Over the past 100 years, there has been no change in the rate of sea level rise.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png

During the last few thousand years, there has been a dramatic drop in the rate of sea level rise.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png

Sea level varies greatly over longer time periods and was much higher in the geologic past.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/4/44/Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

An Indian city that is now submerged by 36 meters of water. I wonder if they drove Hummers?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

NASA has calculated that Antarctica and Greenland contribute 1mm of fresh water to the oceans per year. They are the only large sources of new water entering the ocean. Is this satellite looking for a magical new source of water? What do they hope to find that we don't already thoroughly understand?

Why do we need another satellite to measure what is already being measured quite accurately? Waves, tides and storms cause sea level variations as much as 10 meters from day to day and second to second. How does "1mm resolution" help with that problem?

Tides and waves impact the apparent height of the sea along the shoreline at any given moment more than this 100-year sea-level rise prediction. Predictions of sea levels rising from 20 years ago have not materialized either. (Reply: Sea levels have been increasing across the globe, that is proven. ) These unscientific predictions, whether by an organized body such as the IPCC, or any other "consensus" group, should be ignored and never repeated in the media, including here. These predicitons are completely ignoring the increasing Antarctic ice and other mitigating scientific facts pertaining to the Earth's own natural self-balancing mechanisms - which are sometimes longer-term than the extremely short time spans over which the current "theories" are based.

If the IPCC and other global warming proponents are going to continue to selectively ignore relevant facts, then the world media should ignore them. In fact, I am so tired of this climate change hoax and the hysteria that is being created that I am recommending that Accuweather.com remove all "Global Warming" discussions from its web site completely.

Reply: What do you dispute? Global warming in general or the idea of man-made global warming. All I was posting about was the different ways that scientists measure sea level. What's wrong with that?

I discontinued checking Weather.com completely last year when Heidi Cullen made her infamous statement. This will be my last "click" on the Global Warming area of Accuweather.com. I urge other readers to follow my lead.

Hi Guys,

Hmm wonder if they put the gauge in a stable location and not on a piece of land affected by tectonics. Here is another piece that explains it much better.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan04/nils-morner_1.pdf

From the BBC article.

as greenhouse gases become more concentrated, more heat energy is trapped in the atmosphere. This energy is also transferred to the ocean, causing it to warm and expand

1. What evidence is there that "greenhouse gases have become more concentrated?" We know that CO2 has become more concentrated, but the IPCC has never produced a graph showing the sum total of all greenhouse gases. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas relative to H20. In the absence of a complete data set, this comment can not be justified. Some recent studies have shown a significant drop in atmospheric H20.

2. You can't "trap heat." It is a violation of the laws of physics. Equilibrium is maintained between incoming and outgoing heat.

3. The oceans are cooling and are very close to "normal" temperatures. Reply: Patrick, can you be more specific with this statement. What time period are you talking about and do you mean the average sea-surface temperature of all the world's oceans combined?

Does anyone know the specifics on how the level is determined to within a mm when you have waves of some type on the ocean? I'm sure there's some averaging going on.

"The stations are fitted with continuous global positioning system (CGPS) technology, which can measure whether the elevation of the equipment is sinking or rising up out of the water."

land based

So New Orleans has sunk 4 feet since the levees were built

Most of the Caribbean has risen 4-5 inches in the recent past.

I'm just curious of the vertical resolution of the GPS equipment. Anyone have any ideas?

Hi Guys,

Now they are predicting a new little ice age.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13834&t=Scientist+says+Earth+could+soon+face+new+Ice+Age

According to the BBC article, "Figures for June 2006 show that Tuvalu, an island state that is expected to be one of the first nations to disappear beneath the waves, is experiencing a net sea level rise of 5.7mm each year."

I don't think we can take the BBC's word for this especially when we read other reports which say:
"The facts are, though, that the sea levels haven't been shown to be rising, at least not anywhere near Tuvalu, and long-term monitoring results have shown them to instead be falling." Here is a link to the full report:
http://www.bigempire.com/sake/tuvalu1.html

Another blog has collected a number of articles concerning the media's (particularly the BBC'S) alarmism concerning Tuvalu. You can read them here:
http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2008/01/23/sea-level-rise-paradise-lost-tuvalu/

In spite of this, I think that it is great that these efforts are being made to accurately measure sea level rise. It will, however, be much more difficult to assign a root cause to the observed changes; inputting the data into unreliable computer models is certainly not the way to go.

