Anthony Watts: it is necessary to use the correct sea-ice graphs on WUWT to avoid misleading the public

This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.

Here is a graph Anthony Watts @ Watts Up With That? (WUWT) elects to use from the National Ice and Snow Data Center:

WUWT_map

Notice anything? Anything missing? Anyone?

Would that be the standard deviations (SDs)? 

WUWT_dishonest

If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!

Until 2009 the NSIDC used to present the graph without the SDs (hat tip A.Watts!).

If the NSIDC has elected to present information in one format as their preferred means of communication, it is beholden to all of us to follow their model.

That is a reasonable assumption to make. If Mr. Watts is aware they changed this back in 2009, surely his blog needs to mimic their current practice?

Mr. Watts accused me of lacking professionalism. Over to you now Anthony regarding the question of professionalism.

Context matters

If the NSIDC elect to give prominence to the presentation of data in one format it is reasonable to assume we are all beholden to follow their lead.

You could claim they presented their data as such four years ago.

But not now:

NSIDC_Homepage

Notice anything?

The graph includes the SDs. If you go to their Sea Ice page you’ll see graphs that us the SDs.

So why does this matter?

Because the context in which information is presented matters a great deal in this debate.

And when you exclude something, it is because you may not want it to be seen.

Now it could very well be that Mr. Watts simply needs to bring his images inline with the practices of the NSIDC – if that is the case the opportunity now exits.

We can take data and images from anywhere – from NSIDC, from a government website or the Bureau of Meteorology and present it however we wish.

But what matters more: the thin slice of data you wish to highlight, of the full data set and the contextual information?

Excluding standard deviations in sea-ice graphs @ WUWT: why it matters

You can create the graphs yourself here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

You don’t need to Photoshop the image, thus I’ve withdrawn my throw away comment about Photoshop. Which I note was intended to be satirical, but still I felt compelled to remove it to save people’s confusion or spare them a sense of outrage. 

Now given:

  • the history of denying the link between human activities and climate change at WUWT
  • the long running antipathy towards the work of climate scientists at WUWT

My interpretation remains more than reasonable. 

To the general public this may seem an obscure debate over the minutiae of graphs and data. But Mr. Watts content makes its way into the mainstream press via blogs such as Andrew Bolt.

Hence my focus on the use or potential misuse of images, data and information.

WUWT is a site that exists to cast doubt on climate change.

Much of the information presented there is crafted to undermine the scientific consensus.

Thus as a true sceptic – not one who merely adorns the garb of the curious – I will continue to question the use and misuse of information on sites such as WUWT.

Over to you Anthony: if you’re calling me out then likewise

Sceptics here have asked that make an amendment to the original version of this post, which I have.

Now it is time for them to acknowledge the information presented in the graphs at WUWT lacks context. Now is the time for them to admit WUWT uses a presentation format four years out of date.

The record of my transparency, openness and honesty is here for the entire world to see and judge.

Now it is time for Anthony to live by the same standards he demands of others and fix his mistake.

Over to you Anthony.

About these ads

617 thoughts on “Anthony Watts: it is necessary to use the correct sea-ice graphs on WUWT to avoid misleading the public

  1. john byatt says:

    “GISS? They have the most compromised temperature data of them all”

    NASA earth Observatory

    The GISS methodology is more sensitive to unusual conditions in areas with few temperature stations. Because HadCRU does not extrapolate data to areas where there are no stations it can underestimate the warming effect of climate change in the Arctic, for example.

    The rate of Arctic sea ice loss suggests temperatures are higher then currently stated in the HadCRU data. Because temperatures were cool in the Arctic during 1998 the GISS value was lower than that given by HadCRU. During 2005 and 2010 the Arctic experienced warmer conditions and thus GISS gave a higher global temperature than HadCRU. This probably explains why HadCRU states that 1998 is the warmest year on record while GISS states 2005 and 2010 are the warmest years.

    Temperature Anomalies

    Scientists each year announce the change in global temperature compared to a historic long term average. They describe this as the “temperature anomaly” from a “base” period. We cannot calculate an accurate absolute average temperature. This is because, among many reasons, temperature stations are placed at different altitudes and record data at different times, while some are placed in urban and others in rural areas. Using anomalies allows scientists to extrapolate data across geographical regions more accurately.

    GISS, HadCRU and the NCDC each use different base periods: GISS uses 1951-80, HadCRU uses 1961-90 and NCDC uses the whole of the 20th Century. This means that each organisation’s annual figures are different.

    However, the annual changes in temperature recorded by the different organisations are very similar.

  2. Scottar says:

    GISS!? They have the most compromised temperature data of them all, only UHA and RSS has kept them honest since 1979..

    uknowispeaksense

    What does this strawman’s argument have to do with censorship on WUWT site. Your whole argument was based on the tobaccos executive denials on cancer sticks.

    http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/they-dont-like-being-called-deniers-but/

    John Byatt.

    Even the referenced Google site shows temps have flattened and global ice has increased, especially in the Antarctic.

    The Arctic is a poor canary standard as it sea ice subject to the cyclic ADO and PDO currents, and storms which can bunch up the ice making it appear that the sea ice has decreased. So much for the SD 2.

    Infact the whole CO2 AGW claim is crap:

    http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gloplacha

  3. john byatt says:

    san diego/lin

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425722900000&dt=1&ds=14

    most people are smart enough to see a trend

  4. john byatt says:

    make that three idiotic denier comments of the day

    “Whew over 0.2C higher than the previous record? I guess the new normal isn’t that bad. At this rate the new record will be 23.5C in 2051!”

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Is that statement wrong? Of course not. It was 0.2c higher than the previous record for July set in 1975. At that rate it will be 2051 before the next record is set.

      Aren’t you smart enough to figure that out for yourself john?

      How come no one noticed the error in the title for that blog post? July hasn’t been 10C warmer than average. Or didn’t you notice that either? Only yesterday was 10C above average. Pretty obvious mistake yet none of you regulars noticed.

      Strange but then apparently you only watch the deniers and don’t pay attention here.

      • it was pirates watt dunnit……oh, were we meant to be taking you seriously?

        • john byatt says:

          asks if his statement is wrong, does not do logic

          2011,

          Burlington hit 36 C, up from the previous record of 31.5 set in 2005.

          ” so at this rate the next record will be set in 2017 and will be 40.5C the next will be

          in 2023 and will be 45C. etc etc

          I did not say his statement was wrong i said it was idiotic.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So now you want to talk about Burlington? I thought this whole thread was about Melbourne? Moving the goal posts again john?

          Can you not see and understand what causes the quick increase in temperature before the cold front moved in? Or are you just ignorant about weather processes such as LL WAA? It’s not like it was a HOT day in Melbourne yesterday. It was slightly warmer than normal then it warmed up quickly as the prefrontal WAA pushed in then the temperature dropped dramatically after the cold front. That’s all WEATHER. Are you too stupid to understand that???

          The problem is that some of you want to try to make more out of this event than it was. If you want to talk about long term warming trends then that’s a different issue. Melbourne is on track to set a new record for warmest July. That has some significance. A one-day hour long burst of warm air isn’t significant. Try to understand that, it’s not that complicated.

          A couple of years ago San Diego (where I live) had it’s coolest summer in about 65 years. What did it mean? Nothing. Well it meant we had an unusual persistent weather pattern that kept water temperatures down and that resulted in thicker than normal clouds (we call it the marine layer) that suppressed temperatures for most of the summer. Most people were smart enough to know it didn’t mean anything.

          Read it again john – Weather is not climate

          Now try to understand the difference when it comes down to single day events.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Bill,

          so the response to ad hominem attacks on yourself is to spit them back?
          of course everyone here knows the difference between weather and climate. Record high temps are weather but they also define the boundaries of climate, as do record lows. ALL “events” are weather including your san diego low temp. having an area break a record by more than 4*C is pretty amazing, and is certainly an indication of a changing climate, though of course one incident is proof of nothing

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Tony sometimes it seems the only way to get through to some people is reply back using the same type of language they are familiar with. Sorry I had to stoop to the same low level but if that’s what it takes to try to get my point across then that’s what I’ll do.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          bill,
          I understand. I tend to respond in the same tone that I find from the people I am commenting with, but I always refrain from ad homs.
          Though, I often use sarcasm

  5. john byatt says:

    You are really wasting your time mike, he aint got a bloody clue what he is on about

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-climate-is-changing-the-arctic-dipole-emerges

    • Bill Jamison says:

      So you agree with Jeff Masters that it’s the change in circulation that is causing the dramatic reduction in sea ice and not increased CO2 levels?

      • It’s pirates. I reckon E&E will be happy to publish a paper claiming pirates are responsible. Anything but anthropogenic CO2 induced warming given the editorial bias.

        • john byatt says:

          there are at least two idiot denier comments of the day in his last three replies,

          one “So you make the claim that more recent research attributes “70% to 95% to human cause” yet the paper you mention claims that up to 30% could be due to natural variability.”

          two
          “So you agree with Jeff Masters that it’s the change in circulation that is causing the dramatic reduction in sea ice and not increased CO2 levels?”

          facepalm

        • something tells me he’d enjoy it. Funny how he triesto give theimpression he doesn’t visit WUWT all that often but spits out the un-reviewed Danish study on the same day as the crybaby. While also trying to give the impression that he accepts AGW (to some degree) he spits out the usual crap about temperature records. Dishonest or confused?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          When have I ever tried to imply that I don’t visit WUWT regularly? I don’t comment there regularly. I believe I have more comments in this thread that I do in total on WUWT. I’ve never made any other claim.

          Which “usual crap” about temperature records have I spit out? Can you quote me?

  6. Bill Jamison says:

    How about a brand new paper indicating the strong correlation between the AO, AD, and PNA on arctic sea ice minima?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3767/abstract

  7. john byatt says:

    Re the 70% to 95% attribution to human cause of arctic ice loss.

    it was one of the deniers who linked to the paper somewhere above . J Day et al

    do we need to repeat it again?, why do people demand links when obviously they have not even read those from their own side?

    70% not 75% correction

    • Bill Jamison says:

      So you make the claim that more recent research attributes “70% to 95% to human cause” yet the paper you mention claims that up to 30% could be due to natural variability.

      http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/50436

      Combine those results with the results of the new paper I linked below and it starts looking like natural cycles play a large part of the loss. Obviously it doesn’t account for all of the loss or even most of the loss but certainly not 5% which you claimed.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        bill,

        you are clearly being disingenuous here. John making an offhand remark, and you faulting it because it is somewhat of an exaggeration is meaningless. Arctic ice loss might be 70% natural, and it would STILL be a problem. it would STILL disappear in the summer and have a big impact on NH weather patterns, as we may already be seeing. The fact sea ice has fallen WAY faster and lower than all but the most extreme predictions suggested is a clear concrete indication of ACC and one that deniers have ben trying to make go away since 2007. I didn’t read ANYONE in 2008 say well maybe this gives some credence to ACC, no they said. A-HA 2008 is the start of the recovery there IS no problem with sea ice it is ALL natural. In 2012 that idea was blown away, but people are STILL inventing explanations that are natural. It is the AMO, or something else.
        john then corrects himself to a number that is very close to the range he mentioned and you take exception to that as if it means something?
        NO natural cycles do NOT play a large part in the loss, even if they are 70% of what is going on. The arctic probably has not been this low in 1500 years, so clearly natural cycles have had almost no impact on the current state of the ice and in the blink of an eye, 20 years, it will very likely be the lowest since the last interglacial , if not longer.

  8. Bill Jamison says:

    Scientists said what? Arctic sea ice reduction could be largely natural???

    “The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.
    http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf

    But we have 30 years of satellite data that PROVES it’s man’s fault, right?

    • non-reviewed opinion based solely on correlations between not necessarily related observations. I have a manuscript that shows a correlation between global warming and the number of pirates.

      • john byatt says:

        1 citation in eight years and we have later peer reviewed science which attributes 75% to 95% of the Arctic death spiral to human caused global warming and the verified polar amplification for the Arctic.

        wasting your time though

        • Bill Jamison says:

          See here’s a perfect example of the difference between what john posts and what I post. I quote an article and provide a link. John makes a claim, in this case ” later peer reviewed science which attributes 75% to 95% of the Arctic death spiral to human caused global warming and the verified polar amplification for the Arctic”, but fails to provide any citations, links, sources, etc. So all you’re left with is his vague statement.

      • john byatt says:

        logic tells me that export through Fram would be governed more by wind conditions than anything else as long as the ice is in a condition favoring export, ,

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Did you notice it was published by the Danish Meteorology Institute? These aren’t just some hacks – or deniers lol – trying to find some way to attribute the reduction to nature instead of man.

        • I too am a scientist and I say global warming is due to a lack of pirates if I choose to examine only the correlation between the number of pirates and global temperature increase.. Maybe I can get that published in a peer reviewed journal….or not. That would make me a little like other scientists..e.g McIntyre, Michaels, Christie, Pielke, Carter.

          What you are suffering from is called confirmation bias where you choose to find the one or two “papers” that suit your position while completely ignoring the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed and published papers. That is of course your right to do but don’t expect anything resembling respect for your position. It will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

        • Keitho says:

          Ooh . . Look, a squirrel.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You do know that McIntyre is a publish author and a IPCC reviewer, right?

          Are you?

        • Appealing to authority?

          To answer your question, yes, I have published numerous times in my field. While I am not about to reveal my identity publicly, both John Byatt and Mike can verify that much for you.

          McIntyre published a widely rubbished climate paper in E&E which is hardly a reputable journal and anyone can be an IPCC reviewer. http://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-expert-reviewer

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nope just pointing out that McIntyre is actually a published author in the field of paleo reconstruction. I take it you aren’t. Of course you disparage the publication.

          BTW apparently you missed McIntyre’s other published papers/letters:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre#Selected_publications

        • I’m not the only one by any stretch. Most scientists are disparaging of dodgy journals.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Is the AMS Journal of Climate dodgy too? Atmospheric Science Letters? Geophysical Research Letters? PNAS?

        • john byatt says:

          He probably holds the record for most debunked papers

          McIntyre & McKitrick (2003) “Corrections to the Mann et. al.(1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series” [Abs]
          Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
          Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
          McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” [Abs, Full]
          von Storch & Zorita (2005) “Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick” [Abs, Full]
          [M&M reply]
          Mann et al. (2007) “Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods” [Abs, Full]
          Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
          McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications” [Abs, Full]
          Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
          Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
          McKitrick & Michaels (2007) “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data” [Abs, Full]
          [BLOG] Skeptical Science

        • Actually Bill, I’m glad you brought this “paper” up and something was niggling away at me in regards to what it says…and in the context of what you have said about 30 years of satellite data it came to me. Did you actually read it? From the abstract….

          “We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD.”

          The data doesn’t actually include the last 30 years. I love irony. Your hero Watts has conveniently selected a “paper” that says nothing about the last 30 years. Why would he do that I wonder? Hmmmmmm maybe because he has no “natural cause” explanation for the recent and extreme loss of sea ice? More dihonestyfrom the slippery Mr Watts and you suckers all lapped it up. I can’t wait for your next “paper”…or should I say the next “paper” your hero posts about.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The paper is interesting because it attempts to build a much longer sea ice history than normally available and looks at the correlation between the sea ice and solar cycle. THAT is why it’s interesting.

        • as seen from the shoreline in Iceland…. can we spell extraordinarily ridiculous extrapolation? I saw two lorikeets from my balcony. Last year I saw 10. I suspect that lorikeet populations across my entire suburb are in decline and given the presence of a feral cat I saw, they are definitely the reason. I might write a “paper” about it.

  9. Bill Jamison says:

    As I said in my previous post Tony, I have never said that we shouldn’t reduce emissions. Why do you claim that I say we should NOT do anything about decreasing CO2 emissions?

    That link is just another example of scientists claiming that we are in for warming regardless of whether we reduce emissions or not.

  10. Bill Jamison says:

    “Thousands of years of rising seas”. Mitigation is the only option if continued sea level rise is inevitable.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517246/thousands-of-years-of-rising-seas/

    • Tony Duncan says:

      bill, again you are ignoring the possibility of a sudden change in either antarctica and or greenland. we know greenland’s ice sheet is changing in a number of different ways and it is not possible to predict with any real confidence what will happen in the next 10-100 years.
      What you seem to be saying is that mitigation is necessary and you are making very good points about that, but I do not see that you are making a reasonable case for NOT doing anything about decreasing CO2 emissions. If sea leverl rise will be 2-4 MM /yr steadily and we knew that for sure, and that was the ONLY potentially serious problem, yes then mitigation would make more sense. but what if we do nothing and CO2 goes to 700ppm by 2050 and that difference causes an increase of 20MM/ year. the costs of mitigation might increase exponentially and dwarf the cost of emissions cuts now.

  11. john byatt says:

    It takes about two years to fully assess each countries greenhouse emissions for any year

    claims in july 2013 about 2012 per capita emissions are still non supportable and subject to a full audit

    we will have a full appraisal about may 2014 for 2012 year

  12. john byatt says:

    John mashey puts it into a logical appraisal ,. this is apart from Grant Foster’s analysis and statement

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

    Grant foster, bottom line “What happened in the past is most definitely not like what happened in the 20th century. In spite of the low time resolution of the Marcott et al. reconstruction, the variations (even — perhaps especially — without the smoothing induced by the Monte Carlo procedure) are just not big enough to permit change like we’ve seen recently to be believable. In my opinion, the Marcott et al. reconstruction absolutely rules out any global temperature increase or decrease of similar magnitude with the rapidity we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years.

    John Mashey says:
    31 Mar 2013 at 4:19 PM
    .

    I’d seen tamino’s nice post, but I still haven’t seen a good analysis of possible forcing changes and causes to raise the temperature equivalent to the modern rise, and then nullify enough of it to escape notice by the higher-resolution proxies. I understand that spikes are not ruled out by the statistics of the proxy-resolution they used, but I’m trying to understand a combination of events that could produce such a spike.

    The thought experiment would be: take the modern rise, place that anywhere on the Marcott, et al curve, with start at the lower uncertainty edge, and propose a model for what could have caused an upspike, and then enough of a downspike to get back to the line in a way that doesn’t contradict the ice-core records.

    Offhand, I can only think of:
    1) Major state change gyrations like Younger Dryas (before this) or the 8.2ky event … but they show strongly in ice-core CH4 2 records, and seems like it would be very noticeable in a set of marine records. And we certainly know that isn’t what’s happening now, i.e., the upswing at end of YD.

    2) A strong volcanic period, followed by a period with none.

    3) A BIG boost in solar insolation.

    4) A big rise in CO2 … but the ice cores rule that out.

    Anyway, the question remains: what combination of events could cause a current-equivalent spike and escape the higher-frequency proxies?

    It is not guesswork, you need a mechanism as well,

    There ain’t one

  13. john byatt says:

    bill I can see no further point in debating someone who has a default position

    “could* be because the climate system is self balancing”

    sorry, that is it i am over you

    • Bill Jamison says:

      I’m not surprised john. It’s obvious you’re used to bullying anyone on this blog that doesn’t agree with you and since it gets so few readers you get to be the top dog. I can tell how much it bothers you to have someone point out your mistakes and ignorance.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Bill,

        I have seen you point out little in the way of mistakes and ignorance. John clearly has a lot of knowledge about the issue and has, in my view, presented you with very clear rebuttals of many of your points. I have seen you both go off into meaningless irrelevent issues on this thread that that is common for emotional issues

        • I have my doubts Bill will read either yours, Tony, or my posts. But I agree with you, Tony. Bill is accusing John of bullying. John isn’t bullying. But his arguments are clearly overwhelming Bill’s. And that can make one uncomfortable.

          It seems Bill would rather not believe in the hockey stick and its implications. I’d rather not as well. But it has been replicated so often, by so many proxies, in so many ways, it’s a sad fact.

          Bill, with all due respect, you’re not winning the debate. Nor are you conceding with grace or dignity.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          John when you start responding to someone by calling them a fool and an idiot it doesn’t add to the conversation. You’d have to read all of john’s posts to understand what I’m talking about. Any time I made a point john refused to acknowledge it and instead attacked and insulted me. That’s typical internet bully behavior. Another example is john referring to people that read WUWT as “flying monkeys”. It’s just another way of dehumanizing your opponent.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I want to clarify that it was john calling me “idiot” and “fool”. And you say I’m not conceding points with grace and dignity?

        • Tony Duncan says:

          I don’t like people calling people names regardless of the provocation or situation. insulting people does not advance any positive outcome (except occasionally as a therapeutic tool) I do use labels that I consider descriptive, such as fanatic and denier in this context, but i am quite willing to change my assessment if something changes. i would have gladly accepted being called a “warmist” 5 years ago, but I think skeptic is more accurate now.
          Calling someone an idiot or fool, as BIll states does not add anything constructive. Above I stated that I thought BIll approach might be insane, for the reasons I spelled out, but that is a critique of his position not a judgement of his mental abilities.
          BUt BIll, in your interactions I saw many times that John answered your points with reasonable evidence that is in line with my understanding, so I don;t think you are being accurate when you say “Any time I made a point john refused to acknowledge it and instead attacked and insulted me”

  14. Bill Jamison says:

    john your reading comprehension isn’t very good, is it?

    In general GHG will result in warming. Feedbacks could negate that warming. We don’t know. From research into the past there’s never been a case of runaway warming. Regardless of how warm it got there was never a tipping point that resulted in runaway warming. That *could* be because the climate system is self balancing. That warming results in some feedback mechanism that cools.

    My point was simple yet you missed it: We don’t know. Even scientists admit that. You should too.

    • john byatt says:

      what feedbacks will negate the warming bill?

      why has the warming not been negated to date

      at what temperature rise will these negative feedback kick in because the warming to date is in line with projections

      do you have a clue?

      • john byatt says:

        an atheist and you post this nonsense about a self regulating planet

        “That *could* be because the climate system is self balancing”

      • Tony Duncan says:

        John,

        I agree with most of your “discussion” with Bill, but homeostatic regulation is a quite valid scientific and ecological principle. And the fact that we have not had either runaway warming or cooling indicates that it is a real and vital element of the climate.
        of course Bill seems to ignore that the “current” temps are going to increase significantly and go much higher than any time in the holocene, and even during the holocene we have witnessed numerous crisis that probably were precipitated by climactic events. We are probably seeing the beginnings of them again and it is likely that they will get worse

    • Bill Jamison says:

      john it should be obvious even to you that the earth has never had a completely stable climate. It varies. There are positive and negative feedbacks at work. To ignore them is folly. That doesn’t mean they are instantaneous and can be immediately measured. Only time will tell.

      For now you keep going door to door thinking you’re making a difference.

      • john byatt says:

        bill “We don’t know. Even scientists admit that. ”

        This is what the scientist’s admit to

        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/02/234291/royal-society-7f-4c-world/

        ” the earth has never had a completely stable climate. It varies.”

        not at the current rate it doesn’t unless forced as it is with increasing greenhouse gases

        “could* be because the climate system is self balancing”

        well put up your papers for this drivel

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey john are you familiar with the recent hockey stick paper Marcott et al 2013?

          http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

          One of the things they say in their abstract: “Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values”. In other words it’s been this warm before and life survived. The truth is that life flourishes where it’s warm. Haven’t you noticed that?

          Anyway back to Marcott et al and there notes about smoothing and resolution:

          (2) the median resolution of the datasets (120 years) is too low to statistically resolve such an event,
          (3) the smoothing presented in the online supplement results in variations shorter than 300 yrs not being interpretable

          Do you understand what that means and how it relates to presumed knowing of exact temperature and rate of warming in the past?

        • john byatt says:

          Is that all you got out of Marcott et al

          that humans can survive the current temperature, sheesh

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130307145303.htm

          ” the median resolution of the datasets (120 years) is too low to statistically resolve such an event,”

          watt idiot told you that?

          see below

        • john byatt says:

          this was the first post by grant foster and the one i wanted

          http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

        • john byatt says:

          and this one

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

          so to answer your question YES I am familiar with the paper,

          only one link per post is allowed

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john I’m glad you’re familiar with the paper – as I expected you to be. I asked because you claimed that the “climate doesn’t vary at the current rate”. I was simply trying to point out that you can’t know that for sure since paleo reconstructions don’t have the resolution necessary to determine it – just as Marcott says here:

          Q. Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

          A.Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
          http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/

          That’s why I brought up the issue of resolution and smoothing.

