Well, Jason II finally updated! Yea!!
Back in March, yours truly wrote When Even Pretending Seems Dishonest……. and I chronicled what they were doing. I’ve got to give them credit. The adjustments to Jason II are more subtle, so the get style points over Envisat’s adjustments. But, they’re doing something odd. They’ve only updated to 2012.097091, that’s Feb. 4th. It had been stuck on Jan. 15th. Here are their last 3 renderings. All graphs have the insipidly vapid alterations from Aviso removed. The first graph was created March 17th. The second graph was created March 28. And the last one today. At a time when the arc at the apex to the sine wave should be declining, Jason II’s increase is quickening!
In other adjustment news, a German skeptic blog has more details about the Envisat/Jason I adjustments. The link provided has Google translating the site. Continuing with adjustment news,
Steve, via Anthony has Dr. Meier’s possible explanation for the ice adjustments.
Thanks for letting us know. I have a guess at what this might be.
We’re starting to make some changes to our processing to update/improve things, including some you’ve suggested. One thing that we’ve decided to do is to change the way we calculate our 5-day average values. We’ve been doing it as a centered average – i.e., a given day’s value in the plot is actually an average of that day + 2 days before and 2 days after. This caused an issue at the end point because we’d extrapolate to get a 5-day average on the last day, which resulted in wiggles at the end that.
We’re now changing it to be a trailing 5-day average, i.e., a given day’s value in the plot is the average of that day and the 4 preceding days. This will take out the wiggle in the end of the plot (or most of it – there may be some change as sometimes we don’t get complete data and need to interpolate, and later (a day or two) we do get the data and process it.
A key point is that this change doesn’t actually change the data at all; in effect it simply shifts values two days later. In other words, the centered value for Day X is the same as the trailing value for Day X+2.
This change has been implemented in our test environment and we were going to roll it out some time in near future after we tested it for a bit we planned to announce the change. I think that by accident the test code got put into production. I’d need to confirm this, but from the plot differences, this looks like what likely happened.
We’ll look into this and get back to you. I’m traveling tomorrow, but will send a note to people and I or others will get back to you as soon as we can.
The problem with all of this is they haven’t adjusted the rest of the graphic, so they’re pushing the graph the wrong direction. In other words, if they’re going to move the data back two days, they need to adjust the other reference points. The timing to these adjustments are remarkable. And, one has to seriously question the science conducted prior to all of the adjustments. If your underlying empirical data was wrong, then, too, must be your conclusions based on the data. Dr. Meier says the data hasn’t changed, and that’s true to a point. But, what the data means relevant to today has.
To see some other examples of the games we play with our numbers, see This Isn’t About The Climate