You can’t make this stuff up.
Envisat was the bad girl of satellites, because she refused produce the results Hansen et al were looking for. After ten years of showing very little sea level rise (red), the experts went back in time and tortured the whole data set (blue) to produce almost 3X the rise rate.
MSL_Serie_EN_Global_NoIB_RWT_NoGIA_NoAdjust.png (1024×680)
Axiom # 1 for climate data : All adjustments trend towards increased funding.
Un … freaking … believable. The same story of upwards global warming adjustments gets repeated over and over and over again – by many different government funded agencies.
One would expect a Gaussian distribution of error, but we see adjustments that are almost exclusively skewed in one direction – to match a political agenda.
Well ya know AR5 is approaching, so they must make sure the data is all up to date.
Yes. I’m sure they’ll get back to science once the world government can send them unlimited funding. It’s hard to make a budget these days don’t you know.
“As preparations are underway for the next IPCC report, just about everything that you will see in the next report will be more dramatic than the last report, because that is where all the data is pointing.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jTw3fiNCFCKCQTQkmNr9hZMKkceg?docId=CNG.a68c702f4d660fe03b24c702ca3a8f9e.911
More ex-post “adjustments” to Satellite Sea-Level Altimetry
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-ex-post-adjustments-to-satellite.html
the hubris is staggering!
do they really??/ think that no one is watching the data daily?
do they think they are the only ones on the planet who can take read or plot data?
or just that they feel they CAN get away with lies by faked models ajustments etc etc
beacuse they have protection from those who want to make money and gain control by agenda 21 carbon crap etc.
when this really falls over, soon, none of these people should EVER be employed as more than manual labour somewhere. pref in Jail
It depends how far things go before the masses realize they have been duped, or the burdens become too burdensome. There is possibility of bloodshed.
Son of a bitch!!!!! Look at them go!!!
Adjusting temps outside of reality could probably go on for centuries; adjusting sea-level rise can go on for only so long until it is pointed out that low-lying areas are still not under water when the graph shows that they should be.
Having said that, even after adjustment the rate of rise is still well below what would be considered “catastrophic”. To fulfil some projections, they’ll need to “adjust” it by some incomprehensible factor by the target date(s).
Nah, they can always claim the past was lower.
Yeh, as dumb as they are, they do learn.
They do learn, but will always be one lie behind. If they claim the very recent past was much lower, then they have a hard time explaining the need for dikes in the Netherlands, and the levees in New Orleans, the sea wall in Galveston…
What happens when there starts to arise a significant divergence between the tide gauges and the sat data?
Well the snake oil men will be retired in Mexico or some other place by then…
Will, they’re manipulating the gauge data as well…… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/canadian-west-coast-tidal-gauge-measurements/
Go to the bottom and read the part that says “update”.
So, are they lying now, or were they lying when they explained away the sea level fall to all the precipitation in Australia, Amazon, and Greenland?
Not only do we have missing heat, but missing water as well!
Good catch …
No doubt! Great catch!
Just eyeballing the graph http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_NoIB_RWT_NoGIA_NoAdjust.png, March 2010 sea level does seem higher than March 2011 sea level, so Cook’s GRACE data might actually be correct http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010.htm. Note Cook uses smoothed data.
Why the peaks in the Envisat data occur in different months, I don’t know.
So, I’ll retract my witty claim, but still say WTF when I see the slope of the Envisat data tripled by the adjustments.
https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/contact-us
Do you have a few specific questions to ask these folks? I’m taking suggestions.
Yes, see my above comment. Where is the missing water? That is to say, where did the water that fell on Australia, the Amazon, and Greenland come from (at the same time previous Envisat data showed slightly falling sea levels)?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010.htm – What is their explanation now for all those blue areas on the graph?
John, that map came from NASA, can you find it now? I’m looking, but no luck so far.
What is the error margin of the individual measurements?
Why did the 2009.5 – 2010.0 rise change from 1.7cm to 2.4 cm (diff 0.7cm)?
Why did the 2010.0 – 2010.5 fall change from 2.3 cm to 1.8 cm (diff 0.5cm)?
Envisat matched JasonI trend almost identically…… but they’re a few years off from each other to obtain this near identical trend. Envisat from 2002.5-2005.5 shows a dropping sea level…… Jason I shows an increasing one. 2006-2008 the opposite……
Can satellites be trusted that show entirely different data for 6 years in order to obtain the same trend? These fckers were calibrated to each other for criminy sake!!!
