Tamino (Grant Foster) writes:
I have a question for Anthony Watts:
We have over 30 years of satellite data for arctic sea ice. Why do you consistently display the only data source I know of that covers less than 6 years?
Maybe some of you would enjoy visiting WUWT to put the question directly to Anthony. Think he’ll answer? Think he’ll even allow the question?
Why sure I would. Here’s my response:
Mr. Foster, perhaps you’ve missed my very successful Arctic Sea Ice Page?
It was first published on July 17th, 2010: Get your ice here! New WUWT Sea Ice Machine
It’s got all of the sea ice graphs and metrics, far more than anything on “Open Mind”. And yes it covers those organizations using 30 year data sets, including NSIDC, and UUIC. Both are prominently featured.
Have a look: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
And it’s done pretty well traffic-wise too. Apparently a lot of people know about it. It’s easy to find, linked on the right side bar where is says “Sea Ice” with the graph. It also is available from the pulldown menu above under “Reference pages”. It is also routinely linked in my weekly Sea Ice News series.
MY questions to you sir, and I’m sure other WUWT commenters will have questions for you as well, is: Why do you think I “consistently display the only data source I know of that covers less than 6 years” when I in fact consistently display them all?
Why do you not cover all of the sea ice products on your own web site?
Why would you not want to cheer (he objects to this post Go Ice Go!) the refreezing of Arctic Sea Ice?
Why did you ignore this first sentence statement in my post? Cherry picking quotes maybe?
While not hugely significant by itself, it is interesting to note that the DMI 30% Arctic extent has reached its highest number for this date, exceeding 2006.
If global warming is so dire, you’d think he’d cheer a bit of good news, even if not hugely significant by itself. I guess not. To borrow a phrase from WUWT commenter John Whitman, I suppose that “Cheerleading for ice leaves him cold”.
Oh one last thing about an accusation from Mr. Foster:
Watts also shows the data from JAXA:
…
Now there’s more data — there’s a little more than 8 years.
This time, however, Watts omits the close-up. Why?
Hmmm. Mr. Foster, you seem to have missed the basic feature of graphics, simply go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/12/go-ice-go/
And then click on the JAXA graph, and PRESTO! You’ll get the large size. You see, DMI doesn’t provide a larger size, so that’s why I had to magnify it manually. JAXA provides a larger size, also available via their web page here: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm So, no magnified extra graphic was needed. Most people know to click through when they see the little gloved finger pointer over a graphic. Or, maybe you just missed the “click to enlarge” note below it?
I’m happy to clear all those things up for you. Have a splendid weekend sir.
UPDATE: Well now, I’m a liar and I avoid data pre-2002. Heh.
How then will Mr. Foster explain that I have many many posts using NSIDC data and graphs, that goes back 30 years, many posts with UUIC (Cryosphere today) data and graphs that goes back 30 years, plus I have guest posts from Dr. Walt Meir of NSIDC, who uses even longer periods of data, and whom I don’t always agree with but invite to guest post anyway? Show the “avoidance” of pre-2002 data Mr. Foster. – Anthony
UPDATE2: My goodness, “pants on fire“? What is this, grade school? While Mr. Foster accuses me of not answering the question (while shifting his position) I’ll point out that he didn’t answer any of the questions I posed to him.
Here’s another for him: why do you avoid the discussion of Antarctic Sea ice? Either his search engine is hosed, or he’s avoiding an entire continent.
My favorite part is:
Seriously? Does he think this place is RC or even his own site?
Just because he censors the @ur momisugly#$% out of his site doesn’t mean that (a) everyone else does, or (b) it is the right thing to do.
Also, he apparently doesn’t read the comments on the sea ice threads because, while full of quite a bit of senseless stuff, there’s plenty of good discussion involving numbers and people keeping track of stuff in their own spreadsheets and with their own analysis methods.
-Scott
One graph from right at the bottom of Anthony’s sea ice page says it all.
GLOBAL daily ice area
Ain’t much happening Mr Tamino. Why is everyone so fixated on Arctic ice?
Tamino= Grant Foster
Eli= [snip – No outing. T. is already widely known. ~ E]
Deepclimate= ?
Maybe he wants to trade in the lucrative carbon scam too.. 😉
Grant Foster, please feel free to add your own comments here, I believe Anthony would welcome your views.
I would visit and comment at your site but it seems you do not welcome any view that conflicts with your opinion, is that why so few people can be bothered?
REPLY: “I believe Anthony would welcome your views.” You betcha, I’ll even give him a guest post slot. All he has to do is ask. – Anthony
First WUWT usually shows 8 years, including current in progress, as well as a 30 average. And the years are selected because they are most current and commence when the arctic was theoretically commencing its irrevocable decline.
Looks like Tamino has been hanging out with the wrong crowd. How are you going to learn anything if you only talk to people who believe exactly and only what you do?
Has he become completely deranged?
How the heck did he miss the obvious, or wait, maybe he is so far long gone into his looney own la la land version of reality that he thought he was ever so nifty that nobody but He would notice the obvious descrepancy.
