« SEARCH 2011 Sea Ice Outlook: June report | Main | PIOMAS Version 2 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Artful Dodger

Hello, Nuuk! How's that BP Oil rig life!?


Hi, Neven. Welcome back, and thanks for posting our opinion.

Since I assume you are going to repeat this for each month, I want to put two points out there:

1. Thanks for calculating the average of the statistics, as opposed to just looking for the most votes, as WUWT did. (Looking at their voting, I would have predicted 5.1 or so instead of 5.5)

2. On your graph, and especially on the map, it would be good if you used rainbow ordering (i.e. blue for the lowest estimate, followed by green, yellow, orange, and red for the highest).

Lord Soth

Neven, are you going to submit your results to SIO, since they appear to be taking WUWT (to my surprize).

Greg Wellman

Actually, submitting to SIO makes sense because part of the point of the SIO is a "wisdom of crowds" concept. Adding a couple of data points from amateur crowds to the "crowd" of 15-20 expert data points seems perfectly reasonable.


Bfraser: thanks for the sensible colour suggestion. Unfortunately they have been picked out in advance by Vizu (the firm that offers the free poll widget).

Lord Soth: I won't submit them and I explain why towards the end of the SEARCH SIO post.

Unless a lot of you really want me to. But not through the poll. I don't see how polled WAGs contribute to wisdom or science, although it does contribute to the relationship between the scientific world and the public (which is probably the main reason they graciously let WUWT join the party, and of course to prevent incessant whining ;-) ).

Artful Dodger

I agree with Neven on the Poll: it's unscientific, not based on any particular methodology, and would just contribute noise. Besides, Larry's submission already expresses the best methods yet developed on this site.

Neven, I think that the Median is the appropriate Stat to use in summarizing the Poll. That is, that value which half of observations are above and half are below. So 4.2 is reasonable. It's also good practice to provide a description of the kurtosis of the distribution, in this case a negative skew:

Did you notice that Larry's predicted value of 4.4 is also the MODE? haha little Stats humour *v.little*


Kurtosis? Is that some affliction Nirvana-fans suffer from?

Artful Dodger

... or 2010: a Space Odyssey fans:


Christoffer Ladstein

One month later in the melt season it seem to me the odds for record low minimum values are getting lower by the day, and in my oppinion the poll ought to have at least one more category: Below 3,5 mill. km2...

Too early yet to predict an icefree North-Pole or Fram Strait, but ask me again in the end of July....

Excellent to have you back Neven, we were walking with lights off and now we're again prepared for the Icetosis!


Hi Christoffer,

Ice-toasties are usually referred to in English as "water".

Given that over 40% of the predictions are for below 4 million, and indeed this is the biggest response-band, I also think it could be better to have at least one more category; possibly three; including also below 3 million, and below 2.5.


Hi Guys, I also would like to vote lower, in one of the three categories that idunno suggested. I also had the crazy idea that blue ice is caused by rain, is this possible?


If things keep progressing like this for another month, I'll do another poll with more options below 4 million. But I wouldn't be surprised if heavy melting stalls at a certain point, like it did last year.

The comments to this entry are closed.