[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh and hey, Zip and Doc - damn...

Have you two noticed what's been happening with the Arctic ice lately.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Is this going to be 2012 all over again?

But piss me off much? I thought my side was going to win this year, and so close...so close...

I think it might even be worse than that. I saw something out of the corner of my eye, but was afraid to look further. It looked like the same thing was happening in the Antarctic.

It looks so radical. I wonder why nobody's talking about it.

No one is talking about it because the ice thickness is still decreasing. Large chunks are still breaking off Greenland and Antarctic inland glaciers, and the melting overall seems to be increasing.

If a little surface ice forms over winter, and doesn't melt one year but does the next, it really makes little difference to the overall picture.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe you recall the last time the satellite data drifted significantly from the surface temperature record? Turns out that they were failing to account for orbit decay of the satellites.

Yes and you remember, or should, that we've discussed it before. You ignore the explanation even though you've heard it at least three times.

Let's do it one more time then.

Skip the spoiler unless you're a climate wonk:

With the satellites there was a divergence between the data of UAH, and the data of the other satellite service RSS/MSU. That was a problem. Scientific method demanded it be looked into. What they discovered was the orbit of the satellite recording the data was disintegrating and that was causing a problem in computing accurate temperatures. They readjusted the way they were computing the data to allow for the orbit disintegration. Problem fixed.

With Land surface data manipulations, there have been many, but the last one was the jaw dropper. All the others have been more like boiling frogs, if you know what that means. If you don't click the link. Basically they're crooked, but you don't notice.

Divergence of measurements between different temperature services was not the problem with the NOAA adjustment. In fact nobody was even talking about the problem the political arm of NOAA (represented by Tom Karl) all of a sudden decided needed fixing.

There had been a problem in the past involving different methods of taking sea temperatures and how to adjust from one to the other. Scientists had fixed it as best they could. The boiling frog data manipulations of Hansen over at NASA/GISS had created greater divergence between data sets, but even those had yet to reach the unforgivable mark.

Nevertheless Tom Karl suddenly decided to "fix" this non-problem, nobody was really complaining about. And he "fixed" it, not by discovering whatever the problem was that was causing these slight divergences between temperature sets. He created a whole new divergence so radical and in your face that land surface temps could be right, or satellites could be right, but they could not both be right.

He did not solve a problem with his data manipulations. He created a larger, more in your face, glaring cock-up.

The real problem as Karl and those of the political left saw it was the temperatures were no longer supporting their Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. There was a noticeable hiatus of no warming.

The scientific method would tell Karl to readjust his hypothesis if the data did not support it. Tom had a better idea. He just readjusted the data to conform to the hypothesis.

Basically...

UAH fixed the problem of divergence of measurements between services as scientific method required them to do. NOAA created a whole new divergence of measurements problem where UAH had fixed theirs. That's the difference.

The is a different incident--the RSS/UAH divergence. I'm talking about when both showed a warming in the stratosphere--late 90s.

You persist in the notion that satellite temperature measurements are somehow sacrosanct, and the surface temperature record is unreliable, despite the fact that when they significantly diverged in this instance, it was the satellite record that turned out to be wrong.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh and hey, Zip and Doc - damn...

Have you two noticed what's been happening with the Arctic ice lately.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Is this going to be 2012 all over again?

But piss me off much? I thought my side was going to win this year, and so close...so close...

I think it might even be worse than that. I saw something out of the corner of my eye, but was afraid to look further. It looked like the same thing was happening in the Antarctic.

It looks so radical. I wonder why nobody's talking about it.

Your side? What has that got to do with it? Shouldn't it be a matter of trying to figure out what's going on or not going on? That's the whole problem right there Fiddle. That's why you say in one post that yes of course it's getting warmer but then vehemently deny every single indication that it is in fact warming. Because you're just interested in furthering your politics.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The is a different incident--the RSS/UAH divergence. I'm talking about when both showed a warming in the stratosphere--late 90s.

No. I'm almost positive about the below, but feel free to double-check.

Divergence with RSS was how they knew there was a problem with UAH the first time. The cooling bias was with UAH alone. Divergence is how UAH was first alerted to the problem of orbit decay. It's why they were able to identify and fix the problem so quick when it happened again decades later.

Also, and I'm not sure about this one, but does RSS not double-check its satellite temps against weather balloons? I know they use balloons for something.

[Tyler_1]

I don't mind the rising, it seems better to me than a falling.

TGIF

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

That's why you say in one post that yes of course it's getting warmer but then vehemently deny every single indication that it is in fact warming. Because you're just interested in furthering your politics.