The BBC's pro AGW bias is apparent to the reader. If this is "science", then why isn't there any mention of the real possibility of falling sea levels? Science doesn't pre-determine the outcome of a scientific endeavor like collecting data on sea level rise. Well, not unless your purpose is to prop up a failing AGW hypothesis.

Of course, some will claim that sea level has been rising ever since the last ice age.

While there is some truth to that, those who rely on such points to advance their cause will likely ignore the few thousand years of stable sea level that civilized mankind has become accustomed to.

Hi Brett,

Looking at the most recent NOAA SST maps it is going to be difficult for anyone to make a case that the oceans are warming significantly over the long term.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

Roger Pielke has reported that the oceans have been cooling for the last few years, and JP quoted a figure of -0.15 degrees yesterday.

This Article is another reminder that Scientists make conclusions on hard evidence. All of you (know it all's), probably know nothing. If Albert Einstien could discover that E=MC squared, and if the Airplane was invented,and this computer that you use works, than it's the result of good math ,scientific inquiry, that has helped man to progress, in this elevated technological world. You love to watch American Idol, than hate the guy who made it possible for you to watch it on a TV. Well bad news conservative hamburger heads. You love what scientists make,until they start talking about things you can't consume. Well the word is that the ice sheets are melting, the Arctic Ice is melting, the rivers in India and China are at risk. In Europe, where the gulf stream comes down is colder,which means more water with less salt. The antarctic is melting in it's western area,and some people will never admit this because of their politics,religion, or conservative bias.For me I'll stick to Science.
Kipp Alpert

Hi Andrew,

Sea level is not stable. It rose 20 cm over the last century, which is not much different from even the bloated IPCC estimates for the next century.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png

And as Monckton pointed out, Al Gore obviously doesn't really believe in catastrophic sea level rise either, as he recently bought a $4 million condo on Fisherman's Wharf.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?9c8600a9-6750-45cb-b7ee-c8ca6b6d3a75

Global warming is all about people wanting to make money, and their useful idiots.

"I discontinued checking Weather.com completely last year when Heidi Cullen made her infamous statement. This will be my last "click" on the Global Warming area of Accuweather.com. I urge other readers to follow my lead."

Fred,

I'm with you on the AGW hysteria, but I'm not going to follow your lead regarding Accuweather's Global Warming blog. I think Brett does an excellent job presenting a good variety of global warming-related news and tidbits (both fur and agin), and the readers and contributors appear mostly to be on our anti-AGW-hysteria team. Like you, I long ago quit visiting or viewing The Weather Channel. But Accuweather is a veritable oasis in this vast desert of media warm-mongers. We need Accuweather and its Global Warming blog.

Water does NOT expand when it warms! It expands to a maximum at a couple of degrees C above freezing. It then expands when frozen albeit in a different state. Clearly the BBC people know not from whence they speak.

I just received an answer from Ask A Physicist about how photons interact with gas molecules, been a long time since I've taken that class :)

Not too surprisingly, photons travel quite far through gases before interacting with any molecules. Once they do they either pass straight through or collide either being completely absorbed or more likely being absorbed, raising the kinetic energy of the molecule, and emitting a longer wavelength photon, lower energy (Second Law of Conservation of Energy).

Though most strikes are not completely absorbed, O2 and N2 are 2,600 times more likely to be interacted with than CO2. CO2 is not only affected by the two bands of IR that it completely absorbs, it is more likely struck by much shorter waves raising it's kinetic energy and thus temperature.

There are several issues that I have with AGW here are a few.

1. Photons, no matter the wavelength, are 2,600 times more likely to interact with N2 and O2 than CO2, in our atmosphere. There is 5,000 trillion tons of N2 and O2 in the atmosphere and 750 billion tons of CO2.

The temp of the N2 and O2 is determined by the kinetic energy, a minute fraction of this energy comes from CO2 emitting photons, nearly all comes from radiation in many wavelengths colliding with the N2 and O2.

Clouds are the "blankets" as they are nearly opaque because of the density of the H2O molecules, CO2 is evenly distributed and does not clump.

2. Little Ice Age ended just before it started to warm, first half of 19th century. Medieval Warm period was warm enough to grow crops in Greenland that are not grown today, peas, barley, etc.

3. Theories are supposed to be tested, first by those who come up with the theory and secondly by others.

AGW climate "scientists" are supposed to come forward saying, "I tested my theory this way and it did not break", "I tested my theory another way and it still did not break", "can you break my theory?"

This is not occurring, instead they are crying foul whenever someone challenges their theories that they themselves refuse to test. Pure crap.

