[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

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

You actually did say it wasn't a big deal.

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's my point. We had some nice weather, but it's no big deal.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Now pay attention, because I'm only going to explain this one more time.

I called the attention of you and Zip to this sudden loss of ice extent in both the Arctic and the Arctic. Not to win any arguments, but because I thought you'd be interested. And again it's your side of the climate debate that will be making a big deal about this soon. You haven't heard about it yet and don't realize I'm only trying to give you a heads up.

I check many government data sites. Why do you think this comes as a surprise to me? I've seen these results coming in for a long time. I just believe that no one here gives a damn anymore, so I don't think it's a good subject for discussion.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You give me the impression you're only starting to learn about ice though, so I'll forgive you.

Ahh, nice! Starting to disguise your ad homimens! Once you give them up completely, you'll be much happier.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zip however, should know better, but he's staying slyly quiet. In fact, Zip, you've been talking about a strong El Nino and a possible shift in the PDO. Could that explain this? I remember the last time the PDO got strong was when the climate pushed down from the tropics and melted Antarctic's Northern Peninsula.

Who knows? That's why it's the long term trend we wait for.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But back to Doc. So yes, this sudden ice loss may very well turn out to be a "big deal", for you guys at least.

No, it may turn out to be a 'big deal' for everyone. Even those who put their fingers in their ears and say 'LALALALALALA'.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

When your guys finally figure it out, tell you, and you want to get all wide-eyed and "OMG there's no more ices. The ices is gone. The polar bears in not gonna have no more Penguins to eat, )" I'm going to say to you, but wait you told me this radical ice extent drop at 2 poles was not a bit thing.

The sea level rise thing - now that one really is not so much with the big deal. It's nothing new and no big deal at all. It's been happening for thousands of years. Nothing is happening now we haven't seen before.

See, go back to the beginning of this post. Here is you calling it 'not a big deal' once again.

And we had a long discussion on why the 'Polar Vortex' is quite a big thing. So if you choose to say I have never said the loss of polar ice is 'no big thing' then that would be a great big lie.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There's nothing inconsistent in what I say about warming.

Yes, you say it's warming in theory, but then spend pages upon pages denying aboslutely any sign of warming in practice. Standard WUWT denialism.

$1:

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.

Satellites are the "only credible data set"? Yeah I don't think so. When the satellites deviated fromt the surface temperature record, which one turned out to be wrong. It's all data, all subject to known and unknown uncertainties. plus they measure two different things.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zip however, should know better, but he's staying slyly quiet.

No zip was out of town.

$1:

In fact, Zip, you've been talking about a strong El Nino and a possible shift in the PDO. Could that explain this? I remember the last time the PDO got strong was when the climate pushed down from the tropics and melted Antarctic's Northern Peninsula.

Google it. I think I read about it on a NOAA site, but I'm sure they'll have some kind of standard denial piece over at WUWT.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Google it. I think I read about it on a NOAA site, but I'm sure they'll have some kind of standard denial piece over at WUWT.

Every once in a while they mention the possibility of a strong El Nino based on the indications so far.

I haven't heard anything about a PDO flip, but I don't go there as much as I used to.

It would be pretty crazy if there was one, because the last one was so strong, and so recent.

But it might explain this sudden ice breakup at two poles if it is happening.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Google it. I think I read about it on a NOAA site, but I'm sure they'll have some kind of standard denial piece over at WUWT.

Every once in a while they mention the possibility of a strong El Nino based on the indications so far.

I haven't heard anything about a PDO flip, but I don't go there as much as I used to.

It would be pretty crazy if there was one, because the last one was so strong, and so recent.

But it might explain this sudden ice breakup at two poles if it is happening.

Here's the NOAA PDO page:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There's nothing inconsistent in what I say about warming.

Yes, you say it's warming in theory, but then spend pages upon pages denying aboslutely any sign of warming in practice. Standard WUWT denialism.

No. I only "deny" CATASTROPHIC warming. I don't see that. Nor does any kind of science governed by scientific method.

