On 20/02/2018 15:08, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 12:43:52 UTC, N_Cook wrote:
My Jason1 + Jason2 + Jason3 concattenated graphical plot
http://diverse.4mg.com/jason1+2+3r.jpg
2003 to Nov 2017
retaining as much as possible of the 3 separate images, 2mm
discontinuities, linear "fit" segments etc.

Other such long-term plots

http://www.kpress.info/images/Jan_20...level_rise.jpg

https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/filea... rence_sm.png

Anyone doubt a curve is a better fit than linear, then just a matter of
what sort of curve is the optimal fit.

There is another plot he
https://cires.colorado.edu/council-f...r-steven-nerem
but I am doubtful since parts of the plot show sea level falling.


Especially as he's not stated the source, or even if a composite of
sources, a bit chalk and cheese as the Saral sytem is calibrated against
tide-gauges rather than inland lakes and transponders.
The ends of any of those plots is problematic, until the filters pass
through and the curve can be fixed firmly into the record.
It looks as though that curve has not had the seasonality removed,
unlike the "black" curve on the Aviso/Jason plots I've used, so could
well be showing negative.
Plotting out the 4/3 power curve, I see its highly inflexive , where the
2017 hickup is, so perhaps not valid for later projections, any more
than a quintic curve or summation of sines or whatever.
So the quadratic curve may be the more representative
although a worse fit, but at least the exponential is no longer in first
place.