Envisat’s satellite failure launches mysteries

I’ve been watching with interest and concern some of Steve Goddard’s postings on Envisat on the abrupt changes in their recent sea level data. To me, something didn’t seem quite right, and I expressed concerns privately along those lines that I didn’t know the causes of what appear to be recent unexplained “adjustments” in the recent data. It seems ENVISAT has given up the ghost. So, it is possible it has been sending faulty data and they have not noticed. Here, he shows this graph which seems quite problematic:

PaintImage4527 Was Envisat Hit By An Asteroid?

This is like what has happened with the AQUA AMSRE failure and the failure that we had to point out to NSIDC (where Dr. Walt Meier famously exclaimed it “wasn’t worth blogging about” only to have to later issue corrections themselves) that the DMSP satellite they were using had issues.  Whether this is permanent or not remains to be seen. After 10 years of service, Envisat has stopped sending data to Earth. ESA’s mission control is working to re-establish contact with the satellite.

Via our friend Ecotretas :

I read in the news today that connections have been lost with the Envisat satellite. ESA has already confirmed it too, but reading the latest Mission Operations News, it seems it would be predicted for a satellite that had only been planned for a five year mission.

So I ran to see how the sea level graphs had finished, and to my biggest surprise, the graph from AVISO had changed dramatically! I recall seeing it about a week ago, with totally different values! From an historical perspective, several older graphs can be seen in a post 9 months ago (in Portuguese), or compared with other satellite measurements in this WUWT post. Please compare the graph 9 months ago on the left, and the more recent one on the right (click to zoom):

Notice that the slope has gone up from 0.76 mm/year to 2.33 mm/year! This manipulation, which has no other name, has been justified by Aviso with the following notes:

  • Envisat time series extended before 2004 starting from May 2002.
  • Envisat V2.1 GDR reprocessed data used. The new standards are also detailed in the table “Processing and corrections”.
  • Instrumental correction sign corrected (impact of around +2mm/year). The error detection and impact on data is detailed in:
    • Envisat 2011 yearly report, A. Ollivier & M. Guibbaud, soon on the Aviso website
    • Envisat Reprocessing impact on ocean data, A.Ollivier & M. Guibbaud, soon on the Aviso website
    • A.Ollivier et al. 2012, Envisat ocean altimeter becoming relevant for mean sea level long term studies? (submitted in Marine Geodesy)
  • new NetCDF CF format in the products and images selection interface

Now, this looks like a small part of the Envisat mystery. Please check that the older graph starts in 2004, but the newer graph starts in mid 2002! Notice that in the newer graph, the 2002 and 2003 values were much higher that those of 2004, and that the highest values of 2003 were not surprassed till late 2008. Now imagine why they were not there in the older graphs, and how being there would create a trend probably very near to ZERO!

The last image, the above one on the right, that’s on the AVISO site is dated “Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:14:03 GMT”, so clearly has been put there after the satellite failed, which occurred last Sunday. No doubt that the hiding the decline was already planned, but probably was executed swiftly after the fail. Strangely, the last color image taken by the satellite was above Portugal, which is obviously a coincidence. But it looks like it’s mysteries have only started…

About these ads

125 thoughts on “Envisat’s satellite failure launches mysteries

  1. Does it need another 49 scientists/astronauts to write a short concise letter pointing out that they shouldn`t do this ?
    Perhaps people will start comparing the effects of Climate Change to the effects of Nitrous Oxide.

  2. The older portion adjusted down, the newer up. That’s Post Modern Science, what’s the problem?

  3. Perhaps we should stop taking as “data” results that come out of satellites that use revolutionary cutting edge technology, and as such are bound to see their figures corrected again and again. Plus we all know which way the corrections always go, for climate stuff.

  4. Talking about missing satellite data: has anyone a clue why Arctic sea ice levels – Nansen – have not been updated during the last seven days?

  5. Should we really trust a satellite measurement….that can only get it’s measurements through adjustments?

    First 22 passes, Envisat said sea levels were falling..they didn’t believe it…so they tuned it to Jason…then when they drifted again….they tuned Jason to Envisat….
    ….each time to show more sea level rise of course

    I would think a satellite would fall out of orbit….which would mean adjusting in the other direction….

  6. “Envisat V2.1 GDR reprocessed data used.”

    So they re-processed it because they didn’t like the results of the first processing? Is it like re-fried beans? How do know the reprocessing worked? Maybe we should re-re-process the data?

  7. Look. I can assure you that sea level around these parts has not risen since the 70’s when I first came here, unless these parts are a rising land mass.

    Sometimes with a spring tide and a south wester we get levels above the predicted and at other times we get levels below the predicted but on the whole the local wharf costructed in the 19th centuary is not under any pressure.

  8. What do you expect – this is climatology: ‘we lost the raw data in an office move’ can get you a couple of PhDs, a part share in a Nobel prize, and the undying admiration of corrupt politicians.

  9. The new standards are also detailed in the table “Processing and corrections”. The link shows a 404 error message.

    The Navy and U of Colorado charts don’t appear to agree with the new Envisat data.

  10. Reprocessing is to adjusting as
    Climate change is to global warming as
    Carbon is to carbon dioxide as …

    Certainly contrived by the brilliant, and very expensive, minds at Oglivy or some other pr message messaging machine!

  11. When the governement changes – and it will, all over the world – and we get some sensible people in power, let’s make sure they take a look at these government organizations and CLEAN OUT THE TRASH. Extemists have not only infiltrated these organizations but have risen high in them. That is where they will remain hiding, waiting, plotting, and spitting out more of this nonsense in the bid for another catastrophe. We have to get these destructive people OUT.

