My answer to Tamino's question

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.

Advertisements

194 thoughts on “My answer to Tamino's question

  1. My favorite part is:

    Think he’ll even allow the question?

    Seriously? Does he think this place is RC or even his own site?
    Just because he censors the @#$% 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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?

  8. 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)

  9. 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?

  10. 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/

  11. 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…

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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).”

  16. 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

  17. Golf Charley says: October 15, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    Grant Foster, please feel free to add your own comments here. . .

    . . . where they might actually get seen.

  18. “”” TomRude says:
    October 15, 2010 at 4:04 pm
    Tamino= Grant Foster
    Eli= Josh Halpern
    Deepclimate= ? “””
    “Tamino= Grant Foster” And here I thought Tamino was Pamina’s timid boyfriend .
    I don’t suppose anybody knows who “Dano” is do they ? I mean apart from just another person who’s afraid to stand behind his own opinions.
    What can be more miserable than to be ashamed of one’s own name.

  19. 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.

  20. I can’t wait to see if this comment is moderated out by Tamino, so I am cross posting it here:
    It is hard to be impressed with you claiming that 30 years Arctic ice records is better than 5 years – for a planet that is over 4.5 billion years old, neither 5 nor 30 years are significant lengths of time for evaluating natural variability.

  21. 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.

  22. Mr. Tamino is the only member of the church in which I have deep respect and admiration.
    I got the impression that he is honest and sincere.
    I watch a despair in their questions.
    I’m hoping to read the letter of repentance for the wrong services.
    On snow amazonia,

  23. I just posted this on the other site… Awaiting moderation with baited breath..
    How DID the HMS Investigator get to where it rests now in 1853? To a complete layman, all those graphs look fairly normal… I could claim the sky is falling in Australia because of all the rain we’ve had in the past month, but I’d much prefer to trust that our planet knows what it’s doing, and it doesn’t seem to be bothered much with the models and projections of desperate grant seeking (pseudo)scientific bodies and individuals.
    I totally agree that humans have done a lot of damage to the planet, and it needs to be curtailed and cleaned up. What bugs me is the attempt at mass brainwashing of the general public to achieve the cleanup. With the attendant massive profits to the high priests (string pullers, elite,) generated by this new cult.
    Why do you continue to believe the tripe fed to us? I am still waiting for the ONE piece of empirical evidence that 1. The world is warming at an unprecedented rate, and 2. That it is being caused by carbon dioxide runaway levels.. (That’s carbon DIOXIDE, not carbon.. Changing language seems to be stock in trade for you people.)
    I dare you to post this, with just ONE piece of empirical evidence of your theory. Our planet and its systems will continue to do what it does, despite what the models say, because it doesn’t give a stuff about fortune telling.
    I dare you.
    Johnny in Oz. (A normal layman getting sick of the lies and expense.)
    PS Mann’s hockey stick is an insult to anybody with half a brain, please don’t trot that out.

  24. 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…

  25. 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

  26. Answer to Tamino:
    So you don’t think such a question would be allowed here?
    Projection, Brother T?
    How little you understand us.
    We allow ALL such questions here. We snip only posts that are directly insulting, totally over the top, or otherwise are in direct violation of policy. And we even allow a lot of latitude on insult toward host or moderator if the poster has the guts to post his/her actual name.
    Skeptic sites, on the whole, are incredibly more open and tolerant of opposing views than pro-AGW sites. The old-fashioned name for such an attitude is “Liberalism”. Get some.

  27. 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.

  28. Golf Charley says:
    October 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    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, if you are having a beer, Tamino, I hope for the planet’s sake, and for our children’s children, that is is a non-carbonated beer.

  29. Tamino was just pwned, as the saying goes. But being a typical alarmist shill, he is a hypocrite. It is perfectly acceptable for him and those who agree with him to censor, but if anyone opposes his thinking dares to censor, they act like it is the crime of the century.
    This reminds me of a campaign done by a democrat running against the incumbent republican. She states that Washington is broken and we need to throw out the incumbents, and yet the democrats are the reason why people say Washington is broken. This reminds me of it because these people not step back and say “Does this make sense?” Tamino’s argument is illogical and inconsistent with common sense.

