My answer to Tamino's question

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?

Maybe he wants to trade in the lucrative carbon scam too.. 😉

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.

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.

Let me be the first to remember not to mention unit root tests in this (Tamino) context.

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?

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)

Bruce says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:01 pm
……………………
Ain’t much happening Mr Tamino. Why is everyone so fixated on Arctic ice?

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?

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?

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/

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

Sea Ice page? What Sea Ice page?
http://tinyurl.com/2d8q7nq

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.

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).”

I posted this at Tamino. Will it get through?
Anthony replied to your question.
What data source is he missing? He shows JAXA, NANSEN, University of Bremen, NSIDC, Canadian Ice Service, Univeristy of Ilinois, NOAA ESRL temps and he covers both hemispheres.

Tamino (Grant Foster), also writes:
“I like daily data myself, because it has more information than monthly averages. But I’m fully aware that the extra information is almost all about the day-to-day noise, almost nothing about the trend. So I’m content to use monthly averages to investigate what the physical signal is.”
=====================
Yet, his bitch is that Anthony is not “releasing” the full satellite data.
Damn this is fun.

Here’s the cryo ice data, all 30 years of it on the same graph, with annual superpostion, like jaxa and dmi. also got melt\freeze rate.
Bit messy
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/meemoe_uk/cryoice2010oct.gif
2010 is white

“pwnd”?
Had to look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn

As per Tamino
to predict that next year’s September average from NSIDC, and next year’s JAXA minimum, will be 4.63 +/- 0.9 million km^2. After all, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior: the trend continues.
Hopefully he has more success with ice predictions than stock picking…

depending what regression you run on the trend you can actually get it trending upwards quite a bit at the moment. I have the excel file with all the actual stats to prove it

Couldn’t sleep hence not on laptop
Am I still not moderated yet at Grant Fosters? Beer must be good Grant.
May be HMS Investigator was dropped by alien spaceships, from sufficient height to crash through the ice and land in its present position, only to be discovered this year, when the ice had receded to its third worse state.
Those crew may have died in vain, possibly eaten by those wretched white bears, but let us use their sacrifice to some good purpose in modern time. How did they get there? Grant Foster is the expert, he must know, given that past performance is a good indicator of future performance.

uber pwnage 😉 very 1337

Oh, Snap!

Just checked the Sea Ice page, it’s still there. Hard to miss. I am now concerned for Mr. Tamino’s eyesight. Perhaps the cool autumn temperatures are fogging up his computer screen.

“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”
That’ll be the day. He’ll be left bleeding after being riddled with scientific bullets.

Ever wondered why so few dissenting views are here.
This seems to nail the reason:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/censorship
REPLY: Yep, all out in the open, with my real name attached to it, unlike your other commenters and “thefordprefect”. Yes, I don’t suffer fools or anonymous cowards gladly. Call it a fault. Yet, I still manage to have “…the most visited climate website in the world”. – Anthony

golfcharley says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:49 pm
To deal with and expand the valid points you make.
It may have been that the Northwest passage was truly open in terms of being easily navigable but if so probably not since the MWP. And presumably before that during the Roman warm period, the Minoan warm period and the Holocene optimum. And no doubt before that from time to time during the Holocene.
The problem is we have no documentary evidence that this was so: and only scant physical evidence that it may have been so: perhaps because most of this is still buried in the permafrost.
Nevertheless the legend both in European and Chinese culture that it did exist is a powerful one and persisted until recently. Such legends and folk lore often turn out to have some basis in reality. But we cannot tell. Although we do know that it was the great retreat of Arctic ice that opened Viking exploration and trade to north America and above all else to their settlement of Greenland and that it was the advance southward of the Arctic ice from about 1200 on that gradually closed these trading routes: and eventually destroyed the Viking settlements.
We do know that the arctic ice is subject to sudden periods of retreat after which it advances again and that this occurs roughly every sixty years or so. We do not understand why or how this happens but we have good records of it going back to the 1760’s. Over the same time we also know from the Russian record there has been a gradual retreat of the great Arctic glaciers But again we do not understand why or how.
In short the idea that somehow the records of Arctic ice extent over a decade or two mean anything is a joke. These effects happen over centuries.
Kindest Regards

