Satellites or Thermometers?

[Wuwei]

there are many reasons for uneven distribution of water. there are many fewer reasons for uneven trend in the distribution of water. 20 years is a long time for a standing wave to remain in the exact spot in the ocean, growing in magnitude every year.

According to this article there are lots of reasons for a dip or rise to have a long term change in the same spot in the ocean. For your 20 year plot it doesn't have to necessarily rise in one spot. For the first decade it could have been lower than average, and for the second decade, higher.

The Gulf Stream

Once it reaches the Grand Banks, the structure of the Gulf Stream changes from a single, meandering front to multiple, branching fronts (Krauss 1986; Johns et al. 1995). ... Significant changes in its transport, meandering, and structure can be observed through many time scales as it travels northeast ...​

Of course this does not show anything about AGW. I'm just trying to keep the science real, and illustrate a bias in your immediate dismissal of what satellite altimetry shows.

 

[IanC]

there are many reasons for uneven distribution of water. there are many fewer reasons for uneven trend in the distribution of water. 20 years is a long time for a standing wave to remain in the exact spot in the ocean, growing in magnitude every year.

According to this article there are lots of reasons for a dip or rise to have a long term change in the same spot in the ocean. For your 20 year plot it doesn't have to necessarily rise in one spot. For the first decade it could have been lower than average, and for the second decade, higher.

The Gulf Stream

Once it reaches the Grand Banks, the structure of the Gulf Stream changes from a single, meandering front to multiple, branching fronts (Krauss 1986; Johns et al. 1995). ... Significant changes in its transport, meandering, and structure can be observed through many time scales as it travels northeast ...​

Of course this does not show anything about AGW. I'm just trying to keep the science real, and illustrate a bias in your immediate dismissal of what satellite altimetry shows.

Immediate dismissal of satellite altimetry? What the fuck are you talking about? I have never dismissed satellite data. I have questioned whether the signal is contaminated with something else besides just SLR. I have questioned whether the calculations are giving accurate appraisals of the trend.

You just said a particular spot could rise for a decade and lower for a decade. That would average out to little change on a graph of 20+ years. Right? I am pointing out irregularities where a standing wave has been present for the whole satellite era. How long must they exist before it becomes infeasible? Are they real, or some sort of artifact?

Likewise with the overall trend. Is it real or an artifact of calculations? Tide gauges suggest 2mm/yr, satellites say 3mm/yr. Where is the water coming from? Estimates from ice sheets were insufficient before, and have been lowered in recent years which makes the water deficit even larger.

I have been predicting clawbacks for years in the estimates for such things as SLR and climate sensitivity. You can exaggerate a result for a while by using up the slack in the system but sooner or later you have to make a correction.

 

[IanC]

W - I reread your comment. We're you saying that by coincidence some places were unusually low at the start of the record, then returned to 'normal' for a decade, then rose to an unusual height for a decade?

Do you have some sort of timeline for how long this type of coincidence can continue before it needs to be investigated for other causes?

 

[Wuwei]

W - I reread your comment. We're you saying that by coincidence some places were unusually low at the start of the record, then returned to 'normal' for a decade, then rose to an unusual height for a decade?

Do you have some sort of timeline for how long this type of coincidence can continue before it needs to be investigated for other causes?

It isn't a coincidence. The areas in the east coast of your map coincide with the path of the gulf stream which has
"Significant changes in its transport, meandering, and structure can be observed through many time scales as it travels northeast ..."
The many time scales of the meandering gulf stream, I presume, could be in the decades and would neatly explain the thin blue line off the east coast of the US.

Other areas near the arctic on the west coast include ocean streams: the Alaskan current and the California current.

I am not saying that I know for a fact that ocean streams are causing all the bumps on the map, but it is a plausible explanation because it is a fact that warm or cold spots in the ocean can cause not everything to be at "sea level". When the warm ocean stream areas meander over the decades you would plausibly see the unevenness in the altitude map.

 

[IanC]

W - I reread your comment. We're you saying that by coincidence some places were unusually low at the start of the record, then returned to 'normal' for a decade, then rose to an unusual height for a decade?

Do you have some sort of timeline for how long this type of coincidence can continue before it needs to be investigated for other causes?

