At the risk of beleaguering at point, I thought I’d give you all another take on Colorado University’s sea level graph.
As I explained a while back, this is a disingenuous graphic that conflates 3 separate data sets. This is a huge no-no. You just can’t do it like this! But, to give you a simple explanation as to what they’ve done, they started with Topex, then as soon as JasonI came on line, they subtracted the necessary amount to match T/P and started displaying JasonI data, then as soon as JasonII came online, they did the same with them. (Of course they also applied the vapid Glacial Isostatic Adjustment as well.) I’m going to try to illustrate what they’ve done and what else they’re not showing you……. I down loaded the data and then graphed each data set on the same graph.
Now, right away we see an obvious problem. THIS ISN’T SCARY!!!! There’s no point in displaying a sea level graph if it isn’t going to scare the heck out of audience, now is there? The lines aren’t even close, so we have to do the subtraction I described earlier. At this point, anyone with a brain would ask if this is a legitimate method of graphing. But, we can’t really leave it as it is, because, well, IT ISN’T SCARY! So, I’m going to exactly what they did, with one small change. I’m going to trend each individual data set instead of inventing a trend for 3 data sets conflated with each other. Again, I’ll subtract the necessary values from JasonI and II in order for them to line up properly and each one will start as soon as they came on line. I’m also going to have a 6 period smoothing which nearly coincides with CU’s 60 day smoothing.
Well, that doesn’t render very well. If they wanted to accurately portray this conflated mess of data, it should look like this…….
But, why start and stop when another satellite becomes available? Why not use all of T/P, then JI and then throw in JII since 2010?
You see the problem here? The way they conflated the data is exactly the way I conflated the decadal temp graphic.
It is absolute nonsense.