Readers may recall my story from April 6th where I asked:
What’s delaying UC sea level data from being updated?
As you can see in the graph above, the data has not been updated since mid 2010. I wrote then:
I sent a query from their web page asking why, and hope to hear back soon.
Actually I sent two email queries, one from the web page form, and one to this scientist, listed on the UC sealevel contact page
Dr. R. Steven Nerem
phone: 303.492.6721
fax: 303.492.2825
Over a week passed, hearing nothing. I decided to make a phone call today to Dr. Nerem. Here is what I learned.
First, I give the man points for answering his own phone, a true rarity these days in our voicemailed world.
I explained who I was, why I was calling, and that I had sent emails that had gone unanswered, and asked for an update.
His response was:
“We are updating our web page to a new design, and that is the reason for the delay.”
I replied with: “OK I understand, but the SL data hasn’t been updated since mid 2010, and people are asking questions about it.”
“Well we only update a couple times per year anyway. Sea level changes pretty slowly you know.”
I said: “Yes, but in looking at your previous release schedules, you would have been due for an update in February 2011, and that hasn’t happened. ”
To which he replied:
“This new website design won’t work with our current format, so if you can just be patient and wait a couple of weeks we’ll have it online.”
I thanked him for his time and ended the call.
So there you have it, the reason for a lack of update? Form before function.
Somehow, I don’t think anybody gives rat’s ass about how “prettied up” the web presentation of sea level data is. Just show us the data. I’ll take a table, CSV file, hell even a fax.
So in “couple of weeks” we’ll see if the wait for the new prettier web page was worth it. Somehow, I think it is going to end up looking a lot like this one with more web bling than substance:
Which ironically, has an even longer delayed update of sea level data:
I shall revisit this story in two weeks time, or upon a web page update of http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ whichever comes first.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, you know the numerous problems they’ve all had with communicating the severity of the “crisis” we face. They’ve obviously felt the need to invest some of their publicly provided funding into hiring some expensive consultants to improve the delivery of their message, probably Steven King or Clive Barker.
Perhaps I have become too cynical, or too educated, but I’m guessing that if it shows what the gang want it to show it would have been released already. At least they didn’t do a ‘hottest year’ type announcement in advance… perhaps it is more difficult to ‘adjust’ this data.
Some good news. Saw a photo of Manhattan on the news today and they have somehow managed to hold back the rising floodwaters. Don’t we owe them our eternal gratitude for that?
Suggest saving a copy of the data at the current website, lest it happen to change when moving to the new site.
Anthony;
Whatever they decide the presentation will be, I still think that it would be a good idea to have a blink-comparison between the existing graph and the new graph so that any adjustments of the past recorded historical data are obvious.
Did they not put (and take down) up a couple of ‘new’ graphs the day you first mentioned this? It did not look like a formatting issue with those graphs, just that all of the data seemed to have been altered.
It looked like they were fitting the data to the pre-determined trend line rather then finding the trend line/curves in the data.
We shall wait and see, if they can ‘improve their communication’ of the data with their new web site layout.
Any lack of alarm on the part of the viewer/reader/listener is, as we all know, just the result of poor communication on the part of the climate scientists.
Who would have thought that falling sea levels….
….would have messed up their website
It’s worse than we thought……………………..
Two updates per year. That gives them 6 months to update a “web page”, clearly going to be a fantastic update. Do they need some assistance? I know a few HTML tags.
“Somehow, I don’t think anybody gives rats ass about how “prettied up” the web presentation of sea level data is. Just show us the data. I’ll take a table, CSV file, hell even a fax.”
You forgot to tell him the absolutely urgent reason why you need this data
I’m betting that the re-designed website will use a more “complimentary” aspect ratio, so that the Y-axis appears more vertically enhanced to offset the slowed rate of sea level rise.
Because it’s worse than they thought.
“This new website design won’t work with our current format …”
I do smell something. Changing the data format for another Website appearance, sounds pretty strange. We’ll see.
Sounds like they want a break between the old presentation, which was showing no increase in average level since about 2006, and now!! Wonder what “trick” they are going to use??