I know my comment is going to get deleted instantly from Tamino’s blog where I posted it, but I couldnt resist. Here it is.
Tamino said
” After all, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior: the trend continues.”
Not necessarily. It’s called a variable.
If you Start at Point A and drive to point B, it takes you X amount of minutes.
The next day you start at A, drive the same way, leave the same time, and yet it takes you Y minutes.
Why?
Because you forgot your briefcase and had to go back. Maybe there was a car accident. Maybe it was raining so you drove slower. There were a thousand possible outcomes that you couldn’t predict.
And that, is what you’ve done with your graphs.
For a simpler explanation, if you require one, watch ” Jurassic Park.” There is a excellent presentation by the mathematician involving a drop of water and a steady hand.
Plus, it has dinosaurs. You and your friends will be impressed.

This graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
The “sea ice anomoly” (which is just an incredibly poor use of the English language, as “sea ice varience” from “self established mean over 30 years..” would be the PROPER label!) has some sort of “data” behind it. (I don’t imagine someone hand drew the graph..) It’s based on month or year values.
Thus there are 30 or 360 data points, and they can be analysed for a MEAN and a STANDARD DEVIATION.
Considering it probably is a RANDOM function, we can then decide if there is any “significant” drift. (And mind you, that “significance” would depend on how “representative” the sample data set is of the “infinite” one.)
Any takers on this?
Max

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
— Carl Sagan

It’s probably already been said….
Grant Foster = DENIALIST!!!!!

“liar liar pants on fire”?
that’s just sad

These guys are a god send to AGW skeptics please leave him alone we need him LOL from an AGW DENIER! I love Tamino hahahahaha

Wow! Two of my comments made it through moderation at “Open Mind” but Grant is completely off his rocker with absolutely bizarre infantile responses. I wonder how long he planned this “trap”? I won’t be giving him any more traffic.

If he didn’t get the answer he wanted (even though you answered him,) maybe he should learn to pose questions in a more precise manner and approach the conversation with an ‘open mind.’
That said, he’s a serious whiner.
REPLY: Oh, I think he was surprised by the answer, because he really didn’t research his post deep enough, and found himself caught out, then got mad rather than admit failure. His only defense then was to say “I lie”. It’s sad really. He wants so much to be taken seriously, but then he reverts to thing like “pants on fire”. He’s his own worst enemy. – Anthony

“And yes it covers those organizations using 30 year data sets, including NSIDC, and UUIC. ”
—–
*ahem* That’s UIUC, for University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Otherwise, good job!

Yes, I don’t suffer fools or anonymous cowards gladly. Call it a fault. Yet, I still manage to have “…the most visited climate website in the world”
Hey! I’m an anonymous coward (for now). Does this mean I should come out from behind my handle? (It’s really not all that hard to figure out who I am, as if anyone really cares.)

Secretely every skeptic is rooting for the ice to recover and for the earth to cool so that it will be shown that mother nature is in control, not humans, whom just so happen to be living at a time in the very subtle uptick in ‘absolute’ global temperatures…with all their perfect ‘measurements’.

He’s his own worst enemy. – Anthony
Global warming believers/advocates are pretty good at that. Give it time, they’re completely deconstruct all of global warming. 😉

Just The Facts says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:17 pm
————————————————————————————-
Thanks for demonstrating how enlightened WUWT is by providing the links.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
“Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). ”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
“From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.”
http://nsidc.org/
“This September (2010), Arctic sea ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, falling below the extent reached last summer. The lowest- and second-lowest extents occurred in 2007 and 2008. Satellite data indicate that Arctic sea ice is continuing a long-term decline, and remains younger and thinner than it was in previous decades. ”
Some serious pixel counting software needs to bought in to theses institutions because ,as far as I can see, all the organisations involved in the collating and analysis of data seemed to have arrived at a different interpretation as to the health of artic sea ice to many of the posters (and contributors) on here.

