How was the sea level measured 90 years in the future? The observations of sea level clearly show a 3mm/year rise with a slightly decelerating trend. how do you get to more than 30cm/century without climate models? By the way the SLR map shows an obvious ENSO effect so why not post the official global sea level index?

Now please explain to me how the "IPCC estimates are conservative" or "Its worse than we thought" without the use of computer models.
Why your at it, please explain how you know it was AGW that caused sea levels to rise and not the large natural forces such as the 4% decrease in cloud cover that was responsible for at least 75% of the warming during the satellite period!

I have a comprehensive understanding of currents . Do you guys ...

A one line answer says you don't .

Any substantial " CHANGE " to SLR ( as you put it) has little to do with AGW . More (atleast) a seasonal , ( atmost ) multi decadel ANOMALIES .

And basicly I will try and sum it up . ( Which I might add is , MHO ) , but thats my point Observations and postulations . Of which I see yourselves doing very little of ( Hence Cut and Paste Gags ). Putting forward these is to add to the angles of inputs and is a contribution , right or wrong is insignificant . And the main crux is to open eyes to further possibilities .

I put forward a position that we have have a Extended Hot Dry Period , Evaporation reaches a saturation point as the lagging Thermal oceanics see a transition to Hot Wet period . These two , Atmosperics/Oceans have many inverse effects and feedbacks that are incremental , have little in the way of fluctuation and tend to be longer served . Eventually the balance is swayed , and we start to see the Atmosphere transfer to a colder transition however the lagging ocean thermal keeps climbing . And with an ever cooling Atmospherics interacting on the still warmer ocean heat content , we see more of a rapid and far more fluctuating transition/mixing towards a Colder Wetter mode .
This will eventually see an equalibrium or a more balanced period after a Cold Dry term or two .
This could sum up AUST's cycle and influences from The PDO / SAM .

Varying currents will be stronger during different periods and we would see these anomalies shown to circle the continent in an anti clockwise direction
( that is of course if its Okay to be Anti - anything ) , and we would see anomalies from typical tidal influences as differing currents / SST anom's work against the typical tidal chokes inherent to our Shoreline topography and subsea bathymetry . These would be inherent during differing phases of said above cycle . It would also be seasonal in respects to certain times of the calender year , and obviously tidal flows would be counteracted at varying times and strengths of each cycles' forced currents . All this is has a strong influence from the soi , IOD and AAO .
As you two have failed to mention actual Atmospheric pressures tending to imbed themselves at certain times throughout all these periods / cycles, this will have a massive impact on SLR . The winds seasonal influence , (and whether the average were above or below )would be far less , with exception of Bass straight as a Prime example of ( Broad wind current affecting tidal choke ) . The winds vary far too much in strength let alone direction through any mean period .

Again there are holes in this . But there's far more content direct from my head than Spatch in particular has added in over 100 posts .
Mike , I have read a bit of and slightly better . Especially in the fact that you were open to comment on something you observed , I like this even if it was a little askew . As it was off the cuff , and further more was actually forwarding part of an opinion . Which seems Foreign from others .

I want to debate this and stand corrected , not smothered in links .......
Please don't blindly throw up links and not actually add to them with insight .
Cheers

The historic sea level rise is about 1.8mm a year (link)

The trend over the last 30 years is about 3mm a year.

Why would the recovery from the little ice age suddenly speed up in the last couple of decades of the 20th century?

A comparison of IPCC estimates with actual sea level rise shows these estimates to be too low:

Was 3.1 mms but not now. Only about 1.7mms now from recent satellite and gauge records as I posted above and the deceleration in SLR over the last few years can be seen in that graph..

Khandekar was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007 climate change documents and his latest contribution to sea level rise is a Chapter (Global warming, glacier melt and future sea level rise) in the Book “Global Warming” published by Sciyo Publishers (Sciyo.com) October 2010.

5. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its latest (2007) document has estimated SLR to be between 14 and 41 cm (mean value 29 cm) under the A1B (greenhouse gas) scenario in which earth’s mean temperature is expected to rise between 2.3C and 4.1C over next 100 years. The IPCC 2007 projects SLR due to thermal expansion (steric component) as about 23 cm while the contribution due to melting of glaciers and ice cap (eustatic component) is estimated as about 6 cm over next 100 years

Several recent papers have provided SLR numbers which need to be examined carefully in the context of present debate on global warming and sea level rise. A paper by Holgate (2007, Geophysical Research Letters) analyzed nine long and nearly continuous sea level records over one hundred years ( 1903-2003) and obtained a mean value of SLR as 1.74mm/yr, with higher values in the earlier part of the 20th century compared to the latter part.

