Graph clearly shows ice extent recovering from the 2007 minimum.
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly
Last week we posted the above graph in our article “Arctic Ice Hits Record Low!” shout global warming activists”.
The graph, which came from the UK Met Office website, tracks monthly anomalies in Northern Hemisphere sea ice, and clearly shows ice extent recovering from the 2007 minimum.
However, When Paul Homewood of NotALotofPeopleKnowThat.com contacted the Met Office to access the data related to the graph, he must have created quite a stir, because the Met Office has now withdrawn the graph as well as any related links.
As an explanation, the Met Office told Mr Homewood that they have “reprocessed the data.”
Full story here:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/the-mystery-of-the-disappearing-graph/
Thanks to Paul Homewood for this link
20 Responses to Mystery Of The Disappearing Graph
SUNSPOTS
11 May - 4 sunspots
Credit: landscheidt.infoGood news! A publisher in Italy has now translated Not by Fire but by Ice into Italian.
La Prossima Era Glaciale
Available hereClick for full size
Ice Age Maps
Are You Prepared?
I recommend this DVD
Warmer during most of
the past 10,000 years
- 530,999
Unique
VisitorsPowered By
According to the MET Office the satellite taking the readings had degraded over the years and the data was inaccurate. But how was it inaccurate? The chart shows that the sea ice was increasing since 2009 and according to the MET Office:
“The problem affected HadISST fields from January 2009 and probably causes an underestimate of ice extent and concentration.”
Wow, not only was the sea ice increasing, it was underestimated and was actually increasing faster than is represented on the chart.
I’m sure the UK Met office will soon release a public retraction and an apology for their flawed information.
PS: Yeah sure, and if you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.
“That’s not a woman – that’s The Brooklyn Bridge”
Pigpen (RIP) – Grateful Dead
This just proves the met office is as corrupt as NASA Hansen NOAA and the IPCC and the gov Piers Coburn was always right about the met office being corrupt and against climatology
“Reprocessing data” at the Met Office, based on past performance, obviously means one of two things:
(1) Burying the data, away from prying eyes; or
(2) Massaging (altering) the data, to get the desired, politically correct, result.
“reprocessed the data.”
Sure and they will “ adjust the data ” to fit with dogmas…
Lol yeah “reprocessed” – ooookkkkkaaaaayyy!
Here’s an article from 2010 – a bit old but still worth debate:
10% drop in Stratoshperic water vapour since 2000:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
I don’t know what the percentage change is in other layers (troposphere/mesosphere – Below/Above Stratoshpere respectively)and what that says about our climate, and whether there is less overall water vapour in the whole atmoshpere. If there is less overall vapour then perhaps more land locked ice is one explanation as to where it is going, and if there is more % vapour in lower spheres, but less in uppers, then maybe the water is condensing quicker at lower levels due to more sea vapourisation, more accumulation of water vapour – quicker – so it naturally condenses at lower levels.
Maybe that would explain why we are seeing deluges of rain now and heavier snowfalls, the vapour (more of it) is accumulating quicker so it cools quicker in lower atmosphere and can’t get to upper atmosphere, hence less in upper sphere is being recorded.
Any thoughts?
Andrew – Scotland
This may have something to do with it:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/earths-clouds-are-sinking-and-could-help-cool-planet
Seems to me though that a lowering of something else, or perhaps a change of temperature gradient(becoming steeper or more pronounced) with altitude is what is causing these lower cloud tops. This logically would be more evident as you move away from Equator and toward Polar regions. Colder temps at higher altitudes does coincide with airmass ability to not hold as much water vapor.
here’s a ‘spot-on’ comment from the popsci article I linked immed above
jakraig
02/23/12 at 4:43 pm
There is a reason for the clouds lowering, it is very simple and I would have thought every scientist in the world would know what it is but apparently this writer is un-informed.
For the last 15 years the climate has been cooling. When climate cools, it also decreases the height of the atmosphere. Our atmosphere has shrunken dramatically. Our artificial satellites can stay aloft longer now because of less atmospheric drag.
There is no “man made” global warming. The planet went through a warming “cycle” just as it has done for millions of years, as these cycles go this one was rather mild. The scientists who have been screaming “AGW” are misinformed at best and liars at worst. Many of the most famous “AWG” proponents have been proven to be liars, but only so that government money can continue to underwrite their “studies”.
Global warming would be nothing to fear if it were real. Higher concentrations of Carbon Dioxide would be nothing to fear. Fact: Plants need less water and grow faster with higher concentrations of Carbon Dioxide the improvement is pretty remarkable. The faster growth rates may be able to save mankind from the lower temperatures and shorter growing seasons we seem to be heading for.
We should fear however, we should fear global cooling. Little ice ages are a normal phase the earth goes into every couple of hundred years or so. The normal state of the earths climate is actually iceage. Every one hundred thousand years or so we have an “interglacial” period where the earth warms. They usually last between ten thousand and twelve thousand years. We have been in this one for eleven thousand five hundred years. It is time for a return to the normal condition of earths climate, miles high ice and smaller oceans. We won’t like it when it comes. We must all hope for only a “little ice age” and hope the normal, full blown ice age delays it’s return.