Steve have you got a reference for both graphs or “the experts went back in time and tortured the whole data set”?
Also the Y-axis for the blue graph is not clear.
It is the same reference. They overwrote the old data (which I saved locally) with new data. The scales are the same and normalized to the start of the old data. The slope is written on each graph.
I understand that linear equations are beyond your pay grade.
So everyone is expected to believe you without you supplying any evidence to back you your claims? I’m not saying you are lying but do you expect real sceptics to just accept what you say.
What is you reference for “the experts went back in time and tortured the whole data set”?
You are a total moron. I have been posting envisat data here for years. Type envisat in the search bar above.
So you are saying the moment warmist scientists decide to change their data everything they published before never existed? You will have to destroy the wayback machine, warmist.
I am always wary of people who need to label those who they disagree with. So ‘warmist’ scientists are real scientists whose research you reject?
I am always wary of people who need to label those who they disagree with. So ‘denier/skeptic’ scientists are real scientists whose research you reject?
Laz, I’ve got the same graphs saved on my blogs …. I posted on the crap 5 days ago about how they hadn’t been updated. I’ve got the old data as well.
So be a sceptic for once and find out the story behind why you see differences. Don’t go all conspiracy theorist like SD does, it never turns out well;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/goddard-tampering-with-data-all-over.html
The truth is out there.
Laz:
I label the “Chicken Little Brigade”
They are not scientists and you are a full fledged member of the brigade, or a wannabe
And you carefully applied the known correction for the measured USO clock drift since Feb 2006 to the old dataset before comparing the two to verify that you weren’t comparing raw data to data corrected for the known and documented problem with the USO clock for the last 6 years.
Right?
What is you reference for “the experts went back in time and tortured the whole data set”?
Do you think an elf went in and changed their data?
“USO correction from GDR product
- bias for side-B period
- sign of instrumental correction (PTR) corrected via external CLS input (impact of +2 mm/year drift)”
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/processing-corrections/index.html#c9080
“Do you think an elf went in and changed their data?”
By definition, not too big of a stretch Steve -
Elf [elf]
noun
1. one of a class of out of the ordinary course of nature, with magical powers, subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; often mischievous interference in human affairs.
In reality, it was most likely a faerie.
Knock it off guys. I can not stop laughing!
I am trying to establish if they actually did change their data – I have only your assertion for that and you wont provide compelling evidence of that assertion.
If the data has changed then I am also interested in finding out why. There are many valid reasons why data needs to be adjusted. Unlike a real sceptic, you have no interest in finding out why you think the data has changed – you go straight to a tinpot conspiracy about ‘government funded agencies’.
If the data has really change they why not determine the reason? – If that reason is unsound then criticise it. Be a sceptic for once.
ROFL. You posted the old data on your blog.
Is that statement supposed to deflect attention from the obvious? – That you would rather insinuate conspiracy than try to determine fact?
If? You yourself have demonstrated unequivocally that the data have changed.
There may be many valid reasons why the data have been adjusted, but there are infinitely more invalid reasons. Every single adjustment of every single number should have an extensive justification, which itself is peer-reviewed and verified empirically. Everything else is just Making Shit Up.
Peer Review does not get it. It needs to be available so it can be independently replicated.
Just because some DIP wants to change numbers does not make the change right.
State your case publicly and stand ready to have it trashed by all true sceptics.
Otherwise it is worthless.
I agree Stark, a goodly portion of what is produced in the climate field is Making $hit up.
It is interesting that with all this rise in sea levels, British Admiralty marine charts, which are the single most accurate record of sea levels stretching back almost 300 years, have not had a datum adjustment to reflect global sea level rise. Indeed charts drawn by the likes of Cook, Bligh and Vancouver are still accurate today.
Given that people’s lives depend daily on the accuracy of these charts, and indeed most of the charts for the US and other countries of the world are drawn from the BA charts, if sea level rise was real, it would have appeared in the BA charts. The simple fact that climate scientists ignore these charts and produce their own proxy records shows the truth of the matter.
Have you any reference for this? They seem to accept the threat from sea level rise. The Thames Barrier was not built without reason.
The conductor on a train is going from cabin to cabin, punching tickets. As he come to one cabin, he notices the man has the window open and is busy tearing up paper and throwing it out the window.