If anyone can show how 750 billion tons of CO2 can raise or lower the temp of 5,000 trillion tons of N2 and O2, please show me. Note: It takes less energy to raise one gram of CO2 one degree than it does one gram of O2 or N2.

Any arguments? I am simply taking the info I received and applying it to our atmosphere. If there are any holes, I welcome the comments.

Regards,

Steve

Fred,

You give deniers like me a bad name...

Unless you are an undercover AGW agent trying to suppress these boards that are tryign to find the truth...

Elliot A.

Your statement is incorrect. Water is most dense at 4C and expands, although minutely, as the temp rises.

However, you are correct in your thought that people who use thermal expansion as a scare tactic of GW are a bunch of idiots.

For the amount of temp increase that the Sea Surfaces have experienced, the expansion is negligible as is the minute increase in acidity that these nuts are often harping about as well.

Regards,

Steve

A Google Earth overlay showing the locations of all tide gauges currently used to measure sea level changes.
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/google/downloads/psmsl.kmz

Courtesy of the UK The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory
http://www.pol.ac.uk/

(You need to install Google Earth before using it.)

Reply: Appreciate the link Patrick!

Brett is just trying to gauge the weather.And NATURAL STEVE,the reason that you are wrong is not the atomic number or kind, but the quality of the
carbon as a monoxide or dioxide state. It binds in your lungs and causes cancer,in the World causing pollution and smog,and in our atmosphere trapping oxygen again not letting the infrared spectrum back out. This causes the greenhouse effect,which causes global warming.I thought the Earth would be in it's cooling cycle now, but it is just getting hot out there. Brett is a commendable Scientist who is just telling us how they are now studying change and we should thank him for helping us understand how climate folks gather data.Real facts.Kipp

Kipp,

but the quality of the carbon as a monoxide or dioxide state. It binds in your lungs and causes cancer,in the World causing pollution and smog,and in our atmosphere trapping oxygen again not letting the infrared spectrum back out.

Would you mind explaining this statement in a little more detail, especially the part about binding in lungs and causing cancer. Please be a bit more specific as to whether you mean carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.

Thanks.

Hi Guys,

Kipp Alpert what? CO kills you doesn't cause cancer and CO2 is not pollution, it is a gas necessary for life to exist. O2 is not being trapped and the heat in the form of IR is absorb and emitted by GHGs by causing the GHGs to go to a higher energy state and when the IR is emitted it goes back to its natural state. Actually since 1998 the temperatures have been flat. 2008 is predicted to be cooler then all the other years this century. The new solar cycle will tell us if it will be warmer or cooler.

This explains the AGW theory better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwd_d_nYxdI

Any arguments? I am simply taking the info I received and applying it to our atmosphere. If there are any holes, I welcome the comments.

I suggest you take a refresher course in freshman physics, most especially energy and waves. Then try thermo and quantum mechanics.

Bring along your pals Patrick Henry and Paul, if you can talk them into it.

And of course as the "TUNNELS" prevent the melting of the Arctic Ice on both poles of "GODS GOOD EARTH" you can also see how they can regulate Ocean levels! "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED"?

Hi Brett,

No problem. Thanks to you and Accuweather for hosting this. I definitely don't want to see any censorship on this blog, as it is the only one where concepts are discussed at a conceptual level. There are lots of smart people here, each with a unique angle. (And the alarmists are entertaining too.)

Most of the other discussion forums seem to jump straight into discussing the trees, and often entirely miss the forest. Realclimate being the worst. They can endlessly discuss details of mathematics, derived from completely nonsensical and erroneous theory.

My favorite realclimate discussion was about terraforming Mars. The same people who think that a 0.000075 change in CO2 will render our planet unlivable, also believe that we can engineer Mars to be a tropical paradise. I nearly busted my gut laughing when I saw that!

Who cares what the scientists say? We have Al Gore to tell us what is really going on.

Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore Jan 24

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.

Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080124092029.zmwgovcr&show_article=1

And the Gore religion steps up a notch.

Bono confesses sins to 'father' Al Gore
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080124190921.4cjmzupc&show_article=1

The Chinese and Russians must be laughing their arrses off and licking their chops simultaneously.

The term climate change is an oxymoron. Certainly NASA and NOAA do not mind all of this hyped-up interest. How many more dollars due we have to spend on this nonsense already? We get it. The climate changes. What can we do about it? Nothing? All right then. Next topic? The economy and reducing government spending. We should begin with a 15 percent