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.
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.
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?
Duckster says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Funny you left off the rest of that comment, shown here:
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
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.
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
Interestingly, it appears that the Reply functionality was removed from my previous comment and the Ad Hominem laden reply to it by Didactylos:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-44951
But I replied separately and seem to have initiated a nascent debate with Tamino:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-45030
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
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:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-45049
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?
“”” 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 !
Reminds me of:
http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/IMeet_Fred
One of the feuding parties even comes out and admits that the feud was started in order to increase web ratings of the two feuding sites.
Another feud with another (more vengeful) blogger is portrayed in this episode:
http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/IRue_The_Day
Why am I tossing this into the mix? I have teenage offspring. These episodes mirror reality!
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.
TomRude says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Tamino= Grant Foster
Eli= [snip – No outing. T. is already widely known. ~ E]
Deepclimate= ?
Eli outed himself here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rabett-run-labs/files
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.
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!
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?
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.
bob (October 18, 2010 at 1:28 pm),
As a postscript to my response to your second question, you might want to consider the fact that both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling which shows NO SIGNS of abating.
The citation links and more details are found here and here.
Anthony…don’t feed the trolls….