“Excuse me, sir,” says the conductor, “why are you throwing paper out the window? It’s littering.”
“Why,” answer the man, “it’s to prevent elephant attacks.”
The conductor is puzzled and responds, “There aren’t any elephants for hundreds of miles.”
“See how well it works!”
You think the Thames Barrier is a white elephant?
It has been used well over 100 times to protect London;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sea-levels-rising-too-fast-for-thames-barrier-799303.html
well Lazarus disappeared again haha. I presume we are keeping these and all modified graphs for posterity when the real s### hits the fan? The persons may actually be up for fraud and court case who knows?
I haven’t disappeared. Since coming back from the dead I get tired easily – also I had to go shopping.
This presentation is describing it as orbital drift re-calculations.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20POD/05_Cerri.pdf
Blinkies are always fun:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/2en2e6f.jpg
is the new slope 2.37 mm per year? So in 100 years 23.7 cm! Let’s hope the Moon bases are ready by then.
The other strange thing is that why are there all these places where the sea level does not seem to go up much if at all.
Paul
Rajendra Pachauri knew in September 2009 what the next IPCC report, AR5, will contain, as he revealed in a talk to a meeting at the New York offices of the Bahai International Community. As expected the situation will be even worse than before.
“When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken,” said Dr. Pachauri, speaking of the periodic assessments rendered by the group of more than 400 scientists around the world that he leads. “People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned. ’”
Hah, I remember this episode. The island was sinking and they all decided it was time to leave on a raft. Come to find out Gilligan was using the Professor’s tide gage as an anchor for his lobster pot and kept moving it to deeper water. Oh those zany castaways…
John B., M.D. says:
” So ‘denier/skeptic’ scientists are real scientists whose research you reject?”
All good scientists are sceptic, but deniers make poor scientists. I accept the general scientific conclusions on every subject – so I don’t reject any peer reviewed science unless it is countered by more peer reviewed science.
Lazarus says:
“so I don’t reject any peer reviewed science unless it is countered by more peer reviewed science.”
That works since most of the scientific journals have been told not to accept anything but the Hockey Team perspective. Steve was right!
You live in a very scary world!
Laz:
Any more “Peer Review” Don’t mean Squat.
It does not mean the paper is even worthy of wiping ones ass with.
So much garbage gets through peer review it has gotten a bad reputation.
So you recommend ignoring expertise in favour of some unqualified blogger with a conspiracy theory?
The standard of climate denial arguments never fails to set a low threshold of credibility but never fails not to reach it.
If you had any actual experience, you would understand a that S/N ratio of 0.3 makes the entire data set completely worthless and that any serious professional would throw the data out.
But you have gotten used to sucking the teat of clueless children posing as scientists.
Steve – I’m not convinced non-engineers even know what a S/N ratio is. One cannot just adjust it away.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/apr/3apr2012a1.html
In the US, is it possible to legally persue someone for criminal intent when they deliberately falsify, or distort’ data to serve their own, or others’, political goals? Maybe it is called FRAUD?
Because, what I see these-days, is a delibeate, and desperate, attempt to uphold a “story” that is no longer tenable.
If I may translate that very measured statement into everyday English: “These lieing Fookers are fooking lieing and they should be fooked. No paycheck. No pension. Just prison.
Is there a quick graph that shows how the new data ties in to the pre-2004 satellite re-adjustment data, and how the other satellite data show the same thing?
From last October.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%204%20CV/02%20Pres_REVISED%20OSTST2011_CrossCal_Envisat_AOllivier.pdf
Not overnight.
…and if you’ve been posting ENVISAT data here for years you should have noticed that everyone ELSE noticed the problem with it, and particularly this effort.
I am not impressed.
Thanks for the info.
The rationale is above the scope of my knowledge.
I shall keep it in mind.
I’ll explain.
AR5 is coming up. They want a minimum of 3mm/yr. Jason was adjusted upwards to 3mm, and then Envisat was adjusted upwards to match Jason.
If true, they cannot hide the slope of the rise forever.
We need some skeptic scientists involved with Envisat to clarify.
Worst case, 3 mm/yr doesn’t seem too bad, even on a century basis, so Hansen has to invoke the exponential curve.
Or, maybe this is a Hail Mary last-gasp attempt by warmists to save their agenda in this climate of poor economic growth and austerity.
AR5 is coming up. They want a minimum of 3mm/yr. Jason was adjusted upwards to 3mm, and then Envisat was adjusted upwards to match Jason.
