In response to:

More Settled Science: Wrong about Ice Melt in Greenland, Sea-Rise

Ken5061 Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 12:27 PM
I am not sure the seas have risen. The only data I have read showed it is lower in the south Pacific. Have somebody do a calculation of how much ice would have to melt to raise sea level an inch. If they can't do that, settle for a centimeter. Or in the system of units embraced by the US Govt, lawyers, 0.01 meter. We are not supposed to use centimeters any longer, little known fact.
BobIsBob Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 2:52 PM
The problem is that oceans fluctuate in level. There are tides, both Lunar and Solar, wind based rises, and many other influences. What is the real high level? What is the real low level? is it just where the highest storm wave reached? Is it an average? What about years with higher velocity peak winds?

I have never seen any measurement that gives the uncertainty level for estimates of sea level. That is a cause for concern. There is uncertainty in ALL measurements.

For this, I suspect that the changes are smaller than the uncertainty. That means that they really don't know. for the South Pacific measurements you mentioned, those were done by satellite, and so reflect many different things, such as tides and wave heights at the time.

New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tends to now show that ice melt estimates previously calculated for Greenland have not significantly accelerated- as has been previously postulated- nor has the melt contributed in a meaningful way to the rise of sea levels.

Recently, much of the destruction on the east coast as a consequence of Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore was blamed on the rise in sea-levels, which have been blamed on…drum roll…global warming.

The newest revelation, amongst many in the last several years that have muffled the global warming chants of  “settled science, settled...