  12. Wilt: probably because ice levels are rising again. Basicall AGW CANNOT under any conditions have NH ice normal or above normal its been (the theoretical melting), the star of AGW After years of monitoring CT, DMI, and the rest I’ve notice long pauses with ice data when it tends to reach or go above normal. Just be on the watch for more manipulations down.

  13. See the blog at Suyts Space, “Sea Level Rises To New Lows” from a couple of days ago, for more about the sudden Envisat adjustments.

  14. Doesn’t AVISO mean warning? Global warning? As in someone’s
    been cooking the climate books again? How can a satellite be
    dodgy for almost four years and no one notice it? (Sorry if I
    misread the graphs, but the output for the top graph seems to
    go very wrong in 2008 – sort of an aquatic hockey stick….),,,

    Makes me think of the movie Space Cowboys….time to clean
    out NASA and get some real scientists back there (or clean up
    the environment there so the real scientists are not throttled
    by the politicians)…sad…current lot couldn’t get us to the moon
    and back if they had to…

  15. Envisat measured higher and higher sea level until it probably hit the big surf. That is really high sea level. It is worse than we thought….

  16. Steven Goddard’s comments, “i.e. they adjusted Jason upwards a few weeks ago, assumed that Envisat was wrong, and then adjusted Envisat upwards to match Jason’s upwards adjusted numbers”.

    NOAA’s tide gauge readings confirm Envisat original readings of approximately 0.76mm/year so the satellite records are now fubar.

    Looks like they decided to wipe out the La Nina? Funny how climate events keep disappearing.

  17. Looks like business as usual to me.The headline trend exceeds the the uncertainty and magin of error by a very considerable margin. Sad.

    Methinks we need a new definition of climate science:

    The extraction of catastrophic predictions from (corrected and adjusted) noise.

    The “team” doesn’t seem to be coming up with much else.

  18. Currently the only Google News result for “envisat fail”:

    http://www.examiner.com/science-for-everyday-life-in-national/envisat-fails-to-phone-home-after-ten-year-reliable-mission

    Scientists say that Envisat also brought good news: a recent study of the Antarctic ozone hole showed the hole closing. Mission managers said that the improvement in the hole proved the value of government regulation of flurocarbons.

    Uh-oh. It gave evidence that further government control was not required. Now it’s gone. And the evidence can be “disappeared” as unreliable due to Envisat’s failing health.

    A new series of environmental satellites, called Sentinels, are intended to replace Envisat. However, the first of them will launch no earlier than 2013.

    Thus we have one of the greatest naming blunders in science that I hope gets corrected soon. As a recovering former long-term reader of Marvel Comics, I know I am far from alone in finding it unsettling that government entities will be launching Sentinels into space to monitor the Earth.

    “The interruption of the Envisat service shows that the launch of the GMES Sentinel satellites, which are planned to replace Envisat, becomes urgent,” said Volker Liebig, ESA’s Director of Earth Observation Programmes.

    Translation: Send the money now! Or else!

  19. If you don’t even know WHEN an instrument stopped working, the only correct action is to throw out every bit of data from that instrument.

  20. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/11/bering_sea_ice_cover/

    ‘The amount of floating ice in the Arctic’s Bering Sea – which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace – reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites.

    The US National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that ice extent in the Bering for the month of March has now been collated and compared, and is the highest seen since records began.

    The NSIDC boffins add, however that overall the Arctic ice – while up on recent years – is below the average seen since records began in 1979. In fact, according to the Cryosphere Today website run by the Polar Research group at Illinois uni, it’s down by 443,000 square km. However the sea ice around the Antarctic coasts is above average by 452,000 km2, so overall the planet’s sea ice is at the moment slightly above average in extent – and in the Bering Sea, the walruses, seals and polar bears can quite literally chill out in comfort. ®’

  21. All satellite data has to be ‘processed’ – that’s a given, I presume? – but wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have at least two or three independent teams doing the ‘processing’ ? Do they do this? I don’t know – but the bottom line is that he who controls the satellite and data processing, surely controls the ‘findings’. Note, I am not a conspiracy theorist as such – but when stuff like temp data adjustments, station losses, etc, etc and now this – it doesn’t command much faith!

  22. TomRude says:
    April 12, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    ==========
    Thanks but why didn’t they include NOAA tide gauge data to check the recalibration? They’ve adjusted sea level up by 1.8mm/year without any confirmation? Hopefully I’m missing something important.

  23. Am I the only one losing faith in “all” our satellite data ?
    If, for no other reason, that it is so short term and must constantly be adjusted to real world observations.
    Just say’n :(

  24. I wouldn’t put it past them to have shot down the messenger (satellite) so they could rewrite the data to better fit their models. Wasn’t there a mysterious burning object recently that was identified as space junk on re-entry?

  25. Both hotlinks “Envisat V2.1 GDR reprocessed data used. The new standards are also detailed in the table “Processing and corrections”.” give a 404 error. It just seems strange that it takes all this time to prpoerly calibrate a not inexpensive system like this. My guess is this adjustment has a greater error then what it is they are attmepting to correct.

  26. Could someone with the appropriate computer skills resize and align the two graphs so the changes are easier to compare. Steve’s graph from the first link seems to have been resized but for some reason he chose to only align the horizontal axis.

    Also, while the changes are dramatic and the typical lack of clear explanation frustrating, an eyeball look at the Colorado data would suggest that since 2002, this new interpretation of the Envirosat data is actually much closer then it was before the adjustments.

    Terry

  27. I just love the expression “reprocessed data”!!! The perfect solution when the measurements or data don’t fit the theory! No doubt ‘Reprocessing Data 101″ will be included in future graduate courses.