        • john byatt says:

          exactly , the study did not address the question, grant foster did if you had of read further and looked at the links

          more than one way to skin a stat

          Grant foster, bottom line “What happened in the past is most definitely not like what happened in the 20th century. In spite of the low time resolution of the Marcott et al. reconstruction, the variations (even — perhaps especially — without the smoothing induced by the Monte Carlo procedure) are just not big enough to permit change like we’ve seen recently to be believable. In my opinion, the Marcott et al. reconstruction absolutely rules out any global temperature increase or decrease of similar magnitude with the rapidity we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years. And the fact is, we already know what happened in the 20th century.”

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So Marcott says that they couldn’t analyze it because the resolution “precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.” and yet you think that Grant Foster could analyze their data?

          So Marcott doesn’t know how to analyze their own data? Is that really what you’re telling me? So you accept a blogger’s results over peer-reviewed science?

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Bill , there is NOTHING in Marcott’s paper to suggest what you are saying. Marcot said that they can’t rule out the possibility of spikes because of the resolution, but that is not the only research on the issue. and even if it was, your arguing of what “could be” is just speculation and certainly not anything to base ones perspective on ACC .
          We know for a fact that Earth global tempos have fluctuated by over 10° over periods of millions of years. We are now seeing the possibility of a fluctuation of 2-4° in a couple of hundred. Even without knowing what the actual temperatures are going to be pretending that there is NO cause for worry is, in my view, insane.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Tony I quoted Marcott on the subject. Is there another study that has a higher resolution that could detect increases lasting less than 100 years? It’s easy to claim “there’s never been this rate of increase previously” but I don’t think we can know that with any degree of certainty because of the necessary smoothing and lack of resolution of proxies. If you can provide a link to a study that claims otherwise I’d love to read it.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          bill,

          i do not know. i have read a number of different articles that mention many different uses of proxies to determine temperature. among other variables. saying that ther MIGHT be spikes similar to what we are seeing now, is not scince and certainly nothing to base policy one.
          We have some understanding of the factors of changes in temperature. CO2, Other GHG’s, volcanoes, Solar radiation, orbital cycles, large changes of the relation between land masses and sea currents, etc and we know of factors that influence those factors like weathering and biotic impacts. Do you know of any factor that it is reasonable to believe had as big an effect as is happening now in such a short period of time that would not leave some evidence over the last 12,000 years?

  15. john byatt says:

    look at this comment earlier on

    janama says:
    July 8, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    No one is claiming that the arctic is not receding. But it’s not receding at the predicted rate and there is no evidence it’s receding because of global warming.

    that is the understanding of someone who has spent their science research time at watts
    absolutely pathetic

    • john byatt says:

      brought this down and removed the rambling

      Bill Jamison says:
      July 13, 2013 at 9:07 am
      I agree that man has contributed to the warming

      . That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world? Nope, I understand the physics behind it (or at least enough to understand the concept I’m not a physics expert by any means).
      . I’m skeptical of claims that we can know or predict with any degree of certainty what will happen in 50 or 100 years

      or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs. I’m skeptical of plans to tax carbon to reduce usage and lower emissions. I think that technology is the solution not higher taxes. I’m FOR green energy and a sustainable future.

      I don’t see the term “alarmists” being pejorative in the same way as “deniers”. And I’m not referring to everyone that accepts the theory of AGW as an alarmist. I’m specifically referring to people that try to alarm others to goad them into action. In some cases they don’t care if what they’re saying is true or not as long as it gets people to act. I disagree.

      “It really is mind blowing that some alarmists fall for this kind of stuff.” referring to Peter Gleick posting a picture of a melted streetlight and blaming it on global warming when it was actually due to a fire near the streetlight.

      As if streetlights would start melting – and only half of it! – because it’s 110F when it’s not unusual for temps to hit 120F in Kuwait. It was a silly thing for him to say, wouldn’t you agree? It questions his credibility IMO.

      bill this ( MELTING TRAFFIC LIGHTS) makes you appear to be gullible rather than skeptical

      i AGREE That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world?

      THEN

      I’m skeptical of claims that we can know or predict with any degree of certainty what will happen in 50 or 100 years

      or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs

      you contradict yourself and think that uncertainty only works one way

      gullible and naive

      are you a fundamentalist christian bill ?

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Actually I’m an atheist john. Does that matter?

        I didn’t contradict myself. Just because CO2 is GHG doesn’t mean we can predict how the climate system will react. We certainly can’t predict the global temperature in 100 years IMO. We don’t know all of the feedbacks in the climate system. For example clouds are still a big uncertainty.

        If the climate system was really well understood then we could accurately model it. But with any chaotic system prediction is difficult even when you know all of the variables. In the case of the climate system we have a long, long way to go before we’ll truly understand it – assuming we ever do.

        • john byatt says:

          yes you did “That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world

          then “or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs”

          hint read your first sentence

          now cloud feedback is uncertain.
          http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2012&q=climate+sensitivity+cloud+feedback&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

          the models are projecting warming due to greenhouse gases and the feedbacks such as

          changes to albedo and increased water vapor,

          water vapor is a greenhouse gas so will also increase the initial warming

          the likely increase for doubling CO2 is between 2DegC and 4.5DegC,

          these values not only come from physics bit also paleoclimate studies

          had to break this link to post re clouds

          .sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101122172010.htm

          again you cannot point to any time in the past when clouds have maintained a global temperature purely what is suitable for humans, if climate sensitivity was low then the climate would never change.

          your old ” we cannot know anything until we know everything ” canard is only a level of your own understanding it is an insult to both researchers and modelers

  16. Bill Jamison says:

    So take a look at this post of ‘Sea Ice News’ on WUWT from last year. Notice anything about the NSIDC chart used? Maybe something that isn’t hidden on one of the charts?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-13-2012-arctc-sea-ice-minimum-reached-its-all-gain-from-here/

    But I thought Anthony was trying to hide the fact that the sea ice extent was more than 2 STD below normal!?! Why would he include a chart that specifically shows that not only was 2012 greater than 2 STD below normal so were 2005 and 2007. If he’s trying to hide that data then he did a REALLY poor job of it!

    • john byatt says:

      classic, while the leading scientists of the world report the lowest extent for thousands of years Watts reports it as ALL gain from here,

      the link proves that watts knew of the right graph and put it up as a one off post instead of updating his sea ice page, as we saw most of the monkeys thought that it was error bars or a confidence range,

      so you reject what i tell you but fully accept anything that watts tells you.

      I have a lower footprint than watts , so why does a denier drive an electric car and have solar panels,

      too save money of course, we would love all deniers to do the same , but what is his footprint,? because he would not give a dam about it, so don’t come here telling us that watts is trying to save the planet when he is just saving money,

      give the deniers a good reason like saving cash and they do what we need to do even in denial,

      • Bill Jamison says:

        “it’s all gain from here”

        John did you really not understand that Watts was referring to the fact that the sea ice reached it’s annual minimum and that it would be increasing (gaining) from there?

        Really?

        How can your reading comprehension be that poor?

        Can you provide a link to anyone that thought the STD was error or confidence bars as you claim?

        • john byatt says:

          all spin

        • Bill Jamison says:

          If I said “the sky is blue” you would have a rebuttal john. Ridiculous.

          It was Dr Walt Meier of NSIDC that said “In response to the setting sun and falling temperatures, ice extent will climb through autumn and winter.”

          aka “it’s all gain from here”

          You’re really starting to look dumb john.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      About this post of Sea Ice news from June?

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/sea-ice-news-volume-4-2-the-2013-sea-ice-forecast-contest/

      Yep Anthony Watts referenced the NSIDC chart with STD shown.

  17. john byatt says:

    Arctic certainly not conforming with denier expectations

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic-misrepresentations/

  18. Bill Jamison says:

    no john simply reducing GHG emissions won’t be enough now. Plus you’ll never convince China and India to reduce their emissions. DId you know that the US pretty drastically reduced emissions over the last couple of years and yet globally emissions increased? The US is switching to from coal to natural gas for electrical generation because it’s cleaner and cheaper and easier to meet emissions goals. Plus we have a massive amount of reserves. That helps reduce GHG emissions. But it’s not enough. You can’t expect third world countries to go without when they see first world countries enjoy all of the benefits of cheap plentiful energy.

    So by mitigation I’m referring to lessening the impact of rising seas and higher temperatures. Maybe you’ve heard the term “the warming is in the pipeline”?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Search-For-Missing-Heat-Confirms-More-Global-Warming-In-The-Pipeline-.html

    Are you only chance is to adapt and learn to live with it.

    • john byatt says:

      “. Please don’t pretend to school me. It makes you look like a arrogant fool.”

      “Maybe you’ve heard the term “the warming is in the pipeline”?

      AKINICE KICI GNAYE

      • john byatt says:

        In case you didn’t twig billy boy, i was playing with your mind in above comments to get exactly that response, lesson learnt?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So you were trying to look like an arrogant fool john? In that case you succeeded.

        • john byatt says:

          Fail

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No, really, you succeed! Maybe you normally fail but this time you were definitely a success.

        • john byatt says:

          No i assure you that you came across as an arrogant fool so i decided to play with your mind until you responded and understood just what an arrogant old fool you were,

          you obviously are a selfish old buggar who does not give a hoot about future generations, quite happy to leave others to suffer the consequences of inaction, that is really i suppose why i detest, loathe and in general find you and the flying monkeys a load of self serving old and arrogant hypocrites.

          that is just me though i suppose,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Ah yes so you’re playing the self-righteous I’m holier than thou card.

          So what exactly are YOU doing to stop GHG emissions besides posting on this blog that almost no one reads? Do you drive an electric car? Anthony Watts does. Do you have a house with solar panels? Anthony Watts does. Have you helped local schools install solar panels? Yep, Anthony Watts has. What exactly have YOU done to be so self-righteous?

          I feel so much more powerful now that I know my few posts on WUWT will have such a substantial impact on the world in the future. Butterfly effect?

          I take your criticism to heart john and I promise that from now on I will post more on this blog so I can prevent our children from suffering!

        • john byatt says:

          interesting piece on “we should adapt at ABC,

          this person agreed,

          is this the idealogy of that position?

          One item that writers utterly refuse to distinguish is that there is climate change which is created by our Creator, not mere puny mans’ overall doing. It is arrogant and ignorant to even imagine that the dramatic climate change that is coming can be pinned or blamed on mankind. Global emissions is just a small selection compared to all of the relative laws in the universe known to man and you are most correct to state it is a pipe dream of seriously mitigating climate change. The sceptics are correct in the sense that climate change is happening but not from man. It is from our Creator and the laws, rules, rhythms, rules and principles both known and unknown. There has been unmistakeable clap-trap and pseudo-science created by the corporate press and media to collude with those that are ‘installing’ a $trillion dollar annual system of taxing its citizens without democratic representation.

          The pagan Gaia myth of ‘Mother Earth’ is trying to replace or counterfeit the real true worship of our Creator. There has been recently many articles worldwide entitled ‘God’s Judgements or Climate Change’ comparing God’s faithfulness is greater than humanity’s greed and destruction that seems to continued unabated. Our human failure to govern ourselves peacefully and respectfully is waning quickly and people are searching for the divine promises instead of fear, destruction and excessive taxation.

        • john byatt says:

          Bill I will bet you right here and now that my carbon footprint is less than half of Willards. In fact I will bet you that me and my wife together have only half the carbon footprint that watts has

          While willard is trying to spread denial, i have been door to door explaining that we need action, Last election Larrisa Waters, Greens QLD was given little chance of securing a senate position,

          I am not a member of the greens but i knew that if we were to have any chance at getting an ETS and action in this country then we needed the Greens in the senate, I therefore spent two months prior to the vote electioneering for her along with many others throughout the state,

          she did win a senate position and the greens managed to get the action required started due to the minority government.The rest is History

          All it takes is people like mike and Uki to expose the likes of willard, as many do,

          Blogs like this do their small but vital part, not for cash, adulation or fame like willard but because they wish to leave a better planet for their children,

          unlike you they understand the science and the possible consequences of inaction.

          The deniers hate me bill, tough titty, i write letters which are printed in regional papers and members of parliament.

          I wear their hatred and ridicule as a badge of honor

        • Bill Jamison says:

          damn john they were simple questions: do you drive an electric car and have you installed solar panels?

          Instead you make a claim that can never be proven or disproven.

          So that’s all you’ve done – gone door to door telling people they need to take action? What action would that be john? Should your neighbors go door to door telling more people they should take action?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Bill,
      Saying “you will never get India and china to reduce emissions is in my view disingenuous. First of all you don’t know that and second of all you ignore the fact that BECAUSE the US has refused to do much of anything to limit CO2, they are easily able ot use that as an excuse. Also you ignore that China DOES consider ACC to be a serious problem and are implementing many more resources to solving the problem. Most “deniers” don;t acknowledge that Solyndra went belly up, because standard Solar cells had a huge price drop BECAUSE of Chinese solar cells.
      Also deniers ignore that US CO2 emissions went down because of the RECESSION, not because of any policy changes.
      And like deniers you say that we can’t expect third world countries to go without when they see us enjoying all the benefits of cheap energy. Well you CERTAINLY can’t expect them to try to cut CO2 emissions through public policy when we are not doing so.
      and deniers also say our only chance is to adapt and learn to live with it. You are certainly partly right about the first part. We need to adapt for the effects that are definitely going to happen, but it is just foolish to then do nothing about preventing possibly much worse effects that we would have to adapt to, if we can do much more to prevent those effects from happening.
      I admit I have not been able to read all 500+ comments on here, but i want to let yu know that I ONLY use the term denier to people who have clearly shown that they are only interested in facts that either deny the reality of ACC or only are interested in undermining a realistic understanding of the science.
      I certainly don’t call Pilke a denier, he and in a different way Curry, is an opportunist, both of whom do present some important issues.
      WUWT< Goddard, Jo Nova, Bishop Hill, Heritage. qualify as deniers because I don;t see any interest in anything but an agenda to undermine actual knowledge of the science.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        You’re right Tony I can’t know for sure if China will reduce their emissions. I can only go off projected scenarios from experts such as this one that shows continued emissions growth through 2025 or 2030:
        http://eaei.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/LBL_4472E_Energy_2050.April_.2011_1.pdf

        While I agree with you that the recession played a part (possibly a large part) in the reduction of GHG by the US, the IEA credited switching from coal to natural gas for electrical generation due to low natural gas prices:

        “According to figures in the IEA’s report “Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map”, the nation has cut its carbon dioxide emissions in four out of the last five years, largely by switching from coal to natural gas – a cleaner fuel.”
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23687-us-emissions-hit-first-low-since-mid1990s.html#.UeM4Lm1upNZ

        You make it sound like China and India will simply agree to lower emissions or at least cap growth if the US does. What is there incentive? Are you aware that they were not covered by treaties such as Kyoto?

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Bill,
          those are of course projected scenarios that come from a history of the US refusing to implement international agreements about climate change, and in likely being shown to have bribed and arm twisted countries to lessen standards for treaties the US did not implement. This of course reinforces my point that without the US taking an aggressive stance on this issue internationally it will be almost impossible to get other countries to do much about it.
          it is kind of like NAZI’s complaining that they have significantly cut down on their extermination policies, while other countries increase their exterminations, but the NAZI decrease was because there are less jews and not because they are trying to cut back. and that the NAZI’s have been shown to actually trying to coerce other countries into not making extermination cuts mandatory. Not really going to fool anyone. (yes I like flouting Godwin’s law when it is analogous even if quite inappropriate).
          I have no doubt that switching to natural gas had an impact and I am all for reasoned economically sensitive approaches to decreases CO2.I am pretty sure that this was an economic change and had little to do with policy to decrease CO2, though I am sure that that it played some role.
          Yes, I am aware of the exceptions for developing countries in Kyoto. Are you aware that when Kyoto was drafted The US had MUCH higher CO2 emissions than either country when Kyoto was drafted?
          You are of course not accurate when you say developing countries were not “covered”, the actual truth is that they were not subject to mandated cuts, but still committed to decreasing emissions.
          I do not at all believe India and China would just do what the US wants them to do if we changed out policy. I am SURE it would put much more pressure on both of them. as well as make it much easier for the rest of the world to promote increased reduction sin CO2
          I assume you are aware, as I pointed out in my last comment that china is putting MUCH more effort into renewables than the US is. Why is that?
          I also assume you are aware that much of the industrial base that is the source of the extraordinarily high CO 2 emissions is for economic activity that produces products for the west including the United States.
          You are of course aware that on a per capita basis the US still has a much higher carbon foot print than Either china or India and will for many years to come.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Tony I never claimed that the reduction was due to a desire to reduce emissions instead of purely economic incentive. But when gas is cheaper and cleaner then there is an obvious incentive to convert.

          Do you have a link to any studies showing that China would reduce their emissions (or at least not increase them at projected rates) if the US agrees to reduce emissions? I haven’t seen any yet that’s the claim you seem to be making. I don’t think China cares about US emissions or global treaties.

          Yes I am aware that some (don’t know any details) of China’s emissions are from economic activity producing goods for the west. That’s obvious. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t think things like a carbon tax will work in the long run. We simply shift the emissions off shore. If we reduce coal use in this country then we’ll just ship it to China, India, or even Africa when they’ll burn it and they’ll do it without the emissions controls required in the US.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Bill,

          Not sure how you imagine i or anyone would have a link to a study that shows China and India would cut emissions if the US aggressively initiated emission cut policies on CO2. There are historical examples of analogous situations.
          But your argument seems to be that even though the US has been historically by far the largest emitter of CO2 in the world, and even though the US has done almost nothing as far as policy is concerned until recently to limit CO2 emissions. And the only way to make any progress toward cutting emissions is for the entire world to do so, we should NOT bother policies for cutting OUR emissions because it might not have any effect on those other countries.
          I have an idea, why don’t we TRY a serious policy of reducing emissions, TRY pressuring China and India into international agreements that cause then to limit their emissions, and if after 5 years they just thumb their noses at us and the rest of the world, we can go back to pumping as much of the stuff as we want, DAMN the consequences, and we will show the Chinese just how stupid they are !!!!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Tony my argument is simple: If the US drastically cuts emissions it will have little to no effect on global emissions. If we spend billions of dollars and get no return then it’s wasted money and effort. On the other hand if we spend that same money on mitigation, new technology, etc. then the money is an investment in the future.

          Everything I’ve read says that we’re in for further warming. We need to prepare for that warming and that needs spending billions of dollars on things to mitigate damage from rising sea levels and other impacts of warming. That’s where I think we need to spend the money.

          I read recently that the recent increase in GHG emissions from Asia is more than the total emissions of the US. In other words just the increase exceeds the total output of US emissions. That’s the real battle that is being faced in trying to reduce emissions.

          There comes a time where you have to face facts and realize what the real battle is. IMO that battle is dealing with climate change. Some don’t see it that way obviously. But all one has to do is look at the inaction and lack of treaties to know it’s true. How many Kyoto signatories met their required emission reductions?

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Bill,

          I have no problem putting resources into mitigation. I am not sure I have seen anyone except deniers argue against mitigation efforts. The only way i see a supporter of ACC NOT support mitigation, is if they think we should suffer for our sin of creating the problem> something that is widely touted by deniers but not something I have seen expressed in the blogs and articles that I have read. I have always assumed that after there was no way to deny ACC that deniers would switch over to mitigation and adaptation as a continued excuse not to do anything about increase in CO2. since it has been a core argument that reducing cheap energy would result in with there not being any problem because ACC is either a fraud or will cause little increase in temp. They will continue arguing that cheap energy would allow mitigation to make the effects unimportant, without bothering to do a serious cost benefit of transition from fossil fuels that includes the possibility of 2-4°C increase in temps.
          The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that there will not be sufficient global action to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, so that therefore there should be NO reduction in CO2 emission, regardless of the consequences, that mitigation will, no matter what, be sufficient to prevent any problems from being to bad.
          now, I acknowledge that is a logically viable position to take. and while possibly correct, I must say I consider it verging on insanity. BUt what if it turns out that the effects of the temp increases overwhelm any real possibility of mitigation. What if we find out in 2035 that there is some massive environmental effect that we can’t prevent coral reefs, or plankton. and it need not be ONE thing that is so particularly devastating. the stresses for overpopulation, land use, etc coupled with ACC could lead to numerous. there are a number of scenario’s with impacts that are at least somewhat understood that could lead to this sort of problem and almost surely unexpected issues that could take us completely by surprise.
          in your concluding paragraph you completely ignore the point i have been making. the fact that the US has not ratified and in fact has in some ways helped to torpedo the international treatise is a very powerful explanation for the lack of international action. And once effects of ACC become indisputable there will be strong motivations both for governments and private parties to rapidly increase efforts to decrease CO2 and the pressure to develop effective economic policy will become stronger and stronger.
          I am actually pretty optimistic that within 10-20 years of destructive events that cannot be denied, there will be a massive transformation of society, in the same way that countries mobilize for war, and I am confident that there will be incredible technological developments that will help as well as a powerful conservation of energy movement.
          you insisting that this is not possible and a waste of time is just, in my opinion, either a cynical assertion, or a ruse to prevent action against climate change.
          But as long as you are advocating immediate actions toward mitigation, I am happy to join you in efforts against those who feel it is a waste of resources to do anything at all. Things like the NC legislature saying there is no need to worry about increasing sea levels to the short term benefit of real estate interests.

        • john byatt says:

          Tony I doubt that bill understands what mitigation means, getting most of his understanding of the science from Watts, he believes that the planet is a self regulation system which always returns to the temperature ideal for human civilisation, a perverted understanding of Gaia hypothesis?.

          Bill is a perfect example of the result of watt’s misinformation blog of nonsense. ill informed and lacking even a basic logical analysis of the science

          a recent post at WTFIUMA likened Mann to a creationist which brought Watt’s creationist followers out of the woodwork, he immediately backtracked realising that a large number of his followers were insulted by the remark,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Tony you said:
          “The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that there will not be sufficient global action to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, so that therefore there should be NO reduction in CO2 emission, regardless of the consequences, that mitigation will, no matter what, be sufficient to prevent any problems from being to bad.”

          I never said that. Never implied it. It’s not my position and never has been. I’ve also never believed that mitigation will be “sufficient to prevent any problems from being bad”. Not sure where you came up with those.

          I’m FOR green energy. I’m strongly for nuclear energy particularly some of the newer technologies such as molten salt and pebble bed reactors. I believe we can build safe nuclear plants that produce significantly less waste. I’m confident that we’ll continue to make big gains in efficiency of solar panels while at the same time the cost comes down. It won’t be long before it’s a no-brainer to install solar panels on homes because it will be affordable and efficient. The remaining problem is energy storage but progress is even being made there.

          We can dramatically reduce energy consumption through improve insulation and efficiency of everything from light bulbs to automobiles to windows. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Not a new concept but still very valid. I don’t know about where you live but I see so much waste around me that it’s ridiculous. We can do better, we MUST do better. Less energy usage results in lower emissions. Pretty simple concept especially when combined with an increase in renewable energy.

          I said we should focus on mitigation because I don’t believe simply taxing carbon and other expensive schemes aimed to reduce emissions will have a noticeable impact particularly long term. If that’s true – and there is definitely reason to believe it is since developing countries have increased their emissions dramatically – then we are in for warming. Since there’s only so much money to spend we can either spend it on a possibly futile effort to prevent the warming or we can spend it on mitigation. If nothing else spending on mitigation may buy us time to develop real solutions for climate change.

          Notice that I never suggest we “do nothing”.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Just in case anyone doesn’t understand what “mitigate” means:

          mit·i·gate
          1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile

          2: to make less severe or painful : alleviate

          So when I suggest we invest in mitigation efforts I’m suggesting we invest in things such as sea walls that will lessen the impact of rising sea levels. It’s not about mitigating higher temperature but rather mitigating the impact of those higher temperatures.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          bill,
          well that makes much more sense. you can disregard some of my points in another part of this thread.
          I still think you are making an unnecessary and possibly dangerous assumption that because world CO2 emissions are increasing now that international co-operation and public policy, including things like taxes will not be valuable and important means of decreasing the cause of ACC. As I said, I believe that once the effects are undeniable there will be rapid movement toward decreasing emission AND mitigation.