I’ve also, in the past, had OpenMind, RC, and Eli’s site on my reading list.
After a period of time, in which you and Steve McIntyre (CA) were continually attacked, made me want to read here, too.
After several posts that neither made it through, or were answered by a “read the papers”, or “we’re not going to do your homework for you”, made me drift away.
If it wasn’t for the fact that you mentioned him here, I wouldn’t have known his site still existed…

If you liked Mann’s Hockeystick, if you think that either a six or a thirty year ice trend is proof of anything much at all…
I am a Nigerian billionaire who’d like to send you a bunch of money to mind for me. Could I please have your bank details?

“He wants so much to be taken seriously, but then he reverts to thing like “pants on fire”. He’s his own worst enemy. -Anthony”
And ridiculously juvenile. While I doubt my post will make it through, here’s what I tried to post………………………
Wow, just wow. Did we all skip the fact that the Arctic was virtually ice free about 60 years ago? (2 U.S. subs meeting an U.K. sub at the north pole and many more anecdotes.) Which, oddly enough, does not coincide with the warming a couple of decades prior. Does any of this really matter? The ice has been significantly less than what it is today, and very likely will be again. So what. Nothing happened. The poley bears were ok and continued to eat seals and people. Santa still came by every year. And everybody lived to breed to have these wonderful discussions about pants and fire. There was the bonus of passages for commerce.
Disclaimer! While I tried to be age appropriate, I sincerely apologize if anyone was ruined by being told polar bears did more than drink coke and look cuddly. We’ll talk about Santa next time.

This is beyond absurd at this point. Tamino himself says “consistently display”, then moves on to be super nitpicky about the response? Well, given the level of nitpickiness he’s chosen, lets consider the word “consistent”…
In fact, the only sea ice plot that is consistently displayed on this site is the one of the right…which is JAXA. JAXA covers more than 6 years.
Also, Tamino is the one caught in a lie. In his “Pants on Fire” post, he says:

This one (the most recent) shows DMI (less than 6 years) and JAXA (less than 8 years). You left out everything before 2002.

[Note, I’ve quoted that here and even taken a screenshot in case he changes it later.]
JAXA is not less than 8 years. Its first day of data is June 21, 2002. Thus, it covers a period of 8 years, 3 months, and 24 days. Now, maybe if you subtract out the days of missing data…hmm, not sure if it totals 115 or so days, I doubt it does, but maybe he can hope.
Normally I don’t speculate on people’s motives, but in this case it really looks like Tamino is just trying to call attention to himself and increase traffic to his site.
-Scott

Maybe it’s a coincidence, but Tamino is an anagram for “Am on it”.

“[Response: Too bad his response doesn’t answer the question. He just lies about it.]”
Translation:
[Fingers in ears singing “lalalalalalalala”]

Tim Williams
Yes! this is the beauty of this site, we are given more then just the owners opinions, so that we can make up our own minds, you know, like adults.
Now if you look at the latest post, you will see that Russian Scientists , who may have the longest experience with Artic ossilations, are basically saying that these temp increases are natural and cyclical.
More info, more better for decisions!

Posted to OPEN MIND, and here, a few hours ago…
All I asked for was ONE piece of empirical evidence on the two questions at the bottom of this terribly convoluted and expensive argument, and I didn’t even get the courtesy of getting past the moderator. First time I’ve ever commented on any of these pages, kinda reinforces my view of what’s really going on.
Thank you Mr Watts, it’s a pleasure to visit your site.
Johnny in Oz

i would suggest a 3 year averaging of northern, southern and global anomolies of the full satellite records. (on the sea ice page, if not an article.)

I must conclude;
in the absence of any response from Grant Foster, that HMS Investigator simply sailed to its final resting place in an ice free sea in 1853,
that the Arctic ice ebbs and flows over multiple years, much as the tide does over hours,
that this has been happening for millennia, and,
that there is no need to panic.
But, looking at the last few years of satellite imagery, if arctic ice continues to grow, how long before polar bears can walk across the ice to Iceland? Should the Icelandic Govt be preparing shooting parties to prevent widescale environmental damage caused by these killer bears on a land locked island whose wildlife is unable to respond to such an unprecedented threat? Urgent action is required now!