  28. I’ve read a number of articles that attributed the drop in ocean levels to heavy rains. So does this still hold?

    And if Envisat data doesn’t agree with NASA’s data, I wonder if NASA is going to ‘tamper’ with their ocean level data so it somewhat matches Envisat?

  29. Makes me think of the movie Space Cowboys…
    —————————————————————–
    Made me think of the Steve Miller version

    “Same old story with a new set of words” (really).

  30. Even if there was some kind of drift in the readings it is hard to see how this could introduce any kind of significant error. Weren’t the constantly calibrating sea levels to their measured land elevations? What else would they be calibrating to? And if they were calibrating to the land then any drift would be compensated for in real time, whether it came from orbital decay or from sensor drift.

    What am I missing? This kind of major reanalysis would seem to be well outside the bounds of any reasonable adjustment unless they are saying that they had their whole calculational scheme was way off from the beginning. I see no way that it could be a legitimate compensation for any kind of decay. It would have to be a decay that affected measurements over the sea but not the land. Is that even possible?

  31. Robert says:
    April 12, 2012 at 1:33 pm
    The name says it all…

    Are you calling the sea level data “Bob”?

  32. Pardon me, but why is my comment still awaiting moderation after so long a time, nearly an hour?

    “onlyme says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    April 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/11/bering_sea_ice_cover/

    ‘The amount of floating ice in the Arctic’s Bering Sea – which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace – reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites.

    The US National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that ice extent in the Bering for the month of March has now been collated and compared, and is the highest seen since records began.

    The NSIDC boffins add, however that overall the Arctic ice – while up on recent years – is below the average seen since records began in 1979. In fact, according to the Cryosphere Today website run by the Polar Research group at Illinois uni, it’s down by 443,000 square km. However the sea ice around the Antarctic coasts is above average by 452,000 km2, so overall the planet’s sea ice is at the moment slightly above average in extent – and in the Bering Sea, the walruses, seals and polar bears can quite literally chill out in comfort. ®’ ”

    Have i violated a policy or something?

    [REPLY - Sounds like a clear case of violating the policy of only posting when a moderator is checking. ~ Evan]

    [Reply #2: Your comment has now been posted twice. Sometimes WordPress will assign a comment to the Spam folder if it even has one link. We don't check the Spam folder nearly as often as we approve comments. ~dbs, mod.]

  33. Going to archive.org shows someminor changes in the way they read the slope. In 2008 they started the list at 1997 at about 2cm, the current one starts at zero. The slope is much the same at 3.052 vs 3.17. I don’t have time to look further, but if anyone is interested here is the link

  34. Sorry, never mind, evidently a wordpress/opera/operator error glitch. I had to ctrl/f5 refresh to see the comment posted.

  35. I had posted on the lack of updates to the satellites just 4 days prior to Steve showing the “new” data. If you want to see a before and after go here….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/sea-level-rises-to-new-lows/

    I didn’t overlay it like Steve did, but sometimes its easier to see. The ones I generated didn’t have any of the idiotic corrections in there including the seasonal adjustment so the sine waves are easier to see.

    Anthony, you’re more than welcome if you wish to use them as well.

    @ TomRude
    Yes, it is an intriging read. They are clearly obsessed with coming in line with Jason I , after they adjusted Jason. We also see Jason 2 has been quiet since Jan 25 and had it already shows some incredulous trending.

    @ John from CA…….
    Yes, I still have all of the original data sets I downloaded from PSMSL on two separate PCs. I went back and check both.

    Like Anthony, I usually attribute stuff like this to incompetence….. but this is too much. I think Steve is correct. This is done in preparation to the IPCC 5.

  36. Let us hoist a toast to dear, departed Tuvalu. With all of this sea-level rise over the past few days, they have to be underwater now.

  37. This manipulation, which has no other name,
    ——–
    It does have another name. It’s called a correction.

  38. Now imagine why they were not there in the older graphs, and how being there would create a trend probably very near to ZERO!
    ———-
    Ahh. Well that’s the result we want do it must be the truth.

  39. LazyTeenager says:
    April 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm:

    “It’s called a correction.”

    Then explain why all corrections, whether sea level, temperature history, or current temperatures, seem to go in the most alarming direction.

  40. LazyTeenager says:
    April 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    This manipulation, which has no other name,
    ——–
    It does have another name. It’s called a correction.
    —————————————————————————-
    Who is authorised to make corrections?

  41. LazyTeenager says:
    April 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    This manipulation, which has no other name,
    ——–
    It does have another name. It’s called a correction.
    ================================================
    LT, you’re a bright guy….. tell me, what are the odds that the “corrections” always seem to run in one direction? GISS, HadCrut, Sea Levels….. if the corrections are indeed unbiased fixes for problematic data, wouldn’t the direction of the corrections be more evenly distributed?

    LT, it isn’t about the climate. It is about people willing to accept history revisionism. We can debate climate and its considerations and meanings. But, when we, as a society accept that what was, wasn’t, and what is may not be, we’ve all lost. And we’ve all lost everything. If observations are not the observations when we observe them then we can know nothing.

    Try and understand the deeper meaning to these things. All science is invalidated by a fluid and dynamic historical observations. Not just skeptical science, not just climate science….. all science.

    Go here to see only some of the consistant “corrections” http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/this-isnt-about-the-climate/

  42. “This manipulation, which has no other name,
    ——–
    It does have another name. It’s called a correction.”

    NO! A “correction” is a change to reported data to account for secondary data measured, justified, and reported. “correction” is NOT another name for “manipulation”,

    Manipulation is another name for “doctoring the data”, “cooking the books”, or “lying” in an attemot to induce a reader to believe the false is true, or to iduce the reader to take actions that no sane, informed person would take.