  19. john byatt says:

    Bill Jamison says:
    July 12, 2013 at 6:05 am
    yes uki people like john are saying exactly that: “we have buggard the Arctic due to the failure of people like you to understand even the basics”

    I have said that the current situation in the Arctic has a 5% to 25% weather contribution,
    BUT

    that 5% to 25% would have had no influence whatsoever if it was not for most of the warming being due to humans, so the bottom line is we have buggard the Arctic

    “We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact.”

    mitigation, you mean like drastically reducing greenhouse emissions ?

    AKINICE KICI GNAYE

  20. Gregory T says:

    What an asinine statement to make, “Is someone going to notify all those groups that their charts are “dishonest” “cherry picking” and “misrepresenting data”? If you believe that’s true, that’s your job.

    So repost the “post that apparently got disappeared”

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Is it an asinine statement? People here have claimed that it’s necessary to include STD on charts to provide context. Of course some have erroneously claimed that you need the STD to be able to see the trend which is untrue and shows a lack of understanding.

      The first sentence of this blog entry is “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.” referring to the chart that doesn’t include STD. If that were true then DMI, JAXA, NORSC-ROOS, etc. are guilty since their charts don’t include STD.

      What you don’t seem to understand Gregory is that the chart without STD was the only chart produced by NSIDC initially. They added the STD in 2009 to provide additional context yet they continued to produce the original chart. The sea ice reference page was never updated to include the new chart yet other charts on the WUWT sea ice page do show the STD. Anthony Watts didn’t cherry pick data and didn’t customize a chart to hide the STD. Yet that’s what people claimed

      Later in the blog entry Mike wrote “And when you exclude something, it is because you may not want it to be seen.” Do you really think that those other agencies are hiding something? WUWT didn’t hide the new chart in fact a link was provided to NSIDC where viewers could get all of the data first hand. Nothing hidden.

      Mike finished up by saying “Now it is time for them to acknowledge the information presented in the graphs at WUWT lacks context. Now is the time for them to admit WUWT uses a presentation format four years out of date.” The format wasn’t “four years out of date” the chart was still current. Just because NSIDC created an additional chart that showed STD it didn’t make the original chart out of date. This claim is pretty silly considering there are 40 different charts and graphics on the WUWT sea ice reference page that clearly show all of the data. Some charts include STD most do not. But WUWT doesn’t generate any custom charts they simply link to publicly available charts from various groups. It’s a reference page where interested parties can access a ton of information, nothing hidden, nothing photoshopped, nothing modified.

      • john byatt says:

        Nah load of codswallop, watts last year presented his no std dev graph to show the increase in winter ice but never acknowledged how far the minimum went below the 2std dev because he wished to hide that fact,

        yet he knew of the udpdated graph,

        it was only coming here that you even knew of the updated graphs existence,

        most of watts flying monkeys thought that they were error bars or a confidence range,

        you probably did also until we educated you on that.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Actually john some of us can read and since it says right on the chart +/- 2 standard deviation range it was pretty clear what the gray shaded area represents.

          Anthony Watts has been using the same chart consistently for YEARS. It doesn’t hide anything. It clearly shows that recent years have been well below average. That’s what the chart shows whether it includes the STD or not. Neither chart is hiding anything despite your repeated claims. Otherwise every other chart created by all of those other organizations are hiding something too. You wouldn’t possibly be dumb enough to claim that JAXA, DMI, etc. are hiding something would you?

          From this post it appears that YOU are the one initially confused about the STD thinking it was error bars:

          “what gave me a laugh was that some of you were going on about error bars during the melt season but according to willard posts they are not required during the record ice gain during the winter recovery”

          Of course you never provide a link when you refer to something so no one could ever actually verify your claims. Intentional john?

        • john byatt says:

          “Actually john some of us can read and since it says right on the chart +/- 2 standard deviation range it was pretty clear what the gray shaded area represents.”

          watt’s graph did not have a grey are nor the +/- 2, you only saw it for the first time when you came here, probably read through the post and comments to get the understanding what the shaded area meant.

          if you knew about the std dev why didn’t you inform watts, you comment there all the time

          the reason that you did not comment on it was because you did not even know about it.

          so you have learnt something new at least

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john you really like to make assumptions don’t you? I’ve seen the chart many times before because I often read the monthly sea ice news from NSIDC. As you know they’ve been using the chart with STD since 2009.

          I love how you think you can tell me what I’ve seen before. What arrogance. In addition other charts on the WUWT sea ice page have included the 1 STD range for a long time. Please don’t pretend to school me. It makes you look like a arrogant fool.

        • Remember this?

          “uknowispeaksense says:
          July 12, 2013 at 6:31 am

          “But what it does come down to is that we can’t prevent these changes going forward. It’s too late. We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact. Or we can continue to call each other names and disparage people in the hopes of silencing them.”

          So, you are opposed to namecalling in this so-called debate?”

          We both know why you aren’t answering. Couldn’t have you looking like a hypocrite. Let’s see? It was over at WUWT in a comment about Peter Gleick that you made a comment about “alarmists” wasn’t it?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Do you consider the term “alarmists” to be name calling? If I called someone a name then please provide a link.

        • With all due respect, you didn’t answer my question. However, given the context of your comment about namecalling, I will assume you are opposed to it.

          I will answer YOUR question though. Collectively labelling a group of people is namecalling. Personally, I don’t have a problem with being labelled anything. I have a very thick skin and like to call things as I see them. Idiots are idiots, deniers are deniers. Hypocrites are hypocrites.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/peter-h-gleick-genius/#comment-1354018

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So you don’t see a difference between saying “some idiots” and “you’re an idiot”?

          Really?

          How many threads did you have to search on WUWT to find that? Did you first try to search for my name and idiot or fool to see if I had called anyone those names?

          If it matters I disagree with you. If I say “some alarmists look foolish” it’s not name calling any more than saying “some skeptics look foolish”. Specifically in this context we’re talking about referring directly to another poster and calling them names. It should be easy to understand the difference.

        • Uh huh. I had a private bet on how you would answer. Thanks for the pub lunch.

          and to answer your question, I searched your name and whatsupwiththat. I have a pretty good handle on you now. When you tell Anthony Watts to “keep up the good work” well…..what can I say? If you think the work of spreading disinformation, insulting people, producing an echo chamber of ignorance, lying and being a sanctimonious arsehole is good, well, so be it.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Wow uki I’m honored (or scared?) that you would bother to spend time reading my comments over on WUWT. At least it didn’t take a lot of time since I don’t comment over there frequently.

          So if saying “some alarmists” is name calling then what do you call someone saying “most of Watt’s flying monkeys”…? Apparently you condone it since you haven’t called john out on it.

          What you should have noticed based on my comments on WUWT is that I’m pretty moderate in my opinions. I don’t go off half cocked attacking people or insulting them. I can tell which blog entries are a load of garbage and which ones are reasonable. I don’t drink the Kool Aid like some.

        • You must have trouble reading. I said…

          “Personally, I don’t have a problem with being labelled anything. I have a very thick skin and like to call things as I see them. Idiots are idiots, deniers are deniers. Hypocrites are hypocrites.”

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey uki did you see this comment from me on WUWT?

          “Anthony I agree with your conclusion but I have an issue with your use of the nickname “moonbeam”. It’s ugly and reminds me of grade school. After all, he is the governor. Just as I detest the use of “deniers” I also detest the use of intentionally mean nicknames here.”
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/climate-fail-moonbeam-browns-denier-page-cant-even-get-the-temperature-graph-right/

          It looks like I have more posts here than I have on WUWT in the last year!

        • Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Collective terms like “alarmists” is ok but referring to someone as an alarmist isn’t? You see, what I got from you is that you are opposed to singling out individuals for namecalling. So referring to the governor as “moonbeam” was wrong for Anthony to do. However, in your post to Anthony you also said you didn’t approve of the word “deniers”, which is collective. From this, it looks like you are opposed to namecalling when it is directed at individuals from either side of the “debate” or groups of deniers. A very interesting position to take.

          The other possibilities are that you weren’t clear enough in your response to Anthony or you just talk shit, the colour of which, depends on which blog you happen to be visiting.

          Whatever…. I must say though, I am impressed with the latest bit of passive-aggressiveness you displayed to JB in threatening to comment here often. Personally, I hope you do. I like to be reminded that it takes all sorts of people to make the world go around and you certainly are appearing to be all sorts of people.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I disapprove of the word “deniers” because of the pejorative connotation. It’s also not specific. For example if you label me a “denier” then what am I denying? That the world has warmed? Nope, I know the world has warmed. That man has contributed to that warming? Nope, I agree that man has contributed to the warming. That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world? Nope, I understand the physics behind it (or at least enough to understand the concept I’m not a physics expert by any means).

          I’m a skeptic. I’m skeptical of claims that we can know or predict with any degree of certainty what will happen in 50 or 100 years or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs. I’m skeptical of plans to tax carbon to reduce usage and lower emissions. I think that technology is the solution not higher taxes. I’m FOR green energy and a sustainable future.

          I don’t see the term “alarmists” being pejorative in the same way as “deniers”. And I’m not referring to everyone that accepts the theory of AGW as an alarmist. I’m specifically referring to people that try to alarm others to goad them into action. In some cases they don’t care if what they’re saying is true or not as long as it gets people to act. I disagree.

          In the post I assume you’re referencing I said “It really is mind blowing that some alarmists fall for this kind of stuff.” referring to Peter Gleick posting a picture of a melted streetlight and blaming it on global warming when it was actually due to a fire near the streetlight. As if streetlights would start melting – and only half of it! – because it’s 110F when it’s not unusual for temps to hit 120F in Kuwait. It was a silly thing for him to say, wouldn’t you agree? It questions his credibility IMO.

          But the issue about name calling was regarding these forums and trying to intimidate and insult someone – silence them? – by calling them names. I think that’s inappropriate and not conducive to intelligent discussion. But then neither is trying to play games with people instead of just being honest and clear.

        • john byatt says:

          I will let uki respond to the bulk of this but peter’s traffic light melt was tongue in cheek played up by morons like nova as only half tongue in cheek, yes peter thinks about 115F will melt a traffic light, you could only get a denier to think he believed that

          so scratch that example of alarmism, you claim to be sceptical, but are really quite gullible

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No john it wasn’t tongue in cheek he really believed it. That’s obvious by the fact that he had a follow up tweet explaining that it was a fire that caused it. The same thing happened last year when Stephen Lacey tweeted that “In Oklahoma, it’s so hot the streetlights are melting”
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/alarmist-fact-checking-street-lights-dont-melt-at-115f/

          When people post such stupid claims it hurts there credibility and makes them look either really dumb or really gullible. Take your pick. But to excuse it as “tongue in cheek” is ridiculous. If Watts did the same thing you’d jump all over it.

  21. Bill Jamison says:

    I wrote a post that apparently got disappeared. I simply linked to all of the charts on the WUWT sea ice page that DON’T show the STD.

    Is someone going to notify all those groups that their charts are “dishonest” “cherry picking” and “misrepresenting data”?

  22. john byatt says:

    lots of small pieces of evidence for the Arctic conditions over millions of years

    here is one such small piece for past 800,000 years

    http://www.vliz.be/imis/imis.php?module=ref&refid=206080&pp=print

    AKINICE KICI GNAYE

  23. john byatt says:

    Have been following Fram all season, Nares is the interesting development at the moment with lots of MYI about to depart, Must be unusual again?

    • john byatt says:

      still looking bill?

      AKINICE KICI GNAYE

    • Bill Jamison says:

      No john I’m not “still looking”. So are you claiming that NOAA doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

      It’s not unusual that SOME ice exits the Fram Strait. That’s normal. But trying reading what they wrote about how 2007 specifically compares to previous years and even decades and how the wind patterns were unusual.

      So do you admit that much of the sea ice that was lost in 2007 didn’t simply melt in the arctic because it was warmer than usual?

      • This is painful. Nobody is saying the ice reduction is purely from melting however, the ice being pushed around in the Arctic is due to it being much thinner and at the mercy of changed weather patterns. Hmmmmm, now I wonder why the weather patterns are different? Could it be due to increased energy in the system? Could it be an anthropogenic feedback loop? Maybe the Arctic climate is complex and multiple forcings and feedbacks, many of them anthropogenic are affecting ice, air and water?

        i think I know what you are trying to do, but if you are going to try and convince anyone here that what is going on is purely natural, you are barking up the wrong tree. All natural forcings and feedbacks have been examined in great depth and cannot account for the loss. Even the changes in weather patterns you have mentioned have been attributed to extra energy in the system as an indirect result of anthropogenic CO2 increase. If you are able to provide some other mechanism, I am pretty sure the actual experts would love to hear about it, although I am confident they have ruled out anything you can think of.

        • john byatt says:

          impacts due to arctic cyclones atmospheric conditions and wind have not had the impact in the past which they now have due to the weak thin and broken up ice

          as I stated before the current conditions in the arctic are due 75% to 95% human caused global warming and arctic amplification from that

          AKINICE KICI GNAYE

        • I like your new name AKINICE KICI GNAYE.

        • john byatt says:

          No not new just looks better in lakota, seeing it is my indian name

        • john byatt says:

          h/t ?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          yes uki people like john are saying exactly that: “we have buggard the Arctic due to the failure of people like you to understand even the basics”

          Sure blame “people like me” whatever that means. No I’m not trying to convince anyone that changes we have witnesses are purely natural. You keep assuming you know my intentions and then you turn out to be wrong. Just like with PIOMAS.

          But what it does come down to is that we can’t prevent these changes going forward. It’s too late. We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact. Or we can continue to call each other names and disparage people in the hopes of silencing them.

        • “But what it does come down to is that we can’t prevent these changes going forward. It’s too late. We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact. Or we can continue to call each other names and disparage people in the hopes of silencing them.”

          So, you are opposed to namecalling in this so-called debate?

        • john byatt says:

          missed

          read it again, select each part that is evidence for the above load of tripe

          uknowispeaksense says:
          July 12, 2013 at 4:09 am
          This is painful. Nobody is saying the ice reduction is purely from melting however, the ice being pushed around in the Arctic is due to it being much thinner and at the mercy of changed weather patterns. Hmmmmm, now I wonder why the weather patterns are different? Could it be due to increased energy in the system? Could it be an anthropogenic feedback loop? Maybe the Arctic climate is complex and multiple forcings and feedbacks, many of them anthropogenic are affecting ice, air and water?

          i think I know what you are trying to do, but if you are going to try and convince anyone here that what is going on is purely natural, you are barking up the wrong tree. All natural forcings and feedbacks have been examined in great depth and cannot account for the loss. Even the changes in weather patterns you have mentioned have been attributed to extra energy in the system as an indirect result of anthropogenic CO2 increase. If you are able to provide some other mechanism, I am pretty sure the actual experts would love to hear about it, although I am confident they have ruled out anything you can think of.

        • john byatt says:

          it’s gotta be eric

      • john byatt says:

        what he said

        uknowispeaksense says:
        July 12, 2013 at 3:29 am

        From your (bill) reference.

        The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades is clearly related to increased long-wave radiation caused by ongoing atmospheric CO2 increase, but other factors have
        also contributed (Smedsrud et al. 2008). Once the ice thick- ness decreased substantially a number of feedback effects may have contributed (Perovich et al.,2008; Rampal et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds ,2010).

        you should read what you ref bill

        put it back up as he seems to have ignored it

        AKINICE KICI GNAYE

      • john byatt says:

        try reading again

        uknowispeaksense says:
        July 12, 2013 at 4:09 am
        This is painful. Nobody is saying the ice reduction is purely from melting however, the ice being pushed around in the Arctic is due to it being much thinner and at the mercy of changed weather patterns. Hmmmmm, now I wonder why the weather patterns are different? Could it be due to increased energy in the system? Could it be an anthropogenic feedback loop? Maybe the Arctic climate is complex and multiple forcings and feedbacks, many of them anthropogenic are affecting ice, air and water?

        i think I know what you are trying to do, but if you are going to try and convince anyone here that what is going on is purely natural, you are barking up the wrong tree. All natural forcings and feedbacks have been examined in great depth and cannot account for the loss. Even the changes in weather patterns you have mentioned have been attributed to extra energy in the system as an indirect result of anthropogenic CO2 increase. If you are able to provide some other mechanism, I am pretty sure the actual experts would love to hear about it, although I am confident they have ruled out anything you can think of.

  24. Bill Jamison says:

    Okay john I’m going to try to educate you here so you can comprehend the chart you linked with the PIOMAS data. The purpose of that chart is to use different mathematical formulas to compute trends as a way of extrapolating future results of sea ice volume. In this case they specifically are trying to extrapolate when (meaning which year) the sea ice volume will reach zero.

    Here’s a little write up about trend forecasting that might help you:
    http://www.mnfuturists.org/Tuturials/TrendForecasting.htm

    Now go back and view the chart and notice where the colored trend lines intersect the X axis which indicates zero sea ice volume.

    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1359893289843/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png

    What you should see is that the range of forecasts is from 2014 to 2020+. Does that mean sea ice volume will definitely reach zero (meaning an ice free arctic in the summer) by 2020? Nope it doesn’t. These are simple mathematical trends using different formulas. They don’t take physics into account they are simply based on numbers. The arctic *may* be ice free next year but I don’t think it will be. By 2020? Sure it’s possible. If the current trend continues then it will be likely.

    Only time will tell if the arctic will end up ice free in the summer any time in the next 20 years or not. Even scientists can’t agree on when or if it will happen. It’s not as simple as just plotting numbers on a chart and making assumptions. Climate never is.

    • john byatt says:

      no shit sherlock and as I told you yesterday , any trend projections beyond the last plot has no predictive power for Arctic sea ice summer end date whatsoever, even Gavin Schmidt from NASA agrees with me on that point, you just repeat my point and claim it as yours,

      we have buggard the Arctic due to the failure of people like you to understand even the basics, you do not choose to be an honorable ancestor i see,

      The simple fact is that the Arctic is poised to hit at least a one day zero any year from now, for the first time since humans walked upon the earth.

      it all seems to be beyond your comprehension .

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Really john? You’re not aware of the science that shows that arctic was probably ice free about 6,000 years ago? It’s not based on model simulations but actual physical evidence.

        “Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.”

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm

        So unless you believe that man wasn’t walking on the earth 6,000 years ago your statement can’t be supported by the physical evidence and science.

        You really should try to educate yourself before you post on a subject like this and display your ignorance.

        • john byatt says:

          bill that paper has been doing the rounds of the sceptic sites for years, will just explain it thus, sea ice along the greenland coast is not a proxy for a total ice free state,

          go to the paper then read all papers which cite it,

          much better proxies are ocean bottom dwelling creatures which are different during ice covered and ice free Arctic, leave you to follow up on that,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Is it a proxy for significantly reduced arctic sea ice?

        • john byatt says:

          bill as i said, follow it up and new research shows that when the Greenland side has low sea ice opposite side has been high and vice versa

          AKINICE KICI GNAYE

  25. john byatt says:

    crash and burn bill

    NSIDC
    June is a transition period for Arctic sea ice as 24-hour daylight reigns, and melt reaches towards the North Pole. Thus it is an appropriate time for NSIDC to transition to a new 30-year baseline period, also called a “climate normal.” The satellite record is now long enough to allow NSIDC to match current National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard baselines of 1981 to 2010 for weather and climate data.

    now do you understand current?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Oh I understand it john but obviously you don’t. Earlier you claimed that the average should be based on 1979-2000. It’s obvious you don’t know that the WMO standard baseline period is 30 years not 20.

      You post something as a “gotcha” and all it does is show your ignorance john. That’s sad.

      Current data is just that – current. It’s not the last 13 years of data or the last 30 years of data. To claim otherwise is foolish. In fact the only time the word “current” is used in your post is when it’s used to describe the “current” WMO standard baseline. Not the one from 13 years ago but the most recent one. The current one.

      • john byatt says:

        what are you on about ?

        ” Earlier you claimed that the average should be based on 1979-2000″

        you may be confusing uki typo, I read it and knew that it was a typo,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/wuwt-attacks-wtd-i-learn-the-only-thing-to-fear-from-the-sceptics-is-your-own-fear/#comment-43859

          john byatt wrote “use 1979 2000 average”

          John do you not know that the WMO defines “climate normal” (or average if you prefer) as a 30 year period?

          “Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends. The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.”

          So why do you claim we should use a 20 year period for average instead of the 30 year period now used by NSIDC?

  26. john byatt says:

    You have a strange personality bill, here we find that the Arctic is in a death spiral due to humans, we both know that watts does everything he can to distort the facts and to deny the reality of that and what the loss of summer ice will mean.

    and yet you come here to defend him for choosing a graph which hid the 2012 minimum going beyond the boundary of 2stddev, as if it was useless information,

    NSIDC,. obviously after reading mike’s post decided to add the shading and make willard look stupid with identical graphs

    thanks for explaining to us that you cannot get a trend from one year plot,.oh dear

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Oh john there you go again trying to deflect from the fact that you can’t read a chart. You and Mike claim that by not including STD it prevents someone from seeing the trend “If you remove them, you cannot perceive the trend.” This is clearly a false statement. The current year’s data plotted with the average and/or STD tells you NOTHING about the trend. Are you incapable of understanding that? Your boorish behavior is here for everyone to see and it’s clear then when you can’t justify your statements with fact you insult and attack. That’s unfortunate. You continue to try to make a big deal out of the fact that Anthony Watts didn’t update his sea ice page to include 1 new chart when there are 40 charts on the sea ice page including ones that show the STD. To continue to harp on that is silly. It’s a non-issue.

      I love how you use the term “death spiral” as if it’s a scientific fact or even that humans have caused the reduction in sea ice. Do you really think it’s that simple? Are you really that ignorant of the science that shows how complex climate is? There are ocean currents, weather patterns, wind patterns, etc. all at work. But that isn’t the point of this thread – you’re just trying to deflect from the fact that you don’t understand standard deviations, trendlines, or even how to read a chart. And when you’re called out on your failure to understand you choose to attack and insult and deflect instead of just admitting the truth. It’s all here for anyone to see john and it sure doesn’t make you look good.

      • john byatt says:

        so watts did not update his sea ice page by adding the NSIDC 2std dev,

        oh yes he did bill,

        Oh I see you take the “all to complicated for us mortals to understand, denial position”

        that is just you bill, we understand it perfectly,

        bill there are research papers that put human contribution for the Arctic sea ice loss at 75% to 95%

        give watts the flick and try reading scientific papers,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey john how much of observed warming in the arctic is thought to be due to black carbon? Or do you even know about that issue? Are you aware that the extremely low sea ice minimum in 2007 was due to unusual wind patterns that blew the ice out of the arctic via the Fram Strait?

          “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,”
          http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

          Did you know that johnny boy? Or did you just assume that all that sea ice melted because it was hot?

        • john byatt says:

          bill there is so much misunderstanding in that comment,

          it is not even wrong bill,unless you believe that such wind patterns and atmospheric conditions are new to the Arctic?

          see how silly your understanding is ?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So NOAA doesn’t understand the unusual wind patters in the arctic? Really?

          Well then how about a peer-reviewed paper john?

          http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011.html

        • Fromyour reference.

          The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades is clearly related to increased long-wave radiation caused by ongoing atmospheric CO2 increase, but other factors have
          also contributed (Smedsrud et al. 2008). Once the ice thick- ness decreased substantially a number of feedback effects may have contributed (Perovich et al.,2008; Rampal et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds ,2010).

  27. john byatt says:

    “You can’t infer anything about the trend from current data. It simply shows you where the current data is in comparison to the average:. you were referring to current data as being from 2000

    crap, you can then plot the current data as grant has done here

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/extent_anom1.jpg?w=500&h=322

    trend from 2000 is down do you agree?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      “You can’t infer anything about the trend from the current data”. Maybe I should have said “from the only the current year’s data” to be more clear.

      What Grant plotted is ALL the data not just the current data. The NSIDC chart in question shows only last year’s data, this year’s current data, and the average. You can’t infer a trend from those 3 things you need more data.

      You really don’t understand, do you john?

      Let me put it another way: 1980 sea ice data is not “current data” it’s historical data. Current data is the latest data. The point of the NSIDC chart we’ve been discussing is to show the current data.

      Wow this is getting silly.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Okay I’m going to apologize john. I see how you misunderstood what I said. You claimed the STD was needed to show the trend and I said it wasn’t. The NSIDC doesn’t show the trend and it doesn’t have enough data to infer a trend. It shows the current year’s data and last year’s data. Regardless of whether the STD is included or not you can’t tell the trend from just that limited data.