I call this psychological abnormality “belief driven perception”. In short, some people see only what they want to see, and hear only what they want to hear. Their strongly emotional convictions overpower their ability to correctly interpret reality…… Twisted and sad.

My posting got through at Tamino’s site.
I quoted the conclusion of that most important paper showing current Arctic Sea Ice Extent is within the normal range of the Halocene.
He must have thought I was supporting his views with a conclusion that diametrically opposes his.
Interesting. What a shallow fellow.
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

Posed a question over at Tamino’s place – wiped off! The question never broke any of his rules and was on-topic. Disappeared. Why does this man even get his name mentioned here? Surely we should ignore him.

Anthony, don’t foreget Joe Bastardi’s Monday sea ice report
http://www.accuweather.com/video/624373716001/monday-morning-sea-ice-report.asp?channel=vbbastaj
He references your sea ice page as his source.
http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vblog_bastardi

Can you blame Tamino, seeing, as he does, as through a glass darkly?
===============================

I’d say this dustup between Anthony and Tamino has the score lopsided in Anthony’s favor.
I don’t frequent any site that doesn’t allow opposing opinion–today is actually the first time I’ve ever visited this Grant Foster’s web site. I was underwhelmed.
Anybody that calls someone a liar and doesn’t acknowledge the response but then changes his definition of the lie to avoid responsibility gets no respect and tons and tons of derision.
The bottom line is that Tamino has lost this battle and displays the current meme where advocates of climate disruption are resorting to name calling rather than the pursuit of science. But obviously, they are in denial; their “mountain of evidence” they so fondly refer to has crumbled so they’re running from it.

Ever notice that so often an open mind translates to an empty head?

vukcevic says:
October 16, 2010 at 1:22 am
“And why Tamino doesn’t whish to show this link ?”
vuk, do you know about the georeactor hypothesis by J. Marvin Herndon?
http://nuclearplanet.com/

Glenn says:
October 16, 2010 at 4:28 am
It’d be hilarious if this were the same Grant Foster:
It is he indeed.

A logical look at Foster’s argument
My comments in bold.
In my last post I made two predictions. The second one was this:
Second: Either Anthony Watts won’t answer my question about why he’s so fond of less than 6 years’ data when we have over 30 (and that’s just from satellites) — or he’ll attack me personally, calling me a coward for blogging under a pseudonym. After all, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

This is a contradictory statement. How can you predict that someone will personally attack you when the prediction itself is an attack on said person and not their claim?
Definition of a personal attack.
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself.
From this statement I will make the proposition that Foster attacks Watts personal. Proof to be shown further.

Anthony has replied. But just as I predicted, he didn’t answer my question. Instead he told a lie.
He pretended that he doesn’t consistently display the only data source that covers less than 6 years. He points to his Sea Ice Page, which shows numerous graphs from numerous sources of sea ice data. Then he asks:
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?
That’s a lie.

Your first proposition is that Watts lied about his consistency in posting data sources that cover less than 6 years.
Instead of making an argument about Watts’ claim Foster attacks Watts’ credibility. Which in itself, can make an argument but a weak one.
Your second proposition is that Watts pretends. This second proposition relies on the first being proven true if you accept the argument that insincerity must be proven true in order for one to be a pretender.

Anthony, you do have a sea ice page that shows a lot of graphs and has a lot of links. But what do you show in your posts? Let’s survey your last 5 posts on arctic sea ice:
In your last 5 posts with graphs of arctic sea ice extent/area, only one of them shows anything prior to 2002 — and that’s only because you quoted an entire NSIDC news release and they included it. Then you have the gall to claim that you “consistently display them all.”

You have used a 5 post trend as evidence of proof for your first proposition. This is an insufficient amount of data to prove your argument. I supply as proof Fosters own argument that a 9 year trend data source misrepresents the overall trend of sea ice extent because much more data is available. A 5 post data source doesn’t represent the overall trend of watts postings since a lot more data is available and therefore cannot prove their consistency.