    [Aside: I too have been angry in the conviction that my pearls of wisdom are being surpressed. In every case, I think, I have run afoul of the fact that the moderators are unpaid volunteers whose humanity is displayed by needs to be elswhere sometimes, doing other things sometimes. I wish it was not so, because what I have to say is usually so inprtant the any delay is to be avoided, I am now comfortable in the belief that they will never deliberately and silently drop a comment to the floor. They would not miss the opportyunity to show me the error of my ways.]

  43. I get tired of this fraud. Is that the warmistas strategy – to just lie and cheat until critics give up?

    Why don’t they just put the raw data out there and let people do what they want with it? OK, I’m not being realistic.

  44. Kevin in UK says
    but the bottom line is that he who controls the satellite and data processing, surely controls the ‘findings’.
    ———–
    So does that theory explain the UAH satellite output? I’m sure Roy and John would like that satellite temperature trend to go down. But it’s not.

  45. LazyTeenager says:
    April 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    “It does have another name. It’s called a correction.”
    ===========
    How about mission failure, with regression to the mean ?

  46. LazyTeenager says:
    April 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    It does have another name. It’s called a correction.
    ==============================================
    roaring laughing………….
    These satellites fall out of orbit….that means measurements degrade in the opposite direction of their “adjustments”……………

    Like adding temp increases to account for UHI…………

  47. I still favor using GPS satellites and data from CORS (Continuously Operating Reference Stations) per Woppelmann, et al. The vertical measurements are the least accurate but GPS satellites and CORS stations aren’t controlled by climatologists. It’s replicable and irrefutable data.

  48. The 2 graphs provided by Ecotretas differ in so many respects that it is hard to believe they came from the same data set! This was not a ‘correction’…a simple fix to a couple of typos or a uniform adjustment to accomodate ‘sensor drift’. If it was, the underlying trends would still be recognizable. Without explicit definition of the adjusting algorythm(s) or a one-to-one mapping of the ‘adjustments’ made to each data point with comments why the ‘adjustments’ were necessary, the possibility of willful fraud is strongly recommended!
    MtK

  49. Louis Hooffstetter says:
    April 12, 2012 at 5:37 pm
    I still favor using GPS satellites and data from CORS (Continuously Operating Reference Stations) per Woppelmann, et al. The vertical measurements are the least accurate but GPS satellites and CORS stations aren’t controlled by climatologists. It’s replicable and irrefutable data.
    ===========
    Absolutely, with a time-stamp and datum.

  50. James Sexton says:
    LT (Lazy Teenager), you’re a bright guy….

    I hope so, but I’m not sure. Lazy Teenager appears to be a wannabe climatologist cut from the same cloth as William M. Connolly: long on snark and sarcasm, but woefully short on logical, defensible science.

    Lazy T: we don’t mind you posting here, but you have to back up your sarcastic potshots with reproducible empirical data.

  51. Well, let’s see … we’ve “fixed” the US land temperature record and now the sea level record. What next? Oh! I know, we need to draw in some spots on the Sun now. Coming soon to a web page near you!

  52. This fraud is getting ridiculous. Isn’t there supposed to be a body that watches out for this sort of thing? The FBI or your National Security mob? Over here in Australia, ASIO is keeping an eye on the greens. That’s good (it’s a start). They MUST know what’s going on. I sure hope these agencies don’t just sit back and take notes while our countries go down the drain.

    How do we appeal for a wide and thorough investigation? The warmists are hiding behind a massive mountain of paper, believing no doubt that enough of it will convince the world that they must be right. Do we have to wait for elections to stop this? This is criminal, right here and right now. There must be someone other than the President or Prime Minister able to call for an inquiry into the broad scope of this nonsense.

  53. Louis Hooffstetter says:
    April 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Lazy T: we don’t mind you posting here, but you have to back up your sarcastic potshots with reproducible empirical data.
    ====================================
    You are wrong-minded.
    ” lazy t” draws out the best of WUWT.
    And is a glutton for punishment, don’t deprive us./

  54. AVISO’s explanation is that the “slight degradation … is due to the shift of passes compared to the theoretical passes.”

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%204%20CV/02%20Pres_REVISED%20OSTST2011_CrossCal_Envisat_AOllivier.pdf

    This suggests that some of the time the satellite was over land they thought it was over water and vice versa. Since the sea level calculations only look at the data from when they think the satellite is over water and measuring sea height, and because land is always higher than sea,
    the sea-level estimate that results from this confusion would be systematically biased towards higher-than-actual sea levels. So if this is really the mistake they made, the adjustment should have LOWERED sea-level estimates, not jacked them up.

  55. The last slope, 2.33 millimeters/year, is very nearly correct. The value that Chao, Yu, and Li obtained in 2008 (Science, April 11th, 2008) was 2.46 millimeters/year. They examined all the available data on sea level rise and corrected it for water held in storage by dams built since the year 1900. After correction the sea level curve became linear for at least 80 years. In my judgement something that has been linear that long is not likely to change anytime soon. It looks like the sea level rise is still on course as determined by Chao, Yu, and Li. It amounts to a little under ten inches per century.

  56. g3ellis says:
    April 12, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    MalwareBytes keeps flagging on the a malicious call and I am not seeing the image http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PaintImage4527.jpg Cross-site scripting at Real-Science? A port call gets made at 49933 to site 173.245.60.41. Real Science’s IP is 67.15.8.53
    ==========================================
    Just go here…. http://www.real-science.com/was-envisat-hit-by-an-asteroid

    Prolly one of his adverts…..

