I would be very suspicious of indirect quotes attributed to unnamed ipcc authors. The truth of scientific statements depends on how they are qualified.
I am no expert in this area but my understanding is that satellites are subject to decaying orbits, aliasing with respect to satellite orbits and tides, and a myriad of other complicating factors. Often, people who claim they are showing 'raw' satellite data are just displaying their ignorance of these complicating factors. My understanding is that satellites are often calibrated using tide gage data. See for example. http://imos.org.au/srscalval.html http://imos.org.au/srscalval.html Ken Caldeira [email protected] +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Apr 29, 2012, at 21:52, Robert Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > I have come across the work of Nils-Axel Morner who holds that IPCC reports > that sea level is rising are inaccurate and alarmist. In his 2004 paper > (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818103000973) he shows > a graph of 'raw data' from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite which shows that over > the period from 1993 to 1999 there was no discernible change in global sea > level. In IPCC AR4 Ch5 reference is made to a 2004 paper by Cazenave and > Nerem which presents the same TOPEX/Poseidon data extended to 2003 but now > shows a clear rising trend > (http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2003RG000139.pdf). > In AR4 this series is further extended to 2006 and shows a continuing > rising trend. It is very much based on this paper that the AR4 drew its > conclusions about sea level rise. > > Can someone explain to me why, at least for the first 6 years, these two > presentations of the same data show such divergent trends? > > Morner is also reported as saying: > > 'In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to > imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this > dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British > member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new > calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’ > (http://iceagenow.info/2011/12/satellite-sea-level-data-tilted-distort-figures-sea-level-expert/) > > > Robert Chris > The Open University > [email protected] > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/WuGgEKlDiLEJ. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