==========================
sorta…
Actually Envisat showed sea levels falling….Envisat was tuned to Jason because Jason showed sea levels rising….When Envisat drifted from Jason and showed sea levels rising faster than Jason….Jason was then tuned to match Envisat..
…everything was tuned to match the fastest rising sea levels
Disagreement is good, opinions are good, but facts are better.
Radar altimetry is a complex measurement system: satellites are flying at an altitude of hundreds of kilometers and they are can achieve the millimetric/year accuracy only through complex processing. Everything is carefully documented and published. The is no hand-waving here and anyone with decent technical skills can understand and criticize what is done based on facts.
Despite their overall complexity, radar altimeters agree with in situ data within less than 1 mm/year. Yet ENVISAT has been a suspicious dataset for many years. Not because it didn’t match a political agenda as written above, but because it was in disagreement with climate-oriented radar altimeters, in disagreement with tide gauges, and with synthetic heights from the ARGO network. It was in disagreement _beyond_ the accuracy expected from a comparison between in-situ and radar altimetry.
ENVISAT was not designed for Climate purpose. That extent, until a few years ago ESA didn’t make the stringent monitoring that other space agencies have been making on the TOPEX/Jason series. When ENVISAT was identified as an “anomaly” with respect to other satellites and to in-situ, ESA has put a lot of effort to identify and to remove as many sources of errors (e.g. instrumental drifts and discontinuities) as possible through a long reprocessing of old data which led to the update of the MSL trend. Because the amplitude of the error suspected on ENVISAT was large, multiple groups worked in parallel, disagreed, and were challenged to demonstrate that the processing changes they proposed were done for good factual and demonstrated reasons (e.g. theoretical demonstration + validation by comparing to in-situ, and not just the trend).
This process was not done overnight but over the course of more than 3 years. Everything was recorded in reports and papers, or presented in conferences. Each technical change was documented and all sources of errors (USO, PTR, gravity model…) were discussed extensively and double-checked. Everything is available on the ESA or AVISO websites, on conference websites, and in peer-reviewed litterature.
In the framework of the Climate Change Initiative from ESA, thousands of additional pages of reports were released. If anyone wants to disagree and to explain where errors were made, feel free to do so.
Altimetry and tide gauges are by no means perfect, but there is no elf nor faerie intervention, let alone any overnight change. I strongly invite you to read the material (if only the executive summaries), to learn how radar altimetry works, and to read the documents where the limits and potential error sources are explained.
Horse shit! That’s an entire fabrication. There’s so many problems with your comment, one hardly knows where to start.
The only way for the Jason to be in agreement with the tidal gauges is to selectively consider the gauges. I wish people would actually think for themselves before regurgitating the blathering sophistry of satellite apologists. I’ve read that hundreds of times and have yet to see any proof of the assertion. And, my study of the gauges themselves showed no correlation much less matching.
Further, there never was, nor can there ever be a tuning from T/P to Jason. They simply conflated the measurements and called it one.
The idea that Envisat was an anomaly is ludicrous. There were only two data sets covering the same time period! When Jason II came on line, prior to the most recent adjustments (more to come soon) it was more in agreement with Evisat than Jason I.
If you wish a further education on MSL, gauges, and satellites feel free to pop over to my site and read the information and links offered. Those imbeciles don’t even understand how underwater volcanoes effect the geoid. How can they possibly give us a good accounting of the sea level?
Always worth a look at the late John Daly on satellite measurement:
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
and his observations on sea level at
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
There is a very interesting article about data fiddling by Dr David Whitehouse at
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/580-sea-level-shenanigans.html:
“Clearly, there is significant variability in sea level over the annual and decadal timescales as well as the obvious long-term trend. However, between 1900 and 2000 sea level rose by 18.5 cm or an average of 1.8 mm per year.
The satellite era of sea level measurement began in with the launch of Topex/Poseidon in 1992 and continued with the launch of Jason-2 in 2008.
From the start there was a problem reconciling the data sets from the Tidal Gauges and the satellite measurements. The satellite data indicates a much larger rate of sea level increase. Satellite data yields about 3.2 mm per year or about double that of the Tidal Gauges.