  57. James Sexton says:
    April 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm
    ….. if the corrections are indeed unbiased fixes for problematic data, wouldn’t the direction of the
    corrections be more evenly distributed?
    ===========
    or why would they go back and “adjust” past tide gauge measurements? in fits and spurts…
    …for one thing, if it’s justified, it would be an even adjustment all the way up to the present
    it’s not, it’s a very convenient adjustment to show sea levels rising, when they weren’t before

    Why could possibly be their reason for adjusting historical old tide gauge readings….but only bits and pieces of them…

    ….I haven’t been able to find anything

  58. It is interesting and probably a technological breakthrough that satellites can now create matter. This might be useful if they could create energy as well. The amount of water just created is a cube about 16.8km on a side. Enough to fill the grand canyon more than once, or the Superdome 1.3 million times. Considering that it was done in just a few clock cycles of a computer, it rivals only the theory of the self propagating inflationary universe in terms of speed. The shock wave must have been something to behold. Now that’s what a space agency is for. Damn impressive ESA.

  59. “tell me, what are the odds that the “corrections” always seem to run in one direction?”

    Well, so far, 100%.

    Look, it’s become clear that the reason the errors are running in one direction only has to do with dishonest data, pure and simple. If the measured raw data wasn’t being wrongfully altered at some point, we wouldn’t need all of these corrections. We don’t like to make these corrections any more than you like to see them.

    But now, finally, we’ve discovered what’s been going on. We’ve found the source of spurious data. And the blame for what has been happening rests squarely on the shoulders of you Deniers, whose irrational screaming repetition of anti-science lies has had its ultimate intended effect. Your screaming incoherence has paid off for you. You’ve acheived the ultimate corruption.

    Gaia has become a Denier.

    The Earth itself has fallen for the lies put out by the Watts of the world. She now answers our queries with false, spurious, near-hostile data. We go to measure the temperature of water, and the water cools before we can finish. We examine sea levels, and the levels drop just as we reach the dock. We view the extent of Antarctic ice, and the solid frozen edge forms and spreads before we can focus our cameras. At times, we can almost hear her laugh at us.

    You’ve taken our innocent, pristine, virginal Earth and corrupted her – turned her into a lying harlot hanging around street corners with a cigarette hanging from the corner of her heavily lipsticked mouth, available to any and all takers with a few oil-bucks and a smooth “you don’t look so hot to me” line.

    I just hope you’re happy with yourselves.

  60. James Sexton says:
    April 12, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    g3ellis says:
    April 12, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    MalwareBytes keeps flagging on the a malicious call and I am not seeing the image http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PaintImage4527.jpg Cross-site scripting at Real-Science? A port call gets made at 49933 to site 173.245.60.41. Real Science’s IP is 67.15.8.53

    That is an IP owned by cloudflare. It is a service that improves performance of web sites by caching often retreived pages. It also filters out spammers and such from ever even getting to the target web page, It is not a malicious operation.

    Larry

  61. Isn’t it interesting that every time some relevant time series is adjusted, for whatever purpose, the trend change always supports warming. How many times in a row does one see “heads” on a coin toss before realizing a two-headed coin is in play?

  62. These days, it’s generally accepted in climate science, that when the data doesn’t fit the theory, change the data.

  63. This is for one and all. The word “its” is the possessive pronoun and “it’s” is the contraction for “it is”.

  64. That is an IP owned by cloudflare. It is a service that improves performance of web sites by caching often retreived pages. It also filters out spammers and such from ever even getting to the target web page, It is not a malicious operation.

    Larry
    173.245.60.41
    Steve’s site has some strange things happening sometimes. I had 3 computers that would not reload fresh pages, only got old ones. For a week. And now the pages act like they never finish even though they are done. This could be the culprit. I’ll block it and see if it gets better. Thanks.

  65. Latitude says:
    April 12, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    James Sexton says:
    April 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    or why would they go back and “adjust” past tide gauge measurements? in fits and spurts…
    ============================================
    I’ll be digging into it as soon as I end my lamitations. ……..
    For those who don’t understand, it’s a hard thing to devote some time and energy to a project and hit severval brick walls….. so many that you finally say “it can’t be done”. ….. Only to find out afterwards, they went back and updated sites which hadn’t been updated in over two years.

    Data had ended in 2008 and 2009….. only to find they’ve infilled all the data in 2012. Oddly, the very few stations I looked at showed an amazing increase in sealevel measurements after the infill. In spite of Envisat’s “adjustments” this is still incongruent to the time period. For those that wish, they can go to the archives of my site…… I gave periodical updates to the progress and findings as I went along. I had hoped that was one place not tainted by this insidious disease. For reasons I understand, I’m hesitant to look much further. But, I will.

  66. toni arco said on April 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm:

    This is for one and all. The word “its” is the possessive pronoun and “it’s” is the contraction for “it is”.

    Maybe you could make up and post a helpful mnemonic, like:

    Apostrophe appropriate as it is

    or something quirky and short that’ll be remembered along with a visual cue, like:

    Its tit, it’s fit.

  67. I used to say such data corruption and manipulation to get the desired result (always, always!) in favor of more global warming, sea level rise, etc. was sad. It is more than that. For more than 3 centuries almost all scientists searched for truth and treated data as invaluable and a sin to corrupt. But then the Soviet Union and Lysenko showed the way. Our university and government scientists are overwhelmingly leftists and if it was good enough for Stalin it is now seems good enough for them. As Lord Monckton said, losing our reason is losing our spark of divinity.

    I am more than sad for an irretrievable loss, i fear we will never return scientists to the role they once played. God help us.

  68. onlyme says:
    April 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/11/bering_sea_ice_cover/

    ‘The amount of floating ice in the Arctic’s Bering Sea – which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations

    There’s a better term than “warmist”!
    Warmist is too broad, as it includes non-alarmists.
    “Alarmist” is too accusatory–it prejudges the case, implying the other side is wrong.
    “Cassandra” is just right, as the ancient Cassandra was correct, but subsequent doomsters who see themselves as “Cassandra’s” are ego-driven and have a bad track record.
    (Just remember to spell it with two S’s.)

