Rise of the Sea, All a big scam
Discussion
Guam said:
May well be the case Hairy only just started on this a couple of days ago as you will know. However so far I havent found anything to contradict the general gist of what is being said. really as has been said its the responsibility of those who raise the issue as conclusive on threads like this to provide the support for their contention, typically only TB does that to any marked degree.
Indications of the sweep I have done are not significantly at odds with what he was saying, however as I have said I am no expert in this field (I doubt many are) so I have to fit the sweeps in between real money making work
Cheers
The paper I linked to explains the averaging along with how radar altimetry actually works. I would suggest reading it before accepting the arguments of any more 'skeptics' who may just be plain wrong. In this case it's not some debate over the fine points of data reliability/applicability - his argument about averaging is just entirely flawed.Indications of the sweep I have done are not significantly at odds with what he was saying, however as I have said I am no expert in this field (I doubt many are) so I have to fit the sweeps in between real money making work
Cheers
I try to support any argument I make with references.
Edited by hairykrishna on Tuesday 7th April 14:33
Guam said:
One thing is for sure there is nothing to suggest the catastrophic levels forecast over the years by the exponents of AGW in general in any of the stuff I have been able to find.
This is what the IPCC4th AR has to say on global sea level:"Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003. Under the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1B scenario by the mid-2090s, for instance, global sea level reaches 0.22 to 0.44 m above 1990 levels, and is rising at about 4 mm yr–1." Page 409 of the link I give below.
I don't think it helps the discussion if sensational language is used.
Kudos to you Tom for digging so deep on the accuracy front. The IPCC 4th AR has a section on accuracy here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a... Page 431
Agree in general with the point about hyperbole, so it's not good to remind ourselves that an IPCC report featured an extreme warming 'storyline' (A1F1) that was added late in the review stage "at the request of a few governments" and one might be forgiven for thinking it was orchestrated to secure alarming headlines in the media, which it did. Reality was out the window on the entire journey for that one.
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-3...
A recent publication on satellite measurement errors.
"6 Conclusions
On the one hand, thanks to the analysis of each error budget, we show that the global
MSL trend is 3.11+/−0.6mm/yr with a confidence interval of 90%. On the other hand,
the altimeter MSL drift derived from altimeter and tide gauge comparisons is on the
20 same order close to +0.3+/−0.5mm/yr. The good consistency of these both independent
approaches demonstrates the reliability of T/P and Jason-1 altimeter data to
compute the global MSL trend from 1993 to 2008. The capability to observe interannual
variations related to ENSO oscillations is possible thanks to the good accuracy
of altimeter MSL, as underlined here for the 1999 “La Nina” event. Indeed, we have
25 demonstrated that the weak MSL trend observed for the 3 last years (1mm/yr) cannot
result in the altimeter MSL drift error. Besides, preliminary MSL analyses (not described
here) using Jason-1 data since June 2008, indicate an acceleration6 Conclusions
On the one hand, thanks to the analysis of each error budget, we show that the global
MSL trend is 3.11+/−0.6mm/yr with a confidence interval of 90%. On the other hand,
the altimeter MSL drift derived from altimeter and tide gauge comparisons is on the
20 same order close to +0.3+/−0.5mm/yr. The good consistency of these both independent
approaches demonstrates the reliability of T/P and Jason-1 altimeter data to
compute the global MSL trend from 1993 to 2008. The capability to observe interannual
variations related to ENSO oscillations is possible thanks to the good accuracy
of altimeter MSL, as underlined here for the 1999 “La Nina” event. Indeed, we have
25 demonstrated that the weak MSL trend observed for the 3 last years (1mm/yr) cannot
result in the altimeter MSL drift error. Besides, preliminary MSL analyses (not described
here) using Jason-1 data since June 2008, indicate an acceleration of the MSL trend likely in relationship with the end of the 2007–2008 “La Ni˜na” event.
Though the MSL trend error is already in agreement with scientific objectives, it could
probably be significantly reduced applying homogenous SSH calculation for T/P and
Jason-1, and very soon Jason-2. The use of similar orbits or similar retracking al-
5 gorithms for T/P and Jason-1 data would reduce the correlated geophysical biases.
The accuracy of TOPEX-A/ TOPEX-B and TOPEX/Jason-1 SSH biases could be then
improved. In addition, the use of pressure fields derived from models with a stable configuration
(without jump) would reduce or even remove the drift uncertainty linked to the
dry troposphere and dynamical atmosphere corrections. In the same idea, a more sta10
ble wet troposphere correction derived from operational model will be useful to better
calibrate corrections derived from radiometer."
I've had a look on the sceptic sites to see if there's any criticism there about the measurement accuracy, but can't find anything recent. Anyone found anything reputable?
A recent publication on satellite measurement errors.
"6 Conclusions
On the one hand, thanks to the analysis of each error budget, we show that the global
MSL trend is 3.11+/−0.6mm/yr with a confidence interval of 90%. On the other hand,
the altimeter MSL drift derived from altimeter and tide gauge comparisons is on the
20 same order close to +0.3+/−0.5mm/yr. The good consistency of these both independent
approaches demonstrates the reliability of T/P and Jason-1 altimeter data to
compute the global MSL trend from 1993 to 2008. The capability to observe interannual
variations related to ENSO oscillations is possible thanks to the good accuracy
of altimeter MSL, as underlined here for the 1999 “La Nina” event. Indeed, we have
25 demonstrated that the weak MSL trend observed for the 3 last years (1mm/yr) cannot
result in the altimeter MSL drift error. Besides, preliminary MSL analyses (not described
here) using Jason-1 data since June 2008, indicate an acceleration6 Conclusions
On the one hand, thanks to the analysis of each error budget, we show that the global
MSL trend is 3.11+/−0.6mm/yr with a confidence interval of 90%. On the other hand,
the altimeter MSL drift derived from altimeter and tide gauge comparisons is on the
20 same order close to +0.3+/−0.5mm/yr. The good consistency of these both independent
approaches demonstrates the reliability of T/P and Jason-1 altimeter data to
compute the global MSL trend from 1993 to 2008. The capability to observe interannual
variations related to ENSO oscillations is possible thanks to the good accuracy
of altimeter MSL, as underlined here for the 1999 “La Nina” event. Indeed, we have
25 demonstrated that the weak MSL trend observed for the 3 last years (1mm/yr) cannot
result in the altimeter MSL drift error. Besides, preliminary MSL analyses (not described
here) using Jason-1 data since June 2008, indicate an acceleration of the MSL trend likely in relationship with the end of the 2007–2008 “La Ni˜na” event.
Though the MSL trend error is already in agreement with scientific objectives, it could
probably be significantly reduced applying homogenous SSH calculation for T/P and
Jason-1, and very soon Jason-2. The use of similar orbits or similar retracking al-
5 gorithms for T/P and Jason-1 data would reduce the correlated geophysical biases.
The accuracy of TOPEX-A/ TOPEX-B and TOPEX/Jason-1 SSH biases could be then
improved. In addition, the use of pressure fields derived from models with a stable configuration
(without jump) would reduce or even remove the drift uncertainty linked to the
dry troposphere and dynamical atmosphere corrections. In the same idea, a more sta10
ble wet troposphere correction derived from operational model will be useful to better
calibrate corrections derived from radiometer."
I've had a look on the sceptic sites to see if there's any criticism there about the measurement accuracy, but can't find anything recent. Anyone found anything reputable?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff