Well, we got a response from “fiq”. It didn’t make much sense.
First things first: What part of “The presence of a trend invalidates the “within statistically normal boundaries” argument” did you not understand? I didn’t just assert it, I proved it.
Did you even read what I wrote?
You don’t like the answer so now you’re gonna make out like I avoided the question. My opinion: that doesn’t make you a coward, it makes you a liar.
Here’s how “fiq” opens his response:
Now this is just curious. I feel perfectly fine where I sit, but when I read the comments I realize that falling fast; “weapons grade stupid” yesterday and now a leveler of cherry-picking accusations (really Michael?): “I checked it and Tamino has not cherry picked the data as you accuse.” Time to hide the kittens, there is no telling where my depravity will take me today.
You don’t like being insulted? Neither do my readers. If you wanted a genial discussion then you shouldn’t have accused climate modelers of institutionalized incompetence and referred to my regular readers as “fawning uncritical thinkers,” the kind who “believes you without demanding evidence”.
You went out of your way to invite scorn. Then you whine about it. We are not surprised.
Now, from Tamino . . .
“…Here’s the deal: I’ll answer your question. Then you answer mine.]
“I’ll do a big post about sea ice. After you read it, I expect you to answer the question: is Arctic sea ice decline “staggering” or not?”
The old, “let’s trap the rube into my domain expertise so that I can school him, thus garnering praise of damsels and vanquishing my enemies trick?” How many Dave Burtons do you need?
Exactly what “domain expertise” did I trap you into? Statistics? Statistics as applied to Arctic sea ice?
You trapped yourself. I do agree, however, that you’re a “rube.”
I have asked a very simple question. I have repeated it. I welcome an answer to it. I don’t welcome a treatise on the question that you wished that I asked.
Again . . .
“The chart depicts a current extent about ~1.5 sigma under the median. As a static data point, isn’t that quite normal?”
[This is a yes/no question, one to establish agreement on the 1/30/14 data — the question would transfer to other data sets, it’s a question about statistical inference, it’s not a question about ice.]
“If so, how do we have a staggering decline if we seem to have a perfectly acceptable value in a normal distribution?”
[In other words, why are you using twenty dollar words to describe a data point that is 1.5 sigma from the mean (in a data set that describes two sigma as the range of moves that might be due to natural variability?)]
I answered it. Right off the bat. In no uncertain terms.
Let’s use small words so you might be able to get it. It’s not a “static” data point.
What part of “The presence of a trend invalidates the “within statistically normal boundaries” argument” did you not understand? I didn’t just assert it, I proved it.
Suppose the 2nd graph (artificial data in correct time order) was your success rate in persuading people that you have a clue (seems plausible to me). Keep telling yourself that everything is fine because that final data point is well “within statistically normal boundaries.”
My hoped for response was, “Okay, you raise a good point. It is fair to characterize that data point as statistically normal and it does not constitute a staggering outlier on it’s own. However . . . .” Then I think we would have had an instructive exchange about recent ice volatility in the arctic and how to deal with statistical uncertainty in that data set (the latter part being my biggest curiosity). And my tacit question of whether or not your current language matches current conditions would have been up for fair debate. I honestly didn’t think it would be so hard to get to the starting point, an agreement that the data point in question does appear to be rather normal.
You didn’t raise a good point. It is not fair to characterize that data point as statistically normal.
So you didn’t get your hoped-for response. Poor, poor you, all you got was pwned.
My opinion: your in-laws should be afraid. Very afraid. And not just of the threat from man-made climate change.