  69. Remember our warmist friends explaining to everyone that Envisat shows dropping sea levels because La Nina causes precipitation, storing all the water in the Amazons etc?

    I suspect some frantic rewriting at Skeptical Science right now… Dana, you know what to do…

  70. toni arco says:
    April 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    This is for one and all. The word “its” is the possessive pronoun and “it’s” is the contraction for “it is”.
    ==================================================
    toni! You must understand, even if we know this…….. some of us still get too drunk to care! It’s not that we don’t care once we’re sober. Regret lingers for years! Regret it must be, because we know once this happens, we are entirely misconstrued! Meaning gets thrown to the wayside and all is lost, save for the pendantic. :-)

    Just giving you a hard time…..You’re right…. :-)

  71. Totally sprung for peddling a lie. Sadly if MSM don’t run with story you are only preaching to the choir. Our voices may be loud and sincere but we’re being drowned out by the sheeple.

  72. Paging Dr Christy and Dr Spenser to the Satellite Data Recovery Room!

    Folks, if the instruments miles and miles above our heads go off kilter, it’s not a conspiracy of the IPCC zombies to inflate AR5. Pachurri predicted that a year ago.
    What is the AR5 cut off date for published papers acceptable for discussion? Anyone? Granted they’ve played fast and loose with that cutoff before and probably will again. Please tone down the conspiracy rhetoric when a simpler explanation is available:

    Maybe the damn thing never worked as intended. Not the first time that’s happened in space flight.

  73. I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the nature and extent of ALL so called ‘adjustments’ to the whole range of available empirical data including proxy data.

    Having previously accepted the reality of some apparent warming, especially during the late 20th century, it now seems prudent to disbelieve evidence of anything other than a slow recovery from the LIA due to natural internal climate system processes with perhaps a basic background trend supplied by small changes in solar activity levels over the centuries since the LIA.

    Personally I think that all we have seen is a slight redistribution of the in/out energy flows across the globe with little or no real change in the climate system’s basic energy content.

  74. Anything is possible says: April 12, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    360 000 000 km^2 of ocean in constant motion due to tides, winds and currents, and they claim to be able to measure mean sea level to an accuracy of 1/1000mm
    .
    That is 5 times more accurate than is achieved with a co-ordinate measuring machine under laboratory conditions at a constant 68°F/20°C.

  75. RogerKNI says:

    “Alarmist” is too accusatory–it prejudges the case, implying the other side is wrong.

    They ARE wrong, at least in that they are overstating their case while intentionally omitting the overwhelming evidence that points in the opposite direction. There is much more reason to be worried about cooling than warming.

    Of course it is always possible that the planet will warm dangerously, but if it does, it won’t be on any grounds that the alarmists have put down any evidence for, because they haven’t offered any evidence for anything. They avoid the evidence, or “re-adjust” it, as the case may be.

    “Anti-CO2 alarmists” is the term I usually use. Nice and short compared to “believers in dangerous human caused global warming,” or some such.

  76. Cecil says:
    April 12, 2012 at 11:28 pm
    “Please tone down the conspiracy rhetoric when a simpler explanation is available:”

    Explain why the adjustments always go in the same direction.

    It is not a conspiracy. Conspiracies are secret. The agenda of the UN, UNFCCC, UNIPCC and the member scientist impostors is openly documented.

  77. LazyTeenager says:
    April 12, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Of course, that’s kinda my point – if the UAH data is available, it can be checked by others and verified. Is this the same for the Envisat and other satellite data? I don’t believe so.

  78. 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 James Sexton’s comment 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 permanent change.

    http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/sea-levels-still-rising-and-envisat-records-altered-to-show-this/

  79. It appears that they are not just increasing the recent data, but are decreasing the old. Please notice how 2004, 05 and 06 were all fairly flat at 48.5, and now the roll along at about 46.75. The pivot point appears to be about 2008.

  80. toni arco says:
    April 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm
    This is for one and all. The word “its” is the possessive pronoun and “it’s” is the contraction for “it is”.

    Toni – you must be a 50 year old curmudgeon like me! Plural, Possessive, Possessive Plural – why does everyone find it so hard to get this. On the other hand, there is a school in the UK called “The Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls” – What does it mean, I can’t work it out!

  81. [snip. Ad hominem attack on our host. ~dbs, mod.]——–
    LT is correct — another name is “adjustment”. The Occam’s Razor explanation for the accelerating convergence of such adjustments is the following chain of scientific reasoning:

    • the theory of radiation transport really is correct, and so
    • CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, and therefore
    • the oceans really are warming and the ice is melting, so that
    • sea level really is rising, and moreover
    • the rise-rate really is increasing, which
    • satellites of every nation really see this rise more-and-more clearly,
    • precisely as James Hansen and his colleagues predict, and
    • all of these trends are destined to accelerate in coming years.

    These are sound physical theories, verifiable observations, and testable predictions … and so there’s no need to introduce “enemy list” factionalism and “witch hunt” politics in assessing this chain of reasoning.

  82. The only solution is to discard all existing historical data and start over with a new satellite. Lets name the new satellite: the PGW [post global worming].

    /sarc

  83. Bernie Schreiver says:

    [Allow me to deconstruct Bernie's nonsense]:

    • the theory hypothesis of radiation transport really is may be correct, and so
    • CO2 really is a [very minor and insignificant] greenhouse gas, and therefore
    • the oceans really are [not] warming and the ice is [not] melting [global ice cover is increasing, not decreasing], so that
    • sea level really is rising [very slowly, and moreover
    • the rise-rate really is increasing [absolutely false], which
    • satellites of every nation really see this rise more-and-more clearly [wrong again]
    • precisely as James Hansen and his colleagues [incorrectly] predicted, and
    • all of these trends are destined to accelerate in coming years [says your crystal ball?].

