Your quote said no such thing.
The sampling frequencies have not changed, and even the most recent articles say the accuracy is still the same!
Do you realize that seeing a change of a few mm a year is different than saying that the measurement is accurate to that level?
So we can ignore anything from those who agree with the consensus, because they are biased the other way?
We can ignore a study whose authors made up their minds about what the results would be long before conducting it.
Swe can do the reverse with those who hold consensus?
False dichotomy.
Why?
Of course I do. But that isn't what I have been saying. According to NOAA, the 3-4mm is the uncertainty(or the error range) of the satellite measurements of global sea level.
Yes, for one measurement. But when you combine numerous measurements and average them, the accuracy is increased. This is a basic fact of science. Do you seriously not know this? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest again?
Assumes every scientist among those in agreement had made up their minds before they did their studies. This is untrue.
This discussion started when we introduced the idea of sea level increases to this thread. The satellites are sufficient to determine the annual global change in sea level to be able to produce a graph that looks like the graph below. That was not possible before we had the benefit of satellites. As your citation stated the new satellites are able to achieve unprecedented accuracy in the measurement of sea level.
Second to that values assumed to be caused by CO2 IAW the IPCCC. That is still not pinned down. Works of scientists outside of those commissioned by the agenda have the sensitivity of CO2 much lower than the iP{CCC uses.
The predicted tide height must be used as an offset to generate a satellite result regarding sea level. The average between high and low waves is the result. These satellites never see the same spot of ocean continuously and they are sampling a movement at too low of a rate for any proper accuracy, even if the measurements were accurate.
Actually, proper signal resolves and DSP technology can resolve partial wavelengths. But as I explained in my previous post, attempting such extra accuracy is impossible unless you can keep the satellite electronics operating better than around 10 parts per billion.... Around 0.000001 percent. That 0.0000031% is only good for 7.5 cm round trip of the signal. Probably a waste of money to try resolving partial wavelengths unless you can get the accuracy down to 1 part per billion or better. Even then, we still have to contend with the ever changing atmospheric dynamics we try to measure through.
These satellites use the C band for altimeter readings and the Ku band for clouds.
Their data resolves to that. The error band of the data exceeds those finer numbers.
No, we have known the sea levels were increasing for more than a century, NYC’s battery park record goes back more than 150 years.
Let's review!
So it is you who deflected from the statement.
A second receiver would do much better, but I suspect the accuracy is good enough.
You did the same thing lol
To bad CNN han no credibility. The report does though. They did their assigned job and that's that. Why should theyvontibur getting paid and not do anything?
How do you know the report didn’t generate further studies?
www.ipcc.ch