A comprehensive paper by Prof (emeritus) Carl Wunsch and co-workers ( J of Climate December 2007) generate over 100 million data points using a 23-layer general circulation ocean model which include different types of data ( salinity, sea surface temperature, satellite altimetry, Argo float profiles etc) and obtain an estimate of SLR as 1.6mm/yr for the period 1993-2004.
A more recent paper by Wenzel & Schroter (Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 2010) analyzes tide gauge records over a period 1900-2006 and obtains a mean value of 1.56mm/yr with NO statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise.
The latest paper by Houston & Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 2011) carefully analyzes 57 tide gauge records each with a record length of 80 years which include 25 gauges with data from 1930-2010. This study finds no acceleration in sea level rise, but instead a small average deceleration of -0.0014 and -0.0123 mm/yr2.
These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.

In summary, the estimate of over 1m and higher rise in sea level by 2100 (in next 90 years) seems unrealistic, when analyzed in the context of present sea level rise which is just about 1.5mm to 2.0 mm per year with almost NO component of acceleration. For the global sea level to rise by over 1m in the next 90 years would require acceleration (in sea level rise) of up to 0.28mm/yr2, which is almost two orders of magnitude larger than present. This seems highly unlikely at present given the fact that the earth’s climate has not warmed in the last ten years and further that the earth’s mean temperature seems to be declining at present.

There is a definite need to obtain more realistic estimates of future SLR than what are available at present.

Islands in the South Pacific are susceptible to this activity for a number of reasons. Some islands, such as these atoll islands of Kiribati, rise not much more than 8 or 12 feet above sea level and are composed of easily transported sand sediments. As a result, large cyclones or storm surges can wash over the islands and erode large sections of existing landforms. A rise in sea levels will only magnify these events. With land space already scarce and the large majority of the populations living near the shores, this is a huge problem. Compounding this is the fact that the supply of potable water relies on low and unreliable rainfall or on shallow groundwater lenses. These lenses would then become susceptible to seawater intrusion should sea levels rise. Additionally, with this region being in the "ring of fire," tectonic and volcanic activity is causing some islands to sink and others to rise.

With all these factors providing a convoluted mix of motion in a number of directions, developing a verifiable pattern of activity is going to take the scientific community some time - perhaps as much as 20 years. But for the time being, hard evidence that it is actually happening is hard to come by. Is the recent damage the result of storms that have been enhanced by sea-level rise? Or is it merely the result of large storms that coincidentally have occurred at around the same time?

This lack of certainty has led to skepticism for some. "It's a hoax," says one worker at Tarawa's wharf on the island of Betio. "I would rather forget about it."

His views are not isolated. That is because Kiribati itself is highly isolated and for the average person things like greenhouse gases and sea-level rise take a back seat to concrete things like coconut cultivation and catching tuna.

In looking around Tarawa though this sort of thinking is not at all illogical. Prior to the recent damage, the only evidence of any kind of a disturbance was that which befell the island of Bikeman. After the completion of the Nippon Causeway (Tarawa's longest causeway) in the mid-1980s, the island almost nearly disappeared. "After they built the causeway, it dissolved. It just started getting smaller and smaller," says Rurutaake Etuati, a 38-year old driver living on Tarawa.

The theory is that the construction of the causeway disrupted the rate of water flow and sand deposition patterns between the ocean and the lagoon during the changing high and low tides. As a result, sand was taken from Bikeman and deposited somewhere else within the lagoon. Thus, its disappearance was not the result not of sea-level rise.

Bikeman is an isolated island about 5 miles from Tarawa's coast in the lagoon. In its heyday over 20 years ago, the island was full of coconut trees and residents of Tarawa would go by ferry to the island on weekends for picnics. Today Bikeman is eerie. Its size is about that of a strip mall parking lot. This represents a mere fraction of the original island, whose size once rivaled those on Tarawa's mainland. The island's one remaining feature is a sand shoal that rises perhaps five feet above the lagoon's level at low tide. A steel tripod signaling beacon stands in the island's shallow waters. It used to mark the center of the island. Thousands of broken shells have been deposited on its shore at various tide elevations. There are no coconut trees. There really isn't anything there to speak of. Well, other than a glaring example of how fragile Kiribati's environment is.