  30. Anthony headed this post “my answer to Tamino’s question”
    As someone with an interest in maritime history (HMS Investigator 1853 may by now have been deleted from Wikipedia by a William M Connelly sock puppet) how did people get through the North West Passage before the era of global warming?
    Tamino (Grant Foster) keeps making references to past behaviour being a good indicator of future behaviour. So if our ancestors could get through the NWP in sailboats, why do we need engined ice breakers to do it.
    The Hockey Team have tried to beat the hell out of the Medieval Warm Period, but they have forgotten about the North West Passage. HMS Investigator failed during the Little Ice Age, but Amundsen succeeded.
    Who mapped the NWP? Why did Victorian England seek it? Because they knew it was there. Who mapped it? Presumably someone prior to the Little Ice Age?
    So Victorians fell for the Tamino line that what was possible to access in the past was a good indicator of what could be passaged in the future. Now it is almost possible to conduct a north west passage in a season ( with an ice breaker to assist) so Tamino is right (ish)
    Can Tamino answer the golfcharley question?

  31. 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.

  32. Granr Foster must still be down the …….. or I have been been flambeed
    If Victorian England could not get through the North West Passage, but they knew it was there, could this be because, before the Little Ice Age, there was a warmer period of time, a sort of, warmer period of time, how could we refer to it, a sort of warmish period in the medievalish time period
    No obviously not, the Mann Hockey Stick overules all common sense
    The search for the North West Passage has not yet been attacked in the same way that the Medieval Warm Period has
    Long live the MWP, and its supporting literature to be found in the search for the North West Passage, not yet spotted by AGWarmists.

  33. “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.

  34. As of this moment, precisely 3 comments to his stupid post have actually been published.
    ALL 3 of them have timestamps hours later than the last comment here. So for anyone still waiting for their comment to clear moderation over there, you can officially stop holding your breath.

  35. 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

  36. Looks like Tamino is back online:

    U. R. Owned | October 16, 2010 at 12:42 am | Reply
    Your question answered !!
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/my-answer-to-taminos-question/#more-26478

    [Response: Wrong. Watts replied — but he didn’t answer.]

    The next post was something similar, to which he responded:

    [Response: Too bad his response doesn’t answer the question. He just lies about it.]

    So Tamino says something like:
    Why don’t you show more than 6 years?
    Anthony responds:
    I do show more, here’s the link.
    And the best Tamino can do is:
    Anthony Watts didn’t answer my question. He is a liar.
    Seriously? How weak can he be? Last I checked, the sea ice page link still worked, so how is Anthony a liar?
    -Scott

  37. 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

  38. Little Blue Guy says:
    October 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm
    As of this moment, precisely 3 comments to his stupid post have actually been published.
    ALL 3 of them have timestamps hours later than the last comment here. So for anyone still waiting for their comment to clear moderation over there, you can officially stop holding your breath.
    =======================================================
    I haven’t found one alarmist site that will even attempt at fairness in their moderation. I’ve quit trying. Maybe I’ll try again one day, but I’ve just never had an experience on any of them that allowed for open discourse.

  39. 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.

  40. Just posted on “Open Mind”
    “Tamino needs to look up the definition of a lie. Watts clearly answered and even directed him where to look for the data he seeks. The info has been posted over and over and anyone with half a brain can see the data for themselves on his site.
    Tamino’s inability to browse a site correctly not withstanding his lack of factual data is amazing in and of itself.”

  41. Olaf Koenders says: October 15, 2010 at 6:17 pm
    “That’ll be the day. He’ll be left bleeding after being riddled with scientific bullets.”
    Olaf
    While I understand your metaphor, given the current hostile environment, e.g. 10:10 blowing up kids/skeptics, etc. I think it is best to avoid any references to violence, e.g. bleeding, riddled, bullets. etc. We should make it clear to all Warmists including Tomino that we have no ill intent whatsoever. We just want to debate the facts.