There's nothing inconsistent in what I say about warming. Yes there was a warming bias of about a degree celsius or so during the 20th century. My point is, so what? Using the only credible temperature dataset now (satellites) there has been no warming for almost twenty years.

We had some nice weather towards the end of the last century. That doesn't convince me climapocalypse is coming. That's my point. We had some nice weather, but it's no big deal.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh and hey, Zip and Doc - damn...

Have you two noticed what's been happening with the Arctic ice lately.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

I wonder why nobody's talking about it.

No one is talking about it because the ice thickness is still decreasing. Large chunks are still breaking off Greenland and Antarctic inland glaciers, and the melting overall seems to be increasing.

If a little surface ice forms over winter, and doesn't melt one year but does the next, it really makes little difference to the overall picture.

No. That's not it.

Although maybe this is not as radical as it appears to be...I guess that's possible.

You do get why it appears radical to me, don't you?

Summer minimum is when ice watchers come to their conclusions about whether the melt of that year matters.

For example 2012 was the largest melt in the satellite record. That's based on a late radical dive in ice towards the end of the season. What's happening this year is similar.

You know those hysteria of the week things you get from CBC that tell you how the amazing recent ice melt allow them to make projections of future ice doom - shattered ice in tidal surges or warm causing cooling, that sort of thing?

Those were based on what happened in 2012.

Starting to get it?

Remember how we were noticing the "GLOBAL" ice was rebounding? Do you remember being shown how global ice was positive for the first time in a long time? That happened throughout the freeze and melt season.

But guess what's happening now? It may just be for a few weeks, but it's new and it's radical. Check out the new negative "GLOBAL" anomaly.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... global.png

And the thing that makes it stick out is it's not just in the arctic this time. Check out what happened for a little burst in the Antarctic. Remember the Antarctic has been setting records in recent years for positive ice.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

And actually what happened in the two years following 2012 was there was the largest regain of ice on record, so the ice was thickening, not thinning. Shelf break-off would not explain this this sudden surge in melt towards summer minimum on both poles.

My theory is people are waiting until the actual summer minimum peak in early september to start talking about it. I've seen that happen before.

For now though, it's interesting.

[N_Fiddledog]

Where was this recent shelf break off? When did it happen? I remember something, but I thought it was Greenland.

Maybe it would explain the Antarctic, if that's where it happened, cause that just looks weird. I don't know now. Looks too big for a shelf to me though, because it still has to be broken up and pushed away to melt.

The sudden dive in 2012 Arctic ice was explained by storms.

[N_Fiddledog]

Now as to the CBC hysteria of the week "new study" in the OP.

If you wait a week or two on these you'll usually get the counter-argument to the more radical claims in these, and it will generally turn out it's a bunch of exaggerated bafflegab about nothing.

That's the case here.

On NASA’s recent sea level claim: “Science Isn’t Broken” (Except when it is)

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Remember how we were noticing the "GLOBAL" ice was rebounding? Do you remember being shown how global ice was positive for the first time in a long time? That happened throughout the freeze and melt season.

But guess what's happening now? It may just be for a few weeks, but it's new and it's radical. Check out the new negative "GLOBAL" anomaly.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... global.png

And the thing that makes it stick out is it's not just in the arctic this time. Check out what happened for a little burst in the Antarctic. Remember the Antarctic has been setting records in recent years for positive ice.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

And actually what happened in the two years following 2012 was there was the largest regain of ice on record, so the ice was thickening, not thinning. Shelf break-off would not explain this this sudden surge in melt towards summer minimum on both poles.

My theory is people are waiting until the actual summer minimum peak in early september to start talking about it. I've seen that happen before.

For now though, it's interesting.

It's quite amazing that you have actually convinced yourself of that. That's the 'radical' thing.

I remember you trying to convince us that sea ice was rebounding, but you failed because you somehow think 'extent' means 'volume'. Here's a hint - it's not! 'Extent' is area, 'thickness' is volume. As before, ice thickness is decreasing, and shows no signs of changing that trend.

The two graphs you post also don't seem to support what you are saying. Seems to me the line on that first graph for 2015 is nearly as low as that for 2012. Which means it is -2 million square km less than normal. On the second graph, the curve for 2015 ice extent (area) is well below the average line, and well below the dashed line for last year and shows approximately the same 2 million square km that's missing from your first graph.

Global ice is not rebounding, according to your own evidence! I also find that interesting; that you can see the same thing we all see, but come to the opposite conclusion.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Now as to the CBC hysteria of the week "new study" in the OP.

If you wait a week or two on these you'll get the counter-argument to them and it will generally turn out it's a bunch of exaggerated bafflegab about nothing.

It was NASA that posted the study, not the CBC.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's the case here.