        So you thought I meant that you can’t tell if the trend is down or not but that’s not at all what I meant. I was speaking specifically about the ability to discern any trend using the NSIDC chart showing current season and previous season data plotted against the average.

        If you want to identify the trend then plot all of the data like Grant did. Notice he didn’t include any SD? It’s not necessary when showing a trend or computing one. There are several charts on the WUWT sea ice page that show all of the historical data available and some include trendlines. All show that the trend in the arctic is down.

        Clear?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          BTW I thought it was clear that “current data” meant “this year’s data”:

          “The chart that shows last seasons data, current data, average data, and 2 STD doesn’t show the trend at all. You can’t infer anything about the trend from current data. It simply shows you where the current data is in comparison to the average.”

          Since you’re familiar with the chart in question you should know what data is plotted. No where do I say or infer that “current data” means data since 2000 although you obviously thought I did:

          “you were referring to current data as being from 2000″.

          To be clear when I say “current data” I’m referring to the most recent data for this year. Everything else is historical.

        • john byatt says:

          bill creationists read everything as a literal statement, like you they can see only one meaning for a word, so you believe that current can only ref to things like current news when it clearly from the NSIDC quote refers also to current in the context of the

          “to allow NSIDC to match current National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard baselines of 1981 to 2010 for weather and climate data”

          the baseline from 1981 to 2010 and the 2std dev is current

          the temperature data graph for the period from 1890 is also current,

          you may need to do a course in logic .

  28. john byatt says:

    yes i know that is where i got it from about an hour ago,

    you also stated that there was no trend in the extent data NSIDC from 2000 using the chart

    I posted the graph of the data and it shows a clear downward trend since 200, so why then did you deny it ?

    so yes or no extent trend since 2000

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Please don’t lie john. It’s not becoming. First you call me a fool and an idiot and now you lie about what I said. If you think you’re telling the truth then simply provide a link to my comment and I’ll apologize.

      And to answer your question AGAIN: There is a clear downward trend in both arctic sea ice extent and sea ice volume, not just from 2000 on but from 1980 until now. It’s a CLEAR downward trend. The chart I provided shows it CLEARLY.

      Still deflecting huh?

  29. john byatt says:

    and bill now that we have finally got here do you now accept that the trend in extent has been down since 2000 or are you still confused with temperature trend validity ?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Geez john I said that a while ago:

      http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/oh_dear_looks_like_you_have_found_warmist_hq/#comment-44207

      but that isn’t the question and that’s not the purpose of the chart you linked. Anyone that has been paying even a little attention to arctic sea ice over the last decade knows the trend is down. That’s not a question.

      I have no idea what you’re referring to by “temperature trend validity” since we haven’t discussed that at all. I know I haven’t mentioned it. Are you trying to distract from the fact that you still don’t understand that chart?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      BTW john the trend in the minimum sea ice extent hasn’t just been down since 2000 it’s been down since 1980. There were a few years there in the early 90’s where it recovered pretty well it continued the trend down. Recently the trend increased (meaning it went down faster). That’s clearly shown on this chart from the WUWT sea ice page:

      http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png

      • john byatt says:

        get your short term memory checked you said that the NSIDC data did not confirm trend since 2000 yesterday

        • Bill Jamison says:

          BS. If I said that you should be able to provide a link to that comment but you can’t because I never said it. Here’s what you said john:

          “if you wish to hide the trend dropping below 2std dev, then use the old watts graph”.
          http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/oh_dear_looks_like_you_have_found_warmist_hq/#comment-43819

          That simply isn’t true. The chart that shows last seasons data, current data, average data, and 2 STD doesn’t show the trend at all. You can’t infer anything about the trend from current data. It simply shows you where the current data is in comparison to the average.

          Let me give you an analogy you can understand: Let’s say the current winter in Melbourne is running 2c colder than average. That’s interesting but it certainly doesn’t tell you whether the long term trend is toward warmer or colder winters in Melbourne. Just knowing the current data compared to average doesn’t indicate ANYTHING about the trend. You need to look at all the data for Melbourne and then calculate a trend. That’s how you determine if winters are getting warmer or colder not by looking at a single data point.

          If you want to visualize the trend then you need to look at more data preferably all available data – like this one:

          http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png

          It’s becoming obvious that you lack basic understanding so you accuse me of not understanding.

  30. Bill Jamison says:

    Now I feel bad for you john. You really don’t understand why that chart shows 5 different trends or even the purpose of the chart.

    Would you like me to explain it? I promise you’ll like the answer. In fact you’ll like the chart even more once you know what information is being conveyed.

    • john byatt says:

      you are an idiot,

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Wow MIke didn’t like it when Anthony Watts called him an idiot but you think it’s okay to call me a fool and an idiot? Not very classy johnny boy.

        It would have been a lot easier if you just admitted your ignorance and let me explain the chart to you. It sounds like uki might understand it so maybe he’ll explain it to you. Like I said you’ll like the chart better once you know what it’s showing.

        • john byatt says:

          billy we have been trying to get you to accept the downward trend in arctic extent area and volume for 2 days now, you finally agree that volume trend is down,

          you have twisted, look squirrel’d but eventually you accept the reality for volume,
          seeing that it is the real story then we are all pleased that you have come here and learned something

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john if you think you’ve been trying to “get me to accept the downward trend in arctic extent” for 2 days then you need to go back and read all of these comments. I never claimed the trend wasn’t down. I never even started talking about the trend until you posted the link to the chart you don’t understand. We never talked about sea ice volume until PIOMAS was brought up but again I said several times the trend is down. It is. There’s no denying it. That would be silly. It’s extremely clear.

          I really think you’re just trying to deflect now to get me to stop mentioning that chart you don’t understand. I get it. It’s okay johnny boy.

        • john byatt says:

          “I never even started talking about the trend until you posted the link to the chart ”

          we were talking about the extent trend yesterday, have you forgotten already ?

          are you eric?

      • john byatt says:

        this will be good

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey uki will you explain the chart for john? I would but I don’t think he’d believe me. He’s too busy getting defensive and posturing, puffing out his chest and calling me names.

        • john byatt says:

          uki reckons you are an idiot as well

  31. john byatt says:

    Shit how long did that take?

    we got there, usually do,

    Bill Jamison says:
    July 11, 2013 at 10:27 am
    Do you understand how to calculate a trend? Yes the trend is downward. DUH. That’s obvious. As I’ve stated a couple of times already there are 5 trends displayed on that chart. What I haven’t stated – because I thought it was blatantly obvious – is that all of them are downward. As I said…DUH.

  32. Bill Jamison says:

    I’ll give you another shot john:

    In the following chart what do the trends attempt to predict?

    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1359893289843/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png

    Maybe now you’ll get it.

  33. john byatt says:

    try this bill, any trend?

  34. john byatt says:

    If you are going to post its purpose then why post something else/

    Purpose

    Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. However, Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are all limited in space and time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continous basis. Volume estimates using age of sea ice as a proxy for ice thickness are another useful method (see here and here). Comparisons of the model estimates of the ice thickness with observations help test our understanding of the processes represented in the model that are important for sea ice formation and melt.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Seems obvious that you had never seen the PIOMAS website until I provided the link. I’m glad I could help educate you. I provided information on what PIOMAS is since uki mentioned that it’s a model.

      • john byatt says:

        god i check it out every month to see if there are any updates to validation

        you are a fool

      • john byatt says:

        “its a model” has been going on for years.

        it is validated, extensively , read

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s a model. That’s what I said. I never said the data is invalid or suspect or anything else. In fact I never commented on the data. I’m trying to discern whether you understand the purpose of the chart you linked. You keep avoiding the question.

        • john byatt says:

          we are not talking about who understands what we are showing that the Arctic trend (from the plots) whether it be extent, areaa or volume is all headed to zero,

          do you agree

        • john byatt says:

          bill it is the PIOMAS data , it is validated, it is confirming that the trend as you finally fess up to is down, not just down but off a cliff.

          we have known it is a model since it began, see uki comment, he could see you coming

          all branches of science use models , my life was just saved by one,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I didn’t say “it’s just a model” as if to imply the data is invalid. I didn’t say or imply that the data is invalid or incorrect or anything else. Try reading. Nice of you to call me a fool though when you’re the one that can’t answer a simple question. It’s okay I’m used to people like you that bluff and bully to try to hide their ignorance.

        • So, did you read the paper, the citation of which, I gave you? It’s curious that you haven’t responded to that or to the answer to the question you asked at my blog. You must have been satisfied with my answer or disappointed I didn’t bite.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The question I asked really has nothing to do with PIOMAS and isn’t a comment about the validity of PIOMAS data. I’ve made no comment about PIOMAS data. I asked a question to john about the chart he linked. He obviously doesn’t understand it. Hopefully you do.

        • john byatt says:

          none of the trends beyond the last plot are valid bill especially for arctic sea ice , it could all effin melt to zero at anytime, it is not going to last very long , as i said i could not give a shit about the different trends , it is the easiest one to find for me as i follow neven arctic ice blog every day as do NSIDC

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Here’s a tip for you john: don’t cite a chart when you don’t understand what it represents. You might get called out and embarrassed again. At least here not many people will actually see your comments.

  35. john byatt says:

    here bill

    PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered. From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 103 km3/decade. The uncertainty of the monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75 103 km3. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be ±1.35 103 km3 . Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover. Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain. Details on model validation can be found in Schweiger et al. 2011 and (here). Additional information on PIOMAS can be found (here)

    • Bill Jamison says:

      john the chart you linked uses PIOMAS data but it isn’t generated by that group. Did you know that? I haven’t questioned the purpose or validity of PIOMAS data.

      • john byatt says:

        yes bill it is as you say PIOMAS data and the bloody navy did a similar graph of the data, probably in on the hoax as well

  36. john byatt says:

    Bill the mathematician cannot see a trend in the NSIDC extent data so probably will not see a trend in the PIOMAS data

    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1359893289843/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png?height=360&width=480

    should have gone to Spec savers

    • Bill Jamison says:

      john do you ever understand the purpose of that chart? I have a feeling you don’t.

      • Look out John! He’s got you! He’sgoing to tell you that PIOMAS is one of those pesky models! Nevermind that that despite most observers concerns that PIOMAS was overestimating loss it now appears it is now underestimating. Regardless, here is some real data. http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/362.jpg

        • john byatt says:

          so you cannot see a trend bill?

        • john byatt says:

          wrong reply box, yes i was reading something similar, next month may reveal the better data

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nice try but it seems like you don’t understand the purpose of that chart either. It’s PIOMAS data but it’s not their chart. Do you know what the purpose is?

          In case YOU don’t know what PIOMAS is you can read all about it:

          “PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations. For the ice volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates and SST data from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis are assimilated in the ice-free areas. NCEP/NCAR reanalysis SST data are based on the global daily high-resolution Reynolds SST analyses using satellite and in situ observations (Reynolds and Marsico, 1993; Reynolds et al., 2007). Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries located at 45 degrees North.”
          http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

        • yep….it’s a model. Pretty sure I said that. This is tiresome. Why can’t you people ever go to the original source? DOI: 10.1029/2011JC007084

        • Bill Jamison says:

          “so you cannot see a trend bill?”

          haha so you DON’T know the purpose of that chart?

          There are 5 trends shown. Which one, if any, is right?

        • john byatt says:

          tiresome alright , forget the sts lines look at the bloody plots, you cannot be this stupid,

          again can you see a bloody downward trend?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john are you unable to see the 5 trend lines displayed? Are you really unable to understand the purpose of that chart?

          Here’s a hint: there’s a reason the chart goes down to zero.

          c’mon buddy if you don’t understand it just admit it. Stop pretending.

        • john byatt says:

          you are ignoring the plots, , look at the plots

          is there a trend?

      • john byatt says:

        enlarging removes the trend , too funny

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No enlarging makes it easier to read the annotation so you can figure out what is displayed on the chart. It really is that simple john.

        • john byatt says:

          so you claim no trend?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s okay john, if you don’t understand what the purpose of that chart is simply admit it and I’ll explain it. As I said that chart displays 5 different trend lines.

        • john byatt says:

          ignore the bloody lines look at the plots, is there a downward trend,

          yes or no ”

          is it in a death spiral, yes no?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Do you understand how to calculate a trend? Yes the trend is downward. DUH. That’s obvious. As I’ve stated a couple of times already there are 5 trends displayed on that chart. What I haven’t stated – because I thought it was blatantly obvious – is that all of them are downward. As I said…DUH.

          My repeated question to you which you keep avoiding is: Do you understand the purpose of that chart??? No it’s not to show that you can compute a trend 5 different ways.

          Maybe you should read up on calculating a trend johnny boy

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation

        • john byatt says:

          bill i did not even mention the different trend lines just the bloody plots , the look squirrel crap you are going on with is boring

          so is it in a death spiral?

          yes or no

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john you asked if there is a trend. The answer is yes. The chart shows 5 trends as I’ve stated a couple of times already. Do you not know how to read a chart? There are 5 trends computed using different formulas and all are down.

          http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/choosing-the-best-trendline-for-your-data-HP005262321.aspx

          Maybe you should try playing with trendlines in Excel to help you understand them. You can’t just look at data and say what is the trend? Unless of course you want to be simplistic and just want to know if the trend is up or down.

          It’s become obvious that you really don’t understand the purpose of displaying 5 different trends on that chart. That’s a shame. I would have explained it to you if you had simply asked or even just admitted your ignorance instead of trying to bluff.

  37. Bill Jamison says:

    I had to laugh when I found this old article on WUWT from 2008:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/sea-ice-approaching-the-edge-of-normal-standard-deviation/

    Now keep in mind that this was before NSIDC started generating a chart that included standard deviation:

    ” I’ve spent a lot of time this month looking at the graph of sea ice extent from the IARC-JAXA website, which plots satellite derived sea-ice extent. However, there is another website that also plots the same satellite derived data, the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center of Bergen Norway, and they have an added bonus: a standard deviation shaded area.”

    That’s right, instead of trying to hide a chart that includes standard deviation (in this case +/- 1 STD not +/- 2 STD like NSIDC displays) Anthony Watts called it a “bonus” to have it included even though it clearly shows how far below the 1 STD range the sea ice extext was in 2007 and 2008. Yes I know the post is bragging because it appeared the sea ice extent was recovering to a point where it would likely fall within that 1 STD.

    Next I suppose some of you will claim that Anthony Watts was honest and then he wasn’t. Some of you keep ignoring – or trying to hide? – the fact that the chart in question was the standard NSIDC chart for a long time. It wasn’t until sometime in 2009 (IIRC anyway) that NSDIC started including the STD and WUWT has been reporting on sea ice long before that.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Bill, I love it. So SDs matter… when you want them to matter.

      Thanks!

      • john byatt says:

        He has unknowingly hung watts out to dry,

        watts acknowledges that std dev are a bonus, so when He was asked to include them on NSIDC graph last year he should have been grateful, instead he banned people for it,

        wonder why, because the bloody extent had dropped below 2STD dev and he did not want you to know,……. that is effin why

        we have a screen shot from last year billy boy

        • john byatt says:

          watts graph from that

          http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/nansen_area_102208.png?w=640

          “see it is nearing the normal std dev, and has already bested last year,

          the great 2008 recovery, bet not one of them asked the obvious question,, ?

        • john byatt says:

          they were all wondering why this incredible recovery was not headline news

          are they really this dumb?

          Ralph says:
          October 22, 2008 at 2:56 pm
          Boy, talk about cognitive dissonance in the mainstream media. Can anyone direct me to a single article (aside from climate blogs) that discusses this surge in Arctic sea ice?

          This isn’t newsworthy – 30% more ice? Gimme a break.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john you might want to try reading the “suggestion” from ‘Entropic man’ in context. He wasn’t asking Anthony to add the chart with STD to the WUWT sea ice page but rather was complaining about a blog post. He also confused “error bars” with STD.

          I don’t need a screen shot here is the entire blog post with comments:

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-11-part-2-other-sources-show-no-record-low/

          Entropic man said “The NSIDC Arctic Ice Extent graph at the top of this post normally has error bars for the 1979-2000 average included on the graph.” which obviously isn’t true. He confuses “error bars”, which indicate measurement uncertainty, with STD which indicates a range of values for the data presented. NOT THE SAME THING. He was responding to someone else that suggested the chart should include error bars to indicate the uncertainty in the data.

        • john byatt says:

          bill uki comment about confusing error bars with std dev was to a comment on this blog

          keep up

        • john byatt says:

          and you think that watts did not really know the difference, a quick look at the NSIDC link would have shown him,?

        • john byatt says:

          nice try bill, the guy confused error bars with std dev but here is the link he gave

          http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

          you got done again

          was too funny though watts posts 2012 well before the minimum and then does another post well after the minimum, did he do one on the minimum bill,

          please provide link for that

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No john I didn’t get “done again”. You’re simply confused again. Read the comments. Someone suggested that the scientists should include measurement uncertainty (error bars) in the chart and ‘Entropic man’ replied with a link to the chart that shows STD. He was confused. Now you are.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        They don’t matter. They add context. Or as Anthony put it it’s a “bonus”. The point is WUWT didn’t hide any charts because they included the STD. The WUWT sea ice page included the chart mentioned in that post.

        Mike I can’t help but notice your blog post still says “If you remove that pesky piece of information [STD] that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!”. That’s obviously not true. The NSIDC chart without STD included still shows the average and the current data which is all you need to see that the current sea ice extent is below average. The truth is that ALL of the arctic sea ice charts shown on the WUWT sea ice page clearly show that current levels are below average just as they have been for the last decade.

        People on WUWT may try to argue that it doesn’t matter or debating the cause of the decline but I don’t see anyone denying that current sea ice extent is below the 1981-2010 average.

        In the post from 2008 I linked there is a link to updated charts (updated meaning later that season) and in that blog entry Anthony even notes that they use a different base period for computing average that includes 2007 which makes the average lower than it would have been otherwise:

        “Of course the fact that the 2007 data is included in the average line, means the average is a lower than usual target than one might expect. If we compare to ice area over at Cryopshere today, they use a 1979-2000 mean, which is higher. Still the rebound we are seeing is impressive.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/31/arctic-sea-ice-continues-rebound/

        • john byatt says:

          and look at the link, sea ice continues rebound,

          but they bill cannot see any trend in extent nor volume,

          how do you deny your own eyes bill?

  38. It just occurred to me that you could have used a different title that would have really set the flying monkeys…Anthony Watts – hiding the decline.

  39. Edohiguma says:

    A strong trend since the year 2000. Please… 13 years, really? That proves a lot, really. No, it doesn’t.

    I really wonder how those Romans managed to plant wine so far north, and how the Chinese managed to develop chrome without good conditions for cultural and technological growth. Or how the Danes, about 1,000 years ago, planted wine and a certain Murasaki wrote the first novel of mankind in Japan.

    Let’s see, where’s the wine border in Europe today? Oh, somewhere in Germany. Significantly farther south than 1,000 and 2,000 years ago. Hmmm, what could that mean! Oh I don’t know… maybe that it’s still colder than 1,000 and 2,000 years ago? Even on a global scale? It had to be global, or at least on the northern hemisphere, otherwise we wouldn’t have cultural explosion in Asia and Europe at the same time.

    No that can’t be! All the computer models say different! Mann’s manipulated tree ring data says none of this happened!

    Oh wait, computer models used to foresee a non-linear, chaotic system. Right.

    And then a non-scientist, non-archeologist and non-historian screams murder and all the enviro-nitwits come quick to defend that desk jockey. Hilarious.

    Herd mentality, right there.

    I’m still waiting for the proof that our CO2, which makes just a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere, causes anything. You know, the factual, scientific proof. Not based on statistics, computer models and falsified data (which is disproved by factual archeological evidence.)

  40. Bill Jamison says:

    Okay we can officially put this issue to rest courtesy of NSIDC. They have removed the dishonest chart that uses cherry picked data. Now both URLs result in the same chart showing the data with 2 standard deviations:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    I suppose we should credit and thank Mike for getting NSIDC to correct their dishonesty.
    ;)

    • john byatt says:

      It was watts being dishonest not NSIDC, their monthly analysis and news update uses the std dev, and has since 2009

      your claim of NSIDC being dishonest, even with a smiley is pathetic

      now what about your apology for going on and on while having only read one sentence from an entire post

      no fool like an old fool Bill, as they say

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Yes it’s pathetic to say that a chart is dishonest when it accurately represents the data as intended. I’m not surprised you can’t see the hypocrisy of claiming that Watts was dishonest in showing the chart without the STD from NSIDC even though other charts on the WUWT sea ice page DO show the STD.

        I’ve read the entire post john. For example I read this sentence: “If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!”. As I’ve pointed out and you either deny or ignore this statement is patently untrue. To know if the current sea ice extent is below average you need to know only two things: current sea ice extent and average sea ice extent. That’s it. The chart in question clearly shows that the current sea ice extent is – and has been all winter – below average. As NSIDC says adding the STD supplies context.

        I also read this sentence: “And when you exclude something, it is because you may not want it to be seen.”. Yet WUWT wasn’t excluding anything. The same chart has been on the sea ice page since it’s inception. WUWT didn’t add the newer chart that includes the STD. They didn’t exclude it. Semantics but an important point. In addition WUWT does include other charts that show only 1 STD which makes the current values look even worse than they do when compared to 2 STD. How is that possibly hiding anything? WUWT also provides a direct link to the NSIDC source. Again, no hiding anything.

        I also read through all of the posts such as this one of yours john:

        “So you believe that Watts has represented the data honestly.
        and that the std dev is immaterial, when he had to ignore the news release and hunt through an interactive graph to seek what he wanted to misrepresent”

        Do you now admit that Watts didn’t misrepresent anything? He didn’t “hunt through an interactive graph to seek what he wanted to misrepresent”. He linked to the same chart created by NSIDC that has been in use for YEARS. Have you apologized (or simply admitted) that you were wrong in your accusations? No I don’t think you have.

        Pathetic to be sure.

        • john byatt says:

          finally you agree with the post, even though you still ramble on

        • Watts is dishonest beyond belief. He had a choice of two graphs, and he chose the wrong one. When confronted with this, he feigned outrage and eventually changed it, giving the impression that it was an honest mistake. However, as mentioned over at my blog, he did exactly the same thing last year, even going to the trouble of banning a commentator who questioned it over at there. He has form on the board in the dishonesty stakes. If you choose to behave like another one of his mindless sycophants, well, that’s your problem, but as long as his echo chamber lives on, those of us who accept the science will continue to call him out on his lies and distortions so that good people can see him for what he truly is…a non-expert peddling garbage to mindless and gullible morons who engage in a bizarre kind of hero worship to satisfy his own over-inflated sense of self.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Wow uknowispeaksense how can there be a “wrong” chart? NSIDC used that chart for years until the created the new one with the STD added. It’s not “wrong” to show the data without the STD. As NSIDC states they added the STD for “context”. That doesn’t make one right or wrong. Other charts on the WUWT sea ice page do include STD.

          As far as the comment from ‘Entropic man’ that you reference he doesn’t even understand the difference between “error bars” and “standard deviation”. Maybe you don’t either? Have you seen a chart from NSIDC that includes “error bars” instead of “standard deviation”?

        • john byatt says:

          stop being a dill bill

          FFS read, absorb

          http://nsidc.org/icelights/2013/07/03/what-is-the-arctics-new-normal/

          it was the idiot who Uki replied to who thought the shading was error bars

          ,

    • john byatt says:

      Actually I think that someone at NSIDC saw the WUWT new sea ice page, with and without STD dev and decided to stuff him up and look stupid

      i can see the funny side of someone doing that

      • john byatt says:

        took a screenshot of both graphs making watts look like an idiot , for when he disappears the top one

      • Denver says:

        Dude, you are a first class idiot and really need to get a hobby. Nothing you say is remotely sane. And this comes from a full blown AGW admittist*.

        I mean do you really think what you write?

        Because if you do, you need help. You are waaaaaaaay to invested in “teh cause”.

