They don’t care, they’ll just adjust at their leisure. Envisat’s graph today…..
Four freaking days ago!!!!
Now we know why we had to wait so long for an update.
Jason I and Jason II will soon start back up again as well.
The old adage is true…… Figures lie, and liars figure. They added the calibration time that had them so screwed up to begin with. And now they’re telling us the crap that they didn’t believe then is real now but after all of the adjustments that the sea level was really dropping from 2002-2005. Okay…. Jason I says that’s a lie!
Oh, never mind you guys will fix it in a minute….. or you simply won’t care and think you can lie with impunity.
All graphs were generated from this site…. http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/
suyts space 
Gasp!
Well now all they have to do is go after all the tide gauges and send the measuring scientists to gulags.
That would be a good plan…… except…… https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/canadian-west-coast-tidal-gauge-measurements/ Go to the bottom of the post and read the “update”…….. They started with the tidal gauges.
One wonders why they started a satellite in the first place.
But then again, maybe they didn’t.
Soon, the trends of the adjustments will equal the overall trends.
Their belief systems don’t allow for their to actually be falling sea levels….. so they’ve got to adjust them up regardless of what the data states.
Hum?, keep this up and all the data sets will agree, and then be held as proof of how right they are.
Yes…. There is no data set which can be believed as true, or even near true. But, being congruent with the dogma, it will be held up to be true.
That indeed is why they are so right for this job.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nobody%20chaperones%20the%20chaperone%22%20in%20gentlemen%20prefer%20blondes&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdaylV6FVCiE&ei=cyeFT5KZDMHdiALy3s31BA&usg=AFQjCNF6kdM2cezb-tAfKhUHANNDG_ApuA
It seems Envisat didn’t approve of the adjustments:
http://atmos.caf.dlr.de/projects/scops/_news/News_actual.html#361
A quick Google found this talk:
Click to access 02%20Pres_REVISED%20OSTST2011_CrossCal_Envisat_AOllivier.pdf
(p13). The lower trend graph disagreed with Jason-1. They found an error in one of the instrumental corrections – PTR (point target response), which uses a known target to calibrate the satellite. When they fix the PTR calibration they get the higher trend, which then agrees with Jason-1.
If you don’t trust the scientists that have done this, that’s one thing, but there’s nothing inherently wrong in a dataset calibration being corrected and giving better agreement with another.
Trusted would be the word. All changes in trends, recalibrations, and adjustments always lower the past and raise the present.
Then the satellite measurements are all FUBAR……the data they produce all has to be retroactively adjusted
Tamsin, you should familiarize yourself with the history of Envisat. The first 40 passes had never before been used as part of the data set because it didn’t match Jason I and they used it as a calibration period.
They kept adjusting and adjusting to JasonI. Now, 10 years later, they’re asking us to believe it was wrong all along That they found a systematic error which went unnoticed from launch to now.
The fact is, it didn’t agree with Jason again, and they simply tuned it to Jason,once again, and then published a pdf in the colors of the rainbow to rationalize the adjustments.
I’ll have more on this when possible.
It’s true I’m not familiar with the history of Envisat. I’ll try to remedy this in time to read your next post on it 🙂 Cheers.
Tamsin…..look for the 2008 Envisat working papers
Envisat RA2/MWR ocean data validation and cross-calibration activities. Yearly report 2008
Thanks – I was planning to go downstairs from my office and ask the remote sensing experts in my group 🙂
great idea….
Ask them for me why satellites that do not have a degenerating orbit…
…need to constantly have the distance between them and the sea surface
adjusted up
What? This satellite has been up and running for 10 years, and just now they have ‘found’ and corrected an error in the calibration of the equipment? It seems that “climate science” has decided that sea level rise is 2-3mm / yr, and any data that does not support this story must be adjusted until it does.
That’s how it seems.
Paul, they are adjusting a satellite that does not have a degenerating orbit….to two satellites that their orbit is degenerating….
When the whole purpose of launching Envisat, was because Jasons were degenerating…
but by adjusting Envisat to Jasons….they can show sea level rise
Tamsin, here is a quote from Ray Spencer today:
“And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.”
Trust is difficult in the current era. Unless the data is provided transparently in raw form with code so it can all be replicated then sceptics are right to be sceptical. Especially with AR5 soon.
It must suck to be a European satellite scientist. They’re always wrong and are continually having to correct their inferior measurements to the superior American satellite measurements.
Don’t they teach science in Europe? Or are they getting our rejected scientists to work over there?
When you combine all the adjustments, with all the climategates revealed in the IPCC process, revealed in the FOIA releases, revealed in the hockey stick reconstructions, revealed in the always predicted, never realised disaster forecasts, then, to any unbiased rational person,.the CAGW “scientist” simply have no credibility.
I did some calculation that I posted also on Steven’s blog here:
http://www.real-science.com/was-envisat-hit-by-an-asteroid#comment-85402
Looking at it – it seems as if it was a bigger increase in the past that is still being redistributed year by year in the last 4 years… and then it came the stupid question to my mind – has there been some other adjustment earlier? How many adjustments?
There have been many adjustments. http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html Just scroll to the bottom to see some of them.
But the problem you’re walking into is the conflation of data sets. That vapid CU graph is no more valid than the temperature one I created….
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/another-look-at-cus-conflated-graph/
Scroll down to the bottom to see the true decadal temp record!
Thanks. It is much aligned with the true sea level record.
I was checking the graph only to get the absolute value. Here I have found some more:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/
Doing the same calculation I get to the values of total increase 1993 to the respective year:
2012 – is shown to be same as 2011 = 50.4 it goes outside the line
2011 = 50.4
2010 = 52.7
2009 = 51.2
2008 = 49.5
2007 = 49
so pretty stable since 2007
2006 = 41.6
2005 = 37.2
2004 = 33
As there was no huge alarm in 2007 for the 8 mm increase I suspect that is a result of some adjustment for the whole previous period?
As now Jason 2 is looking boring somebody will soon have to adjust Jason 2
I believe they are in the process of altering Jason II as we speak. Jason 2’s data hasn’t been updated since 25 January.
Pingback: Sea Levels Still Rising And Envisat Records Altered To Show This | JeremyShiers.com Blog
By chance I also downloaded data from aviso.oceanobs last weekend.
I thought it would be interesting to look at rate of rise from different satellites during periods when they both operating. Surprise Surprise, clearly show that rate of rise has slowed and that there used to be agreement between results from Poseidon and Envisat during period when they were both operational.
After I read your post I downloaded data again and compared results.
By making the change to get Envisat to agree with Poseidon/Topex overall they’ve messed up the agreement in some of the overlapping periods.
There was a big dip in sealevels (around UK at least) in 1990, so maybe sea levels did rise at 3mm/year until 2000, but this was just reversion to mean, not a permenant change.
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/sea-levels-still-rising-and-envisat-records-altered-to-show-this/
It occurred to me, one of the most credible sources for sea level data is the US Navy. Historic Sea level data may be available to the public but definitely should have been used for the recalibration.
Pingback: The Quickening: Jason II Getting In The Act | suyts space
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Thanks!
Both versions of Envisat show an annual variation of at least 10 mm, which seems reasonable, so clearly Jason I must be adjusted to something like this: http://virakkraft.com/True-Jason1.png 😉
lol, exactly.