Thus far, monitoring results of sea levels have not revealed much. Short-term results from the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project have shown increases in sea levels for some regions of the South Pacific but have also shown decreases for sea levels in Kiribati. The Project though maintains that such findings are likely due to such disruptions in the ocean-atmosphere system as El Nino and that significant data will only be the result of long-term monitoring. Hence, beneficial information is a long ways off.

ABSTRACT
The SEAFRAME sea-level study on 12 Pacific islands is the most comprehensive study of sea level and local climate ever carried out there. The sea level records obtained have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993 until the latest report in June 2010. In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones. If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS levelling equipment in 2000.

..... I have no intention of entering into this debate, I really just posted in response to this comment: "Isn't it funny that off all the 'projected' sea level rises flooding certain island nations that none of them have actually gone under yet?"

Had to laugh at the Sake-Drenched Postcards by Captain Japan ROM. Not your usual standard of link :B.

Low-lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea-level rise. Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area. Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms. Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands. Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases. Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea-level rise in the central Pacific. First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea-level change. Second, islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor. Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by progradation on other sectors of shorelines. Results indicate that the style and magnitude of geomorphic change will vary between islands. Therefore, island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption.

Mean Sea Level rise
The global mean level of the oceans is one of the most important indicators of climate change. It incorporates the reactions from several different components of the climate system. Precise monitoring of changes in the mean level of the oceans, particularly through the use of altimetry satellites, is vitally important, for understanding not just the climate but also the socioeconomic consequences of any rise in sea level.

With the satellite altimetry missions, the global mean sea level (GMSL) has been calculated on a continual basis since January 1993. 'Verification' phases, during which the satellites follow each other in close succession (Topex/Poseidon--Jason-1, then Jason-1--Jason-2), help to link up these different missions by precisely determining any bias between them. Envisat, ERS-1 and ERS-2 are also used, after being adjusted on these reference missions, in order to compute Mean Sea Level at high latitudes (higher than 66°N and S), and also to improve spatial resolution by combining all these missions together. In addition, permanent monitoring of quality during the missions (Calval) and studies of the necessary corrections of altimetry data regularly add to our understanding and knowledge (see the Processing and corrections applied to each mission to obtain the reference mean sea level).

The sea level trend to date is +6.4 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +5.7 mm/year. A nearby gauge, with a longer record but less precision and datum control, shows a trend of +0.9 mm/year.

The university of Colorado has recently updated their sea level graph from the TOPEX satellite data. The 60 month smoothed trend is still stalled and shows no rise over what was seen since the peak in mid 2010:

&
Here’s the same data with season variation retained, but the really interesting data is from ENVISAT, which shows no upward trend:

Sea level is lower than eight years ago, and according to the graph above just passed the lowest annual peak in the Envisat record.

It’s damned inconvenient.

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

The U.S. Geological Survey researcher reports that groundwater depletion over the period 1900-2008 was about 4,500 km3, which is equivalent to a global sea-level rise of 12.6 mm, or just over 6% of the total observed rise. In addition, he notes that the rate of groundwater depletion has increased markedly since about 1950, with maximum rates occurring during the most recent period (2000-2008), when it averaged ~145 km3/year.
As for sea level rise, Konikow notes that the average rate of rise over the 20th century was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/year; but he adds that the rate may have accelerated in recent years, citing the work of Church and White (2006), Bindoff et al. (2007) and Lettenmaier and Milly (2009). Over the period 1961-2003, for example, he reports that the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 ± 0.5 mm/year, as does Church et al. (2011). Over the period 1993-2003, however, Konikow notes that Bindoff et al. (2007) have mean global sea level rising by an estimated rate of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm/year; but Church et al. (2011) indicate that the latter researchers likely overestimated the upper-ocean thermosteric component of the global sea level rise in obtaining such a large result

Coordinating an effective international effort to cut funding to long-lived climate alarmism enforcers will be the hardest task. Science institutions worldwide have spoken out on the need to address global warming, despite no scientist really knowing how much of past warming (which ended ten years ago) is natural versus manmade, and despite those institutions knowing virtually nothing about the underlying science.

Climate alarmists will waste more than just American money. Regulators in the developing world push to enforce stronger air-pollution rules, which expands the role of government and provides job security for bureaucrats, while ignoring the downside of diverting too much of the taxpayers’ money away from other, more worthy goals.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Debate over findings
Dr Howard Brady, a former geologist and now honorary associate at the School of Biology at Sydney's Macquarie University, says the study highlights the gap between models and historical data.