    These are physical theories conjectures, [un]verifiable observations, and [un]testable predictions … and so there’s no need to introduce “enemy list” factionalism and “witch hunt” politics in assessing this chain of reasoning.

    . . .

    There, Bernie. Fixed it for you.

    BTW, where do you get your nonsensical talking points? From Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science? Or Closed Mind? Or RealClimatePropaganda? The UN/IPCC? Tamina? Bernie, your “facts” are wrong. Stick around here at the internet’s Best Science site. You will learn the truth… if your mind isn’t closed tight.

  84. Anything is possible says: April 12, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    360 000 000 km^2 of ocean in constant motion due to tides, winds and currents, and they claim to be able to measure mean sea level to an accuracy of 1/1000mm

    old44 says:
    That is 5 times more accurate than is achieved with a co-ordinate measuring machine under laboratory conditions at a constant 68°F/20°C.

    A high end Zeiss CMM has a linear accuracy of .0015mm. Mine is .003, which is still quite good. I chuckle at many claimed accuracies by climate scientists of their measurements, The same for the error bars. 25 years in the Metrology business has taught me uncertainity is not a law no matter how convincing the math may look.

  85. Hey, if sea levels have risen that much, I guess bangladesh and Holland have gone altogether. Funny though I have heard nothing to that effect in the news.

  86. Bernie Schreiver says:
    April 13, 2012 at 5:58 am
    “LT is correct — another name is “adjustment”. The Occam’s Razor explanation for the accelerating convergence of such adjustments is the following chain of scientific reasoning:”

    Occam’s razor tells me that the simplest explanation for the international scientific misconduct in CAGW climate scientist circles are covert operations by somebody who has a lot of natgas to sell.

  87. Although the X-axis is aligned on the overlaid graphs from realscience, not having the y-axis to scale bothered me. I notice the the ealier plot I overlaid here, from the above article, is not the same plot Steve Goddard used from Nov. 2011. None-the-less, it makes it easy to see how the y-axis is radically changed.

  88. How can such things happen without people actively conspiring to make it so. If people (scientists and technicians) are conspiring to alter historical data… Isn’t that a conspiracy??

    Isn’t it about time someone took a serious look at the ideology that motivates such conspiracy, or is George Orwell’s book 1984 sufficient? GK

  89. http://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/uhslc/wocestc.html

    Having a quick scan around this site it is hard to see how the MSL is supposed to be going up a 3mm/yr.

    Many have been flat for last 25years, many in Scandinavia and Alaska go down and only few go up. Even allowing for some regions rising the avereage would seem to be about half the 3mm/y figure.

    It needs evaluating more precisely but my guess is that most of this difference will be due to _supposed_ rise in land levels , this being added to the *measured* SL rise. Once again, unverified computer models based of crude, back of envelop, guesses at mantel rebound are being used to frig the data.

  90. Stephen Wilde says:
    April 12, 2012 at 11:47 pm
    “I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the nature and extent of ALL so called ‘adjustments’ to the whole range of available empirical data including proxy data.”

    I fear Stephen has valid points. I got very mixed feelings when I tried to compute backwards the sea level rise.
    The idea was to use the data as published in each year at UC and compute the total rise from begging 1993 – to the year when it was published based on the number of years and the communicated sea level rise.
    Based on some older links from Ecotreras and WUWT I was able to go back to 2004:

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/sea-level-rises-to-new-lows/#comment-8489

    Here are the values:
    2012 – is shown to be same as 2011 = 50.4 it goes below 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
    Now what is more disturbing here is that the 2006-2008 period is shown as a very stable period in 2008 sea level with almost the same value 2006, 2007 and 2008.
    If 8 mm increase would have been measured in that year there should have been a communication about it and not shown as same level.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/

    Thus the 7.4 mm increase in 2007 is highly suspect to me. Could it be resulting from an adjustment to the whole data 1993-2007? I could not clearly define where does it come from, maybe will find the answer later.
    And then the stupid question comes, if this was an adjustment, how many such adjustments which increased the rise have been done before in this sea level rise satellite graph?

  91. Given the status and rather unreliable nature of satellites, I think we should simply revert to only tide gauges for increase/decrease in sea levels. Afterall, the only important metric is how sea level is changing relative to the land. GIA is a bogus correction when correcting for relative land/sea level changes. Im sure the fish in the ocean could care less about whether their swimming pool is getting shallower or deeper by up to 3mm per year.
    TIde gauges are showing way less than 3mm/yr sea level rise. They were much more in line with the orginal Envisat data, prior to these recent data “corrections”.

  92. Some uncritical mind posted:
    • sea level really is rising, and moreover
    • the rise-rate really is increasing, which

    Oh, you mean really, really rising? Gosh, we know Tuvalu is doomed, let’s see how long they have left:
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0025w.gif

    Odd. Apart from a serious *dip* their sea level has barely moved until recently and it’s now falling quick enough to leave fish stranded on the now bare coral beaches.

    So it seems uncritical mind was kinda right. Sea level rise rate is increasing, it now has a much larger *magnitude* that it did five years ago.

    But maybe that’s a freak, or cherry picking, let’s try Scotland:
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0293w.gif
    or Alaska
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0039w.gif
    or ‘Frisco
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0551w.gif
    or Singapore
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0699w.gif
    or Sweden
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0826w.gif
    or the Falkland Islands
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0088w.gif
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0290w.gif
    or S. Carolina
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0261w.gif
    or Washington
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0558w.gif
    or Florida
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0242w.gif
    or Spain
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0207w.gif
    or Panama
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0302w.gif Hey! Bingo! I found some catastrophic global warming, ice sheet melting, accelerating sea level rise.