You’ve been caught in a lie. Your sea ice page has a lot of links, but your posts consistently emphasize only recent data while you omit years prior to 2002. You consistently talk about how a single day has exceeded preceding years for the same date, but you only get away with it because you omit anything prior to the third millenium, and your readers are eager to lap up your misdirection. And you sure do love that DMI stuff — ’cause that’s less than 6 years. Anthony, you won’t even admit the truth when it’s bleeding obvious. And the truth is this: you love DMI because..

I provide the following statements as Proof that Foster personally attacks Watts:
Foster’s third proposition: Watts misdirects his readers
Foster’s forth proposition: Watts loves DMI data because it supports his claims.
Foster’s fifth proposition: Watts does not admit the truth
The above statements are proof of abusive remarks on Watts himself and do not remark on Watts initial claim.
Since Foster has not supplied any proof that’s supports his initial proposition that Watts lied about his consistency in posting data sources that cover less than 6 years, Fosters second proposition is also proven false.
Foster fails to provide any proof for his third, fourth and fifth propositions.
The rest of the article’s statements are based upon the first proposition which no further supporting proof is given. Therefore, the rest of article is based on an unproven premise and is render meaningless.

Global Cooling morphed into …
Global Warming morphed into…
Climate Change morphed into…
Global Climate Disruption morphed into….
What’s next? Any guesses?

I just couldn’t help but repost Tamino’s response to a fairly reasonable comment here:

Wayne Job | October 16, 2010 at 5:40 am | Reply
Reading the comments here and the commentary makes me wonder why some here are so anti the skeptical enquiring mind. It is a pre-requisite for all true scientific endeavour. Belief without proof is faith.
I do hope you all enjoy the coming Northern Hemisphere ski season, it will be a doozy.
[Response: Stupidity is not skepticism.]

It’d been a while since I went to Tamino’s site. The hate and loathing displayed there by both the site admin and the loyal followers are disgusting. Shouldn’t surprise me…I’ve worked with several people in academia who act like that with regards to AGW, and I research in an area only loosely related to AGW.
What’s really funny is that he makes out AW to be a deceitful liar who’s tricking people, but that above response from him now claims he’s stupid. Can’t really be both, so which one is it?
-Scott

Dissecting the bullet points of the “Pants on Fire” post shows them to be misleading (or by Tamino’s definition, outright lying) as well.
Sea Ice News #26 did show a NSIDC 79-00 average, though it was for Antarctic ice (which Tamino still hasn’t shown evidence that he knows it exists)
Sea Ice News #25 did show a standard NSIDC plot with the 79-00 average on it outside of the NSIDC release.
Sea Ice News #24 showed NSIDC plots with the 79-00 avg for both Antarctic and Arctic ice.
—
Note that Tamino didn’t go back any further, but news #23 showed a NOAA image with the 79-00 avg, and news #22 showed an NSIDC plot with the 79-00 average. In fact, the only true Sea Ice News that doesn’t have a long-term average displayed is Anthony’s first one, Sea Ice News #21.
Tamino is grasping at straws and not even realizing that most of those straws don’t exist. When did Tamino get replaced with Joe Romm?
-Scott

And here I thought “Grant Fosters” were sunglasses! Who knew?

To myself, the thing most telling is, the lack of cherry picking here (there must be some but I don’t see it). In 2006 and 2007 as the ice was shrinking at a high rate, the graphs were posted every day. There was plenty of discussion on the sea ice topic even though at the time it was a favorite goading thorn of the warmists posting here (they seemed to post here more often then when the momentum was on their side).
I assume if the ice starts melting again Anthony will continue to faithfully post the data (Even southern hemisphere data).
Complain all you want about the completeness of this site but at least try to run your own business at this standard of competence or greater.

Quite a few comments above refer to the deletion/censoring/rejection of comments posted at Tamino’s Open Mind site.
If you want, keep a copy of any comment you post (at any site) that you think might not pass moderation, and provided it is family rated, we will put it up at RC Rejects. If it is put up at Tamino’s Open Mind after it is posted at RC (due to moderation delays, say) then let us know, and we will take the comment down.

