Sea level rate of rise shown to be partially a product of adjustments

Why be surprised?
If there is no global warming you make it.
Is there no extreme ice melt you make it.
Is there no sea level rise you make it.
If glaciers wont meld you make them meld even if you have tho use a blowtorch.
Why is this a suprice? We all know AGW or CAGW is FRAUD the only thing to figure out is how far when they and when someone comes out and say stop this is to far.
All I now is that in normal science they already where out of job and possibly in to prison now.

Reminds me of interview with Nils Axel Morner back in 2007. Not much has changed since then. It would be interesting if the author had inserted tide gauge measurements over the same period.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
“Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not
just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure
it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level]
was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely
no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid
rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely
no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but
they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which
they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was
not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I
accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—
I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not
a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite,
but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered,
that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten
any trend!” So we have the adjustments to sea levels and the surface temperature records and I wonder what else. What about ocean heat content?

However, i’m sure they reference their data against known surface heights (large salt pans) then use this to correct satellite drift (the adjustment). They must give a reason / data for their correction.
Of all the adjustments in climate, height must be the least murky / easily verified or explained, surely.

I wouldn’t call these value added adjustments since that presupposes agreement on the value of the end-product, rather this is yet another example of values-based-adjustments in accordance with the post-modern-science-activism

The story of satellite sea level adjustments is even older. The values before 2011 can be assessed via WayBackMachine.
I made an analysis of the results of the adjustments of the ESA and Colorado Sea Level data over the years a couple of month ago (Google translation).
Conclusion, Even though the sea level rise rate has decreased over the years, the rate of sea level rise was kept more ore less constant at above 3 mm/year by applying various “adjustments”. This year it seems, the data is being made fit for the next IPCC assessment report…

Climate scientists, advocates and politicians following the AGW line have been shown to exagerate, fudge data and tell lies. They have shown themselves as untrustworthy so I always get suspicious when they make apparently outlandish predictions. These are supposedly educated and intelligent ( sometimes mutually exclusive I realise) people who by now should know they are wrong, wrong wrong. However whilst continuing the false PR some are acting in a way which is at odds with their public utterances. E.g Al Gore is sure sea will rise by up to six metres but buys a waterfront property in SF; Tim Flannery predicts an eight story sea rise but buys a property on the Hawkesbury river just above high tide and accessible only by boat. Tim also sprouts the urgent need for geothermal and has shares in a company that just happened to receive $90 million in Government grants. Unfortunately for Tim the share price has all but hit zero so he doubles his efforts to promote the evils of CO2. Local government has tried to move people from areas seven metres above current sea level stating that sea level rise will inundate these properties. Some people, believing the lies, sell at reduced prices to escape the coming catastrophe and I wonder who buys; folk like Flannery and Gore??
When someone who should know better keeps a discredited scam going and starst profiting from others who believe them I start to wonder. After all our own government is doing just that with the Carbon tax.

How does one go about measuring sea level to a tenth of a millimeter?

Dutch scientist found that the moon has some influence on the measured sea level based on cyclic variations of the orbit of the moon. Paper here:
http://www.citg.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/Faculteit/CiTG/Over_de_faculteit/Afdelingen/Afdeling_Waterbouwkunde/sectie_waterbouwkunde/people/personal/gelder/publications/papers/doc/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.pdf
The moon pulls the ocean water from the southern to the northern hemisphere in cycles of 18.6 years. The oceans then get more or less the form of pear with the stalk heading north and south alternately. That should have an influence on the sea level of at least at few millimetres and that effect should not be forgotten when you monitor sea levels. You have to monitor for whole cycles of 18.6 years to get correct data. For the time being, the stalk points south.
Besides that effect, the mentioned moon cyclus should, according to this paper:
http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/climate/theClimateArticle.pdf
also have a more general influence on the climate in the northern Atlantic region.

Would someone please write a book on solely the adjustments you could call it “The adjustment burro”
Dare I say the only real hockey stick.