Let me suggest further reading at http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/189” to start
This statement has always confused me – “The normal state of the earths climate is actually iceage. ” It confuses me because of paleontology. It would appear that for millions of years, the normal state of the Earth’s climate was anything BUT Iceage. It isn’t because of the 60 million year ago hit that ended the age of dinosaurs, or so it is believed, either. So what do you suppose happened that took the Earth from a continuously tropical climate to our now “normal” climate of iceage? Has anyone got any idea why a million or so years ago, normal became abnormal and something that didn’t appear to exist at that time became “the norm?”
the following graph shows this very clearly,
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image6.gif
I don’t know why it’s happening, but it has been cooling for a very long time.
Maybe when we get into the next Ice Age we’ll have more elements to understand its real causes.
I have a hunch that it’s related with the movement of the solar system trough the Milk Way and different concentrations of plasma (and other things) we encounter in our way.
It has to do with the break up of the Super continents and the emergence of Ocean currents as a cooling mechanism. It’s fairly complex, but when you have a single continent, the corresponding oceans are shallow, with very smooth seabeds- think of the Earth as a partly inflated balloon, when you squinch up the fabric on one side, the rest becomes very smooth. Now think of it as having a heavy material like clay inside: squinch the clay into one side of the balloon and spin it, and the axial tilt will become fairly extreme. See this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
see: http://suite101.com/article/climate-change-and-the-rise-of-civilization-a181194
At this link you will learn that:
we are currently in an ice-age, and have been so for the last 2.6 Million yrs.
see also the Geologic time periods here:
http://scotese.com/earth.htm
there are also links to global maps of Earth climate in these same Geologic periods
http://scotese.com/climate.htm
The following quote came from one of these pages-
“When the Earth is in its “Ice House” climate mode, there is ice at the poles.”
Thanks for the links. The idea makes sense to me and another factor that I think might be influencing the lowering of clouds is the declining Magnetosphere.
Many factors combining now to bring the new cooling of the climate.
I think we have now more “factors” than during the Dalton and the Maunder minimums, therefore, the effects shall be more profound too.
Does anyone think that since the low was a bit deeper than 2007, we might see a repeat of winter 2008 or worse?
Trends,dots,data won’t help anymore….
Let them hide them, adapt them or reprocessed them..
The reality is it’s getting colder fast now!!
Now they call it reprocessing?
Thanks for bringing this “problem” to our attention Robert and for the effort Paul Homewood to find the truth. I’ve just posted the following comment at his blog,
The Met Office graph used to be here also,
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/ice/
together with the NCEP/NOAA counterpart and since the first time I saw them I was impressed with the differences.
The analyzes are quite similar up to about 2002 and after that NOAA starts to show a more pronounced decline of the sea-ice extent, but the graphs are still similar.
The important difference starts after 2008, inclusive. There is where the Met Office graph shows a marked rebound of the sea-ice (with strong oscillations, but the trend is quite clear) while NOAA shows no rebound (while the strong oscillations are present there too).
In my opinion the Met Office graph presented here is the one that makes sense for the sea-ice extent because it shows a clear prompt response of the ice extent to variations in solar radiation (negative response) which, of course, can be seen in the NOAA graph too, although not so well defined and only up to 2007.
After that the two graphs start to completely diverge.
This prompt response seems to have been noticed also (for the “ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea”) in the following paper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612002167
(that I found in this WUWT thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/solar-activity-linked-to-arctic-winter-severity/)
where they’ve found that
“… the ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity at the decadal periodicity … ”
which is completely not present in the NOAA graph after 2007.
Now, according to the following excerpt of the message from the Met Office web page, of Paul’s blog,
“… The problem affected HadISST fields from January 2009 and probably causes an underestimate of ice extent and concentration … ”
one could naturally conclude that the rebound indicated in the Met Office graph is probably even greater than what the graph shows and that would make the difference with NOAA even more pronounced.
Having in sight the past history of falsifying data and political bias in the information about climate recently, specially in connection with IPCC, I’d not be surprised at all that something similar is happening with the Arctic sea-ice extent.
This is a story that is not ending here IMO, but with the help of the low solar radiation of the present cycle C24 the truth may come out sooner than the official deceivers expect.
How sad is to have to sift through the political intents of “scientists” to discover the truth behind their results.
Is there no limit to the deviousness and unethical behaviour of those with mal-intent?
Realizing in advance that a graph so politically inconvenient would likely get deleted, I made a webcitation archive of it a week ago on August 31st at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo , which provides a permanent reference to prove such was on the U.K. government site as recently as then (that being the purpose of the webcitation service).
Anyway, it is striking to note the combination of:
1) How, as an annual average less misleading than single months, arctic ice extent in the last couple years was just as high as in the mid-1990s.
2) Arctic temperatures in the mid-1990s were cooler than in the late 1930s as seen very blatantly at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
Some other particularly good graphs include:
* A depiction of August ice extent variation in the Siberian Arctic basin from the 1920s through the end of the 20th century:
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig2.gif
(from http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm )
* A depiction of temperatures over the past 200 to 11000 years:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
(which is based on data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt ).
————-
Actually I think I have probably seen the last graph (the 200 to 11000 year temperature plot) right here at iceagenow.info before. Easterbrook’s plot is related in any case, although focusing partially on a different data spread.
I’m sure whether http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif has ever been posted here yet, though.