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.
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
Tamino should change his blog header to:
“Open Mind. Science, Politices, Life, the Universe, and everything (except Antarctica)”.
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.
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.
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
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?
“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!
L A M O>>>> ROTFL
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.)
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.
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.
This 6 years of data thing is the best Tamino could come up with? And there are people who are impressed with him?
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’.
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
He’s his own worst enemy. – Anthony
Global warming believers/advocates are pretty good at that. Give it time, they’re completely deconstruct all of global warming. 😉
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.
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.
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
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…
How does that saying go: his mind is so open his brain………..
😉
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?
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.
“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.
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
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:
[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