  41. john byatt says:

    ddpalmer says:
    July 9, 2013 at 11:17 am
    “here is the public monthly news update”

    And that is not all of NSIDC’s monthly updates though is it?

    then put up the bloody link and lets see what the URL states,

    You called me a liar boofhead, now either put the link up or retract your claim

  42. […] ditto head Eric Worrall spotted an accusation at Watching the Deniers (WtD) that Anthony had doctored an Arctic Sea Ice Extent graph to conceal the fact that the decline in Arctic ice extent was more than 2 standard deviations away […]

  43. john byatt says:

    a good reason why willard should have included the er! “error bars’

    http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/entropic-man-gone.png?w=500&h=483

    • john byatt says:

      did I read that correctly? willard knew about this last year, yep he did didn’t he

      crash and burn watts

        • john byatt says:

          so all the crap about you only had to ask me was just that crap,

          eric has stuffed up and watts is forced to fix it,

          karma

        • john byatt says:

          and he had the hide to make this comment

          Anthony Watts says:
          July 8, 2013 at 1:59 am

          snip.

          Until this irrational accusation of dishonesty, nobody has complained. if you wanted it added to the sea ice page, all one has to do is ask nicely.

          so

          obviously watts had no idea that the proof that it was requested last year was out there waiting for him to tell a lie, it was brought up last year and earned someone a ban

          hoist on his own petard

    • Bill Jamison says:

      At least now you don’t have to rely on this screen cap from uki you can read all the comments for yourself.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-11-part-2-other-sources-show-no-record-low/

      It was ‘Entropic man’ that confused STD with “error bars”. No one asked Anthony Watts to add the NSIDC chart with STD to the sea ice page in that thread despite what you claim. It does show that Anthony Watts was familiar with the chart that included STD but the complaint was about not using it in that specific blog post.

  44. john byatt says:

    thought that i would cheer them up

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-09/record-low-in-central-tasmania-27like-walking-into-a-freezer27/4807874

    lived in tassy for a while, many mornings at minus 10C, wore light thermals under jeans and shirt,

    lived in a two story log cabin and was fairly self sufficient, recommend that all do that at some stage in their lives

    • I worked in Tassie as a freshwater ecologist for a couple of years. Loved traipsing all over the state in pristine first order streams, often having to break the ice to access the water during Winter. I have plans to go back there in about 10 years for good.

      • john byatt says:

        Funny during the lemonthyme protests, a lady up the road, activist, asked judy to go along to the protests with her just to see the area, she would not have to do anything and could have a picnic, along judy went.

        that night on ABC Tv the protest was in the news, most of the shots were of judy, she looked like she was running the show,

        we lived next to mt roland but loved the port sorrel area,

        • Too funny. I was based in Hobart but spent more than half my time in the field…mostly in the East and North of the state but got to spend some time in the southwest and up on the plateau. When I go back I want to base myself near Deloraine. Just the right mix to go self sufficient.

        • john byatt says:

          we had rabbits, poultry pigs and a cow ,

          grew winter crops outdoors and a lot of veg under a polyscrim greenhouse, caught trout in the dasher river down the road and every week went to pt sorrel for fishing and collecting oysters , did a bit of landscaping for the local Dr. and built hot drums for sale at the markets each saturday , was great, was time out after cancer most likely from drinking agent orange laced water in vietnam according to the surgeons.

          Deloraine is lovely though may be a bit more expensive, we purchased the log cabin on three acres for $49,000 and sold it two years later for $65,000, continued the lifestyle on ten acres in the sunshine coast hinterland,

          try truffles, people cashing in on those, amanita muscarii were growing in the pine forest opposite us in tassie but i think most of the druggies were snitching heroin poppies along the roadside,

  45. Gregory T says:

    John, would I be wrong to assume, that this whole thread, is really about the “cherry picking” habits of WUWT ?

    • john byatt says:

      No cherry picking is fine as it can be done by both sides, then explained as such

      see recent ,the climate sceptics party blog where they choose three calendar years 1990, 1998 and 2010 , draw a straight line between each and declare that it is cooling, not many would be fooled by that stupidity so it is usually ignored

      a good site to understand the disinformation of watts is

      https://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/

      another good site that corrects watts tripe is tamino word press,

      real climate do not bother but a few comments put up some of watts facepalm posts.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Pretty much ;)

  46. john byatt says:

    What they believe is not important

    According to NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier, NSIDC uses what is called a standard deviation, which measures how much the data tends to fall above or below the average. Two standard deviations, what NSIDC uses, encompass roughly 95% of the data. The remaining 5% that fall outside the deviation range are considered outliers, highlighting data that are unusual.

    “An outlier could be an error in the data, may highlight a very rare occurrence, or could indicate a trend,” Meier said. “In this case, we conduct quality control to make sure that the data are not in error. So for Arctic sea ice, we actually see the strong trend since the year 2000, which has made Arctic sea ice values in summer to be greater than two standard deviations from the 1979 to 2000 average.”

  47. Bill Jamison says:

    It’s pretty amazing to me that you could even make such a mistake since every chart on the Wattsupwiththat.com sea ice page is directly from the source. In the case of the image at hand you can click on the image to be taken directly to the source to see the original.

    But to put it in context displaying or not displaying the STD isn’t necessary to understand the current status of arctic sea ice. The chart in question clearly shows the 1981-2010 average, 2012 data and 2013 data up to the date shown. The STD isn’t necessary to know whether the current data is above or below the average. Is the STD useful? Sure. It is dishonest and unrepresentative of the data to not show the STD? Absolutely not. The STD is just more data.

    If you don’t like that specific chart there are plenty more to choose from on the sea ice page. It sure would be a lot of work to Photoshop (or MS Paint if you prefer) those images on a daily basis!

    It would have taken you only seconds to fact check yourself before accusing someone of dishonesty.

    Since you feel so strongly that this chart is “dishonest” and “flagrantly misrepresents data” are you accusing the NSIDC of dishonesty and misrepresenting data too?

    A simple “I apologize for my mistake and false accusations” probably would have been better.

    • john byatt says:

      you are way behind the comments, why not just read through first before posting this tripe?

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Was anything I posted incorrect?

        The chart isn’t hosted on WUWT and that is obvious, or should be anyway, to anyone that clicks on the chart and looks at the URL – or even just mouses over the chart.

        As I said, if the chart without the STD is “dishonest” and “misrepresents data” then it is NSIDC that is dishonest yet I don’t see anyone making that claim. The chart is simple and clean and clearly represents the data presented. No dishonesty unless you incorrectly believe it’s been changed when it wasn’t.

        This blog post still says right at the beginning “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.”. Uh no. It’s one chart. It doesn’t deny anything and it’s not cherry picked. It represents the data that NSIDC has chosen to display in a very straight forward and clear manner. Attempting to make it more than it is simply won’t work. Trying to blame WUWT for including it as one of many charts on the sea ice page is ridiculous.

        The real tripe here is this blog post. That is obvious.

      • john byatt says:

        bill watts has now put up the graph with the 2 std dev shaded,

        so mikes post was well worth getting that fixed, what was telling was that most of his followers never having seen them before thought that they were the confidence range or even error bars,

        NO NSIDC do not put up their monthly update without the std dev, the only blog which did that was watts and as willard said he just did not update the change four years ago,

        seeing you missed it i repeat for your benefit

        According to NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier, NSIDC uses what is called a standard deviation, which measures how much the data tends to fall above or below the average. Two standard deviations, what NSIDC uses, encompass roughly 95% of the data. The remaining 5% that fall outside the deviation range are considered outliers, highlighting data that are unusual.

        “An outlier could be an error in the data, may highlight a very rare occurrence, or could indicate a trend,” Meier said. “In this case, we conduct quality control to make sure that the data are not in error. So for Arctic sea ice, we actually see the strong trend since the year 2000, which has made Arctic sea ice values in summer to be greater than two standard deviations from the 1979 to 2000 average.”

        • john byatt says:

          and thus willards claims of recovery are no longer tenable when one refers to the outliers that are confirmed as trend

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I didn’t miss it and I understand what the standard deviation represents. Not including the standard deviation on a chart doesn’t change the data plotted and certainly doesn’t make it a “dishonest” chart. The chart still accurately represents the data. The chart with the standard deviation displayed simply conveys more information and indicates whether the data plotted is within the standard deviation (or in this case 2 standard deviations) or not.

          For example if you look at the most recent chart with the standard deviation included then you can easily see that although the current data is below the 1981-2010 average it is within 2 standard deviations. The chart also shows that last year’s sea ice extent was outside of 2 standard deviations low which indicates it was unusually low.

          Neither chart is “dishonest” or “misrepresents data”. Both are generated by NSIDC.

          To claim that showing the chart without the standard deviations included is “denial” or “cherry picking data” (first sentence of this blog post: “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.”) is false and dishonest.

        • What will be interesting to see is….and this is a prediction… if this years September low is not as low as last year, the Watts, Novas and McIntyres of this world start claiming 2012 as an an anomoly. What will then happen if 2014 is also not as low as 2012, they will start producing graphs with yellow highlighter trendlines claiming the Arctic is growing, conveniently ignoring the significance of 2 standard deviations.

          Another interesting thing that your comment touches on, and we have seen this already, is deniers saying the inclusion of the 2 standard deviations shows that it is currently within that band and is therefore not as bad as we are all saying. I can almost guarantee, some nutcase deniers out there, when we inevitably get an ice free summer, will claim it is within 2 standard deviations of the 2005-2015 average and so isn’t serious.

        • john byatt says:

          well NSIDC does not give you any support whatsoever

          So for Arctic sea ice, we actually see the strong trend since the year 2000, which has made Arctic sea ice values in summer to be greater than two standard deviations from the 1979 to 2000 average.”

          if you wish to hide the trend dropping below 2std dev, then use the old watts graph

          and watts knew about this last year, his claims of you only had to ask are exposed as another watts lie,

          you defend the indefensible Bill, your hero is naked and exposed

        • ddpalmer says:

          “NO NSIDC do not put up their monthly update without the std dev…”

          Yes they do. Why are you lying about this fact?

        • john byatt says:

          here is the public monthly news update

          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  48. Ian H says:

    This is a pathetic blog full of irrationality and insults and a disdain for facts; and demonstrating a complete inability to engage in civilised debate with those having a different opinion. You house a resident and pampered troll in your comments section and withhold or dissappear comments from people you disagree with. I has been some time since I read a blog quite this bad.

    Ten minutes here is probably enough to turn most uncommitted people into committed skeptics. You do nothing but harm to your cause. You won’t publish this. I don’t care. For my own personal satisfaction I just wanted to tell you what I thought of your stupid blog before I left. You are a scary irrational fanatic and I’m very glad I don’t actually know you.

    Don’t bother replying. I’m gone. Goodbye.

    • john byatt says:

      It is not about opinions Ian, it is about facts. fact is that the Arctic is heading towards a seasonal ice free state and that this already appears to be having an enormous influence on the NH jet stream, suggest you watch jennifer francis videos about how we may have already stuffed up the climate,

      no comments are ever disappeared that is a baseless lie from someone claiming the high ground

      see it was published , you had your say even though it was just nonsense.

      you probably believe that reporting the greatest ice loss last year only in the context of the record winter gain as. but that is what willard is paid to do, has admitted money from heartland, not to do science for which he is incapable but just to spread misinformation and delay the action which will have serious consequences in coming decades as it already has

    • roymustard says:

      Victimhood – check
      Concern trolling – check
      Lack of self awareness – check
      Ad hom attacks – check
      Failure to read above comment thread before commenting – check
      Bullyng – check

      Thanks for playing

  49. Carrick says:

    It seems more like john byatt can’t admit to obvious errors, proposes remediation involving yet more verbal abuse and childish name calling.

    The spot light is on you John… you really want this to be the lasting impression that people have of you?

    • john byatt says:

      well willard has admitted to his error carrick by his actions , he has added the graph with 2std dev

      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

      what gave me a laugh was that some of you were going on about error bars during the melt season but according to willard posts they are not required during the record ice gain during the winter recovery,

      carrik the only name calling here came from you lot

      Snafu ” jb you have no testicles”

      Snafu” a ventriloquist dummy has a higher IQ than you jb”

      bottom ,line carrick is that it was the flying monkeys throwing around the insults and notably willard has fixed his 4 years out of date graph page as was the purpose of the post,

      • john byatt says:

        It would also seem that mike had to censor many comments that were just over the top with disgusting insults,

        • David Smith says:

          I still don’t get it John. If you include the STD shading it demonstrates that current Arctic ice levels are within the bounds of natural variability and we therefore have nothing to worry about.
          Surely if you wanted to scare the bejesus out of people about global warming you wouldn’t want any sort of graph that demonstrates a remarkably un-scary situation?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          David a good question, and thanks for the respectful manner you have posed the question.

          You’ll note that the 2012 sea-ice extent is not merely below the average, but well below the SDs. This context matters.

          Stating 2012 was below average is meaningless unless there is a broader context. How much below the average? What are the long term trends we should be measuring this against? What are the year-to-year variations of sea-ice extent?

          Well the SDs are an important way to measure and track this very question.

          Excluding the SDs fails to show how much dramatic the decline of sea-ice was in 2012. This is important information about the state of the cyrosphere and the health of the Arctic.

          If this years sea-ice extent falls below the average and then plummets below the SDs as well then it tells us – and the world – something important.

          A few sceptics have claimed it does not matter – and while it seems a small point to some, the contextual presentation of information matters.

          If the NSIDC has elected to privilege the presentation of data in one manner on its homepage and in its communications, then it is beholden to everyone to follow their lead. They have done so since 2009. That’s four years to bring the presentation of data into line with their practice.

          Now, I made what I thought was a throw away line about photoshop which Mr. Watts requested I remove and apologise for – I have done both. I’ve admitted my error publically. It was intended as satire but it fell flat, as such things are to do on occasion.

          However, how much longer do some people want to stay mired in their sense of outrage?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          A sense a great deal of that ;)

          Note: that wink was intended to imply I see the funny side in this as well , in case anyone missed the implication :)

        • D. J. Hawkins says:

          If he censored boorish stupidity, you’d never show up on his site. Really, you are too dim to breath without assistance.

          The graph Watts displayed that caused Mike’s hissy fit is NOT out of date. It’s a current NSIDC product. There’s no “error” to be corrected. Where is it written, “Thou shalt display all graphs with 2SD boundaries”? Who declared 2SD boundaries were “std practise”? Like an indulgent parent, Watts has provided a new toy for the whining children to giggle over.

          And now that you have your 2SD boundaries, what of substance do you think it reveals?

        • john byatt says:

          another insult,

          called it yesterday and was correct

          john byatt says:
          July 8, 2013 at 8:13 am
          they do update it greg just do not use it in the monthly reports, have not done so for years,

          once things quieten down willard will do a mea culpa and put up the correct one.

          watch that space

          yep exactly as predicted

        • Keenly judged, Mr Byatt. Keenly judged. Watts’ readership will not have noticed.

        • ddpalmer says:

          So John, how many of your posts with disgusting comments were in that group of censored comments?

        • john byatt says:

          do not go to watts blog old fella,

  50. john byatt says:

    for late arrivals

    “The original chart Watts was showing actually looked worse and now thanks to this website, he will be showing the one with the 2 sd”

    outcome from afternoon shitfight?

    willard watts will conform to std practise, well done for accepting that you were wrong willard

  51. Scientific American treats Watts as spam. “teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.”

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/

    • David Smith says:

      Oh, so Scientific American is embarrassed about Al Gore.
      Isn’t he the one whose film got the whole global warming thing out there for all the world to see?
      Does Scientific American think that “An Inconwenient Trooth” is actually an inconvenient embarrassment?

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        David, they’re not embarrassed by Al Gore. They know that people who pepper their insults with “Al Gore” and “Scam” have been directed their by sceptic blogs. Indeed, merely have a look at the comments here.

      • No David, they just know that every denier worth his two cents loves to play the Gore card, like it means something.

      • I wish I enjoyed Mr Smith’s complete lack of self-awareness.

        On the topic of the movie, Gore was substantially correct, with some minor errors. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_lies_in_Inconvenient_Truth. That’s almost the inverse of the Wattsonian universe.

        My favourite Al Gore riposte, for those who jump up and down about his seaside house, is to ask of them, “how many tens of metres is Al Gore’s seaside house above sea level?”. As yet, once confronted by this question, none has responded.

  52. M Bearpig says:

    I don’t really see how the graphic with 2sd showing bolsters the case, If anything, the chart that Watts chose to use shows the current sea ice is well below normal, but the chart with 2 sd shows it to be within normality.

    The original chart Watts was showing actually looked worse and now thanks to this website, he will be showing the one with the 2 sd

    • john byatt says:

      sounds like he finally got it, watts fixes his dodgy graph after being called out by WTD

      • ddpalmer says:

        As has been pointed out to you numerous times it is not his graph, dodgy or not. It is NSIDC’s graph.

        • I’ll make this very simple. Anthony Watts’ choice of graph without the stdev’s is the dodgy act. He is also now pretending that if he’d been made aware he would have changed it. I pointed out on my blog that he tried this same crap last year and resorted to blocking people who complained. He was dishonest then and now he has been caught out lying yet again, this time by playing dumb. Get that through your thick skull and drop the whole “it’s not his graph” crap. We know its not his graph and you know we know its not his graph but still you persist with this childish game. Fuck off and grow up loser.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          You’ve summed me up Mike. As I’ve stressed again, the choice of which graph to present – regardless of the source – matters a great deal. I’ve come across further evidence of Watts misrepresentation of this data, other bloggers and commentators have found the same problem. Time to put the pieces together.

        • Apologies for the language Mike. These idiots are tiresome.

        • john byatt says:

          dodgy as they come

          So for Arctic sea ice, we actually see the strong trend since the year 2000, which has made Arctic sea ice values in summer to be greater than two standard deviations from the 1979 to 2000 average.”

          if you wish to hide the trend dropping below 2std dev, then use the old watts graph

          and watts knew about this last year, his claims of you only had to ask are exposed as another watts lie,

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Thanks John, my point exactly – it is why presenting the SDs (or 2std dev) matters… a new post is forming in my mind using further evidence. This ain’t over yet ;)

        • john byatt says:

          you have more patience than me mike

        • john byatt says:

          so is that it?

          ddpalmer says:
          July 9, 2013 at 9:10 am
          “NO NSIDC do not put up their monthly update without the std dev…”

          Yes they do. Why are you lying about this fact?

          john byatt says:
          July 9, 2013 at 9:13 am
          here is the public monthly news update

          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

        • ddpalmer says:

          And I’ll make it even simpler for you oknowispeaksense, it isn’t his graph it is NSIDC’s. That should be even simple enough for you.

        • Learn to read you dopey moron.

        • ddpalmer says:

          “here is the public monthly news update”

          And that is not all of NSIDC’s monthly updates though is it?

        • ddpalmer says:

          Oh don’t worry oknowispeaksense I can read just fine. I can also make comments without resorting to ad hominems.

          And it still is NSIDC’s graph. So why does john byatt keep insisting it is Watt’s?

        • Keitho says:

          I wonder why he keeps referencing “willard”. What the hell does willard have to do with all of this?

          Here is a presentation by Murry Salby that he may want to run past his handlers

          http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/another-nail-in-the-climate-change-coffin.php

          I also wonder why our host and a concerned somebody are never seen together.

        • Salby? Oh please. Got anything of his that has actually passed peer review? There are plenty of papers demonstrating that the CO2 rise is indeed from anthropogenic sources. You know…carbon isotopes and all?

        • An aggregator must still exercise his duty of care or cease aggregating. At best, it was sloppy of Mr Watts.

        • ddpalmer says:

          So it was sloppy of Mr Watts to link to a graph published by NSIDC?

          Obviously NSIDC believes the graph without the SD’s still presents relevant and correct data or they wouldn’t produce and publish it.

        • Watts failed in his duty of care.

        • ddpalmer says:

          “Watts failed in his duty of care.”

          How? By providing a valid graph produced and published by a valid source?

        • If you don’t quality check your aggregation, don’t aggregate.

        • ddpalmer says:

          If you’re not going to answer the question, then don’t bother posting drivel.

          And what is wrong with the graph’s quality? Are you claiming NSIDC’s graph isn’t using quality data?

        • My dear Mr Palmer, Mr Watts chose to publish a poor representation. He has now, apparently, chosen a better representation. You can outsource your data, you cannot outsource your responsibility for that data.

        • ddpalmer says:

          Mr Samuel. Mr Watts chose to link to a valid graph produced and published by NSIDC using valid data. The fact that there is a version of the graph with more data that some people feel makes for a better graph is irrelevant. The graph without SD’s is valid and correct.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Valid in the sense the NSIDC elected to use a more detailed and nuanced version four years ago.

        • Mr Watts had selected the poorer representation, now has selected a better one. We should congratulate both WtD for pointing out the problem and WUWT for recognising and recognising and repairing the problem.

          There isn’t a teapot small enough to take this tempest.

    • Yet another one confusing stdev with confidence intervals. Hilarious.

      • john byatt says:

        you missed them yesterday, they all showed the same confusion, that is what happens when you accept anything that willard posts

  53. Dang says:

    “If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!”

    I’m more than puzzled by this statement. Both graphs clearly show the 1981-2010 average line and thus show that sea is below average. How does removing the SD information in any way NOT show that sea-ice is below average? Incorporation of the SD information does demonstrate that sea ice is currently within 2 SDs of average.

  54. suyts says:

    LMAO!!! Yes, SD’s are soooo important to the annual ice races. They hold sooo much meaning to all watching. The hilarious thing is the author, here, didn’t bother to look at other graphs Anthony has displayed for years….. oh, looky!!!! Here’s one with one SD plotted! http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext_small.png …… Yep, if you go to Anthony’s ice page, it’s right there, where it has been for years.

    At any rate, Watching, you’re wrong on both counts. No, it wasn’t an act of deception by Anthony. But, any rational individual would know that. And, two, any person knowledgeable about the ice extent would already have a pretty good idea about what the SD is. But, in the broader terms of climate change, it holds very little meaning at all. 99% of the ice watchers only watch it for the annual races of min/max, to where they consider it as an implication itself.

    After a strange encounter with a warmist on my blog, and now this, I’m forced to wonder if warmists understand the meaning of such statistics. Where is the ice at in relation to the standard deviation of the last 12 years? Hilarious. Like the evil conservatives bitterly clinging to their guns and bibles, warmists bitterly cling to the notion that in 1979 the SIE was the norm. They, of course, have no idea whether it was or wasn’t, but, that’s the game we all play.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      James,

      Are you no insulting Tol, who you were so nice to on your blog? Certainly you can’t be referring to me, since I am a skeptic, and apply skeptical principles to any science I encounter that is controversial.
      Your attempt to present current arctic ice as normal is about as credible, as calling Hitler a leftist, or saying that the republican party is responsible for the civil rights movement.
      Watts, Goddard, bastardi, and just about every other denier blog has been INSISTING we are in recovery from an “anomalous” 2007, and then embarrassed themselves subsequently with their predictions. As you know I was on Steve’s ass since last APril on almost every post he made about the arctic when he started taunting deniers and proclaimed a new record minimum was virtually impossible. And he banned me a couple of weeks before the record actually happened.

      Apparently this post was a mistake, as far as photoshopping goes, though a reasonable one to make, since so many deniers have been shown to use fraudulent data and graphs, including Lindzen’s bogus “presentation to parliament” last year.
      That said there should be a correction .

      All on has to do is look at the IJIS data and anyone who believes that the current melt is not unprecedented in the last 1500 years, can only grasp at straws by cherry picking historical anecdotes ( and not nuclear submarine pictures.
      No doubt there have been periods of decreased arctic ice RELATIVE to the years preceding.
      I still doubt that this year will be a new record minimum, but I would NOT be shocked if it was even with the relatively very high extent that we saw in May and early june. As I have said my guess is around 4.3-4.5.
      to have any credibility the deniers would have to be right about a minimum of over 5 or even 6 to start to question the death spiral. Again look at the IJIS numbers,. and of course I am ignoring volume.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, you’re giving yourself too much credit. No, you were not in mind when I wrote this comment. Still the laughable notion that someone can tell us what the ice extent was 1500 years back and all the extent forward to today tells us you are not skeptical. Quit pretending. Just because someone puts it in a paper doesn’t mean it isn’t anecdotal. Anything going back 1500 years is, by definition, anecdotal. At that point, I want you, and the rest of the people to start pretending they actually know what anecdotal means and connotates. Yes, one can measure things from the past, but only by subjective thoughts on how they apply to today. Mostly by the thought that things don’t change, all the while knowing that things always change.

        Anecdotal, how stupid. Here isn’t some anecdotal notes. Fact, Vikings harvested rye in Greenland. Anecdotal, we think from sediments that temps were X back when, because today, it would be so. Let’s try to learn the words and distinguish the two…. Subjective and Objective.