  42. What a strange “response” from Grant Foster? Perhaps you could ask him why he and his fellow travelers seem to dwell on the sea ice extent in the arctic and studiously avoid any mention of the antarctic? The same bias he attributes to this site is much more evident in the fact that they never mention antarctic extent. Even his bizarre analysis of your last 5 posts showed that you did display 30year data.
    REPLY: Yes, he’s quite a puzzling fellow. Mostly he’s amusing now. – Anthony

  43. 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

  44. So Tamino posted my comment, with some interesting edits/deletions:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-44877
    Here is the exact text of what I submitted:
    “Just The Facts | October 15, 2010 at 11:59 pm | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    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;
    The Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/
    National Sea and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):
    http://nsidc.org/
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/
    http://nsidc.org/searchlight/
    University of Bremenpart
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/eng/
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/iuppage/psa/2001/amsrop.html
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/
    International Arctic Research Center/Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (IARC-JAXA)
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/
    Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/english/index.php
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
    and this 31 year Global Sea Ice Area chart;
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    and let your readers make up their own minds…”
    Tamino, why the edits/deletions?

  45. Anthony”
    “Why would you not want to cheer (he objects to this post Go Ice Go!) the refreezing of Arctic Sea Ice?”
    LOL. I asked Gavin that same question when he was blasting some piece of data that should make people happy if they are genuinely concerned with AGW. Of course he claimed that the problems of AGW were more important to him than being right. But I have never believed this. I’m certain that people like Gavin and Tamino are not losing a wink of sleep for fear of climate disasters. I can think of a host of motivations for their position, but genuine fear for the earth is not one of them.
    What I like about sea ice area is that it’s hard to “adjust” the data, like it is with temp. Of course that doesn’t stop the claims about “rotten ice”, and “it’s getting thinner”. Both of which are nonsense. If you think about it, if the ice were getting thinner, then the ice near the edge that was already thin would disappear – and the area would show corresponding shrinkage.

  46. Olaf Koenders says:
    I’ll even give [Tamino] 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.”
    Olaf, I could not agree more. Based on Tamino’s consistent lack of logic and common sense, and his inability to grasp basic concepts, it is clear that Mr Foster would be quickly destroyed by well-educated WUWT commentators bludgeoning him with scientific facts.
    That also explains the average alarmist bloggers’ fear of allowing any different points of view — and it sets WUWT head and shoulders above the globaloney crowd. Only by allowing all points of view are we able to approach scientific truth.

  47. Well Anthony, you must feel good. You just know that when Tamino, or Eli or KK jump on you, it is more than likely to get their blogs jump started again. I had noticed that Tamino had been very quiet for the last few weeks. He’ll probably get more traffic in the next 2 days than he has had for the past 2 months.

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

  49. Steve Lindsey says:
    October 15, 2010 at 6:58 pm
    Just posted on “Open Mind”
    “Tamino needs to look up the definition of a lie. Watts clearly answered and even directed him where to look for the data he seeks. The info has been posted over and over and anyone with half a brain can see the data for themselves on his site.
    Tamino’s inability to browse a site correctly not withstanding his lack of factual data is amazing in and of itself.”

    OK
    The WMO on the front of some small pamphlet show a graph with declining tree ring temperature data hidden behind instrumented temperatures but have a number of papers describing this decline and suggest that it needs to be investigated published and reviewed. Is this not the same as front-paging cherry picked data series on the main blog but having the full data elsewhere?
    I trust that you now know that the ruckus about hiding the decline is irrelevant!
    \harry

  50. I gave up on the Tamino site long ago. As is the case at RC, there is now no value at websites that edit opposing views. With as many climate websites as are available now that fairly cover all sides of the issues, those that choose to edit opposing views have rendered themselves useless.

  51. Tamino’s mind is open to only the echo chamber of the AGW choir. I don’t know if he was this way before the hockey stick controversy, but this how he’s been since at least 2005 when I first ran across his posts.

