What I considered a banal comment and an interesting plot about rate of change in Arctic sea ice area, that I posted on RC, has got Grant Forster a.k.a. “Tamino” sufficiently alarmed that he has made it the pre-occupation of his blog (laughably called “Open Mind”), according it two articles in the last week.
The discussion following his first hit piece resulted in him blocking all further comment from me to avoid explaining why he though up was the same as down in the rate of change plot. His stated reason for not explaining to poor fool me, who still thought that up was the opposite of down, was “I’m not going to help you”. Strangely, his article claims to “school” me, yet he does not want to help me see where I’m wrong.
When I attempted to correct some of the other fictions he had spun out of my brief comment at RC he responded by more ranting and calling me liar twice, before running to hide behind his control of the blog content and permanently blocking my right to reply.
Come out all mouthy and then run and hide behind the door. Impressive that Grant, really impressive.
I invited him to assess for himself whether that was the actions of an open minded scientist or a cowardly bigot.
I have my own personal opinion on that but I’ll leave him and others to decide for themselves.
So why such vitriol. Why did this merit such effort on his part for such a trivial comment at #52 somewhere on an open thread on a fast moving blog.
Heck, there’s enough garbage on the internet every second for some short blog comment, that is supposedly wrong, to be safely ignored. Maybe he thinks I’m onto something.
Thankfully Grant Foster has co-authored one climate paper and seems to know his way around, so he was able to provide some useful input.
In his first article he reproduced my graph from the Cryosphere Today’s data, so that provides corroboration of the extraction and processing.
In his second thread he created some artificial “random” data using and AR1 model to provide a comparison.
Now, because of the 12 month gaussian filter they are both smooth curves of a similar scale. However, there is no obvious pattern in the AR1 model, no repetition of peaks at equal spacings.
The series of equally spaced cycles, broken by a 10 year period of accelerating ice loss, is certainly not reproduced by the AR1 test data. Perhaps it’s a feature of the data after all.
He maintained in his first article that my filter had simply amplified some insignificant peak out of the noise. But if that was the case, the same would presumably have happened with his synthetic AR1 data and there would be a similar strong mid-range cycle in the filtered AR1 test, most likely with a different frequency. But there isn’t.
Whether those cycles are “statistically significant” needs to be looked at in more detail. Foster made a lame attempt at showing they were not but when I raised a technical error he had made in his Fourier analysis, guess what? He deleted my comment from his blog to prevent others seeing his incompetence and refused to discuss any further, removing all my replies.
Now whether he is simply so bigoted and intolerant that he can not abide anything or anyone that disagrees with him, is a possibility that cannot be ignored. However, if that is not the case it would suggest that there is something in my analysis of that data that he feels a strong need to suppress.
I did intend to write this up at some time in the future. Foster’s reaction makes me think this may merit more immediate attention.
Thanks for the tip Tammy. Your encouragement is most welcome and thanks for the limited help you were able to provide.
NOAA’s Arctic Oscillation index has also just gone below the the long term mean. Another indication that there is either multi-decadal natural variability now going negative or, at least a return to stable conditions.
The AO data is long enough to suggest it covers a full 60 year oscillation, though one cycle is not enough to clearly establish such a pattern with any degree of certainty. However, it certainly does not show any “run away warming” or “tipping points”. Quite the contrary.
The latter part of the AO record is consistent with my observations on the rate of change.