Why didn’t all the hippies ever all over turn out to be like Mr Jobs and Mr Gates? Because of the red turned green virus of communism. I’m thinking the proof is somewhere in the jungle of background facts of the overly nice hippie who sold me that refurbished flame thrower to boot.
Grant Foster. Could you please give some explanation as to how HMS Investigator, got to its present resting place in 1853? I know this was before the satellite records began, but is it possible that arctic ice varied in extent before man made global warming started? I tell you what, how about if I post that question on your site so you can answer or delete it?
Let me be the first to remember not to mention unit root tests in this (Tamino) context.
Maybe I’m missing the point of Mr Foster’s question. The ice-page shows graphs sourced from four entities that display only the recent years of Arctic ice, why is Mr Foster stating that there is only a single source for such representations?
This is the KILLER REPLY from Mr. Watts.
My question to Tamino is why does he consistently ignore above average sea ice extent? I have posted comments on Tamino’s CRAP site with fewer visitors and have been “consistently” deleted. :o)
Posted at Tamino. To be flamed, but what does that prove?
Because it ain’t the Antarctic.
Why did Tamino ignore snow in the Amazon? Millions of tropical fish killed by cold? Hundreds of penguins washed up dead in Brazil? Why?
pwnd
Then please Tamino have the guts to post the following on your CRAP website as they go beyond 30 years? I did post some of these on your CRAP website but my comments were moderated out of existence. :o)
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
http://www.apex.geo.su.se/apex-updates-projects-2007/longterm-project.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009PA001817.shtml
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/12/1/49.abstract
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1550979
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5341/1257
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/papers-on-1500-year-climatic-cycle/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Tamino
Who are you kidding? The Warmists fear the facts, whereas Skeptics embrace them. Here is a post I made on WUWT in June:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/23/sea-ice-news-10/#comment-415693
Note how we Skeptics direct the curious minded to the data sources so they can make up their own minds? If you are so openminded then post links to the sea ice data sources and this 31 year Global Sea Ice Area chart;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
on your site and let your readers make up their own minds…
Still awaiting moderation at Grant Fosters
REPLY: It’s 7:30 PM in Maine on a Friday night, he probably went out to have a beer to celebrate. – Anthony
Well…besides all that, what have the Romans done for me lately?!
Sea Ice page? What Sea Ice page?
http://tinyurl.com/2d8q7nq
Maybe Mr. Tamino is a blood relation to William Connolley ?
HIQEntertainment says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm
pwnd
Yep! Well done Anthony. What I don’t understand is how they come up with the perceptions when all they have to do is come here and see. I would have assumed, given the alarmist visitors that pop by from time to time they would confer this information to the alarmists. Do they really have to sit and wonder why WUWT kicks their a$$es in traffic? It’s because Anthony and the mods allow open debate without allowing flame wars. Heck, there’s nothing I’d like more than to be able to engage on an alarmist site, but, its simply not allowed.
Past my bed time in UK. Still awaiting moderation at Grant Fosters
Remember, “the best indicator of future performance is past performance”
seems to be the mantra on his site.
Once a factual distorter, probably always a factual distorter
I know Tamino is reading this so please read carefully the following from the Warmists at NASA and you may understand why there is much uncertainty about what the Arctic will do next.
—————————————————
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector2.php
“So in addition to changing sea ice, we can kind of guess that something must be happening in the atmosphere over the Arctic, too.” Clouds are bright, too, and an increase in clouds could cancel out the impact of melting snow and ice on polar albedo.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector4.php
“Although sea ice and snow cover had noticeably declined in the Arctic from 2000 to 2004, there had been no detectable change in the albedo measured at the top of the atmosphere: the proportion of light the Arctic reflected hadn’t changed. In other words, the ice albedo feedback that most climate models predict will ultimately amplify global warming apparently hadn’t yet kicked in.”
“According to the MODIS observations, cloud fraction had increased at a rate of 0.65 percent per year between 2000 and 2004. If the trend continues, it will amount to a relative increase of about 6.5 percent per decade. At least during this short time period, says Kato, increased cloudiness in the Arctic appears to have offset the expected decline in albedo from melting sea ice and snow.”
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/gorodetskaya/irina_ipccpaper.pdf
“The predicted substantial decrease in Arctic summer sea ice concentrations during the twenty-first century may favor cloud formation, which should diminish or even cancel the ice-albedo feedback by shielding the surface.”
“Water droplets are more effective in reflecting and absorbing solar radiation than nonspherical, typically larger ice crystals (Dong et al. 2001).”
Anthony: “If global warming is so dire, you’d think he’d cheer a bit of good news, even if not hugely significant by itself.”
What an example of doublethink! If it is not significant, how can it be good news?
It seems you want to put across the message that the ice is recovering at the same time as covering your back by admitting that it isn’t. That is the kind of sleight of hand to which any honest and competent observer would object.
REPLY: hahhahahahahahah thats a riot! Thanks I needed a good laugh. Honest that busted me up, whew, I feel better – Anthony