  52. Anthony’s sea ice page and sea ice reports are a blast. The graphics alone calm rough nerves. Sometimes there are pictures. What a hoot! Thanks, Anthony.

  53. 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

  54. Tamino should change his blog header to:
    “Open Mind. Science, Politices, Life, the Universe, and everything (except Antarctica)”.

  55. 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.

  56. Harry Lu says:
    October 15, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    ……………..
    I trust that you now know that the ruckus about hiding the decline is irrelevant!
    \harry
    =======================================================
    Harry, if you check it, “hiding the decline” is becoming more and more irrelevant every day in a direct relationship with the perpetrators. I doubt they’ll even be a footnote in a few decades. They’ll just be a few in a long list of people that got it wrong. Sad, though, we should strive to learn from our past mistakes by not forgetting the erroneous paths we’ve ventured down.

  57. 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

  58. Just wondering: Does Grant Foster (aka Tamino) fancy himself a magic flute or a database? Or is there some other reason for the CB handle?

  59. “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!

  60. 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.)

  61. Harry Lu says:
    October 15, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    I trust that you now know that the ruckus about hiding the decline is irrelevant!
    Righto, Harry, since by now it’s clear that the divergence itself obviously renders these tree-rings, which have otherwise been alleged to be temp. proxies extending back ~1000 yrs., totally worthless for the task.

  62. I posted another rather innocuous comment over at Tamino’s and it appears that he deleted it. The exact text of my comment is as follows:
    “Just The Facts | October 16, 2010 at 2:44 am | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Tamino, why the edits/deletions to my post above?
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-44877
    I’ve mirrored my unedited post on WUWT for reference:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/my-answer-to-taminos-question/#comment-508844
    Also, I posted another comment on WUWT to help us maintain a cordial and rational tone in this debate:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/my-answer-to-taminos-question/#comment-508839
    Tamino seems to be afraid of the facts. Afraid that if his readers have easy access to the sea ice data sources, they might become a bit more skeptical. What kind of information source would delete a list of sea ice data sources? I am going to repost just the list of sea ice data sources to see if it is banned material on Open Mind.

  63. 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’.

  64. Golf Charley says:
    October 15, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    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
    Don’t wait for him to ask. You will never receive a response. Just allocate some space and tell him it is available for him to guest post at his leisure.
    And then make it well known.
    REPLY: Good idea. – Anthony

  65. It seems like what he’s saying (so aggressively) is that you should show thirty years of data every time you draw that chart that shows arctic sea ice extent vs date. I totally disagree with him. The chart is already pretty ‘busy’ with the ~7 lines you have graphed onto it. Adding another ~25 lines would make it completely unreadable.

  66. 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.

  67. Anthony,
    With all due respect Tamino has some valid points that you haven’t answered. The standard posts on your site mostly reference short term graphs, which give a false impression that sea ice is not as bad off as it is. Your answer to him is that you reference that information elsewhere on your site, yet the standard posts are all that most people read. They are also the only posts that have your personal analysis attached to them and therefore carry way more weight than the sea ice page, which gives good information but has no analysis attached.
    REPLY: Well I beg to differ, the sea ice page is usually in the top 3-5 of traffic for individual posts each week It and it’s content is well exposed to thousands of people. The claim that people can’t see 30 years trends in Arctic Sea Ice is just silly. I run a climate news site, Tamino runs an analysis site. We have different views of what should be presented in posts. His claims are rather like griping that The NYT didn’t offer a complete analysis in the last 5 news articles that satisfies him. Like I said in comments, he’s welcome to do a guest post here on Arctic Sea Ice if he feels that information is lacking. The offer remains open, it is genuine, with no caveats other than he can’t insult me or call me a liar in the post – science only, no ad homs. I won’t even make him acknowledge the Antarctic Sea ice. 😉 I can’t get any more accomodating than that. Please pass it along. -Anthony

  68. 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…

  69. 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?

