Just thought I would add the link to an article which I also had written a year ago. People need to understand that all that big mean global warming heat has to be going somewhere and the water is the only place in our climate system — if the heat energy is real. There must be an increase in the rate of sea level rise or we all have to agree that CO2 warming is very small.
the Air Vent 
I do love this:
The posts document how, at station after station, previously-reported data have been altered to make earlier temperatures cooler and later ones warmer, and thus to show an enhanced warming trend (or in many cases to replace a cooling trend with a warming trend).
So I guess there’s a vast conspiracy? Wow. Who could have guessed that?
The adjustments are actually needed and scientifically correct. If I recall, over 1/2 of the trend in the US temperature record is caused by adjustments for time of measurement.
Ask Mosher about what the effects of the adjustments are relative to the raw data.
Then get back to me.
it is about 1/2 of the trend.
IOW, you don’t know what he’d say. Because that’s not what he’s say.
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
actually, I wrote a ton of articles on this matter right here on this site.
You are a chicken brain so you don’t know that.
and you are wrong - again.
And the point isn’t whether adjustments are made, but the allegation there’s a vast conspiracy to “alter” the data for the purpose of creating a signal or warning.
Everything’s a conspiracy with you boyz.
no kid, it is about a required adjustment.
jeff id
Jeff: Satellite altimetry has numerous weaknesses. Your two-year-old post commented on decaying satellite orbits. As currently practiced, satellite altimetry doesn’t measure changes in sea level from changes in the distance from the satellite to the sea surface, because the satellite’s orbit isn’t known precisely enough to do this. The satellite’s orbit is calculated by monitoring its altitude above various ground stations on or near the coast. The first calibration station was an abandoned oil drilling platform off the Southern California coast with a GPS receiver to track vertical motions of that platform. Five different groups produce records of SLR, but not independently. A single team determines the altitude of the satellites at all times and the others use that information.
The second major problem is that there a large correction factors needed to measure altitude from the time it takes a radar signal to bounce off the surface and return to the satellite: Wave height, humidity, state of the ionosphere and several others. Some of these correction factors a large compared to SLR. They process a complete reconstruction of the atmosphere (made from satellite, balloon, and surface data) in the process of converting time to altitude, and as sources of data have become available, there is a possibility of large systematic error and large corrections have been made, particularly in the oldest data. Any drift in the data used to reconstruct the atmosphere can cause a systematic error in SLR. No acceleration in SLR was detected in SLR until the amount of SLR during the first satellite was reduced about 50% as data was reprocessed. A single team handles this too.
When one fits satellite data to a linear or quadratic equation, one can do so with a multiple linear regression to get confidence intervals for the quadratic and linear terms. You need to correct for a large amount of autocorrelation in the monthly SLR data. The 95% confidence interval around the coefficient for the coefficient on the quadratic term was about 1/3 of the term, so acceleration was statistically significant when I calculated it many years ago. It is easiest to define t_0 as the midpoint in the data, making the coefficient on the linear term the average rate of SLR throughout the data.
One mistake many people make is to assume sea level has been rising since the last glacial maximum. Sea level (from coral records) rose until about 4 millennia ago and remained flat until the late nineteen century when tide gauges were invented and could detect rise over several decades. At that time, they found that SLR was rising, probably because of the end of the LIA. Coral can only detect change over millennia and therefore couldn’t detect changes from the LIA and RWP. Over the past 15 decades, SLR measure by tide gauges was on the order of 1 foot, but SLR over the previously 4 millennia was less that 1 foot per millennium.
Frank
Sometimes Frank, I wonder about you. You are well aware that the amount of acceleration in satellite sea level rise is nothing in comparison to what is expected. I am well aware that fitting a quadratic to the satellite data can show some curvature. We are both aware that MOST of the signal in the satellite altimetery is correction. Because it has to be.
As an aeronautical engineer I am very aware of the altitude variations in satellites. Time of day, atmospheric density and temperature mess the things up on these scales too.
My posts have different ages on this but the reality is that there is NO known acceleration in sea level rise. And even if you claim there is a microscopic one, it is microscopic and not related to any catastrophic AGW problem. The second thing that is important is that climate science is fully capable of correcting the slope differential between tide gauges and satellite altimeters.
What do they do instead?
They LIE to you. It’s a flat disingenuous lie to paste satellite data on tide gauge data to show acceleration. You should be as pissed as me instead of explaining stuff I already know.