On NASA’s recent sea level claim: “Science Isn’t Broken” (Except when it is)

How does that disprove NASA's study? It's just one big ad hominem, which I've come to expect from WUWT. And the 'graphic' they claim is in the NASA article . . . why don't I see it anywhere?

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa- ... h-how-soon

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh for God's sakes. I shouldn't have to explain simple thing like graphs too you.

But here. Lets go through it.



OK now remember how CBC was making a big fuss about how there was a minimum ice record in March?

Now that's odd, because as you've been told nobody usually cares until the summer minimum in September. That when the real chatter starts.

Nobody cares much in March (with the possible exception of the CBC and you), because what always happens is what happened there. The line goes up and the line goes down.

As you get close to the Summer minimum things get interesting, because as I've told you about 10 times now, and I hope you heard me this time, that's when people who watch the ice draw their conclusions about the Arctic melt.

OK, now knowing that, look up again at the graph. Do you see the grey. If you're in the grey it's no big deal. The hysterics lose if you can be there in September.

Do you see why I was getting hopeful? Do you see what happened in 2012? And again all your recent CBC ice hysteria of the week articles need 2012. Without it they don't exist.

This year was going to be in the grey then boom. It did a 2012. As I told you 2012 was caused by storms, but even if that's the case here it wouldn't explain the Antarctic.

It's weird.

I have a feeling though that when the actual minimum hits soon you'll be hearing about this in your climate hysteria-sphere. You'll understand this when you read about it in Unscientific Unamerican, I guess.

And what the article on sea level showed was nothing is happening now that is that big a deal, or even unusual.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh for God's sakes. I shouldn't have to explain simple thing like graphs too you.

But here. Lets go through it.


OK now remember how CBC was making a big fuss about how there was a minimum ice record in March?

Now that's odd, because as you've been told nobody usually cares until the summer minimum in September. That when the real chatter starts.

Nobody cares much in March (with the possible exception of the CBC and you), because what always happens is what happened there. The line goes up and the line goes down.

No, I remember information about the winter maximum being one of the lowest recorded, back in March. I think CBC was in that list, but I pay more attention to 'Cryosphere Today' than CBC.

That's when the line goes up, but not up as far as all the other lines do.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

As you get close to the Summer minimum things get interesting, because as I've told you about 10 times now, and I hope you heard me this time, that's when people who watch the ice draw their conclusions about the Arctic melt.

You are actually writing this. You might be speaking, but I can't hear you because you are quite far away.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

OK, now knowing that, look up again at the graph. Do you see the grey. If you're in the grey it's no big deal. The hysterics lose if you can be there in September.

Do you see why I was getting hopeful? Do you see what happened in 2012? And again all your recent CBC ice hysteria of the week articles need 2012. Without it they don't exist.

So what? So the graph isn't showing a trend you were hoping to see. That's why science is designed the way it is, to remove our opinions and biases from the results.

And why are we back to the CBC again? Were you bitten by the CBC as a child? Do you think I write articles for the CBC?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

This year was going to be in the grey then boom. It did a 2012. As I told you 2012 was caused by storms, but even if that's the case here it wouldn't explain the Antarctic.

It's weird.

It's data. It's neither absurd nor placid.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I have a feeling though that when the actual minimum hits soon you'll be hearing about this in your climate hysteria-sphere. You'll understand this when you read about it in Unscientific Unamerican, I guess.

Ad hominems again? And I thought we were having such a nice conversation.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And what the article on sea level showed was nothing is happening now that is that big a deal, or even unusual.

And as usual it got things nworng. It went with the 3 inch rise, but the NASA study also said the rise was up to 9 inches in places. With places like Miami already experiencing flooding at high tides, and parts of California like Corocan dropping over a foot - don't you think there might be some concern here?

It may or may not be normal, but these places weren't populated until recently (on a geologic scale).

[N_Fiddledog]

For crying out loud... I was only trying to show you and Zip something that was happening right now that was interesting, because you two claim to be interested in that sort of thing.

It doesn't prove anything for my side of the debate, or anything. It's just interesting. Actually it's your side that will be using it more if it stays consistent.

And it is interesting and you will be hearing about it soon.

It's good for a smile though, because you won't be able to do your Climate Hysteric OMG! Look at what's happened to the ice once your hysteria-sphere catches up and notices.

It you do, I'll link here and say, "But wait, I thought you told me that wasn't such a big deal."

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It went with the 3 inch rise, but the NASA study also said the rise was up to 9 inches in places.

Without even going back to look I'm remembering 3 inches as being the global average. If I'm right, that would mean if some areas were as high as 9 inches other areas were...what? You tell me.

Far below 3, right?