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.
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?
Maybe it’s a coincidence, but Tamino is an anagram for “Am on it”.
Open Mind, No Brains.
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.
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
“[Response: Too bad his response doesn’t answer the question. He just lies about it.]”
Translation:
[Fingers in ears singing “lalalalalalalala”]
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…..
🙂
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!
Tamino seems too frightened to even make a reply here !
No wonder … he knows he’d be cut to sheds !!
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
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. 🙂
And why Tamino doesn’t whish to show this link ?
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.
i would suggest a 3 year averaging of northern, southern and global anomolies of the full satellite records. (on the sea ice page, if not an article.)
I 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
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!
Doesn’t Grant Foster make sunglasses?
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.
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
My posting got through at Tamino’s site.
I quoted the conclusion of that most important paper showing current Arctic Sea Ice Extent is within the normal range of the Halocene.
He must have thought I was supporting his views with a conclusion that diametrically opposes his.
Interesting. What a shallow fellow.
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf
Anthony,
Thanks for my 15
minutesseconds of fame. : )I almost missed it due to being totally fascinated with reading Montford’s ‘Hockey Stick Illusion’ this weekend.
John
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.
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………………………….
Anthony, don’t foreget Joe Bastardi’s Monday sea ice report
http://www.accuweather.com/video/624373716001/monday-morning-sea-ice-report.asp?channel=vbbastaj
He references your sea ice page as his source.
http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vblog_bastardi
He references your sea ice page as his source.
And encourages his viewers to see with their own eyes.