Satellites didn't diverge from land surface measurements. It was the other way around. I don't remember HadCrut as doing anything too outrageous, and even Hansen only began to force a divergence at GISS with his data adjustment inventions, but Karl took divergence to a new level. He had the drones at NOAA readjust the lines in the graphs. They created their own reality and the new play-along management at GISS said "looks good and Tom's with the political powers-that-be so we'll do it too."

And the pseudo-science of CAGW continues down the path of making the Lysenko period of Soviet Russia look to be the more sciencey by comparison.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Here's the NOAA PDO page:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/

That is interesting. To the untrained eye it does look more negative. I wonder what it means. I'm going to have to wait to hear from the people who know. I'll look around.

[BartSimpson]

With regards to El Nino the State of California is starting to get people preparing for a flood season. We live in a low area and got mail from the state this past weekend talking about the upcoming rainy season and how it will be prudent to be prepared.

[Vamp018]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

With regards to El Nino the State of California is starting to get people preparing for a flood season. We live in a low area and got mail from the state this past weekend talking about the upcoming rainy season and how it will be prudent to be prepared.

All we get in S.NV is typical Monsoon Educational Warning's late night lol.

[N_Fiddledog]

Speaking of NOAA and sea level rise here's an interesting claim from a skeptic (or if you prefer, "denier") site.

$1:

It appears the NOAA also agrees that sea level rise is not happening any where near as fast as many among us would like to think it is. At its site here, it writes the following n(my emphasis):

I clicked on a link he gives from NOAA and copied directly from that link:

$1:

The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. Note that they are relative sea level trends, and are not corrected for local land movement. The calculated trends for all CO-OPS stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century. A complete table of non-CO-OPS station trends are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century.

The skeptic site then says:

$1:

Hurry up and read it before this gets taken down!

The full URL is: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltren ... gional.htm.

So many among us have severely criticized the various institutes for hyper-hyping the dubious, and some even say manipulated, satellite data showing a rise of over 3 – while tide gauges as the NOAA writes above indicate no such thing.

Expect this site to get wiped out.

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/30/sea- ... etersyear/

[N_Fiddledog]

I'm not a great math whiz so by all means double check this, but the CBC article in the OP claims 8 centimetres of sea level rise in the last 23 years.

That's 80 millimetres, I think. So according to my calculator that's about 3.5 millimetres a year.

NOAA is saying in their article that before adjustments the sea level rise is 1.7 -1.8 millimetres a year.

Adjustments. Whoooo...they're magic. Do another trick for us Tom.

[Zipperfish]

Here's teh one where Roy Spencer admits to adjusting UAH satellite data:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

After theie magic adjustment, temperatures trends went down 0.3 deg C per decade. Over night! Why isn't Anthony Watts on the job here?

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

...The skeptic site then says:...

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltren ... trends.htm

According to this page Japan is going to drown well before the rest of the world does.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Here's the NOAA PDO page:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/

That is interesting. To the untrained eye it does look more negative. I wonder what it means. I'm going to have to wait to hear from the people who know. I'll look around.

The PDO is positive right now, because the ocean is 2-4 deg C warmer than usual not far off BC. The SOI is neagtive, indicating (at this point) a moderate El Nino. The sun is just coming off a minor solar maximum. Arctic Oscillation is currently positive. Lots of wet weather for BC over the next week.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Here's teh one where Roy Spencer admits to adjusting UAH satellite data:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

Admits? I thought he explained something everybody knew was coming.

$1:

After theie magic adjustment, temperatures trends went down 0.3 deg C per decade. Over night! Why isn't Anthony Watts on the job here?

Did they?

$1:

The two most significant changes from an end-user perspective are (1) a decrease in the global-average lower tropospheric (LT) temperature trend from +0.140 C/decade to +0.114 C/decade (Dec. ’78 through Mar. ’15); and

I don't get it. You're the math whiz, but wouldn't that be a lowering of 0.026? Because if it is, that's nothing. Are you sure you didn't misplace a decimal?

The NOAA adjustments want to double sea level rise. Now that's magic.

"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a tsunami from out of my hat."