        You see, objectively we know this happened. The Vikings did harvest and plant rye in Greenland. It’s been historically recorded and we’ve found empirical evidence this has occurred. Notions about ice extent are “subjective” and given the last beclowing of proxy derived paper, we know and understand that the lunatics have no clue as to what they’re babbling about. So, it is subjective conjecture…… derived from anecdotal evidence.

        • The laws of physics don’t change. What you call anecdotal data based on proxies relies on the assumption that the physical processes of today also applied in the past. There is nothing subjective about it. If you have some sortofevidencethat the Laws of physics were different in the past, you would need to produce some extraordinary evidence. I know other people who talk like you do. They claim that light travelled faster in the past and that is why in a 6000 year old world we can see stars that are billions of light years away.

          But here’s the rub. If you want to deny whole branches of science because they rely on subjective proxies, then you should reject all of geology, all of biology, most of medicine….in fact, you should probably reject nearly all scientific disciplines because they all rely on the basic assumption that the Laws of physics don’t change and they have all used proxies at times. The reason people like you reject climate science isn’t because of perceived flaws in methodology, it is because of flaws in your critical thinking skills and because it clashes with your ideology, your relilgion, or your selfish way of life.

          So, rather than waffle on about Vikings, which by the way does absolutely nothing to refute the scientific evidence for climate change or more specifically the evidence for sea ice extent, bringforth your astounding evidence that the laws of physics were different and biased the proxies.

        • john byatt says:

          ouch

        • suyts says:

          @Uknow….. please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say any of the sort of what you’re babbling about. I’m making the distinction between anecdotal and empirical, subjective vs objective. All of it, of course, has some anecdotal and subjective aspects in it.

          No, the laws of physics don’t change. However, our assumptions regarding some of the proxies are based upon things that do change. Such as, flora and fauna range, tolerated temperature range, and of course the divergence problem….

          I don’t discount the science behind proxy studies. I weigh them. I do, of course, discount the math applied to many. And, the application of some of the proxies in an inappropriate manner…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/hockey-stick-found-in-marcott-data/ And, of course, tree ring studies aren’t based on anything other than pure speculation and conjecture, in that perennials can carry a signal from 10-60 years in their annual rings. If I ever get around to ice cores, and sediments, I’m sure I’ll find equally stupid applications in attempts to advance ideology.

        • I suspect you have very little idea of what goes into the analysis of proxies. However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and look forward to your paper.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          UKnow,
          James refuses to publish ANY of his papers even though he has pretty much disproved all the basis for ACC. He has shown that climate scientists are idiots and “nutters” over and over again, in fields from climatology to geology, to biology. He blew away those silly sea level raising myths by showing sea level actually DECREASED a few years ago. Absolutely demolishing the idea that the world was warming. for what else could it mean if sea level is falling?
          He has also exposed the “Warm/cold”, “flood/drought” Orwelian speak of these charlatans. Did you KNOW that Europe had a record cold winter last year???? and it has RAINED in these areas that are supposedly having droughts.
          I have repeatedly told him to publish his work that destroys almost every single claim of the warmists, but he insists that is not of any interest to him.
          I of course have berated him repeatedly for being a traitor to true science by refusing to do this and that the he bears much of the blame for the destruction of the world economy because of the trillions that are and will be wasted on a fake crisis. He maintains that posting in his blog is quite enough.
          But I maintain that refusing to publish his work means that all the young scientists starting out will be ensorceled by the warmist propaganda at the socialist universities and he is denying the next generation of scientist the TRUTH so that they can put an end to this perversion of science called CAGW.
          Some nutters have dared to say his science would (shall we say) encounter some issues if critiqued by other experts if put into the arena of peer review, but that seems extremely unlikely considering the renaissance nature of his output and adherence to actual science.
          and as we see here, he sees through the foolishness of these “proxies” that are both unreliable as anything but anecdote and fraudulently manipulated to prove CAGW. Vikings grew Rye in Greenland in the past so until they do so again there can be NO UNUSUAL warming. It is all part of natural variation.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          James,

          I am quite skeptical of all science that I bother to look into. I do not “just believe” that the arctic has not been this low in 1500 years. I think it is quite possible that the current understanding is wrong. When i see actual scientific evidence that points toward it being wrong, I will change my assessment.
          However I am quite amazed at the incredible tools that researchers have ben able to utilize in order to determine these sort of issues, and i see no reason to believe that they are purposefully falsifying or ignoring data to support ACC. i do consider it quite possible that confirmation bias can play a significant role, but i also understand how dedicated most scientists are to being accurate and actually increasing our body of knowledge on these issues. Science i know and have known a number of scientists and none have evinced any sort of arrogance or dismissal of valid arguments against their position, I am of the opinion that there are enough honest capable scientists that such conformation bias would not last for a very long time as it would invariably lead to untenable conclusions if the science in fact contradicted the beliefs of those involved.
          Of course the only person here that is throwing out anecdotes is you with the Vikings and their rye. If you can point out to me one climate scientist who is an expert in the arctic who denies this, I will be happy to deeply question any assertions they make. Anecdotes are of course important, in this case I am pretty sure it is accurate and that Greenland was warmer than it is today 10000 years ago, and that some very limited farming was practiced. this does not say anything scientifically about the arctic. I am assuming that the viking settlements were all in the south of Greenland. If you have anecdotal evidence of farming on Ellesmere island or Svalsbard, I will IMMEDIATELY start questioning the science and the scientists much more critically than I already do.
          Once again I appreciate your understanding that you know much more than the trained experts in the field, and I look forward to your providing actual research that validly indicates that.

      • David Smith says:

        “not unprecedented in the last 1500 years”.
        Aah, so do you admit the arctic has been ice free before then? Because it has, and the world didn’t come to an end in a fire-ball of death.
        I’m sure the arctic will be ice-free again some time in the future. It’s absolutely nothing to worry about.
        However, if it’s nothing to worry about alarmists would have one less thing to get all shouty about.

  55. ferd berple says:

    Adding a standard deviation to a graph assumes we know the distribution of the data. Given the short time we have been monitoring polar ice, this seems unlikely. From wikipedia:

    Unbiased sample standard deviation
    For unbiased estimation of standard deviation, there is no formula that works across all distributions, unlike for mean and variance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

  56. Chuck Nolan says:

    From Wikipidia: Northwest Passage

    “In 1906, Roald Amundsen first successfully completed a path from Greenland to Alaska in the sloop Gjøa.[13] Since that date, several fortified ships have made the journey.”
    ——————————————————————–
    Was that just GW and not that worse misfortune to ever befall mankind, CAGW?
    I recall reading they unearthed farms in Greenland.

    I’m not sure what has some people so worried about the Arctic ice and global warming but warmth and CO2 are at the very least necessary for life and in general somewhat beneficial.

    Beyond that, how do you expect a Cap & Trade Scheme to reverse CAGW?
    Those in power, choosing how they will regulate, tax and give away our money have not presented a solution to what they want us to believe is an end of the world problem. Although C & T would never control the temperature it is a system with a never ending stream of revenue that they can control with the tweak of their thermometer.

    I believe people concerned with CAGW are mostly the young and naive and believe we are destroying the earth so the only fix is to cut back and to sacrifice.
    From watching world leaders in action for so many years I believe the rest are just run of the mill self serving liars and crooks.

    I agree with just about, nearly, almost everybody, climate changes.
    Without energy life is brutal and short.
    cn

    • Science advances one generation at a time. As the old die out the new truths are accepted.

    • john byatt says:

      the climate or global temperature only changes due to forcings, it is not some magical unknown response to nothing,

      it is currently being forced into a higher global temperature due to increasing greenhouse gases due to human activities,

      not even watts would dispute that, with the science settled on that score the deniers have no where else to go but claim that the temperature data is wrong except for the last sixteen years of course or that climate sensitivity is low while claiming that the MWP was warmer which would confirm that it would be a lot higher than we believe,

      sick of this, climate is always changing drivel

  57. roymustard says:

    The hypocrisy here is staggering. If this were a Watts post, the majority of critical comments would be snipped, identities demanded and tacit threats issued. Seeing Watts on his high horse for a minor error, the kind his site makes daily, is quite surreal. Much easier to pick on this than, say, call out Tamino.

    • Richard M says:

      We will see how many of my comments are still here tomorrow. I have a feeling this site doesn’t like facts.

      • Watts’ site certainly doesn’t. I hope Mike doesn’t copy Tony.

      • john byatt says:

        Oh richard we love people who regard themselves as having more knowledge than organisations such as NSIDC, you are a real hoot sunshine,

        • Richard M says:

          I never said I have more knowledge than NSIDC. I simply pointed out a completely non-controversial fact that applying statistics to a poor set of data is not useful. In fact, it can be very misleading.

          I then pointed out there are known cycles that could impact the Arctic sea ice. I pointed out that the sea ice does in fact correlate to the AMO. I pointed out that the Antarctic sea ice also correlates to the Southern Ocean temperatures. All of these throw doubts on the data being used for statistical examination.

          Now, you can still argue whether the data is good or poor but trying to say my statistics arguments are wrong is just plain silly. And, throwing out silly strawman arguments like this one is absurd. It makes it more than obvious that science and data do form the basis of your beliefs.

        • John,you best leave him alone. He is an authority. Just ask him.

        • john byatt says:

          ” It makes it more than obvious that science and data do form the basis of your beliefs.”

          silly me

    • Keitho says:

      That is absolute nonsense and you know it. Read the threads at WUWT and compare the contrary views expressed with any other science blog covering climate change.

      Calling accustations of fraud a “minor error” is absurd. Point out unsubstantiated accusations of fraud on WUWT please. You seem to be one more activist with a tenuous grasp of the truth.

      • “Time to prosecute the IPCC for fraud?”
        “Has the Met Office committed fraud?”
        Fraud is one of Tony’s favourite phrases. And then it backfires to our great amusement.

        • Keitho says:

          Instead of responding in cryptographic style why not just answer my questions. Perhaps you are trying to point out a squirrel but I am not distracted.

        • john byatt says:

          thanks for that chuckle keitho, do you know the meaning of cryptic?

      • Those are two Watts headlines. He projects. So, it appears, do you.

      • snrksnrk says:

        Looking at the comments at Watts’ cesspool of idiocy, I notice that dissenters are harassed by moderators, moderated, and then banned.

        • Gregory T says:

          I think you will find that Watts is a graduate of the Limbaugh, Bill O’Riley, Blog school of communication.

    • charliexyz says:

      So RoyMustard, in your world falsely accusing someone of unethical behavior and photoshopping graphs is a “minor error”?

    • David Smith says:

      Why would the “majority of critical comments” be snipped at WUWT? They’re not – just ask Nick Stokes.

      People get snipped when they start getting shouty and throw around the ‘denier’ word. Such a word upsets a lot of people because of its (implicit) link with holocaust denial.
      Me? I don’t care what you call me: sceptic/denialist/big oil shill/etc. Name calling doesn’t change my mind that the man-made global warming ‘crisis’ is a load of old rubbish. (Note that I don’t use the catch-all phrase ‘climate change’. The climate has always changed. Always has and always will. There’s no denying that).

  58. Well, it seems I really missed out on the fun. Two visits from the crybaby himself and one of them issuing orders no less. Not to mention the countless strange and sycophantic defences of the crybaby from his hoard of flying monkeys. What an entertaining read. I personally would have liked to engage the big sook since he banned me from commenting over at his blog despite not breaking any of his rules except for the “don’t type anything Anthony doesn’t want to his cheer squad to read because it makes him look like the tool he is” rule. Oh well. Next time, you are visited by flying monkeys, I expect an email Mike. Flying monkeys are some of my favourite things.

    • Richard M says:

      I suspect you know a lot about flying monkeys. It’s clear you know nothing of mathematics.

      • Oh you have no idea about me,but I do not a lot about you. When you grow up, perhaps I can give you a lesson or two about stats. Actually, no, perhaps you can give me a lecture. Tell me Dick, why is it wrong to calculate the standard deviations on this kind of data? Be specific now. You might want to use some appropriate terminology like variance, central limit theorum, coefficient, Chebyshev’s inequality. You know? Those basic things and how they apply to the problem or in your argument, don’t apply. Oh, and should the data set be considered dicrete or continuous, when we have the satellite data for the whole cycle as you demand? I’ll won’t holdmy breath waiting for your detailed answer.

      • Richard M says:

        “why is it wrong to calculate the standard deviations on this kind of data?”

        Because you don’t know what the average is until you complete a cycle. You don’t have enough data to know the variance. This is mind-bogglingly simple stuff. I already explained why this fails in my analogy. For example, summer temperatures in higher latitudes are often quite flat with little variance. The std dev over a summer would be quite small. If you tried to use that to explain spring and fall temperatures you would be way off the mark. Your average would be too high and your variance too small. You would see huge deviations that are not based on sound principles. It doesn’t work because you don’t have a full cycles worth of data. You don’t even know the true average.

        Now, if you only wanted to look at summer temperatures ONLY then you would be fine. You could compare one summers values to the numbers collected over several previous summers. However, in this case (NSIDC) they are using the data incorrectly. They would need to compare now to other times where the ocean cycles were similar. They did not do that.

        You can stop holding your breath now. This is about as simple as you can get. Remember the rule of holes.

        • Moronic beyond belief. I gave you plenty of opportunity to explain in some detail and yet you only offer more of the vague and wrong assertions. Nevermind. Let me know when you get your new statistical techniques or a critique of the stats used by NSIDC published.

        • Richard M says:

          Perfectly valid explanation is denied. You can’t make this stuff up. Your only response is name calling and some kind of vague appeal to authority. The silly thing is you are having a discussion with a person with a math degree An authority on statistics. You are talking with an authority and you want appeal to non-mathematicians as your self appointed authority.

          Talk about pure denial.

        • Too funny. You are claiming to be an authority in stats and you reference Bob Tisdale. Wow! You could give Eric Worrall a run for his money.

        • so Mr Authority, please provide a reference to one of your papers.

  59. Swiss Bob says:

    “The record of my transparency, openness and honesty is here for the entire world to see and judge. ”

    Very droll.

  60. Lew Skannen says:

    You had a chance to make a simple and necessary apology but instead you tried to pretend that you still had a point. You do not and you are not consistent in your criticism.
    You complain because WUWT did not present a graph in the form that YOU want but you are not too bothered when wild claims are made by others if they suit your agenda.
    Have you ever demanded that IPCC projections of future temperature be accompanied by error bars? Have you ever demanded ‘context’ when cherry picked alarmist claims are aired on sites like SkS? I have looked over your site and see nothing to indicate that you are in any way even handed as you are now trying to claim. The title of your sad little page gives it away, of course.
    So will you now be reporting on those deniers who deny that the global temperature has been stagnant for the last 16 years?
    I doubt it.

    • Richard M says:

      The kind of behavior at this site is typical of the projection we see from dishonest people. They see their own behavior in others. Quite telling.

      • you’ve just labelled some people dishonest….classic projection

        • Richard M says:

          uknowuspeaknonsense, obviously you haven’t read up on projection. It is most often observed in narcissists who have been known to be quite dishonest. Sorry to confuse you with facts.

        • Gee, you messed with my pseudonym. How original. Haven’t seen that before. Oh hang on, yes I have. Children do that sort of thing.

        • Richard M says:

          Anyone who uses an identifier like yours clearly has problems. You are obviously trying to assert your abilities rather than let your words speak for themselves. This is typical narcissistic behavior.

    • john byatt says:

      “Have you ever demanded that IPCC projections of future temperature be accompanied by error bars”

      this is not even wrong, it is an absurd comment if one reads IPCC AR4

      • Lew Skannen says:

        It is quite correct. Although the IPCC sometimes provide error bars how often are these error bars shown when the IPCC graphs are bandied about in the media?
        in the MSM they are never mentioned. And to total silence from this site.

  61. Sundance says:

    Unprofessional, unaccountable and unacceptable Mike. Thought you were better than this.

  62. Bill Marsh says:

    “The record of my transparency, openness and honesty is here for the entire world to see and judge. ”

    So your original post calls Watts dishonest and accused him of ‘doctoring’ the NSIDC graph. Now you edit the post to remove that and fail to acknowledge your error in making the accusation. Then you pontificate about your ‘honesty’? An ‘honest’ man would have acknowledged that he was in error

  63. Lara K. says:

    I don’t understand at all. Why censor my question? Again, is this all you have to say about a huge denier as Watts? This is beyond absurd.

    And, why is it ok to post insults if they are directed at deniers? What are the standards here?

    You are quickly losing my respect.

    • john byatt says:

      you mean like this one lara

      snafu says:
      July 8, 2013 at 10:20 am
      BTW JB, that ventriloquist’s dummy has a higher IQ than you.

      no he is not directing the insult at a denier, he is a denier, a contrail conspiracy theorist to boot

    • Lara K. says:

      I am in shock.

      I stumble on that crazed Watts that seems to be able to make denial claim after denial claim unchallenged. Thankfully, you stand up.. until it turns out you made it all up. I can ignore an error in judgement but, again, do we have nothing substantial to throw at Watts? Nothing at all?

      This Watts publishes several articles A DAY, any one of which sinks our boat. Are you telling me that we don’t have a single answer to this?

      And, john byatt, please stay away from me. This whole thing is clearly out of your league.

      • With all due respect Lara, if you think Watts “sinks our boat” with any of his posts, you are sadly mistaken. He and his ilk have nothing to go on in terms of science and so have to rely on propaganda and lies to make their inherently wrong case. Please don’t elevate his unscientific nonsense to any level where you think it is actually important. Watts’ main aim in life is to seek adoration from sycophantic imbeciles. His “tip jar” probably has a bearing on things too.

        As for your unprovoked attack on John Byatt, I would have to question whether any of this is in YOUR league given the status you give to Watts’ garbage.

      • john byatt says:

        you are in shock?

        “do we have nothing substantial to throw at Watts? Nothing at all?”

        “sinks our boat?”

        “that we don’t have a single answer to this?’

        you sound like a follower of watts putting up this ignorance

        sorry did not work you are too obvious

  64. The episode is quite shabby really. There should be no warmistas and no deniers, just patient and pains-taking seekers after truth, respectfully listening to each other.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Harry thanks for your thoughts, that is a dream we should all share.

      But science and scientists have been under political attack for decades. May I suggest “Merchants of Doubt” as an authoritative, well researched work of history using solid evidence. It shows the decades long campaign to discredit the science and attack the reputation of scientists. http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

      One of the great moral leaders against slavery in United States was a man named William Lloyd Garrison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison

      He wrote:

      ““I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — and I will be heard.”

      I am no Garrison, but his point is clear. There are times when loud, clear voices are needed to say “no”.

      So here on this blog I’m saying “no” to the misrepresentation of science. I’m saying “no” to the deliberate campaign to undermine trust in science and scientists. I’m saying “no” to the disinformation that pollutes our debates in everything from climate change, refugees and politics.

      When in error, I admit that mistake. But there is a time to say “no” to lies and disinformation.

    • john byatt says:

      how can one have respect for a paid for misinformer like watts?

      how many times has he claimed that the arctric sea ice is recovering, the arse is dropping out of it, that harry is denial

      • janama says:

        No one is claiming that the arctic is not receding. But it’s not receding at the predicted rate and there is no evidence it’s receding because of global warming.

        Oh why am I posting here? I might as well go bash my head up against the nongs at Deltoid if I feel like being really stupid!

      • Keitho says:

        Who, pray tell, is paying AW for Wattsupwiththat.com ?

      • David Smith says:

        Exactly who do you think is paying Mr Watts?
        If you’re trying to use the hackneyed “Big Oil Shill” accusation, you’d best have some evidence.

        BTW I don’t work for “Big Oil”, but they’re always welcome to send some money my way :)

      • Humility is the greatest virtue.

        WTD has shown it here.

        Correcting one’s own mis-steps when pointed out is NOT easy, but it pays large rewards. Having done so myself, I can say it leads to new and more accurate perspectives, ones that are more helpful than one’s old ones.

        Kudos to you, WTD, for elevating the conversation. I hope it will be reciprocated.

        A Concern Person.

    • I do hope Mr Dowling has at least attempted to express this same view on Mr Watts’ blog.

  65. Jon says:

    It is also necesery to spell your headlines correctly if you want to be taken seriously.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks for the tip Jon, noted and corrected.

      Long time readers know I have dyslexia. With the extra traffic I’m having to moderate some offensive posts. In such circumstances mistakes will happen. Anyone familiar with this disability appreciates such mistakes will increase in these circumstances. However, my intent is ensure comments from people come through. I’d hate to give the impression they’ve been censored.

      Thanks for stopping by and assisting with the proof reading.

      Cheers Mike @ WtD

  66. Nancy C says:

    I have a few comments for anyone reading who might be concerned about the complaints raised here.

    First, if you haven’t already, go look at the sea ice page on wuwt that so you can know what’s being discussed.

    First thing you might notice is that (as of now) Watts still hasn’t updated the link to the stddev graph. I think he should. More information is almost always better.

    Second thing you might notice is that there actually is quite a bit of information there. There are lots of graphs: long term ones, spaghetti type ones, and, surprise surprise, graphs from other sources that actually DO show standard deviation shading. Interestingly, those ones show only a single sigma, which to an untrained eye, makes the current ice extent look even farther afield from “normal” than a 2 sigma shading would (current levels are completely outside of 1 sigma but still slightly inside 2 sigma). In any case, I think all the information you’d need in order to understand how current ice levels compare to recent years and the satellite record as a whole is provided. If the graph discussed here were the ONLY information given on his site there might be some room for complaint. When you look at the whole package of info provided, I think it becomes a fairly silly complaint.

    Something else that should be very, very obvious: no one’s actually forcing Watts to host *any* information about arctic sea ice at all. But he does, even though it’s probably not the friendliest data to his point of view.

    I thought that was all, but I just noticed one more thing:

    In Watts’ *antarctic* sea ice section, he uses another identically formatted graph, the exact same one discussed here, without the 2 sigma shading, and from the exact same source, but just for the southern hemisphere rather than the northern. Presumably, the use of this graph deserves JUST as much condemnation as the arctic one, and for the exact same reasons, but I see nothing here about it. Maybe this is a good suggestion for an upcoming blog topic you can use? For the assist:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

    (the one watts actually uses)

    vs.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

    (the one he “should” be using)

    Hopefully I don’t need to elaborate on what my point is here.

    Anyway….

    To sum up, I agree that the stddev graph is a slightly better graph, particularly when it’s presented in isolation (which it’s not on Watts’ page). But it seems unlikely to me that he had nefarious motivations, or really any specific motivation for using the one he did over that other one. His own story, that he’s just had the same url for the png coded into his page for years, seems more plausible than the idea that he honestly thought he was going to trick someone by not having some shading on that one particular graph.

    But whatever…I know at this point, even though the photoshopping accusation has been withdrawn and redacted, that’s really what’s still motivating the additional complaints. All of us have a natural face saving instinct and we want to find a special way of looking at things so that we’re still kind of right even when we’re clearly shown to be wrong. I’m sure that little matter of pride is the only remaining reason to try to find other things to complain about with this graph. I sympathize with you, though. I think everyone has been in your shoes on this kind of thing before.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks for you thoughtful comments Nancy.

    • john byatt says:

      I have noticed that sometimes watts does not update the graphs, for what reason i do not know, but sometimes they are left way out of date especially if he has a blog post about how the arctic ice is recovering for the umpteemth time

      https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

      you can trust these to be udpdated as when info is available

    • Richard M says:

      Putting in statistics based on half a cycle is silly. It is beyond comprehensible that any intelligent person would support that kind of nonsense. You can’t have any statistical knowledge without a full set of data. Sorry.

      I can certainly tell that few of the regulars here have any kind of mathematical background. If you want to talk about statistics I suggest you educate yourself first.

    • janama says:

      Well said Nancy – surely anyone who has been following the global warming debate for the past years is fully versed on the different sea ice extent charts and their meanings. I check them regularly to see if the predictions made 5 years ago that the arctic would be ice free in 5 years have materialised.

  67. charliexyz says:

    I look forward to seeing blogposts about the horrible way that IPCC misrepresents by leaving the error bands out of most of their graphs.

    Or not.

    Double standard, anyone?