    Check this out , maybe 6cm in 26 years, Jeezus, that must be 2.4mm/yr Why that’s almost as much as the *global average* , bad karma down there in Panama.

    Chile’s sea level is retreating tho’
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0088w.gif

    How about Oz?
    Townsville
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0334w.gif
    Freeo
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0175w.gif
    Brisbane
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0331w.gif
    Darwin
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0168w.gif yeah, I’ll give that 5 or 6 cm since the record begins
    France ?
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0822w.gif . Nope.
    How about Japan, maybe not a good example of a stable geology right now but …
    Nagasaki?
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0362w.gif
    Toyama?
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0349w.gif
    Kushiro?
    ftp://ilikai.soest.hawaii.edu/woce/gifd/m0350w.gif
    And we have a winner !!! 20cm/25yr = 8mm/yr

    Well I’ve just about done the rounds there and the only site that get’s to show more than an adjusted satellite rise in sea level is one in just about the most unstable geological region in the world, the Pacific ring of fire.

    Someone needs to have a much closer look at where the sea is actually rising. Even the one extreme case I found has been dropping since 2004.

    My impression from this quick world tour survey is that the only way they can get the sort of MSL sea rise they are presenting is but adding a sack load of GAIA adjustment to the data.

  93. Degradation in data collection could have been happening slowly over time. I fried my mother board on my laptop. But it took a year to fry it. Kept getting slower and slower, then one day it just went *. I would not blindly trust this data past the first 5 years.

  94. 2.33 mm/year? Big deal. Anybody thinks we’re all going to drown in 20 cm additional seawater by 2100?
    Here I really rather believe it’s because of better re-evaluation of satellite’s orbital parameters than due to any evil intentions.

  95. Bernie Schreiver says:
    April 13, 2012 at 5:58 am
    ………………….
    • all of these trends are destined to accelerate in coming years.

    Do you care to set some sort of time frame? You don’t fool me with free beer tomorrow. ;-)

  96. Bernie Schreiver says:
    April 13, 2012 at 5:58 am
    …………………….
    • sea level really is rising, and moreover

    Sea levels have been rising since the end of the ice age and are currently decelerating. The IPCC have said there is no evidence of significant acceleration.

    No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm

    Now where is that thermal expansion you were promised?

    From last year a peer reviewed paper.

    “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

    Acceleration or lack thereof is the keyword here.

  97. Bernie Schreiver
    check this graph out as it shows you visually the post glacial rise in sea levels.

  98. Just finished my taxes! Had to “reprocess” the income and expense data but I think I got it.

  99. Here is another satellite mystery.

    December 2, 2008
    Demographic models and IPCC climate projections predict the decline of an emperor penguin population

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1844.short

    and now…..

    Twice as Many Emperor Penguins as Thought in Antarctica, First-Ever Penguin Count from Space Shows

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120413145303.htm

    source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033751

    It’s worse than we thought! Adjusters are you ready, steady, go.

    Same shock Warmists had with rising coral atolls where most had risen with sea level rise and even grown. Ditto Bangladesh gaining landmass over the past 30 years.

  100. The AGW dogma REQUIRES there to be potential for catastrophic increases in sea level. There cannot be a situation where data shows sea levels not rising. With all the money on the AGW side, there should be no surprise about these kind of ‘corrections’. Corruption is now at the heart of almost ALL scientific institutes. In the end it will come crashing down, but by then the damage to ‘science’ will have been done and the damage for future generations is incalculable.

  101. Jimbo says: Acceleration or lack thereof is the keyword here.

    That’s a very good point. An acceleration may be concordant with an additional forcing in the system. Steady rise or decelerating rise shows settling to a new equilibrium after a change in conditions.

    It is clear that the latest adjustments are just another desperate attempt to “deny” the fact that the late 20th c. rise was cyclic and we are now on the down side of that hump.

    SST shows it, sea level shows it, arctic ice cover shows. Yet the more the data shows what is happening the more previously unaccounted for “biases” are found and “corrected”.
    They are just hoping to maintain the fallacy long enough to enslave the western world their $100bn PER YEAR funding for UN and World Bank

    That’s like what US treasury gave to bail out the banks, but each year every year from 2020 onwards.

    If we want to worry about the world our children will inherit that’s what we should be looking at.

  102. Even if the entire Envisat data is suspect I cannot understand how the Aviso organization can extract millimeter precision or accuracy from satellite altimetry data. The best error budget for precise altitude determination has to be on the order of centimeters. To claim that they can
    provide sea level accuracy to a millimeter or so implies that they can determine the altitude of
    each satellite to a similar precision. Other satellite systems are more closely monitored than the
    altimetry mission systems [gps for instance]. The precise altitude of a gps satellite is not known to millimeter precision.

    Until I can see the complete error budget of the satellites Aviso uses to determine sea surface height to millimeter precision, I will have a hard time believing the precision or accuracy of any of their data.

  103. DirkH says:
    April 12, 2012 at 10:53 pm
    Remember our warmist friends explaining to everyone that Envisat shows dropping sea levels because La Nina causes precipitation, storing all the water in the Amazons etc?

    I suspect some frantic rewriting at Skeptical Science right now… Dana, you know what to do…

    Now you remind me – what has happened to our friend R Gates? (Maybe he knows something about what has happened to this dataset that has shaken his faith?)

  104. phlogiston says:
    April 15, 2012 at 7:59 am

    Now you remind me – what has happened to our friend R Gates? (Maybe he knows something about what has happened to this dataset that has shaken his faith?)

    All the more reason, he should continue to post here. Where else can he go??

Comments are closed.