It isn't a coincidence. The areas in the east coast of your map coincide with the path of the gulf stream which has
"Significant changes in its transport, meandering, and structure can be observed through many time scales as it travels northeast ..."
The many time scales of the meandering gulf stream, I presume, could be in the decades and would neatly explain the thin blue line off the east coast of the US.

Other areas near the arctic on the west coast include ocean streams: the Alaskan current and the California current.

I am not saying that I know for a fact that ocean streams are causing all the bumps on the map, but it is a plausible explanation because it is a fact that warm or cold spots in the ocean can cause not everything to be at "sea level". When the warm ocean stream areas meander over the decades you would plausibly see the unevenness in the altitude map.

I have done some more thinking about the SLR maps. Perhaps recent local changes do overwhelm the 20 year average. I would like to see a clear concise map of the 1992 sea level that are the basis of comparison though. Although it was on the upswing of ENSO it was also just after Pinatabo.

 

[flacaltenn]

The satellite is the platform on which the instrument rests. lately satellite temps have been called into question for the adjustments made due to orbital defects. altimetry and gravity effects are even more susceptible to this. plus they lack the redundancy and length of time that satellite temp calculations have.

The orbits are not the issue, as they're known down to the sub-millimeter, for all the satellites. The issue comes with how the satellite temperature models use those orbits.

That is, Ian and all the deniers are just failing at the science again. To think they actually wonder why everyone ignores them.

Yeah -- like they actually take a representative surface air COLUMN -- rather then measure the air conditioning compressor next to the parking lot..

 

[flacaltenn]

W - I reread your comment. We're you saying that by coincidence some places were unusually low at the start of the record, then returned to 'normal' for a decade, then rose to an unusual height for a decade?

Do you have some sort of timeline for how long this type of coincidence can continue before it needs to be investigated for other causes?

It isn't a coincidence. The areas in the east coast of your map coincide with the path of the gulf stream which has
"Significant changes in its transport, meandering, and structure can be observed through many time scales as it travels northeast ..."
The many time scales of the meandering gulf stream, I presume, could be in the decades and would neatly explain the thin blue line off the east coast of the US.

Other areas near the arctic on the west coast include ocean streams: the Alaskan current and the California current.

I am not saying that I know for a fact that ocean streams are causing all the bumps on the map, but it is a plausible explanation because it is a fact that warm or cold spots in the ocean can cause not everything to be at "sea level". When the warm ocean stream areas meander over the decades you would plausibly see the unevenness in the altitude map.

I have done some more thinking about the SLR maps. Perhaps recent local changes do overwhelm the 20 year average. I would like to see a clear concise map of the 1992 sea level that are the basis of comparison though. Although it was on the upswing of ENSO it was also just after Pinatabo.

There's not much denial that a drop in sea level was seen local to Eastern shore of Australia following HUGE rain events going into the interior. Even showed on the GLOBAL averages over several months. Could be sea state.. But that water is not BOUND to the ocean. It's part of a general H2O cycle....

 

[Wuwei]

I have done some more thinking about the SLR maps. Perhaps recent local changes do overwhelm the 20 year average. I would like to see a clear concise map of the 1992 sea level that are the basis of comparison though. Although it was on the upswing of ENSO it was also just after Pinatabo.

I would expect that the yearly average maps would be rather chaotic compared to each other. I think a movie of the maps might be enlightening (only 20 frames). I would be surprised if one doesn't exist somewhere.

 

[IanC]

I have done some more thinking about the SLR maps. Perhaps recent local changes do overwhelm the 20 year average. I would like to see a clear concise map of the 1992 sea level that are the basis of comparison though. Although it was on the upswing of ENSO it was also just after Pinatabo.

I would expect that the yearly average maps would be rather chaotic compared to each other. I think a movie of the maps might be enlightening (only 20 frames). I would be surprised if one doesn't exist somewhere.

All the full history maps I have seen look very similar, whether from the early 00's til the present. Monthly maps are much more variable. I agree that a yearly type animation would be useful but I have not run across one. I am still concerned that the satellite readings are contaminated with artifacts, and question whether they compare with tide gauges. The GIA adjustment is an atrocity.