  70. Mark S says:
    October 15, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    The standard posts on your site mostly reference short term graphs, which give a false impression that sea ice is not as bad off as it is.
    The ice is not bad off. To use 1979 to 2010 data to determine what state Arctic ice is in is cherry picking. PDO was positive from 1976 to 1999. That was the prime reason for Arctic ice decline from 1979 to 2007. It was not caused by manmade global warming.

  71. “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.

  72. Bets are Tamino won’t be able to summon enough courage to do a guest post here… because he is afraid he will end up an injured sea lion in shark-infested waters.
    ============================
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  73. 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

  74. Tim Williams says: October 15, 2010 at 10:07 pm
    But what about Antarctica? You are only focusing on one side of the coin. Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing:
    Here’s Antarctic Sea Ice Extent from NSIDC;
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
    Here’s another view of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent from Bremen;
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png
    Here’s the monthly trend in Antarctic Sea Extent from NSIDC;
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
    Here’s Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from Cryosphere Today:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
    Can we agree that Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing?
    Also take a look at the big picture, i.e. Global Sea Ice Area for Cryosphere Today:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    I don’t see signs of rapid and catastrophic warming in the charts I’ve linked to, do you?

  75. So Tamino posted my last comment in its entirety:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-44911
    Now I am really confused as to how the moderating works at Open Mind. When I submitted the content in the comment above to Tamino the first time, he edited it out of this comment:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-44877
    Maybe it was some of the other material in my original comment;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/my-answer-to-taminos-question/#comment-508844
    that got me edited. Other than the sea ice data sources, the content that Tamino edited/deleted was:
    “and this 31 year Global Sea Ice Area chart;
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    and let your readers make up their own minds…”
    I am going to try to post the Global Sea Ice Area chart on Open Mind to see if that’s what got my original comment edited.

  76. Why the obsession with Arctic sea ice?
    We all know that the satellite temperature data show that the Earth has warmed about 0.45°C since 1979.
    I haven’t read of any research that shows that the Arctic sea ice is peculiarly sensitive to CO2 induced warming as opposed to natural forcing.
    (The missing tropical tropospheric hot-spot is another story)
    What is remarkable is that the global sea ice area shows no trend over that period.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

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

  78. Mark S.
    Funny how most of the time the guys in the pews on the other side of the aisle protest that AW’s opinions are rubbish, yet you would have us believe that most of the traffic to this website is only to bask in Anthony’s wisdom. Wrong! I go the sea ice page every day, because I want to see (or is that sea?) for myself. I disagree with many of Anthony’s suggestions for interpertations of papers or current events. The reason why I come here more then anywhere else is because of the volume and mixture that Mr. Watts provides so that I don’t have to go scurrying all over the net myself. You see it is a selfish reason. I let AW and his guests do all the work, but still retain the right to make up my own mind.
    I think…..
    🙂

  79. 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!

  80. Tamino seems too frightened to even make a reply here !
    No wonder … he knows he’d be cut to sheds !!

  81. 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

  82. Why don’t Tamino attack DMI and others who carry the short time series as well? After all they are the source of the (according to him) insufficient information. 🙂

  83. Scott says:
    October 15, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    “My favorite part is:
    Think he’ll even allow the question?
    Seriously? Does he think this place is RC or even his own site?”
    In this case, Tamino allows us to discover how his own mind operates.

  84. 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.)

  85. I would ignore him in he future. Like most others of his faith, he obviously does not want an open and fair discussion. So what’s the point even paying him any attention.
    He is obviously just baiting for attention to increase his hit count. he knows there are readers here, unlike his own blog. And like kids – if they have found a way to get attention, even by being silly, the sillyness will increase.
    Supernanny would have put him on the penalty spot:
    http://www.supernanny.co.uk/TV-Show/Clips/Clips/The-Penalty-Spot.aspx

  86. 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!

  87. 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.

