In fact the first graphic (which is the 3rd slide) shows how Archibald fails to present correct information. The graph is correct (it comes from Cryosphere Today) but Archibald’s conclusion is not:
It’s bad enough that Archibald cuts off the graph around 1990. But mainly, he explicitly states “No change over 30 years” when that’s patently false.
His next slide is even worse. Again the graph is correct (it’s from JAXA), but again Archibald states a patently false conclusion. Perhaps Archibald and Watts love JAXA so much because it shows only a small part (since 2002) of the satellite-era data:
Also, it’s not a time series plot, and it doesn’t show anomaly (to remove the seasonal cycle), so how could you tell whether there’s a trend anyway? Good way for Archibald to “hide the decline.”
The truly ironic thing is, that even if you do restrict to using only JAXA data, the decline in Arctic sea ice is still statistically significant.
So why do I say “Maybe we’re getting through?” Because the 2nd comment on the WUWT thread is this:
Richard Telford says:
February 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Global sea ice – no change over thirty years?
Look at the red line on the graph – it goes down. And the decline is statistically significant – see