There could be many reasons for this. Either the Tidal or the satellite data could be subject to a bias, or they could be measuring different things (the satellites sending back global data are restricted to latitudes no greater than 66 degrees for example). Given the complex steps required to calibrate satellite data and convert it into sea level readings there is much scope for unrecognised errors. It would be too much of a coincidence to postulate that the rate of increase in sea level had doubled at the same time that a new way was used to measure it! Whatever the situation, the two data sets show continuing sea level rise but the rate of that rise is incompatible between them and nobody has provided a convincing answer why this should be so.
This means that the satellite data do not provide evidence that the rate of sea level rise has been accelerating. Additionally, there is no evidence of any change in the rate of sea level rise over the period of the 1992 – 2010 satellite data.”
They are trying to get the most accurate information they can, not trying to achieve a target.
Sure they are ….
BJ, when cracking wise it is accepted to put a tag at the end of the statement such as “/sarc”. It saves confusion, some people are humor challenged and would think you really believe the statement.
Well it got a laugh out of me.
“I’ll explain.”
That’s how the conspiracy theory is promoted.
LMAO!
You are so funny LAZ!
Laz, you good with numbers? Tell me, what are the odds that all corrections move in the same direction? Always. People wish to hide behind their sophistry and attempt to state they are conducting science.
Well, there’s a few mathematics laws being violated and they need to come up with a credible explanation as to why and how the law of large numbers is violated. And, when it can’t be explained in this manner, it leads us all over the place in thermodynamics.
“Tell me, what are the odds that all corrections move in the same direction? ”
Well that’s that. Believing that is all the evidence anyone needs to believe that all the worlds climatologists are secret fascists hell bent on forming a new world government or what ever your current crackpot conspiracy is.
Septic face lazyarse is back again
I see your standard of mature debate is as low as ever – and you even failed to reach it.
I see Septic face lazyarse is back again
You are sick and a moron.
I see Laz is employing the “Tony Duncan” Defence.
Always a good resort when you have run out of proper arguments.
Laz, I didn’t say anything about a conspiracy. It isn’t surprising that similar ideological advocates would come to similar conclusions. Or attempt to fit data to their ideology. It’s what leftist do.
suyts,
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they don’t think the nonsense they believe in is a conspiracy theory.
Just to show what I mean, do you think these changes in data you see are completely innocent, done for credible reasons etc.?
Or do you believe that it was done because ‘People wish to hide behind their sophistry and attempt to state they are conducting science.’? That ‘they’re manipulating the gauge data as well’?
Who do you think these people are? Governments around the world? Scientists around the world? Both?
If you knew anything about science, you would understand that no legitimate scientist would 10 years later try to apply a correction which tripled the original trend. That means the data is worthless.
You see some big words and get impressed and imagine that you are seeing big science. You are what is known as a useful idiot.
gee, were they accurate 10 years ago…and we should trust them
or were they FUBAR 10 years ago…and everything they said was wrong
…should we believe anything they say now….and find out in 10 years it was FUBAR too
Having published new data ex post facto with a 300% correction, it is safe to assume that they are currently completely incompetent. No serious scientist would have done that.
Exactly….. Laz, tell me, what data set do you see today, which you trust? And if you trust it, can you give me a rational reason why?
suyts,
Why respond with questions instead of answering those asked?
You are the one got uppity about my conspiracy theory comment so who are ‘they’? The ones that have spent billions to launch and operate European satellites and then manipulate the data?
Give us their names and their objectives or you look like just another crank.
Was the Challenger disaster a conspiracy in your eyes? That costs NASA hundreds of billions.
Lots of NASA employees agreed to do the wrong thing. Is that a conspiracy as you claim, or just stupidity towards a common cause? Stop being a moron Lazarus. Your behaviour is pathetic.
Steven Goddard says:
April 15, 2012 at 11:01 am
You are sick and a moron.
I love the Global Warming debate! It brings out the best in us. At times the ‘discussion’ is better than Real Wives of New Jersey.
It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who isn’t interested in having an intelligent discussion.
You don’t have to tell me!
Lazarus, you don’t know jack about science and are on a mission to kiss Joe Romm’s ass – which you do quite effectively.
At least I can read a graph, correct my mistakes and don’t cherry pick for a living. Whose ass are you kissing? Mr Watts?
Wow. You really don’t know jack. ROFLMAO
Steve,
I agree. But you must admit that the debate gets darn bizarre at times.
I spend a lot of time around water with a rod. AGW adjusted graphs are a little like fishing stories – the drift is always in the same direction.