  88. It’d be hilarious if this were the same Grant Foster:
    “In “Noise: Lies, Damned Lies, and Denial of Global Warming” statistician Grant Foster shows how the manipulation of figures can be used to mislead the average person about global climate change. Using clear, plain language that can easily be understood by anyone, regardless of math grades, Foster arms the reader with the critical thinking skills necessary to help discern the signal of fact from the noise of misinformation.”
    http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/noise-lies-damned-lies-and-denial-of-global-warming/11254204
    REPLY: It is one and the same. Notice that he has the book prominently displayed on his website. – Anthony

  89. Anthony,
    Thanks for my 15 minutes seconds of fame. : )
    I almost missed it due to being totally fascinated with reading Montford’s ‘Hockey Stick Illusion’ this weekend.
    John

  90. 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.

  91. These last years, warmists have not come out with any new or updated data in support of their theory that CO2 increases the average temperature of our planet. Contrarywise they are upping their personal attacks, treaths (we know who you are and we know where you live, hollywood-style videos full of gore, pun intended, hype and propoganda, but not real and relevant science. Furthermore, prviously published “scientific” reports are being found to be defective in the least.
    Many scienctific reports are, on the other hand, being continuously published by skeptical scientists (a scientist cannot be anything but skeptical) debunking AGW in a scientific way, by showing us that AGW science is defective, without resorting to ‘ad hominem’ attacks on AGW proponents/ scientists. (OK, we do have the occasional rolling on the floor with laughter, but that we cannot help).
    Now, I recommend that Tamino goes and take a hard and long look at the south pole………………………….

  92. He references your sea ice page as his source.
    And encourages his viewers to see with their own eyes.

  93. I have a dim and distant memory about satellite ice measurements prior t0 1998 in the Arctic being considered suspect.
    Something to do with the reflectivity of snow.
    Does anyone know if this is true?

  94. 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.

  95. 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?
    Dear Tamino
    It is you who who is intolerant of awkward questions and it is you who bans the people who ask them. I know this from personal experience.

  96. It’s very hard to discuss anything with someone who’s mind is open. Anthony, pssssst.. I think he’s dead.

  97. You know Aunt Knee, when you and the blindered one talk about Arctic Ice refreezing it’s as if you aren’t even speaking the same language. Well, that was my first impression, then I looked at the interchange again.
    It disturbs me to report that Grant Foster, the distinguished analyst of light, hasn’t the foggiest about what you are talking about, or else deliberately changed the subject to seasonal refreeze, thus making a trivial point. The absurdity of his whole response boggles my mind.
    Yes, they talk about all the dissonance the true believers must undergo as we fail to warm, but have we talked enough about the rank and florid psychosis?
    ============

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

  99. I don’t know how one can post the “30 years of satellite data” when that data is not actually available anywhere.
    The NSIDC posts charts on its website but one has to dig through 12 different subdirectories in an obscure ftp subdirectory to find the monthly sea ice extent data going back 30 years (and then one has to piece together each separate text file to make something useful of it, then one has to understand the methodology changed in 1987 and you are expected to make that adjustment yourself and then …)
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
    … but there is no “30 years of daily sea ice extent data” published anywhere.
    I understand there may be some problems in publishing this data (matching up datasets etc) but the daily NSIDC charts have to be based on something I assume.
    [the Cryosphere Today has published the sea ice “area” data but 30 years of sea ice extent data is not available].

  100. So Tamino posted the Global Sea Ice Area chart that had previously been edited/deleted from my original comment:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-44925
    I am not sure if we’ve entering a new era of data libertarianism or something, but I submitted a reply to the Open Mind reader who misinterpreted my interest for bafflement, which included links to a bunch of Antarctic Sea Ice charts. Let’s see if that makes it through…

  101. So what we have so far is one group (on here) linking to credible and respected scientific papers and sources discussing the issue and allowing dissenters to voice their views, on the other side we have Tamino shifting the posts (now it’s **images** he was talking about all along! Honest!) and resorting to absolutely pathetic slurs to hide his obvious embarrassment.
    Which one should I believe?

