That is completely untrue.
What was presented in the first IPCC climate report was accurate according to the information at the time. It was consistent with what I quoted from the latest IPCC Report on sea levels as stated at post #
10025 where 2 step changes in the rate of rise were quantified since 1990.
Crap. They have changed their tune.
And the mechanism for change was using proxies to create pre 1870's estimation, then tacking on real data from tide gauges, then tacking on an entirely different measuring mechanism, the first satellites in 1970s; then a new set of satellites in 1990.
Basic rule no1 in science, you change measuring mechanisms or apparatus, and you change the data.
You still have not explained why there is a discrepancy in the tide data.
Discrepancies in Tide versus Satellite data has a graph showing the discrepancies.
NASA has tried to use a
Novel Modelling Tool that gives a reason for the discrepancy and due to changes in earths rotation and gravity.
As with most models, you have no way of checking their accuracy nor their validity.
However, if indeed it were true, the under reading of the tide gauges would have existed permanently, not just since the 1990's, so the period before 1990 would also have been under reading, so would need to be "adjusted" upwards accordingly.
Hence increasing the gauge values which would remove the stated increase in rates.
We also have no idea as to
This is especially true when one considers the following from
Springer
The surface of the solid Earth is continually adjusting and responding to external (e.g. atmospheric loading, tidal loading) and internal (mantle flow) forces exerted upon it. Whilst many of the short-term elastic readjustments are tangible (e.g. tectonic plate friction and resultant earthquakes), the Earth is still trying to reach isostatic equilibrium in response to deglaciation of the Pleistocene Ice Sheets that occupied a significant proportion of the northern hemisphere and the advance and retreat cycles of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). The process of ongoing viscoelastic relaxation in response to this redistribution of (specifically) ice (glacio-isostasy) and water (hydro-isostasy) on the Earth’s surface is termed ‘glacial isostatic adjustment’ (henceforth ‘GIA’). Regions located both inside and outside former ice sheet centres are still responding to the deglaciation of many of the northern hemisphere ice complexes (Laurentide, Cordilleran, Innuitian, Eurasian and the British-Irish) that concluded several thousand years ago.
And secondly, as I pointed out, the
In fact the IPCC quote I referenced said "
The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence)."
True, but insignificant, as
@basilio pointed out above. Volcanoes do not actually represent the
mechanisms which cause glacial calving.
I never mentioned global calving, I never mentioned the mechanism.
You bring in extraneous stuff as if I had stated it.
Another completely false claim. Here's the chart overlaying
satelite data:
Which part is a completely false claim? That the two sets of data don't match after 1990??
The graph you showed did exactly what I stated - it splced the satellite data onto tide data but omitted tide data from 1990.
Its a cheap trick and has been called out numerous times before, but you just blithely repost it.
I don't see any point in taking this any further,.
You can have the last say.
Mick