This is likely to be controversial and dismissed by some as invalid, which is their problem.
The RSS data is monthly.
Topex/Jason data is sampled roughly every 10 days, processed into monthly and then normalised to the RSS data.
Both month data were low pass filtered at 10 years, with end correction. This is likely to be dismissed as impossible, look, it is self evidently about right.
All four are plotted above.
Other work has suggested there is a correlation between temperature and sea level, sea level lagging perhaps 4 years. (I doubt many people think that sea level causes temperature)
The actual sea level rises being talked about are extremely small relative to the size of the planet.
What if the top few x metres of sea water are warmed by 0.2K?
With the last post I hope I demonstrated how a very simple regular function, a planet orbit, causes a more complex modulation of sea ice, something which does not seem to be generally understood.
Look back a couple of posts and you will see Vostok ice core plots.
What I have done now is flip the temperature proxy data upside down. This ought to roughly represent ice and puts the data the same way around as the earth sea ice plots. More ice is upward, melt is downwards.
I then used a very crude approximation to some kind of orbital signal, actually locks in at 103ky.
This is known wrong in relation to orbits (explain more in a moment) but food for thought.
Do you now see why the widespread notion that sharp melts cannot come from a simple stimulation is a highly questionable assumption? It should be considered feasible and with no magic or particular non-linearity.
I would appreciate assistance with very long orbital period calculation. I have the capability to carry out some novel experimentation using accurate orbital data, which I do not have.
One of the very interesting features is apparently the variation in the eccentricity of the earth orbit on these very long timescales, ie. it varies with at least two periods. I hope the reason why this is so interesting is not lost on the reader.