I just posted this on Tamino’s site:
————————————————–
Tamino, you are changing the challenge to Mr. Watts. You said:

“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?”

Then in reply to:

DavidS | October 15, 2010 at 11:57 pm | Reply
Anthony replied to your question.
What data source is he missing? He shows JAXA, NANSEN, University of Bremen, NSIDC, Canadian Ice Service, Univeristy of Ilinois, NOAA ESRL temps and he covers both hemispheres.

You responded:

[Response: Only on his sea ice page. In his posts, he diligently avoids data pre-2002 — because it makes his claims of “recovery” look like what they are: foolish.]

Could it be you missed the sea ice page and decided to move the goalposts when you were called out on it? [EDIT, EDIT, EDIT] ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . Cheer up
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Jimbo says:
October 16, 2010 at 12:19 pm
_____________________________________________________________
For what it’s worth (‘B’ all I’d imagine), I wasn’t aware there was a sea ice page on this blog until this thread.

The game’s up for the AGW crowd. Nobody takes them seriously anymore and they become more desperate every day. It’ll only take one more failed climate change convention to finish them off.
I’m looking forward to the upcoming New Zealand general election that more than likely will fall when the effects of la nina is freezing everyones asses off, in a year when the current govt will be doubling the costs of the ETS.

Anthony,
Over the years I’ve found that there is no profit in arguing with fools. (Maybe a little satisfaction, but you can’t take that to the bank!)
It’s like arguing with engineering freshmen who have just figured out their first prepetual motion machine. They KNOW that they are going to solve all of our energy problems AND get rich. Just like cold fusion.
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

@Jimbo
When the topic is the arctic sea ice why then would you link to an antarctic ice page?

Alex Heyworth says: October 15, 2010 at 11:25 pm

Maybe it’s a coincidence, but Tamino is an anagram for “Am on it”.

Don’t ever get me started on anagrams.
Ma, Not I
Ma, Toni!
I No Mat
Main OT
It Moan
I Am Not
With respect, I think the first thing Grant Foster needs to do is change his handle.

1DandyTroll says:
October 16, 2010 at 3:36 pm
@Jimbo
When the topic is the arctic sea ice why then would you link to an antarctic ice page?
Because Tamino’S attacks are based on people cherry picking. I point to his obvious avoidance of the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM – the Antarctic. Go to his search enginge and search for Antarctica. Get back to us with the hundreds of results please. :o)

Bye the way Tim Williams and 1DandyTroll my comment at Tamino’s CRAP website was moderated then NEVER appeared. Try posting contrary evidence and see what happens to YOUR COMMENTS.
See here and do I make any sense of his nonsense?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/my-answer-to-taminos-question/#comment-509308

@Vorlath
I read Tamino’s post and the comments there as well as his responses. I don’t know who this Tamino person is other than someone who’s adept at building castles in the sky.
*****
It’s probably worth remembering that Tamino’s ice extent prediction for this year was far closer to what it actually turned out to be, than anyone’s predictions here.
And on this:
[ (Tamino) Response: Stupidity is not skepticism.]
***
Tamino is right (derision aside). The original comment (“I do hope you all enjoy the coming Northern Hemisphere ski season, it will be a doozy”) showed that it was based in belief, and hence cannot be referred to a skepticism. Any true skeptic could not have made such a statement as it’s not skeptical!

Is Tamino dyslexic?
The headline Sea Ice figure here at WUWT has 9 year plots, not 6 as Tamino states.
2002-2010 = 9 years, not 6.
6 is an inverted 9.
Nothing to be ashamed of, I was dyslexic in childhood, could write nothing but my name backwards (notsigolhp) till age 7.
Get help – in the UK if you play your cards right dyslexics get a free computer from the state.

Duckster says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Tamino is right (derision aside). The original comment (“I do hope you all enjoy the coming Northern Hemisphere ski season, it will be a doozy”) showed that it was based in belief, and hence cannot be referred to a skepticism. Any true skeptic could not have made such a statement as it’s not skeptical!

