Quote:First off, I never claimed he was 'credible.' However, the arguments against him are all Ad Hominem attacks, which is the best the alarmists can do, since they can't present actual data that backs their argument. Also, 'SkepicalScience' is a site who's very name is a lie. Doesn't that raise a red flag?
Morner claimed that the satellite readings have been adjusted upwards. That's the question, not whether or not Morner eats Cheerios for breakfast. Do you have an article that actually describes how the satellite data are processed and thus refutes him?
From what I've seen, the sea level is rising at the same rate it has for hundreds of years, whatever that may actually be. Look at the individual tide gauges. Some show rise, and some even show fall, because of changes in land height. For example, NYC is slowly sinking, while parts of the UK have risen significantly over the centuries. But the slope of the measurements vs. time is very steady for any given gauge.
You never claimed he was credible? You called him "One of the world experts on sea level..." If you don't think he's credible, why cite him at all?
Ad hominem attacks? Don't you think that if you put this guy on as an expert witness in court, the opposing attorney would eat him alive? The man believes in DOWSING. He thinks he can find things with a stick. That's like saying the earth is flat. If you brought this guy as an expert witness in court you'd be laughed out of court. So we're back to where we were before, with most of the world's scientists saying sea levels are rising, and you saying they are not, and citing this wacko as your expert source.
Now you ask me to analyze how satellite data are processed. Come on. Do you really think you or I can actually do that? Here, read this.
This is a response to his allegations.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axe...-rise.html
Or how about this:
http://www.inqua.org/files/iscc.pdf
And this is who they are:
http://www.inqua.org/
Is that not credible enough for you? Or do you consider the fact that they believe that man made climate change is real and serious disqualifies them somehow?
Here is their opening statement:
"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007)2."
Or how about this?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...8106002049
Comment on “Estimating future sea level change from past records”
by Nils-Axel Mörner
[You can read the scientists who wrote this on the link provided]
"We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by
Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in
his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the
record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon
(T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we
have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a
single reference to any altimeter study, all of which
refute his claim that there is no apparent change in
global mean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and
Nerem, (2004) for a summary]. The consensus of all
other researchers looking at the T/P and Jason data is
that GMSL has been rising at a rate of 3.0 mm/year
(Fig. 1) over the last 13 years (3.3 mm/year when
corrected for the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment
(Tamisiea et al., 2005)).
Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or
processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2, other than
to say it is based on “raw data”. Because the details of
the analysis are not presented in his paper, we are left to
speculate on how this result could have been obtained,
based on our years of experience as members of the T/P
and Jason-1 Science Working Team. Mörner was apparently
oblivious to the corrections that must be made
to the “raw” altimeter data in order to make correct use
of the data.
As with any satellite data set, calibration and
validation of the data must be performed after launch
to determine if there are any instrumental errors, find the
source of those errors, and evaluate their behavior over
time. Satellite altimetry is somewhat unique in that
many adjustments must be made to the raw range measurements
to account for atmospheric delays (ionosphere,
troposphere), ocean tides, variations in wave
height (which can bias how the altimeter measures sea
level), and a variety of other effects. In addition, the sea
level measurements can be affected by the method used
to process the altimeter waveforms, and by the techniques
and data used to compute the orbit of the satellite.
Early releases of the satellite Geophysical Data Records
(GDRs) often contain errors in the raw measurements,
the measurement corrections, and the orbit estimates
that are later corrected through an on-going calibration/
validation process defined by the T/P and Jason Science
Working Team."
It goes on from there. But you get my drift.