  102. This has been a fun post – Mr. Foster does more harm to his own cause than WUWT could ever do by his ridiculous behavior. People are not that stupid & clearly see who has the facts & who is just ranting.

  103. LOL,
    Tamino is clearly avoiding your questions.
    IMHO, WUWT beats all other climate sites because its presents all sides in posts and comments. Tamino should spend more time here so he can improve his own site.
    btw, looks like we’re in for a bumper crop this year as there are 5+ months left to the maximum. If it keeps up like we’ll need ice breakers in San Francisco Bay.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html

  104. 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.

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

  106. RockyRoad says:
    October 16, 2010 at 8:35 am
    Global Cooling morphed into …
    Global Warming morphed into…
    Climate Change morphed into…
    Global Climate Disruption morphed into….
    What’s next? Any guesses?

    ———————–
    RockyRoad,
    Hmmmmmm . . . . .
    Non-Humans Against Human Environmental Disruption” – subtitled ‘the revenge of the squirrels; don’t forget the squirrels’.
    A little wordy, but we can work on it a little to make it the acronym spell something clever to use at greenie cocktail parties. : )
    John

  107. RockyRoad says:
    October 16, 2010 at 8:35 am
    |Global Cooling morphed into …
    Global Warming morphed into…
    Climate Change morphed into…
    Global Climate Disruption morphed into….
    What’s next? Any guesses?”
    Settled “science”? They can’t even settle on a name for their scam.

  108. 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

  109. 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

  110. Scott says:
    October 16, 2010 at 10:24 am
    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.
    [ (Tamino) Response: Stupidity is not skepticism.]


    —————–
    Scott,
    Tamino appears to be often beyond the pale of reasoned discourse. This is one of those times.
    John

  111. L says:
    October 16, 2010 at 10:56 am
    And here I thought “Grant Fosters” were sunglasses! Who knew?
    Only if you consider it backwards (Foster Grants), which pretty much describes Tamino’s logic when discussing anything that refutes his propaganda.

  112. 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.

  113. Anthony, maybe Grant Foster had a beer before he wrote the original piece, then went out for a few more to celebrate his achievement.
    He deserves a 10:10 award for self destruction

  114. 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.

  115. Why does a person freely by his own choice go to such great length to portray himself as complete, and pardon the “french”, dimwit?
    It’s not like you get the feeling that this guy’s from triple nine society or even the mindless dribble folks form mensa.
    If you’re not portraying yourselves as a complete mental case for fun, then logic, as always, dictates it’s for profit (unless, of course, the person is completely mental.)

  116. 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

  117. RockyRoad says:
    October 16, 2010 at 8:35 am
    “[…]Global Climate Disruption morphed into….
    What’s next? Any guesses?”
    Anthropogenic Reactive Climate Change (with respect to GISS’ making-the-past-cooler).

  118. 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.

  119. 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. His comments boil over with pure hatred based purely in his projected view of the world. I’d refrain from having any dealing with such a person.
    BTW, I tried reading some of his other posts and it’s just painful what you can find online.

  120. 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.

  121. Somehow strange,
    the first time I stumbled over the name ‘Tamino’, it was an XML-based Database from
    SAP, (Tamino-XML-Server, nowadays). Project was an utter mess and failed.
    Was finally realized with Xindice (http://xml.apache.org/xindice/)
    , which – of course – has it’s own problems, but these were sufficent manageable.
    So, “nomen est omen” -> for me, ‘Tamino’ is a project bound to fail. Which one did,
    and the other will follow pretty soon, because both they were/are 180 deg away from
    reality.
    KlausB

  122. 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)

  123. It’s quite revealing when someone who has a very high opinion of themselves says something and reveals how stupid they are.
    Poor Tamino.

  124. Oh and am I wrong but did you not have a whole post about the new sea ice page?
    Maybe Tamnio was too busy playing with his flute to notice it.
    Maybe you could repost it for poor old Tamnio so he can bookmark it?
    😉

  125. 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.

  126. 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)

  127. Tim Williams says:
    October 16, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    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.