"Modelling is very important because it can give us some idea of how things interact, but it doesn't necessarily give us an accurate projection of the future," says Brady. "The idea that the science is settled ... that's not true."

Dr Kathleen McInnes, a climate researcher at CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric research, says a range of sources are used to analyse sea levels, including tide gauges, satellites and geological records.

She dismisses claims that sea levels will only rise by 15 centimetres this century.

"The Watson paper is not about future projections, it is about past observations. Drawing any connection is misleading," says McInnes.

She says the most recent IPCC report predicts sea levels will rise between 20 and 80 centimetres by the end of this century.

"There is a much bigger body of evidence supporting the IPCC projections than there is from single papers in the scientific literature. You have to be very careful when a single paper is cited as though this is the state of the science."

Geochemist Jack E. Dibb and his colleagues from the University of New Hampshire in Durham analyzed samples collected from a snow pit about 38 kilometers from the South Pole. As expected, the deeper portion of the pit held radioactive layers corresponding to the years 1955 through 1974 -- the peak period of above-ground nuclear bomb testing. Yet the researchers also measured a radiation "spike"--about 20 to 30 times above the background level -- in snow near the top of the pit, deposited during late 1987 and early 1988. They traced the radioactivity to cesium-137, an isotope that does not form in nature but does form during nuclear explosions and in reactors.

The radioactive snow fell on Antarctica about 20 months after the Chernobyl accident -- a lag consistent with the time it took isotopes to reach the South Pole from bomb tests in the Northern Hemisphere. In a letter in the May 3 NATURE, Dibb's group proposes that some of Chernobyl's radioactive isotopes penetrated the stratosphere, crossed the equator and then fell in snowflakes on central Antarctica. They speculate that special wind patterns above the Antarctic might explain why the South Pole is the only spot in the Southern Hemisphere where scientists have detected excess cesium-137 following the Chernobyl event.

Contributing roughly half of the biosphere’s net primary produc-tion (NPP)1,2, photosynthesis by oceanic phytoplankton is a vital link in the cycling of carbon between living and inorganic stocks.
Each day, more than a hundred million tons of carbon in the form of CO2 are fixed into organic material by these ubiquitous, microscopic plants of the upper ocean, and each day a similar amount of organic carbon is transferred into marine ecosystems by sinking and grazing. The distribution of phytoplankton biomass and NPP is defined by the availability of light and nutrients (nitrogen, phosphate, iron). These growth-limiting factors are in turn regulated by physical processes of ocean circulation, mixed-layer dynamics,upwelling, atmospheric dust deposition, and the solar cycle.
Satellite measurements of ocean colour provide a means of quantifying ocean productivity on a global scale and linking its variability to environmental factors. Here we describe global ocean NPP changes detected from space over the past decade. The period is dominated by an initial increase in NPP of 1,930 teragrams of carbon a year (Tg C yr21), followed by a prolonged decrease averaging 190 Tg C yr21. These trends are driven by changes occurring in the expansive stratified low-latitude oceans and are tightly coupled to coincident climate variability. This link between the physical environment and ocean biology functions through changes in upper-ocean temperature and stratification, which influence the availability of nutrients for phytoplankton growth.
The observed reductions in ocean productivity during the recent post-1999 warming period provide insight on how future climate change can alter marine food webs.

But it sure made a mess of all the warmistas claims on a catastrophic sea level rise when nature shows just how ridiculous all those claims of catastrophic and monotonic increases in various climate phenomena actually are.

And supposedly all due to some 4% per year of extra CO2 over and above the annual turnover of global CO2 we humans are supposed to be putting into the atmosphere, a claim that again is based almost entirely on unvalidated models of CO2 turnover, both natural and anthropogenic.

There is no actual hard evidence of the percentages of CO2 turnover from natural sources and anthropogenic sources as very few real time measurements have been taken from actual power stations and other industries.
The only means of differentiating between natural and anthropogenic CO2 is by the isotopes and here there is a great deal of doubt over the ratios from natural and the burning of fossil fuels even though the warmistas like to claim and believe "the science is settled".

The oceans have been warming and warm water does not hold as much CO2 so warming oceans should mean a release of oceanic CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nor is it known just how much CO2 the oceans take up as ocean waters cool as they move into the northern and southern reaches of the planet will take up CO2 while warming waters across the tropical and mid latitude regions will release CO2.
About half of the so called anthropogenic CO2 that is supposedly released each year disappears into CO2 sink[s] somewhere on this planet and those sinks are as yet unidentified.

