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.
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.
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
Looks like Tamino is back online:
The next post was something similar, to which he responded:
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
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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
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?
Nice again. Your Sea Ice page has more views than tAV. haha.
well pretty similar views anyway.
Sorry for three in a row but our town of 12,000 has a paper which bragged about 11,000 views/week.
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.
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.
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.
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
— Carl Sagan
don’t feed the troll …
It’s probably already been said….
Grant Foster = DENIALIST!!!!!
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
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.
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.
“liar liar pants on fire”?
that’s just sad
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.