Sea level still not cooperating with predictions

Anyone else notice that UofC have “adjusted” the previous data? e.g.
Was (version to 2011.6917)
1992.9595 -4.889
1992.9866 -6.913
1993.0138 -9.165
1993.0409 -12.178
1993.0681 -11.172
Now (#version_2012_rel1 includes 2011.7188 to 2011.9631)
1992.9595 -4.783
1992.9866 -6.859
1993.0138 -9.163
1993.0409 -12.222
1993.0681 -11.252
These 2 versions came from the same UofC ‘Raw data (ASCII)’ link, the previous version uplifted Sunday, January 22, 2012. Unfortunately I didn’t retain the version #.
Jason-2 trend with new data tacked on to previous from peak:-
-0.13mm/yr 2010.1714 to 2011.9631 (Envisat -0.004mm/yr 2009.796 to 2011.8626)
T/P/J-1/J-2 trend
3.34mm/yr 1992.9595 to 2011.9631 (using new data tacked on to previous version above).
3.57mm/yr 1992.9595 to 2010.1714 peak (using previous version above).
UofC never change their 3.1mm/yr – its garbage. Next chore is to redo my plots with the entire new dataset and compare trends to the previous dataset on like-for-like basis.

Can anyone come up with a trick to fix this problem?!!!! Mike??

All instruments provide an output that shows some value. That ouput value changes in a relative sense for changes in conditions measured (noise aside). To calibrate an instrument requires settings some figure in that output to be the equivalent of some external, reference source. That allows scale and offset to be determined. Noise and short sampling lengths make calibration difficult.
I think I will wait for 6 months or so (when we will get close to the low point in the annual cyclic change in these values) to make any pronouncement about absolute sea level change.

Doug Cotton, your source, Prof Johnson says: “Pointing this instrument to a (cloudy) sky, the reading of the instrument could be 324 W /m2 , which by alarmists may be present as experimental evidence of substantial backradiation: Since the instrument shows backradiation, backradiation must exist, right?…. No, it is not so simple….”
It is generally warmer on cloudy nights than clear nights. The generally accepted explanation for that warmth is that the clouds absorb IR and transmit roughly 50% of what they absorb back to the surface. The prof does not appear to understand that simple explanation. Perhaps he or you have an alternative explanation.
Another way to measure IR from clouds is from above. Satellites can get a good read on cloud top temperatures by amount of IR.
If clouds can emit IR (in all directions), why not CO2?

The recent down- bubble on the graph has “La Nina” written all over it just as the easily discerned equal but opposite up-bubble in 1998 has “El Nino” written all over it.
Now if we could only predict the timing and severity of El Nino/La Nina decades in advance we’d have something really useful to show for the money we throw at the climate boffinery.
Anyhow, these ENSO departures from the trend don’t appear to alter the trend so this would appear to be something that’s not going to shake any AGW beliefs but prematurely labeling it as the beginning of a long term down-trend might inspire some anti-AGW belief among the less discerning types.

How come the latest satellite measurement shows a reading just above the trend-line ?
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
What’s up with that ?

Envisat In my eyes. Raw data seem to have no trend. Maybe even changing to downward if the next bottom will be lower than the last one. All adjustments seem make the raise even greater.

Posted on February 14, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Sea level is lower than eight years ago, and according to the graph above just passed the lowest annual peak in the Envisat record.
It’s damned inconvenient.
Try.
There are several thoughts to match:
There is a definition of a linear 2.1 mm / year sea level increase, it is NOT a hard measured fact. Nerem et al. 1997 doi: 10.1029/97GL01288. issn: 0094-8276:
„The TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter mission has measured sea level on a global basis over the last 4 years at 10 day intervals.
After correcting for a recently discovered error in the measurements, the estimated rate of global mean sea level change over this time period is -0.2 mm/year.
Comparisons to tide gauge sea levels measured in spatial and temporal proximity to the satellite measurements suggest there is a residual drift in the satellite measurement system of -2.3+-1.2 mm/year, the origin of which is presently unknown.
Application of this rate correction yields a calibrated estimate of +2.1+-1.3 mm/year for the rate of sea level rise, which agrees statistically with tide gauge observations of sea level change over the last 50 years. “
A linear fit of the present sealevel,com data gives a linear increase of about 3.2 mm/year. It would be best to subtract 2.1 mm/year this function from the 3.2 mm/year.
However I have subtract the hole 3.2 mm/year function from the data.
Results:
There are sea level oscillations which frequency is equal to the solar tide pattern of Mercury/Earth & Co.;
http://volker-doormann.org/images/sealevel_vs_xyz.gif
The oscillation is also weak impressed in the GL UAH Temperature.
Conclusion. A discussion on the true sea level is senseless as long scientists definean increasing level because of unexplained satellite drifts and 50 year slopes.
Because this is a general problem also with defined global temperature levels, a better reference to understand the connection between sea level and temperature the oscillating profile could it be. And since people now speak in public load about the (cold) Sun, it may also a good job to include the solar tide function, I have discovered exact two years ago 11th February 2010. From this recognition of a phase coherence of solar function and sea level there is no need for delays anymore.
To whom it may concern. Do not smooth or define data for the crowd without have the origin data for download.
V.

The missing heat is not in the oceans. It’s heating all the dark matter, which scientists say must be there, but has yet to be detected … rather like the missing heat.

Frank K. says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:37 am
James Sexton says:
February 14, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Chris Colose says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:12 pm
………
On the subject of the climate industry’s huge billion dollar largess, please see this. Note the double digit increases over the past three years while the rest of the economy was tanking.
=======================================================
No doubt. It irks me to no end when people criticize in dependent scientists for accepting money, when the govt. scientist won’t get off my teat and get a real job and do something useful with their lives. How many climate scam govt agencies do we really need? Wouldn’t one or two be enough to make libs wet themselves?

Is is entirely outside the bounds of possibility that observed sea-level change is caused by or contributed to/from..
1. Groundwater extraction – how much water is left in the Ogallala – how are the Libyans getting on with their ‘Water from the Desert’ project – have Punjabi wheat farmers now sunk their wells below 500metres when 20 years ago 50metres was enough. Where did all that water finish up if not in The Sea?
2. Soil erosion from farmland – how much dirt does the Yellow River carry with it – is it true that Pakistan is (far from sinking/drowning) actually increasing in area at 20 sqkm per year and what exactly do the Army Engineers do with all the stuff they dredge out of the Mississippi?
I think we should be quite serious about these things because if the oceans are not expanding, then Global Warming is dead, presumably replaced by Global Cooling which surely means many of us and our kind are dead.
Nero apparently fiddled while Rome burned- are we fiddling while the planet freezes?