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.
Can you blame Tamino, seeing, as he does, as through a glass darkly?
===============================
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?
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.
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.
Ever notice that so often an open mind translates to an empty head?
It’s very hard to discuss anything with someone who’s mind is open. Anthony, pssssst.. I think he’s dead.
vukcevic says:
October 16, 2010 at 1:22 am
“And why Tamino doesn’t whish to show this link ?”
vuk, do you know about the georeactor hypothesis by J. Marvin Herndon?
http://nuclearplanet.com/
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?
============
Glenn says:
October 16, 2010 at 4:28 am
It’d be hilarious if this were the same Grant Foster:
It is he indeed.
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].
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…
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?
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.
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
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.
sorry, broken link in my last comment to the 30-day animation on the front page:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
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
I find Tamino tedious and a rabble rouser at best. Nothing worth spending time upon.
Your Ice Page, however, regularly calls for attention 😉
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.
I just couldn’t help but repost Tamino’s response to a fairly reasonable comment here:
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
DirkH says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:25 am
vuk, do you know about the georeactor hypothesis by J. Marvin Herndon?
http://nuclearplanet.com/
No I haven’t, but I certainly will look it up. Thanks for the link.
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
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:
—————–
Scott,
Tamino appears to be often beyond the pale of reasoned discourse. This is one of those times.
John
And here I thought “Grant Fosters” were sunglasses! Who knew?