  68. […] As some readers may have noticed, Mr. Watts of the sceptical blog Watts up with that and I have been engaged in some friendly debate over the nature of sea-ice graphs. […]

    • son of mulder says:

      “”louploup2 says July 8, 2013 at 9:49 pm

      “You are operating out of ignorance since there is no proven cycle that is applicable to the data being evaluated.””

      Try this

      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034011/article

      “However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered.” SIE is Sea ice Extent.

      Now on another subject you need to rush over to

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/ocean-acidi-what/

      where some upstart of a chemical engineer has poured cold water over Ocean Acidification scare mongering.

      • john byatt says:

        do not pick out the bits you like it only proves that you do not have a clue

        The observed dramatic decrease in September sea ice extent (SIE) has been widely discussed in the scientific literature. Though there is qualitative agreement between observations and ensemble members of the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3), it is concerning that the observed trend (1979–2010) is not captured by any ensemble member. The potential sources of this discrepancy include: observational uncertainty, physical model limitations and vigorous natural climate variability. The latter has received less attention and is difficult to assess using the relatively short observational sea ice records. In this study multi-centennial pre-industrial control simulations with five CMIP3 climate models are used to investigate the role that the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) play in decadal sea ice variability. Further, we use the models to determine the impact that these sources of variability have had on SIE over both the era of satellite observation (1979–2010) and an extended observational record (1953–2010). There is little evidence of a relationship between the AO and SIE in the models. However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered. Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability

        • son of mulder says:

          So there is a cycle that is applicable to the data being evaluated. Louoloup2 said there wasn’t.

      • I’ll ignore your citation of Watts’ blog because it isn’t peer reviewed. That said, thanks for the first citation. Were you hoping wewould take your mined quote as representative? From the conclusion, we have this.

        “The method used here shows that for the period 1979–2010, 0.5–3.1%/decade of the observed decline of 10.1%/decade is associated with the natural cycle of the AMO, consistent with Kay et al (2011). During this period the AMO has moved from a negative phase, associated with anomalously cold North Atlantic SSTs, to a positive phase, associated with anomalously warm SSTs. The effect of the AMO over the extended observational period 1953–2010 is much smaller since the record both begins and ends in a negative AMO state. This suggests that despite increased observational uncertainty in the pre-satellite era, the trend in SIE over this longer period is more likely to be representative of the anthropogenically forced component. Looking at the longer term trends is also more comparable with the multi-model mean in multi-model ensembles which have reduced variability as decadal variability in the models cancels.”

        We also get this…

        ” In the models considered variations in the AMO and AMOC are associated with variations in the North Atlantic heat transported to the Arctic, it is through this mechanism that North Atlantic variability impacts SIE.”

        Now genius, where do you think the variations in the North Atlantic heat comes from?

        Do you want me to spell out in simple terms what the authors are saying? Too bad because I will anyway. 2/3 of the decline in Arctic sea ice extent is directly due to anthropogenic causes. The remaining 1/3 is due to variations in the AMO and AMOC which may be affected by anthropogenic warming as well.

        I reallylove it when you guys present a paper you think says one thing but actually says another.

  69. thrumpy says:

    Thanks for pointing out those deniers at the nsidc and their sham graph, the nsidc should be shut down for creating such a misleading denier graph that any innocent person can mistakingly link to – you have done the world of alarmism a huge service

    • john byatt says:

      Nsidc do not wish to deceive like willard so all there reports since 2009 are shown with the std dev shading

      • Richard M says:

        Too bad you got it 100% wrong. It is deceiving to do statistics on anything but a complete cycle. What would you do if I took the average temperature for the 3 months of summer and then claimed the world was cooling as I plotted the changes over the next 3 months? What would you say if I pointed out how the temperature was several StDev below the average?

        You would tell me I was cherry picking by using only part of a cycle. You would be right. Using statistics based on only part of known cycles is not science. You should be complaining to NSIDC that their use of statistics is laughable and against simple mathematical principles.

        This whole issue highlights a huge lack of scientific knowledge on the blog owners part. Maybe you should consider Watching the Scientists instead. They are the ones guilty of malfeasance.

        • Oh My God! This is moronoc beyond belief. Your analogy isn’t even looking at the same type of data. The standard deviations are for the average of ten years for the SAME TIME OF YEAR. In this case, April to August. It is not making predictions for September onwards and it is not based on a single year. But hey, go and check out the graph in a few months and see how it looks if you want to make the comparisons for those months. You are also talking about predictions and this graph isn’t predictive at all and noone is making the claim that it is. It merely shows real data, a sample average and the standard deviations for that sample average. If anyone has a lack of basic science and statistics here, it is you.

        • Richard M says:

          Once again uknowispeaknonsense graces us with pure lunacy. Do you understand the idea of an analogy? Is that concept beyond you? My analogy was not meant to be “the same type of data”. It was meant to show the problems inherent in using statistics when you don’t have a full cycles worth of data … no matter what the data represents.

          I can only chuckle at your use of “moronoc”. The situation is clear. The averages are based on 30 years worth of data when we know that there are 60-70 years cycles in climate. It is no different that using temperature averages for part of a year and then trying to use those averages in examining the rest of the year. This is really, really simple stuff. Not even college level.

        • louploup2 says:

          Richard M–You are the one who comes off as ignorant. Your premise is “we know that there are 60-70 years cycles in climate.” You are operating out of ignorance since there is no proven cycle that is applicable to the data being evaluated. In addition to a math expert, are you now going to claim you know Arctic ice data and analysis well enough to demonstrate that early Twentieth Century warming and ice loss in the Arctic was as pervasive and consistent as the past twenty years? And that such warming then is part of the same cycle that is operating to cause ice loss today?

          You sound like a broken record. An irritating one and most who are subjected to it would prefer it get fixed or turned off. If you can’t do more than post the same argument without backing it up, please give it a rest.

        • Richard M says:

          louoloup2: “… no proven cycle that is applicable to the data being evaluated”

          This is actually a reasonable claim. If there aren’t natural climate cycles then one might be able to conclude that 30 years of sea ice data is sufficient to do statistical analysis. However, you can read all about the PDO, AMO, NAO, AO, etc. on wiki. There are many peer reviewed papers discussing them. Here is a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures.

          http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-113.png

          Pretty obvious that there is a cycle. Read up on the AMO as well and notice that the sea ice in the Arctic started melting soon after the AMO went positive. Last year the AMO was at its peak and we had a record melt. Cause and effect. Clearly, a natural explanation of ice loss whether you want to deny it or not. Look, I’m not saying it is the only cause, but anyone who ignores it is not using science to form their opinions.

          “You sound like a broken record. An irritating one and most who are subjected to it would prefer it get fixed or turned off.”

          Often a reaction when someone’s beliefs are challenged by actual data. If those beliefs are scientific in nature then the person will absorb them into their thought processes. If those beliefs are religious then the person will deny them. I think I can predict what you will do.

        • and now we know you are definitely not the statistics guru you claim to be. You reference Bob Tisdale. Very telling indeed.

        • Oooh, a conspiracy theorist, “Watching the Scientists instead. They are the ones guilty of malfeasance”. Sigh.

  70. fred Byrne says:

    Perhaps to settle this stupid argument why not plot the 2SD limits for all the lines on the graph; ie the present year, last year and the average line. If they all overlap then everyone has a problem.

    • john byatt says:

      good grief you can do that at NSIDC do you even know what you are talking about here?

  71. son of mulder says:

    Given that the North atlantic multidecadal oscillation is approximately a 60 year cycle, any such construction of a standard deviation for Arctic sea ice based on only 30 years of data is just more junk climate science statistical analysis.

    • john byatt says:

      another confused willard fan

      • Richard M says:

        Of course using statistics on half a cycle is ridiculous. The people who support this kind of scientific malfeasance are hilarious. I suspect they see no problem with representing yearly temperatures by using Nov-May and then calculating a deviation from average … oh no, were all going to die!

        The AMO/NAO went into its warm mode in1995. With an expected lag the ice began melting a few years later. When the AMO switches back in 5-10 years the ice will start increasing. The reason sea ice in Antarctica is above average is entirely due to the cool Southern Ocean. Ocean temperatures control the amount of sea ice. This is not rocket science.

        Finally, the non-adjusted, non-infilled, non-extrapolated, highly accurate satellite data (RSS) shows the global temperatures have plateaued and started cooling. RSS data provides a true picture of what is happening.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend

        Note the start date and end date are ENSO neutral. Also note how this matches the changes in Pacific Ocean temperatures shown by the blue line below.

        http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-113.png

        As the Pacific continues to cool and the Atlantic starts cooling later this decade the world will cool. That is what the data says.

        • son of mulder says:

          Precisely Richard M, the NSIDC shouldn’t be showing what they call a 2Standard Deviation on only 30 years of data in a 60 year cycle. It has no scientific or statistical meaning. It is a classic example where use of statistical methods without considering the underlying physical characteristics of the system, will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions and misleading statements about statistical significance.

  72. john byatt says:

    “Joe S says:
    July 8, 2013 at 6:52 am
    ” WUWT is a site that exists to cast doubt on climate change: information is presented and crafted to undermine the scientific consensus.”

    No it’s not, it merely casts doubt on whether it’s anthropogenic. Perhaps you could tell us exactly how the Arctic getting warmer proves AGW as opposed to it being caused by natural variation as it has been in the past. Oh and you don’t do science by consensus you do it by testing the hypothesis against valid empirical data, if the data disagrees with the models, as it does with the AR3 and AR4 models then the hypothesis is wrong, period.

    watts has them so confused they do not know what he believes,

    your other claim is nonsense http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/

  73. spatch says:

    @snafu.

    You’re that guy who thinks that the US Government is manipulating the climate and that aircraft contrails are in fact mind altering chemicals that are messing with our heads aren’t you.

    http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1133970/Re_climate_change_craziness_th#Post1133970

    A recent paper on sceptics and their conspiracy idealizations was written about folks just like you

    I also remember you posting over at SkS with your nonsensical questions as well.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=snafu

    Did you learn something from those educated folks over there? It appears not because you keep on asking the same questions…

  74. John says:

    John @7.20

    Play the ball not the man. When in a hole stop digging, or start digging upwards.

    • john byatt says:

      you mean this twit?

      john byatt says:
      July 8, 2013 at 7:20 am
      and this retard did not even bother to check the about page

      AndyG55 says:
      July 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm
      Pretty weak sort of site.
      The owners don’t seem to even have the guts to put their names up anywhere, let alone any sort of qualification.

      SO where is the apology for that nonsense?

      watts’s bunch of losers up in arms yet just confirming that they do not have a clue

  75. john byatt says:

    and this **** did not even bother to check the about page

    AndyG55 says:
    July 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm
    Pretty weak sort of site.
    The owners don’t seem to even have the guts to put their names up anywhere, let alone any sort of qualification.

    SO where is the apology for that nonsense?

    watts’s bunch of losers up in arms yet just confirming that they do not have a clue

    • Ipsophakto says:

      You seem to lead with ad hominems and lace your responses with juvenile name-calling and insults. Does that bolster or weaken your argument?

      • john byatt says:

        well you missed the point, someone called andyg55 calls mike out as not having the guts to put his name up which shows that the moron is a hypocrite and lies because the about page tells you all mike’s info…

  76. Joe S says:

    ” WUWT is a site that exists to cast doubt on climate change: information is presented and crafted to undermine the scientific consensus.”

    No it’s not, it merely casts doubt on whether it’s anthropogenic. Perhaps you could tell us exactly how the Arctic getting warmer proves AGW as opposed to it being caused by natural variation as it has been in the past. Oh and you don’t do science by consensus you do it by testing the hypothesis against valid empirical data, if the data disagrees with the models, as it does with the AR3 and AR4 models then the hypothesis is wrong, period.

  77. Anthony Watts says:

    Mr. Marriot,

    You haven’t withdrawn the accusation, your headline still says it.

    Change it sir. I won’t ask again.

    • john byatt says:

      I think that you are being dishonest in presenting an out of date graph that does not include the std dev, and you are notoriously a merchant of misrepresentation

      see http://wottsupwiththat.com/

      so your misrepresentation is common knowledge , stop with the implied threat already

      http://wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wuwt-cas-comment.jpg?w=584&h=430

      • john byatt says:

        and you are dishonest, watts the problem?

        • john byatt says:

          how willard treats dissenters

          @ ben’s blog
          Remember when Anthony claimed that elderly Hal Lewis quitting the American Physical Society was “on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door“? That turd sank pretty quickly too.

          The only dissenting voice in the comments, “jai mitchell” found himself under “moderation” (meaning blocked) after a torrent of hostility and attempted intimidation.

      • snafu says:

        I do believe that Mr Watts comment above was directed to Mr Marriott. So if you don’t mind JB……

        ……butt out
        :)

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Mr. Watts,

      I have amended the title, however I will stand by my assertion the graph presented on WUWT should be presented with the standard deviations (SD) for context.

      I urge this to avoid future confusion by either myself or other readers.

      I note you stated the following in the comments section of this article:

      “And if you’ll look through WUWT posts on sea ice, you’ll see that both graphs have been used. NSIDC used that graph on their main page up until the end of 2009 as can be seen on the wayback machine here tight at the top.”

      I acknowledge said point.

      However if it has been the practice of the NSIDC to use graphs with the SD since 2009 (effectively four years) it would be remiss of anyone to not update their references, images or sources.

      We can agree that framing is important, and to exclude information that has been part of the NSIDCs reporting for four years is an error one should amend.

      There is very good reason for the NSIDC to include the SDs, as it is vital information pertaining to the state of the cyrosphere. This information needs to be communicated to a broader public, hence its inclusion in the graph’s presentation since 2009.

      I’ve happily, and politely responded to your requests to correct an error on my behalf as an act of good faith. Likewise, it would be remiss of me not to suggest you report NSIDC data in the same context and format they have for the last four years.

      Thank you for your time and visiting Mr. Watts.

      Please do not hesitate to post your suggestions or concerns in future.

      I wish you a good day.

      Mike @ WtD

      • Latimer Alder says:

        Your opening remark still refers to ‘denial and fragrantly misrepresenting data’.

        Do you still believe that the evidence presented here shows Mr Watts guilty of either? Please explain.

        • Mike Haseler says:

          These days I have to read the blog or article before I can work out whether the denial is the denial of the recent pause in global warming … or whether it is the proper denial of the non-science of global warming propaganda.

        • john byatt says:

          good lord we have one of the flying monkeys come and and say that willard rejects that humans are causing the warming, ie denial and then this one pipes up asking whether you have evidence of willards denial,

          they both even confused whether willard believes in agw or not

      • Bert says:

        WTD fist line “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.”
        So mike I have read your post/blog, but am still wondering whcih data was “cherry picked?”

        I am thrilled you have taken such a strong and forceful stance on SD’s. I agree. Unfortunately I have seen a lack of SD’s from both sides of the debate, though mostly from graphs by Mann, Marcott, and Briffa.

        I do think it would be professional to first inquire before going off “half cocked” as you certainly did. BTW Did you likewise go off concerning Real Climate for the “Summary and FAQ’s related to the study by Marcott et al. (2013, Science), Prepared by Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, and Alan C. Mix” graph (sans SD’s) recently at ?

  78. snafu says:

    Now it is time for them to acknowledge the information presented in the graphs at WUWT lacks the context.

    Now is the time for WtD to produce the tested, verified and proven facts that AGW actually exists.
    ;)

  79. john byatt says:

    Given:

    a) the history of denying the link between human activities and climate change at WUWT

    b) the long running antipathy towards the work of climate scientists at WUWT

    …my interpretation remains reasonable.

    The graph presented on WUWT is to my opinion an example of cherry picking. By removing reference to standard deviations in sea-ice extent, crucial and contextual information is excluded. WUWT is a site that exists to cast doubt on climate change: information is presented and crafted to undermine the scientific consensus.

    Sceptics here have asked that I issue a correction about my claim, which I have.

    Now it is time for them to acknowledge the information presented in the graphs at WUWT lacks the context.

    good lord wuwt has the eugenics, nazi obsessed eric worrall with another post,

  80. Typhoon says:

    john byatt wrote:

    1 the arctic is not melting?

    2013 has so far been remarkable only for being uneventful despite onerous predictions in the past that the Arctic will be “ice-free” by 2013

    2 that watts has faithfully represented the graph as per the monthly NSIDC ?

    Yes. The graph in question is generated at the NSIDC site:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    You don’t have a leg to stand on here.

    3 watts is entitled to use any graph he can find if it obscures the facts?

    This is known as a leading question
    as you presume to know that it was Mr. Watts intent to “obscure the facts”
    when in reality you have presented less than zero evidence of such intent.

    4 mike has made a mistake in saying watts used a photoshop instead of a dodgy graph search, i am sure he will concede that, but what is the point if the outcome by watts to deceive remains relevant,

    If you really believe your own stuff, then it is the NSIDC that you should be accusing of “intent to deceive” as it is their public graph.

    The accusation of “photoshopping” only serves to emphasize the amateur nature of the false claim against Mr. Watts.

    .

    • john byatt says:

      2013 has so far been remarkable only for being uneventful despite onerous predictions in the past that the Arctic will be “ice-free” by 2013″

      you have to be out of touch with reality, despite weather conditions favorable to ice the average thickness this year is the same as 2012 at 1.71M, not only is the northern sea route about to open but also the near north pole itself is about to have a gignormous hole.

      Wadhams best estimate for a one day ice free (below 1Mkm2) was for 2015, bet that is closer than your best estimate by decades

  81. john byatt says:

    Who said that watts was not trying to fool people?

    fooled this one

    markx says:
    July 8, 2013 at 4:13 am
    It is good of you to highlight the fact that the current ice extent is still essentially within the normal range (if 1981 to 2010 average is indeed ‘average’).

    • john byatt says:

      The 1981 to 2010 average is shown by a dark gray line. The gray area around this average line shows the two standard deviation range of the 1981 to 2010 average

      got it?

  82. K largo says:

    Thanks for the correction Mike.

    Byatt’s denials now look ridiculous. But then this is a “watch the deniers” website and we saw a denier in action.

    However you leave this comment:
    “I checked out the NSIDC website for the image used by Watts.
    No such image exists.”

    It does exist:
    I gave you the link:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    • john byatt says:

      Just keep ignoring every comment except your own ramblings,

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      @ K largo

      As you can see (and any other sceptic comes here) WtD has an reasonably open policy when it comes to comments. All views are welcome, unlike many other blogs.

      Both yourself and others highlighted an issue, and it was addressed. Some comments did not come through moderation as they were abusive, thus breaching blog comment policy.

      As you can see, Anthony Watts has posted and linked to this blog: this has been allowed. I’ve also directly responded to his request to clarify my statements which I have publicly.

      When error, I’ll happily acknowledge it. So, I’ll treat it as a learning experience and be mindful.

      However I will continue to maintain the following: excluding the standard deviations excludes crucial contextual information.

      • Steven Mosher says:

        “However I will continue to maintain the following: excluding the standard deviations excludes crucial contextual information.”

        Be prepared to condemn a whole series of graphs.

        Anythony writes a bunch of things on his blog that I disagree with. However, linking to charts and graphs produced by working scientists is not misrepresenting. Your criticism should be directed at the folks who make the chart.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Perhaps, but when the NSIDC centre have been producing graphs with SDs for four years now (hat tip A.Watts) but these aren’t presented on WUWT.

        • snafu says:

          It’s a conspiracy Mike. Just get Lew and John to help you write a pal-reviewed ‘conspiracy’ paper about it.
          :)

        • john byatt says:

          mike already has one snafu, how is willard’s non event paper going?,

          willard ‘ a dingo ate my paper”

        • Carrick says:

          WND, There is no “perhaps” here. While I’m no huge fan of Watts site, NSIDC makes the graph, Watts is just linking it. If you want him to include the other graph or think another representation would be a more fair characterization, just try asking next time.

          I would have though, if you guys really cared about error bars, you’d not only be dinging NSIDC for continuing to produce a graph that has no error bars, you’d be dinging GISTEMP and a plethora of other “official” sources that don’t include error bars in their monthly updates.

          In my opinion, your article is still grossly misleading, and needs to be corrected.

          The graph is produced by NSIDC. Watts just links it. These are facts. You might like a different graph instead. Bicker about that if you will, but please straighten up this trainwreck of an article.

        • Roger says:

          I agree. There is much on WUWT which with I disagree. However, the scientists themselves ought not to be publishing plots without error bars. Such plots are scientifically worthless. However, I’ve seen a lot of graphs and results from both sides which omit to show and quantify uncertainties.

          If WTD is serious about ensuring the best possible science communication and not just in bashing one person then I should be able to find a universal condemnation of the practice of disseminating plots and results without uncertainties, giving examples of statistical abuse on both sides. I’ve looked on this site – where is it ?

          BTW I’m a professor of physics and I find this site as distasteful as much of the “denier”-fare which is served up. Partisan sites such as this (and WUWT) are the antithesis of what science communication is about.

          The following is a bit off-topic I know but hopefully is relevant to the broader discussion of results. My own field (experimental particle physics) makes mistakes – we freely admit it, this is what science is about. Its a human endeavour. We recently found evidence for faster-than-light particles which turned out to be flawed. We did the same thing for a new type of matter called pentaquarks. Big deal. Mann’s original hockey stick was flawed, the reproduction was a statistical joke which would never have even got anywhere near peer review in my field. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but inventing new statistical quantities to show significance is such poor practice (we tend to do things blind in our field i.e. decide on the method prior to looking at the final result). I’ll start to regain my trust in the climatology field when figures in that field openly concede that the Mann hockey stick is unreliable and explain how lessons have been learned in methodology and communication i.e. shout loudly not to show it again. I don’t care how many other sticks have been produced or what they say. I don’t even care if Mann obtained the correct result was obtained by accident despite biased methodology. If the community doesn’t own up to its own mistakes then the credibility of that field is damaged. I know I’m far from the only person holding that view.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Thanks Roger for you interesting comments, however I would suggest you look into the work post-Mann (whose work has also been validated). References can be supplied, not shouted at you :)

          I’d would suggest the entire field of climate change does not hang on the perceived weakness of Mann’s work. Likewise, one would not dismiss the entire physics field for the faster-than-light claim that was shown to be unfounded.

          I’m sure you’d agree our knowledge of the world and universe progresses in fits and starts.

        • john byatt says:

          god, now they think that they are error bars rather than 2 std deviations,

        • Roger says:

          WTD
          I never stated that climatology hangs on Mann’s figure. I said that the field’s credibility has been damaged by Mann’s hockey stick.

          When a mistake is made the best course of action is to admit and remedy it. A perfectly good response to the Mann issues would have been to state something like “the original hockey stick that was widely shown is no longer trusted since we’ve now learned that the methodology isn’t as robust as we would have liked. Consequently we have addressed these deficiencies and here are our latest results….”. The field would have taken a minor hit which would now be forgotten (as long as the lessons were learned). Instead that plot remained an emblem of AGW science far longer than it should have been and lots of credibility was used up in defending it. If somebody will, in all honesty, defend the conclusions of that piece of work then I have a hard time in taking them seriously when they discuss other works.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Thanks Roger. You and I agree how to remedy a mistake, so if I misread your words I’ll apologise :)

          I’m curious as to your position on climate change and the evidence for it. Happy to engage in respectful information sharing. As I’m obviously not a climate scientists the best I can do is provide the references I’m familiar with.

          Thanks for your reply.

          Mike @ WtD

        • john byatt says:

          this is pure rhetoric roger with nothing to back your assertions,

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/

          the MWP was not as warm as the present which is the relevent fact, if it was then the sensitivity is much higher than we believe, the deniers want it both ways,

        • Carrick says:

          Roger: “When a mistake is made the best course of action is to admit and remedy it”.

          Agree here too… that’s the course of action I was taught as a physicist too.

          Remedy the error, which in this case involves pointing your ire at the proper culprit, and choose another, more appropriate, target at WUWT. There are plenty of soft targets and no need for shrill rhetoric either.

          IMO, Mann has lost a lot of credibility in the wider science community by not just owning his mistakes instead of engaging in bombastic counter attacks and wild hyperbole when his errors are pointed out to him (and not just McIntyre, people in his own field, like von Storch, have been recipients of his tirades).

          I apologize for calling you WND–it was late in my timezone when I posted my comment. Not sure who “WND” is.