Small point: University of Colorado is referred to as “CU” so it’s not confused with the University of California ( which is called “UC”)
Agree that putting style before content is a mistake – many websites make this mistake. I was disappointed by the recent makeover of the Australian Antarctic Division pages – the new live temperature graph for Dome A – http://www.antarctica.gov.au/dome-a – is far less detailed and useful than the previous, which showed the temperatures at various sub-surface levels. They have kept the graph the same for the historic data (2006-present) but they seem to have lost about 6 weeks worth of data in the change over – http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/ice-ocean-atmosphere-and-climate/glaciology-research/antarctic-weather/dome-a-details
Wait a minute, you mean if sea level suddenly started rising by 2 feet a year, we wouldn’t know because of a website revamp??
/not worried
Real reason (speculative): his graduate student was studying for his/her comps, teaching labs, grading papers, etc. and just couldn’t get to the update.
Andrew30 says:
April 15, 2011 at 1:36 pm
they “put (and take down) up a couple of ‘new’ graphs”
Spot on Andrew, we saw a chart that stated “removing seasonal variations” which looked different to this one.
This graph above has a trend which looks like a sinusoidal chart close to levelling, ready to go down, the new one will look like a hockey stick pointing to the stars.
Lars the prophet has spoken. I wish I would not be one.
Ralphie stepped on the barometer or something…go Buffs (CU that is).
They should get Muller on the job.
He could tell us the results, take the credit, and wave his arms around a bit
without even seeing the results
/sarc
ew-3 says:
April 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Suggest saving a copy of the data at the current website, lest it happen to change when moving to the new site.
I already have data changes from one release to another with the present website. Probably good reasons for the changes but I haven’t got there yet. To be fair I have not put too much work into finding out why.
This is a non-story. If the web-site was devoted to tornado early warning or tsunamis I would be more sympathetic. But sea-level data? I can hardly wait for the new web-site Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Thank you for raising this subject.
Colorado used to published what is roughly 10 day data every 10 days. Year and more ago they ceased update for increasingly protracted periods, data months late (think it got to 6 months). They also started software version churning, with gross errors in version after version. (nothing whatsoever to do with web associated software)
It may well be they had problems yet this strikes me as odd.
During the above Jason 2 was brought into service, when things became terrible.
That is what they have done.
Another part of this story: quite some time ago I found the dataset is predictive and that says there a shape to the sea level data. This was then found to fit with the older Geosat data and does not disagree with Church & White.
Geosat is ignored ‘because it cannot be right’ sea level is not falling.
For whatever it is worth where I am not entirely happy with it http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/sealevel-jason-geosat.png
In the longer term, no idea.
Now go figure.
There should be no surprise in sea level doing something like that because it fits with other data which I assume is known to plenty. I still don’t understand enough to say much, all ongoing.
“Well we only update a couple times per year anyway. Sea level changes pretty slowly you know.”
Tell that to all the stupid politicians in Norway, making urgent disaster plans for rising sea-levels.
I agree with Jaypan. Presentation *should* have very little to do with data format. Sounds fishy. And like Anthony says, just have a button with a link to downloadable file that gets updates twice a year. It can’t get much simpler.
It’s too bad that these “climate scientists” have lost the trust that people had in them. Don’t get me wrong, these people have worked hard to destroy that trust and they deserve not even a shred of trust or respect as a group. So, the automatic reaction you see here is understandable: that their motives are nefarious.
But there is a possibility that one may be honorable. Or have all the honorable ones become outcasts because they are “deniers”?
I guess that this is a rhetorical question:
“Is it possible for an honorable researcher/scientist to be a part of the so called main stream climate science, or would an honorable person stand up against the dishonesty and thus be cast out?”
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Great self indicting blog on cults over at the HuffPo. She gives top ten signs you might be part of a cult…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayanti-tamm/the-c-word_2_b_848340.html
Is it a Cult? The Top Ten Signs the ‘Group’ You’ve Joined is Not what It Seems
1.The leader and group are always correct and anything the leader does can be justified.
2.Questions, suggestions, or critical inquiry are forbidden.
3.Members incessantly scramble with cramped schedules and activities full of largely meaningless work based on the leader’s agenda
4.Followers are meant to believe that they are never good enough.
5.Required dependency upon the leader and group for even the most basic problem-solving.
6.Reporting on members for disobedient actions or thoughts is mandated and rewarded.
7.Monetary, sexual, or servile labor is expected to gain promotion.
8.The ‘outside’ world — often including family and friends — is presented as rife with impending catastrophe, evil, and temptations.
9.Recruitment of new members is designed to be purposefully upbeat and vague about the actual operations of the leader and group.
10.Former members are shunned and perceived as hostile.
Good grief! Bart comes up with better excuses than this poindexter. Lame.