Funny you left off the rest of that comment, shown here:

Reading the comments here and the commentary makes me wonder why some here are so anti the skeptical enquiring mind. It is a pre-requisite for all true scientific endeavour. Belief without proof is faith.

Notice that Tamino didn’t address the rest of the comment? Basically, he can’t justify his reliance on ad hominem attacks, which is what this comment was questioning. So his answer was to lay down another one.
I personally think the last sentence of the comment was made partially in jest as an example of “faith”. Oddly enough, that’s the only one you quote.
-Scott

OregonStream says:
October 16, 2010 at 8:53 pm
I thought much of Antarctica was long expected to remain relatively stable this century, with even some regional sea ice growth ….
——————–
That is only if you accept the latest rewriting of history by climate science (which they seem to do more than any other field of human endeavour around).
They have always predicted just as much warming and ice-melt in Antarctica as in the Arctic. It was only a few years ago when they started to twist the story and pretend they weren’t predicting Antarctic warming after all when it became very clear it was not.
All of the models had predicted more than 1.0C of warming in Antarctica during the past century. Actual result – no change really.
http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/monaghan_bromwich_grl_2008.pdf

Just The Facts says:
October 17, 2010 at 10:07 am
Their instant response seems to be that if one doesn’t believe in CAGW, they are stupid (or fill in any other similar adjective). It doesn’t matter if that person is making a complete rant or just talking numbers. Would they treat someone like Freeman Dyson or Roger Pielke Sr. in the same way? Maybe not to their faces, but what about behind their backs?
This behavior is what first made me skeptical of CAGW, as I used to be a believer. That said, I still lean towards AGW happening, but I want no part in hanging with people like that.
In my area of science, I’m fully capable of showing the ignorance of other people without calling them names. If they persist in mindless ranting, the vast majority of people can tell they’re idiots, so I don’t need to point it out. People believing in CAGW should be able to do the same. If they can’t, then either their position isn’t as strong as they think, or they don’t know their material as well as they should.
-Scott

As people have posted above i think this is more about pushing his viewing figures up more than facts, maybe hes not getting enough views to make money from the ad men?

Reminds me of:
http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/IMeet_Fred
One of the feuding parties even comes out and admits that the feud was started in order to increase web ratings of the two feuding sites.
Another feud with another (more vengeful) blogger is portrayed in this episode:
http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/IRue_The_Day
Why am I tossing this into the mix? I have teenage offspring. These episodes mirror reality!

TomRude says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Tamino= Grant Foster
Eli= [snip – No outing. T. is already widely known. ~ E]
Deepclimate= ?
Eli outed himself here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rabett-run-labs/files

My response to Tamino:
1) What makes him think the last 30 years is the gold standard for Arctic sea ice observations?
2) The ONLY credible observation period is no less than 140,000 years. Anything less fails to take into account the previous perfectly normal, perfectly natural interglacial warming period known as the Eemian. Every credible scientist on the planet readily admits that, during that period, there was routinely NO Arctic sea ice during the summer. And yet, the polar bears survived!
Click here for a far more credible assessment than Tamino’s cherry picked period!

bob (October 18, 2010 at 1:28 pm ) asks 2 questions:
1) “What were the sea levels during the Eemian?”
As I noted in my post, sea levels during the Eemian were “4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet)” higher than today. Did SUVs — 125,000 years ago — cause that?
2) “Am I safe or do I have beach front property?”
Safe from rising sea levels? That mostly depends upon whether you believe:
A) The current interglacial warming period will — in your lifetime — warm to something on a par with the previous 4 interglacial warming periods.
Or…
B) As the IPCC seems to infer, the current interglacial warming period will not — in the next 90 years — come anywhere close to the conditions witnessed during each of the previous 4 perfectly natural interglacial warming periods.
After all, the alarmists at the IPCC only expect sea levels to rise 18cm to 59cm (7” to 23”) by 2100. See Table 3.1 on page 45 from this rather large and slow loading IPCC PDF file.
Bear in mind that even these modest IPCC predictions are entirely predicated upon assumptions about water vapor feedbacks which the most recent data are proving to be not merely incorrect, but entirely upside down.

Anthony…don’t feed the trolls….