        • Carrick says:

          roger: the MWP was not as warm as the present which is the relevent fact,

          Which is irrelevant to either of Mann’s first two papers, because neither of them encompassed the MWP. Nor is it “obvious” that a reconstruction that had e.g. a 10-year fidelity wouldn’t yield periods that are as warm as current high temperatures.

          if it was then the sensitivity is much higher than we believe, the deniers want it both ways,

          It’s false that a warmer MWP implies a larger climate sensitivity. If more of the total variance is explained by natural variability, there is less variance to be explained by anthropogenic forcings, which in turn implies a lower climate sensitivity.

      • Latimer Alder says:

        ‘excluding the standard deviations excludes crucial contextual information.’

        Maybe so.

        But no doubt you have complained to the source of the graph – the NSIDC – about their mistake in continuing to produce such a graph?

        Please keep us updated with their reply. Tx

  83. roymustard says:

    Anybody who wishes to see Watts’ previous failing with Photoshop is free to click here.

  84. Doug UK says:

    I see – so comments after Watts response appear – but Watts is still “in moderation”.

    Not very good at this openness and honesty thing are you?

  85. This seems pretty simple. An accusation was made. The accusation was false. The alternative accusation is that NSIDC has produced a misleading graph and Watts used it. This would seem to be a criticism of NSIDC, but in any case it has no bearing on the first An error should be retracted. An error committed with malice should be retracted with an apology. If you can’t handle that, you’re not ready to play in the big leagues.

    • john byatt says:

      the NSIDC update each month on their site does not use the graph without the std dev, so you are wrong to suggest they do.

      • ddpalmer says:

        Does NSIDC produce a graph without the SD information each month? Yes. So your claim is false.

  86. roymustard says:

    So the graph wasn’t Photoshopped, but contextual information was edited out. That is extremely dishonest in my books. That the deniers here think they’ve scored a win out of this post shows how little they currently have going for them.

  87. john byatt says:

    I will try again

    john byatt says:
    July 8, 2013 at 2:53 am
    So what is your complaint

    1 the arctic is not melting?
    2 that watts has faithfully represented the graph as per the monthly NSIDC ?
    3 watts is entitled to use any graph he can find if it obscures the facts?
    4 mike has made a mistake in saying watts used a photoshop instead of a dodgy graph search, i am sure he will concede that, but what is the point if the outcome by watts to deceive remains relevant,

  88. CDJacobs says:

    I’m still having trouble understanding the source of your outrage. Yes, AW’s link is to the old graphic layout. Meh… the SD bands are a nice addition, but I’ve been looking at data for years without having these little visual aids. Further there are a number of useful arguments that might lead you to 1SD as a more useful criteria, as well as 3SD as standard practice by others.

    But there are several important considerations that make your rant seem odd:

    (1) It’s not photoshopped or altered. It’s NSIDC’s own chart, as indicated above by so many other commenters. Likewise, at the bottom of AW’s very handy Sea Ice Page, he provides several direct links to NSIDC so he actually HELPS you look up whatever you wish. How is that such a misguiding behavior?

    (2) NSIDC isn’t the only Arctic Ice authority, and as such Watts links a number of other data sources in his handy reference page: University of Illinois, University of Oslo, JAXA, NCEP, NERSC, NOAA…

    … which, I guess, leads me to the greatest confusion over your accusation of a his “war on science”. WUWT links its readers to LOADS of data. I don’t mean opinions about what politicians or authors think.. excuse me… “believe” about anthropogenic climate change. You can quickly get to actual raw DATA through the links on AW’s pages. That lets you, the investigator rapidly source .dat files, for example, right from the government and academic sources that you regularly support here in your opinions. Rational folks can download these lovely little digits and crunch away, doing what you like to call “critical thinking”.

    Why does that bother you so much? And where are YOUR extensive links to data? Does the idea scare you?

    I don’t expect this to make it past your comment screening, but you should really take it to heart nonetheless.

  89. K largo says:

    This claim was made:
    “Clearly, someone has doctored the image. A Photoshop trick.”

    I showed clearly this was not so.

    We all make mistakes but John Byatt twists and turns but can’t escape the simple fact that the above was false.

    Mike when will you put an end to Byatt’s nonsense and do the right thing and correct the record?

    • Gregory T says:

      To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.
      So you are saying that Watts did not make the graph look favourable to himself by using the interactive features available ? Makes one wonder what other changes he makes inorder to look favourable to himself .

      • K largo says:

        “So you are saying that Watts did not make the graph look favourable to himself by using the interactive features available?”

        Yes, look at the thread. Clearly Watts did not change the graph or make use of the interactive facilities available. He downloaded the image from the NSIDC web site as has been done for years. John Byatt squirms like a fish on a hook but can’t escape.

        • Gregory T says:

          So he just used a graph that made himself look more favourable. I see, makes sense now.

      • ddpalmer says:

        The graph with the SDs is more favorable as it indicates the current level is within the data’s variability.

        So yes, Mr Watts did not use a graph more favorable to himself.

        • john byatt says:

          just how dumb was that comment “the current level is still on the graph?”

        • ddpalmer says:

          Well John, since you are the only one on this blog who has made the comment “the current level is still on the graph?” I will go with it being an exceedingly dumb comment.

    • john byatt says:

      why not simply start at the beginning of the comments and then you can apologise for your nonsense claim

      • john byatt says:

        he probably missed it…. was already explained in my comment, of course the non stddev image is available otherwise it would not be found

  90. john byatt says:

    Willard ” it is not a photo shopped graph, it is an out of date graph”

    good we cleared that up

  91. Bill Marsh says:

    I believe you have made an erroneous assertion. The graph on the Sea Ice page at WUWT is not ‘Photoshopped’ or altered in any way in order to ‘misrepresent’ data. This graph exists on the NSIDC site (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png) and is updated by them daily as does the graph which shows the 2 Std Dev. Both graphs are referenced in many WUWT posts. NSIDC started displaying the graph with the Std Dev in 2009, but they kept the graph without the std dev and continue to update it as well.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Note the corrections and comments: it seems we’ve come to the heart of the problem.

      The graphs used by NSIDC changed in 2009 – four years ago – but WUWT has not used them.

      The question is this: why?

      • Gregory T says:

        Why then, if the NSIDC changed their graphs to include SD, does Watts graph show the date July 2013 ?. Surely an official graph would include the SD.

        • john byatt says:

          they do update it greg just do not use it in the monthly reports, have not done so for years,

          once things quieten down willard will do a mea culpa and put up the correct one.

          watch that space

      • Richard M says:

        The answer is simple. You can’t do accurate statistics with insufficient data. You are now demonstrating that your understanding of statistics is rather poor. You really need to obey the rule of holes.

        • john byatt says:

          Tamino reveals every week that willard nor any of his guest bloggers have the slightest idea of stats,

        • Richard M says:

          And yet here you are perfectly willing to believe that statistics can be applied to a set of insufficient data. Oh look, it’s getting colder outside, we’re all going to freeze to death.

    • snrksnrk says:

      Another day, another fake skeptic – a septic. Or denier, as they are also called.

  92. john byatt says:

    what we are seeing from the deniers “look squirrel” is their frustration that the Arctic continues to ignore their own denial as it continues to head to zero, it must be hard to maintain the cognitive dissonance and deny your own eyes, So they ignore it and just lash out at anything they may find no matter how irrelevant,

    “the arctic is not heading towards oblivion because watts did not photoshop a graph”?

    • markx says:

      It is good of you to highlight the fact that the current ice extent is still essentially within the normal range (if 1981 to 2010 average is indeed ‘average’).

      • john byatt says:

        so this one reckons nothing has changed in the Arctic, apparently the watts graph did fool them , below one std deviation is not the normal range and now it heads below two std deviations,

        well you tried , just did not have a clue

        • Scott says:

          As you are clearly an expert in all matters regarding ice extent, please tell us about the Sd’s in the antarctic over recent years..

        • Richard M says:

          You keep making this silly point, john, which only highlights your own ignorance. No one knows what “normal” is for the sea ice in the Arctic because we don’t have a full cycle’s data. It doesn’t get much simpler than this.

          Have you ever taken a statistics course? No? … didn’t think so.

        • john byatt says:

          Unlike you dick I do not suffer the DK effect so confer to experts in the field.

          http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/arctic-sea-ice-loss-part-3/

        • john byatt says:

          All told, every variable we’ve studied shows significant, in fact remarkable, change in Arctic sea ice. The northern ice pack is truly the “canary in a coal mine” which is warning us of the extremity of changes to come — soon — to the rest of the planet as a result of our throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of the climate system. The question “Has mankind dramatically altered earth’s climate?” has been answered in the affirmative. The question before us now is, “Will mankind heed the warning signs which are in plain sight?”

        • Richard M says:

          john byatt, so your only response to my factual information is name calling and telling a person with a math degree that they don’t understand math. Hilarious. With a person like you spewing nonsense all over this blog I can see why it is so irrelevant.

          It appears you would believe a graph showing winter temperatures cooler than average as an indication of serious problems. People with a little knowledge would realize there are reasons why winter temperatures are cooler and it is not a sign of impending doom.

          This applies to Arctic sea ice as well. Since we don’t know all the physical mechanisms affecting the ice and we have less that a full cycle’s worth of data, it is simply silly to make an statistical assumptions based on what data we do have. I’ve explained this many places. john byatt’s denial of basic statistical facts will not change those facts.

  93. catweazle666 says:

    It’s telling that you have now descended to libelling fellow bloggers and making stuff up.

    Dear me, you just can’t help yourselves, can you?

  94. Anthony Watts says:

    As many have already pointed out to you, NSIDC offers two types of graphs that are constantly updated. There’s no “doctored” image, no Photoshop trick, only your own mistaken perceptions. You’ve goofed, badly, and maliciously I might add.

    This graph has been on the NSIDC site for years. It is live rught now here:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png and is the same image as is on the WUWT Sea ice page. One check of the image source would have told you this but instead you run of on some supposed “gotcha” without checking or asking.

    And if you’ll look through WUWT posts on sea ice, you’ll see that both graphs have been used. NSIDC used that graph on their main page up until the end of 2009 as can be seen on the wayback machine here tight at the top.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20091230165002/http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    They then added the standard deviation about that time an show it further down.

    Until this irrational accusation of dishonesty, nobody has complained. if you wanted it added to the sea ice page, all one has to do is ask nicely.

    If you have any integrity you’ll fix this and issue an apology. If you have nothing but irrational hatred of “deniers” you’ll leave it up.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Anthony, your comment has been allowed – as requested I’ve addressed your complaints.

      In the interests of fairness I’ve removed that text implying doctoring of the image via “Photoshop”. I’ll apologise for that charge, and withdraw it.

      However, I do firmly believe presenting the data with standard deviations is imperative and provides the necessary context.

      I’ve also allowed most comments made by followers of your blog through, but not all.

      As you can appreciate some of them were very insulting, though I do not hold you personally responsible.

      • orkneygal says:

        Then you should take up the matter of the standard deviations with NSIDC, since they produce the chart. Let us all know when you have done that, please.

        • john byatt says:

          every monthly update from NSIDC includes the std dev information, if you got your science from other sources than the wuwt disinformation site you would have known that.

      • Brian Macker says:

        I guess this is only a problem when the other side does it. I almost never see Standard deviation, or even error bounds, on alarmist charts.

      • Richard M says:

        Applying StDev to a half cycle is silly. We all know about the PDO and AMO (or at least anyone with any climate knowledge). These are 60-70 years cycles. We won’t have any idea what is “average” until a cycle completes and we have a full set of satellite data.

        The idea that NSIDC provides StDev should tell you they are not a scientific organization.

        And yes, I have a degree in math although everything mentioned here should have been learned in high school.

        • Bullshit. You need to take your degree back and undertake Stats 101. You might fool some people reading who don’t understand stats (see “Watts’ sycophantic flying monkeys”) but you aren’t fooling those of us with some knowledge. The 2 stdevs for the graph are for the 1991-2000 average. That is clearly stated and perfectly legitimate. This idea that we have to wait for a full 70 years of data to calculate the overall average is ridiculous beyond belief. The whole point of the graph is to observe the falling trend in sea ice. If your predictions are correct that in 5 or 6 years or whatever, there will be an increase in sea ice, then the graph will reflect that and you will be able to say “See! What did we tell you? The sea ice is now back within 1 stdev of the 1991-2000 average,” and we can all congratulate you on how clever you are and breathe a sigh of relief, but to make up dodgy statistical conventions simply because the graph doesn’t paint the picture you like..well, that’s just silly and a little childish. Oh, you might want to go and have a look at the tens of thousands of papers from hundreds of disciplines that all use stdev’s on what could easily be called incomplete data sets and even “half-cycles”.

        • Richard M says:

          “This idea that we have to wait for a full 70 years of data to calculate the overall average is ridiculous beyond belief.”

          Once again demonstrating a total lack of understanding of statistics. You can lead a man to knowledge but you can’t make him learn. It appears uknowispeaknonsense is that man.

          So, please tell me how using the average temperature for the summer is useful in predicting temperatures for the fall? Oh wait, you’re the one who doesn’t even understand simple analogies.

          BTW, show me those 10s of thousands of papers yo mentioned. I call BS. Any paper that uses sub-cycle periods to make statistical claims about the entire cycle is pure nonsense. This is math. It doesn’t matter what discipline is doing it. If they are doing it they are spewing nonsense.

        • ddpalmer says:

          Actually the graph says the average is from 1981 to 2010, so it is only logical for the SDs to be for the data from 1981 to 2010, not 1991 to 2000.

    • john byatt says:

      watts makes a fool of himself everyday, just how ignorant of the facts his followers are, is revealed by their comments here, one thinks that the std dev gray shading is the average, another does not even believe that AGW exists, another believes that is is a nazi eugenics conspiracy, love them all, they make my day with their stupidity,

      watts comes out as a fool just about every days revealed at wottsupwiththat and tamino

      time is catching up with them, now only the loonies left at WUWT

      • Keitho says:

        Is this really the level to which you have sunk? What is wrong with you man, that you have to attack people rather than their arguments. It is surely bad enough that you ( I say you because you are an integral part of this website ) accuse AW of fraud but to then carry on as if that is of no account is almost childlike.

        The fact is that AW did nothing you accuse him of. Projection is the concept that comes to mind. Perhaps fraud is widespread in your world but I, and many many others, can assure you that we skeptics don’t need fraud to advance our arguments. You have been caught out in fabricating an accusation against AW the grown up thing to do is apologise, draw a line under this sordid thread and hopefully learn a lesson.

    • WTD manned up, admitted his serious mistake and apologized, Mr. Watts.

      I DO NOT LIKE what he did, but he corrected it. To me that speaks volumes.

      It is time for more intellectual honesty and less sniping in the climate conversation. Enough already.

      As someone who follows the conversation, I appreciate the torch you carry for the data, Mr. Watts. I DO. The data and intellectual honesty are the two most important things. Fine to disagree on interpretation. That’s healthy.

      It’s time that both sides stopped presenting incomplete and/or cherry picked arguments.

      It is time to acknowledge uncertainties in one’s positions. The unrelenting alarmism from one side and obfuscation and denial from the other is harmful and shameful. I, for one, am tired from it and of it.

      BOTH SIDES have important things to say, act as checks on the other, and can help flesh out WHAT IS HAPPENING.

      Take a stand for intellectual honesty, much needed, Mr. Watts.

      I admire you commitment and thoroughness in examining the data. You provide and important, alternative voice in the conversation.

      WTD manned up.

      I ask that you repudiate cherry picked arguments made by Lord Monckton as pointed out on You Tube by Potholer54.

      A Concerned Person, who respects your integrity and values your contribution.

      Your turn.

  95. john byatt says:

    K largo “And what about the allegation of photoshopping?”

    interactive graph shopping, same result

  96. john byatt says:

    Found it, it is the interactive graph where you can remove what is inconvenient

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    • K largo says:

      Why don’t you just go to the nsdic link I gave.
      And what about the allegation of photoshopping?

      • john byatt says:

        Because you do not have a clue what you are talking about

        Found it, it is the interactive graph where you can remove what is inconvenient

        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

      • john byatt says:

        So you believe that Watts has represented the data honestly.
        and that the std dev is immaterial, when he had to ignore the news release and hunt through an interactive graph to seek what he wanted to misrepresent,

        • K largo says:

          Stop digging a hole for yourself. No hunting of interactive graphs, just a link to a nsdic graph.

          Watts has a sea ice page where he links to many, many graphs. Including ones others don’t talk about – like the Antarctic. They are automatically updated as new ones come in.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

          The charts are directly linked to source. There isn’t an army of helpers photoshopping the images as they come in.

          Just let Mike fix the post, as I am sure he will.

        • ddpalmer says:

          If you include the SD then you can see that the current level of sea ice falls within the usual variation. Not showing the SD means you can’t tell if the level is within usual variation or if it is well below that usual variation.

          So the graph with the SD is better news for the deniers. Yet that is the one you want them to use?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Thanks ddpalmer, see previous post where I discuss present sea-ice extent is within the SDs – however we’ve just seen a sudden drop this past month. I do caution this drop might be statistical noise, and worth it is worth watching in the following months.

          To me this only strengthens my argument showing the SDs are important. If you remove them, you cannot perceive the trend.

          Imagine if I made the claim sea ice is below the average, and we’re all doomed. Then you and Mr. Watts would ask me to produce the SDs.

          This is why the NSIDC have been publishing their graphs including the SDs for the last four years.

          Regardless of this years trend line, I think preference should be given to the graph showing the SDs no matter what it looks like. For the sake of argument, if the sea-ice extent is shown to be above the 1981+ average or even outside the upper range of the SDs I’d urge that to be published.

          So when you say: “So the graph with the SD is better news for the deniers. Yet that is the one you want them to use?”

          My answer is yes. If that is the best data, absolutely.

          Perhaps my answer my surprise you, but we’re in agreement.

          Now how one interprets the data we can have a debate.

        • ddpalmer says:

          The SDs are static, what bearing do they have on being able to see the plain drop from just below the average line to significantly below the average line?

        • Bob B. says:

          ddpalmer “So the graph with the SD is better news for the deniers. Yet that is the one you want them to use?”

          I think that should be good news for alarmists too. The world may not burst into flames.

          Talk about showing your true colors.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Mike you said “To me this only strengthens my argument showing the SDs are important. If you remove them, you cannot perceive the trend.”

          This is untrue. SD do not indicate a trend. Including SD only shows where the data fits compared to the SD range that is displayed (meaning 1 SD or 2 SD).

          For example, let’s pretend that current sea ice extent was significantly higher than it really is and was almost 2 SD above average. That certainly wouldn’t indicate that the trend is positive. It would simply be one above average year out of many below average years. One really good or bad year doesn’t speak to the trend at all. Showing SD only puts the data displayed into context compared to the rest of the data.

          If you want to know the trend then you need to look at all of the data and hopefully a trend line such as this chart from the WUWT sea ice page:

          http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png

          Notice it clearly shows the trend but SD isn’t displayed and isn’t necessary.

  97. K largo says:

    Finding a conspiracy where there isn’t one?

    “no such image exists”

    “A Photoshop trick”

    It took me only a minute to find the graph on NSDIC which Watts uses. Obviously NSDIC produces two graphs. Considering Watts links to many ice graphs, maybe the latest NSDIC is an alternative, later version?
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    Correction imminent?

    • john byatt says:

      was already explained in my comment, of course the non stddev image is available otherwise it would not be found

      and maybe you are just guessing?

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    • catweazle666 says:

      “Correction imminent?”

      What, on here?

      You’ve got no chance!

      • john byatt says:

        So what is your complaint

        1 the arctic is not melting?
        2 that watts has faithfully represented the graph as per the monthly NSIDC ?
        3 watts is entitled to use any graph he can find if it obscures the facts?
        4 mike has made a mistake in saying watts used a photoshop instead of a dodgy graph search, i am sure he will concede that, but what is the point if the outcome by watts to deceive remains relevant,

        • AlecM says:

          But the World is entering a new Little Ice Age

          IPCC climate alchemy is based on 13 physics’ mistakes, 3 elementary.

          Some came from Sagan and Houghton, others here: 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf (google it)

          Para 2: the claim that CO2 blocks 7-14 microns is false, as is the claim of 33 K GHE and that the Earth emits as a black body in a vacuum.

          So, just accept that the World is not warming and CO2-AGW cannot be detected because corrective mechanisms exist which maintain near constant temperature.

          As for Arctic Ice, by 2020, the Arctic will be as cold as in 1900 because melting then freezing is cyclical.

          PS There has been AGW: fix Sagan’s aerosol physics and it’s the Asian aerosols, and it has saturated.

          Go away and find another cause to back – this horse is dead and more flogging won’t do any good!

      • tallbloke says:

        The ability to miss the point is strong in this one.

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Catweazle, you’ll see the correction issued.

        Let this be a salutatory lesson to sceptics who visit this blog.

        While I may be sometimes brazen and outspoken in my manner, I strive for both honesty and accuracy.

        I welcome comments and feedback, even by those who would accuse me of not being prepared to act in good faith.

        So when you say there is no chance of honesty, integrity or being open to criticism at WtD you are very wrong. Very wrong indeed.

        I’ll leave this comments section and all the criticism posted as testament to transparency and openness. I could have ignored the criticism, or blocked comments. I did not.

        I could have simply ignored Mr. Watts complaint. I did not.

        Can everyone else in this debate make the same claim?

        Unlike Mr. Watts and other high profile sceptics such as Robert Carter and Andrew Bolt, I receive no salary for my work.

        I do not receive money or funding from any organisation, corporation, government body, institute or think tank. I speak at no think tank sponsored events.

        I am happily, proudly independent of any political party or organisation.

        How many others can make this same claim on either side of the fence. If you visit the archives of WtD you’ll find I can be equally critical of voices “on my own side”.

        For better or worse, the majority of content is mine. All editorial choices are mine. I know there are many professional science communicators who look at WtD and wince.

        For better or worse I have elected to remain an independent, and authentic voice.

        Both yourself and other sceptics will note I have taken the time to respond to your claims personally. I have done so respectfully.

        Take this as an act of good faith, even if you profoundly disagree with me on the science.

        • Steve B says:

          Well there is another untruth. Watts receives no salary for WUWT. How about you do proper research before posting and commenting junk.

        • Paul Evans says:

          Can you please highlight anywhere on your site where you have been critical of ‘your own side’?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Thanks Paul,

          As you have asked a reasonable question, I’d suggest you read my scathing comments of that awful 10:10 No Pressure video. I thought it was a tactical error and in poor taste. I hope this answers your question.

          Cheers, Mike @ WtD

          http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/own-goal-10-10-no-pressure-video-a-disaster/

          These were my words on the video:

          I love dark humor.

          The creator of this video was behind the hilarious Black Adder series, and the 10:10 video is reflective of that strain of humor. I also get that this was designed for the YouTube age, to go viral and thus raise awareness. I get it was meant to be a little “risky.

          But to be frank, I did not find it funny.

          As a father, I find any depictions of harm to children disturbing.

          For many people, harm to animals in a film is more disturbing than watching thousands die by alien invasion, tidal waves or nuclear war. The same rule applies to children which is why even brilliant films such as “The Road” are so emotionally grueling.

          Videos such as this are intended for a mass audience, most of whom do not want to see children, puppies and small kittens harmed.

          I’m not saying film makers should play it safe.

          However, they should be alert to the virtual “war” going on between those hoping to prompt action on climate change and those hoping to delay action.

          In this war the weapons are words, blogs, YouTube videos and Twitter.

          In this “war” symbolism matters.

          Dead children are an awful, dreadful symbol to link to your cause.

        • Pete Brown says:

          Sorry, can I just clarify, where is the actual apology? I mean for wrongfully broadcasting to the world that Anthony Watts was trying specifically and intentionally to mislead people for dishonest purposes. I’ve had a good look around the post and comments but all that reveals is a seemingly unjustified blustering attempt at self aggrandisement on your part. Oh, and one small minded fellow who I assume is one of your regular contributors, calling someone with whom he disagrees a “retard”.

          And the url still says “anthony-watts-dishonest-misrepresentation-of-sea-ice-graphs-no-surprise-there”.

          So you’re still calling Anthony Watts dishonest, and broadcasting it to the world, even though you know this is unmerited.

          If you were a child of mine, I’d tell you stop blathering and apologise properly. Has anyone called your parents?

          This is the second time I’ve used this quote recently but it sits here quite well:

          “[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

  98. john byatt says:

    Your NSIDC image

    nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Watts image
    nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    just removed the standard deviation part of the URL

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: