with all 200 people - and remain charming... this shows how long ago that was!

2010-10-13 09:24:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.213

Peter,

The other point about those videos: What I saw was a lot of white, flashes of orange/red, back to white, etc., for about a minute. Maybe there was a substantial difference in the white area from beginning to end - but how I am supposed to see that? I don't have anything resembling an eidetic memory: I can't compare an image I see now with an image I saw one minute ago - unless I'm warned to look out for something specific. 

It's like looking at a film of a scene with lots of birds of different types. If you want me to notice what the herons are doing, tell me to "watch the herons" - and then point out what a heron looks like.

2010-10-14 07:13:31
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.153.43.204

Back to the original question. Has anyone got thoughts on suitability of the existing post in general, assuming I eventually produce a newer version - with warts of its own?

Neal, your point is valid. The first video is intended to show how Arctic Ice extent is constrained in Winter by the surrounding land masses.  This is in the text, but not in the caption.  It also needs a colour bar for ice concentration, but I lacked the skill to paste that into the video, as this was one of my first ever Youtube efforts.  At this time I also lacked the ability to freeze frame a pre-existing video easily.  I could maybe manage it now. I tried to do this in the third video where I had control of all the frames (as I added them), it is more visually self explanatory (to me) and includes a year by year step-through in the second half.  This would provide a part solution to a lack of photographic memory (which oddly enough, I do partly possess). There are multiple candidates for the first video.  I will re-visit them. The captions also need numbers, as someone previously pointed out.

Strictly, I should point out what a heron looks like, and then tell you to watch it! 

2010-10-20 11:31:28Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105

Noaa's state of the climate has the sea ice data for the 3 major indices. Maybe you should plot all the available sea ice time series' on one chart just to show they're all consistent

 

2011-09-26 05:13:19
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.153.43.138

Apologies for delay.  Preview of Arctic Ice advanced article The Canary in the Coal Mine. All constructive comments welcome! 

2011-09-30 05:55:11Added section titles
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.157.8.241

I'll just talk to myself then.  I've added some section titles which I notice breaks things up into manageable chunks, (inspired by Danas posts).

2011-09-30 06:00:41
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.33.47

Pete, when I click on the "Canary in the Coal Mine" hyperlink I get this.

2011-09-30 07:03:30Fixed I hope!
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.157.8.241

Thanks Rob, I've no idea what happened there, getting rusty at this html stuff in my old age.

2011-09-30 17:26:20
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.32.23

Pete, I know this is an advanced rebuttal, but even so seems a tad long. I appreciate your obvious expertise, and that your subject matter is impeccably researched and cited, but are you guilty of trying to cover too much ground? Thinking too much like a scientist?

It would be much better to select a few sub-topics and address them in detail. Very few will have the stamina to read right to the end, and if they do, what will their take home message be?

Also, the greenbox "what the science says", is empty. 

2011-09-30 17:34:14
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
195.137.107.165

Rob,
The tidal wave of evidence approach? I think you are probably right, but if the take home message isn't that multiple lines of evidence show the ice is incontrovertibly disappearing, then I have failed.  Will fill in the green box, not done this before!

2011-09-30 17:52:51
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.216.197.108

Peter.

I agree with some of Rob's comments.  General point I might suggest, particularly for an advanced rebuttal, is to focus more on the significance of the mass data rather than extent. Extent gets the 'headlines' in the simpler rebuttals but mass is where it is at really. And my (armchair expert) take on the data is that mass is declining faster than extent. So, ice is getting thinner. Thus weaker, more prone to structural collapse not just melting.

I would focus more on PioMass because that is what matters. And showing graphs of seasonal fluctuations and watching the trend in the bottom points isn't as strong as looking at the PioMass graph of trends for 'this day' over the past years. They also have a nice graph looking at the change in seasonal cycles over time, showing the seasonal cycle sliding southwards. This is useful because it isn't just an anomaly graph. It is an absolute mass graph with a zero at the bottom - ice free. Also you could reference the up-coming data from Cryosat-2. Operational, calibrated and we would expect to see results from it in the next 6-12 months that will anchor the partially model based results from PIOMass. Lets you look like you are presenting a balanced view - model/observation data says we are falling off a cliff. And new observations will confirm (or not) this Real-Soon-Now. Watch this space....

General take I have on what an advanced rebuttal is. Support the lesser rebuttals, give more detail, and provide a learning experience for the geeks. And hide the uncertainties less.. Geeks love to fixate on the details.

Not sure about your post at this point. General feeling is that their is gold in your pan, but you need to sluice it around some more to make it shine.

And I have been their man. The SkS Forum can be brutal, In the best way possible.

2011-09-30 17:53:34
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
195.137.107.165

Rob, maybe have alook at the blog posts "Graphics for sea ice minimum 2011", it's a bit shorter...

Glenn, thanks for feedback, any is good and helpful.  Will contemplate where to go with this, but "PIOMAS is just a model", as a skeptic argument to counter, seems a fine idea.

2011-09-30 17:56:32
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.32.23

Pete, I'm ever mindful of the Great Prognosticator's comment at 12 Oct 2010, 10:06 PM (above).

"Tell 'em what you're GOING TO show them. Then, tell 'em what you ARE showing them. Finally, tell 'em what you JUST FINISHED showing them." In written medium, it's not necessary to be so repetitive, but the essential point is the same: When confronting an unknown audience with diverse and unpredictable background, you need to provide the context for what you are showing them. NOTHING can be assumed to be obvious: there will be rank novices in the audience, as well as people with expertise in completely unrelated fields; as well as a few drop-in experts. It's a mistake to focus on the experts."

Given the whopping amount of evidence you lay out, the ending could be more explicit and decisive too.

2011-09-30 18:02:02
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
195.137.107.165

Rob, thanks again.  I thought I had tried to account for Neals pertinent point...(!)  Again all feedback is useful.