    That’s why Tamino got caught out. He assumed ‘warmist’ data was not on WUWT and his bias caught him out.

  128. @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!

  129. Tamino’s been shaken enough to post:
    “History of Arctic (and Antarctic) Sea Ice, Part 1”
    “Nobody in his right mind disputes that since satellite observations began, the extent of sea ice in the arctic has declined dramatically; this year the summer minimum extent was the 3rd-lowest on record.”
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/history-of-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-part-1/

    REPLY: Yes, he really got stung by the entire absence of Antarctic ice discussion that I pointed out, so he had to hurry a post, making sure the word “Antarctic” was prominently in the title, so that the search engine would find it. He’s so transparent. So he now has one post on it:
    Tamino Finds Antarctica
    Well at least he didn’t call me a “liar” in it, maybe that’s reserved for part 2. – Anthony

  130. 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.

  131. I thought much of Antarctica was long expected to remain relatively stable this century, with even some regional sea ice growth related to southern ocean stratification/reduced convection and increased moisture influx. So if it has been projected for some time that the Arctic would thaw faster than the rest of the globe, why is it surprising that it’s one of the focal points?

  132. 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

  133. Foster and Connelley are out of the same pod. They have no shame and no respect for the truth. They are convinced of the rightness of their cause and the end justifies the means. They are totalitarians – fascists would cover it.

  134. 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

  135. 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

  136. 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?

  137. “”” KlausB says:
    October 16, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    Somehow strange,
    the first time I stumbled over the name ‘Tamino’, it was an XML-based Database from “””
    Where are you from Klaus ?
    “Tamino” is the principal hero of Mozart’s “The Magice Flute” ; and his girlfriend is “Pamina”. And the idiot foils for that pair are Papageno, and Papagena.
    I have a hard time believing somebody named Klaus is unfamilar with the Magic Flute; that does not compute !

  138. Perhaps a well balanced approach to the Arctic ice question would include the two following sources.
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure6.jpg
    Which show the total volume of ice and the amount of multiyear ice continue to decrease.
    And you can say three things about the amount of Antarctic sea ice.
    One, the increase is about 2 percent of the maximum.
    Second, the peak this year was very noisy, about 6 percent of maximum.
    And thirdly, it was below the long term average in the last 3 months.
    So it’s pretty hard to conclude that the Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and the Arctic is also increasing, when the data show otherwise.

  139. Just the Facts:
    I am struggling to make headway with Tamino, it seems that he wants to argue what he thinks I said versus what I actually write:
    +++++++
    I read the interchange and you really are wasting your time there. It was like listening to a 12 year old shouting at you. I have not spent much time one the religious warming sites and see immediately why I won’t.
    The method is clear: someone make a CAGW statement. Someone points out the obvious flaw in the catastrophic logic. They reply you are obviously flawed: a down-tick in area in 2007 is a trend to an ice collapse, an up-tick after that is statistics and therefore ‘meaningless’. Even for a true believer the puerile responses would be hard to put with for long.
    Their AHQ (ad hom quotient) I would rate as even higher than RC which has been unbearable for years. Why bother? They are not listening as was evident from your citations of their and your posts. It is not a conversation.
    It is also evident that they are scared to death of Anthony Watts and anything he might print. Wow! I didn’t fully realise that. When the Climate Colossus sneezes they get apoplexy. Being a warmist is tougher than it used to be I guess.

  140. 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!

  141. Crispin in Waterloo said:
    “The method is clear: someone make a CAGW statement. Someone points out the obvious flaw in the catastrophic logic. They reply you are obviously flawed: a down-tick in area in 2007 is a trend to an ice collapse, an up-tick after that is statistics and therefore ‘meaningless’. Even for a true believer the puerile responses would be hard to put with for long.”
    No, that is wrong.
    He is saying that both the minimum in 2007 as well as any of the upticks later are part of the long term trend.
    SVBOR,
    Let me ask you:
    What were the sea levels during the Eemian?
    Am I safe or do I have beach front property?

  142. 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.

Comments are closed.