Originally Posted by stimpson.j.cat

Your original question was way too broad a question(s) to be answered in any meaningful manner.

"But while you're asking please tell me how they're getting a measurement of the all of the world's oceans; the technology used and measurement uncertainty."

I merely provided nominal accuracy of microwave sensors currently used to measure sea levels and waves. Differing technologies will have different dependencies with regard to any atmospheric conditions impacting measurement accuracies.

Peer-reviewed journal articles mean what? They are reviewed by fellow experts in the field that DO have first-hand knowledge of such esoterica. I rely on those people to make sure the underlying methodology underpinning any research is scientifically sound. We all do. So yes, sometimes we accept underlying research methodologies at face value, particularly when it's reviewed by their fellow experts and/or we are not experts in that methodology.

Circling back to your original question regarding correcting for air temp and humidity. The article does acknowledge that such corrections are necessary for the subsurface pressure gauge. They state this is not important for the microwave sensors.

"The effect of density and temperature variations, even in the atmosphere, are unimportant."

Or from a NOAA paper on "Water Level and Wave Height Estimates at NOAA Tide Stations from Acoustic and Microwave Sensors".

"The sensor is remarkably insensitive to temperature variation (0.2 mm K21 , 5-mm maximum) and has accuracy of +- 0.03% of the measured range. However, microwave sensors have limitations, such as signal scattering/blockage from rain, ice or flotsam, sidelobe interference from pilings or other infrastructure, and a variable surface-area footprint dependent on sensor beamwidth and range from the water that introduces a spatial filter. Details of the sensor can be found in Heitsenrether and Davis (2011).

If you care, you can look at the technical report for adopting microwave sensors by NOAA. The reference is an Aquatrak AWAC.
Limited Acceptance of the Design Analysis WaterLog® H-3611i Microwave Radar Water Level Sensor. The RMSD between the two technologies in 3 different sites is typically less than 1 cm.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/pu...CO-OPS_061.pdf

I note that NOAA is looking at using newer microwave sensors that uses CWFM vs a pulse radar for real-time monitoring of waves.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.00586/full

Originally Posted by krabill

Remember every stone we throw or new boat that we put in the water does cause sea level to rise, albeit small. Thermal expansion and melting land ice are other major contributors. Land subsidence is not a factor, but that does look the same visually on your dock.

Originally Posted by mikefloyd

Still at the same point, they do not currently have the accuracy required to support their conclusions and once they do, will have no previous data to use as a base line.

Originally Posted by stimpson.j.cat

Nonsense. Even the data from old tide gauges is more than adequate to estimate local sea level rise and provide a backstop for microwave sensor and satellite altimetry data. This is historical St. Pete tide station data. Trend is definitely upward. https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/520.php

Originally Posted by TonyStark

I will leave you with this...I wouldn't buy direct ocean front property and claim you weren't warned.

Originally Posted by Seacat FL

So you claim the ocean has risen 250 mm ( 9.8") since 1945 and its gone down by 75 mm repeatedly and this is supposed to be a crisis??