Playing hide the satellite is almost as much fun as playing hide the salami.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/
How do we deal with that inconvenient ESA satellite? I know, lets make the line very faint yellow, and not normalize the starting point – like we did with all the other satellites. Also, let’s throw in an irrelevant 0.3 mm/year which has nothing to do with the accuracy of measurement at the surface of the water.. We certainly wouldn’t want people to see the correct representation of the data.
That’s the trouble with Europeans, they’re out of control.
They should turn the Envisat portion of the graph upside down, that way they can include it in the next IPCC report. I’m pretty sure turning things upside down is what they mean by “peer review”.
When they launched Envisat, it’s first 22 runs showed sea levels falling…..
they didn’t believe it
…so they “tuned”/”corrected” Envisat to match Jason, and tuned it to match what the computer climate models said sea levels should be doing – rising – and at what rate
Envisat continued to show sea levels falling after that tune up…..
….they still don’t believe it, can’t figure it out, and claim it’s something “unexpected”
They are still trying to tune Envisat to match what the computer climate models say……it should be saying
Can you believe that BS?? Well it’s true….
….it’s all in their 2008 report
Envisat is showing sea level rise exactly where GOCE and GRACE are showing a gravity anomaly…
The Indo-Pacific, right on top of the Ring of Fire
Envisat is not reading sea level rise, it’s reading gravity………………….
Jason of course is reading gravity…..
….Jason was initially tuned to match what the computer climate models said it should read
So both satellites were tuned to produce sea levels……that the computer climate models said they should
I think that about sums it up. Lat, I’m going to take another run at putting all of that together……. at some point. It should also be noted, Top/Pos had an error margin of +/- 3cm,(that’s their words) so they don’t have a clue as to what the sea level was to begin with. Evisat has entirely disagreed with Jason, but they accept Jason’s measurements and adjust Evisat’s even though Evisat was launched after Jason. And, as Lat stated, they all simply read gravity and then interpret what the gravity changes mean, based on the geoid of the ocean.
This also goes toward the asinine adjustment. They don’t have a clue as to the height of the land relative to the base of the ocean floor, because the sats can’t read through that deep.water! Its all based on works of supposition and fiction.
You know………….
We’re in the wrong profession
We need a job where we can adjust the outcome, the error bars are a magnitude higher than the results…..
…and after spending millions of dollars, when it’s still wrong, we can claim that we learned a lot
lol, naw, I don’t lie as good as they do. I do have an impressive tap dance when asked about stuff I don’t know, but that only gets me past management. The rest of the world is much smarter than that.
You are on target about the faint yellow. At Judith Curry’s site there is a July 5 posting about the Forster Gregory paper and how its “line” was manipulated at a multi-line comparative graph. some of the posters were tut-tutting like “how could Forster and Gregory miss that!!” My immediate impression, very easily, by the fact the F-G line was faint gray, while the others bold and bright. I think it would behoove researchers looking for shenanigans to go through the IPCC reports look over all the multi-graphs, and target faint lines for close examination for manipulation beyond the originators’ original product. Could be a common practice even, a cousin to “hide the decline.” Follow the Shading? Hide the Hue? Contrast-gate? Follow the Pastels?
Envisat has problems with drift which makes the results unreliable.
Any data which doesn’t support the preconceived agenda must be unreliable. That is why you treat the data differently.
That’s the official version. Tell me, how is it that they can measure the drift, but not accommodate the drift to the measurements? It’s horse hockey.
I would guess, they correct the same way as they correct for satellite temperature measurements at the receiving station (assume the same azimuthal drift at satellite altitude)
There’s a hole big enough to sail a ship through in that logic, but it;s good enough to prove Lysenkoism is correct.
Why don’t they use the method that the Communists did: Anybody who doesn’t believe Lysenkoism gets shot.
Well, it’s not like something similar hasn’t been suggested. To incorporate it with some archaic trucker jargon, 10:10 good buddy!
Latitude has found a lot of literature on this subject of satellite sea-level, but its hard for us to articulate all of the problems with it in one simple post. The technology is a bit complicated, and much of the information is obscure….. I believe intentionally so. For instance, the graph shown asserts a level of certitude where there is none. Topex/Poseidon had a margin of error of 3 cm, and that’s pretty optimistic in my estimation, yet, they use T/P measurements as the starting point of the graph! If one was to add 3 cm to the bottom of the graph and then use Evisat’s measurements, there would be no discernible sea level rise. And, I don’t believe there has been any measurable sea-level rise.
And Steve, this brings me to you. You have in the past posted many local sea level measurements. Do you know of any place that has much of it centralized? I’m not aware of any place that has much of the mechanical measurements centralized, but one piece of literature referenced how they calibrated to agreement with these measurements. But, of course, no direct reference to the measurements themselves.
This is the place for tide gauge data, which shows that 3mm per year is complete unmitigated spectacular bullshit. http://www.psmsl.org/
Thanks Steve! You are the man!!!
I wonder what the error bars are.
I wonder what is cause any rise.
SSTs are not consistent with this volume expansion by density changes.
Not enough ice melt.
I wonder if it could be cold deep water circulation to the surface in a some 800 year ocean circulation pattern as a result of the emergence from the LIA.
It’s either that or alteration of the phenotype is expressed in the genotypes of succeeding generations.
Hell, it’s anybody’s guess at this point
By chance I downloaded data from aviso.oceanobs last weekend.
I was writing a letter to Bill Donovan of UK Environment Agency. Bill is repsonible for giving guidance to local authorities about the rate of sea level rise. He says satellites show 3mm/year, land sinking 1mm/year so 4mm/year irrespective of what tide gauges show.
I thought it would be interesting to compare the rate of rise from different satellites during periods when they more than one was 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 James Sexton’s comment on WUFT 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/