Carbon isotope C12 is selectively taken up by C3 plants by about an extra 2% so it assumed that the 2% difference in the take up of C13 and C12 isotopes relates to the consumption of fossil fuels of which coal is made up of 100 to 300 million years ago "plants" the actual biology of which has not really been studied.
Yet by measuring the ratios of C12 and C13 in the atmosphere, it is assumed that the amounts of anthropogenic and the natural turn over of CO2 can be measured.

As Roy Spencer points out, if fossil fuel origin CO2 was the reason for the increase on CO2 levels then the ratios between C12 and C13 would be changing in favour of more C12 isotope which would have been selectively taken up by the plants that the vast coal beds were laid down from and which when burnt today would release that C12 isotope back into the global atmosphere at slightly higher amounts than the C13 isotope.

But the composition of atmospheric CO2 is not changing. The two carbon isotopes are rising in the same fixed ratios relative to one another which means, if the carbon pushers want to maintain their claims about CO2 science that there is another source of CO2 that is being released and adding to the current atmospheric CO2 levels.
And anthropogenic CO2 is possibly / probably not the main reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2.

And that only leaves the warming oceans which release CO2 as they warm..

Even here with the truly immense tonnages of the plant like, CO2 absorbing and emitting ocean algae and zooplankton and phytoplankton, these critters must be making a huge contribution to the natural turn over of CO2 and long term variations in the levels of those ocean critters in various parts of the oceans which may be associated with solar emmissions across the solar spectrum as well as the ENSO phases could be ultimately responsible for the largest part of the changes in the levels of global CO2.

The rise in atmospheric CO2 is remarkably even across all the global air sampling stations such as Cape Grim in Tasmania as well as Mauna Loa and other stations. This is a very strange situation as first, most of or nearly all of anthropogenic CO2 is released in the northern hemisphere.
There are satellite maps showing the higher concentrations of CO2 girdling the earth in the mid northern hemi latitudes although A lot of this CO2 could be due to the immense land areas and the plant populations in these northern latitudes and not necessarily related to human activities as most would immediately assume due to the all pervading alarmist warmista propaganda of the last 20 years.

During the 1950's and 60's and into the 70's there were over 2100 nuclear tests conducted.
Of these some 530 tests were atmospheric.
The interesting item here is that it took some 18 months for the airborne particles of the various radio active isotopes of various gases to be detected south of the equatorial regions where the equatorial weather systems act as a barrier to the rapid movement of northern hemisphere air masses across into the southern hemisphere systems.

A quote from an article on Antarctica which outlines this phenomena


So in view of the known and measured delays in gases, as measured from the various gas isotopes from atmospheric nuclear testing and as most of the claimed anthropogenic CO2 releases are in the northern hemisphere, the evenness of the increases in the global CO2 levels at all the monitoring and air sampling stations both in the northern and southern hemispheres should raise some quite significant questions on the actual origins of the CO2 that is being measured.

Again only the warming oceans have the spread and compass to enable such an even release of CO2 across the planet.

Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural?
Roy Spencer

Well worth a read for an alternative view and perhaps ultimately something much nearer the real life CO2 atmospheric emissions structure.

&

Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity

Correlation of Net CO2 emissions with climate properties shows that the growth in CO2 may be natural

The narrative of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been challenged at many levels but this presentation by Professor Murry Salby, Chair of Climate at Macquarie University rips up the very foundations of the story.

Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio C13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter C12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of C12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.

Maybe one of the reasons why the sea level rises are not as noticeable as they would/should be is because of all the water desalination plants that are in operation around the globe?
They would suck out countless billions of litres of water every month-year for human consumption.
And before you say that there is not that many water desalination plants around the globe to make an impact... think again! there are currently over 14,500 of them in operation.

Albany shows a SLR rise of around 110mm since 1987. An annual rise of 4.4mm
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/957.php

Read the post above my last one BD. It explains what happened the last few years due to the La Nina's and you'll also see this pic that shows all that extra water on the land.



See all that water on the land? That's a very very very large amount of water that was dumped on land. Now it has made it's way back into the oceans and lo and behold the sea levels rose. Amazing hey!

The blue spots are bigger than the red spots so there!

Being serious now - you guys refuse to accept the findings from experts in any scientific field to do with climate and I'm not going to knock myself out trying to get you to see reason. I'll leave you guys to go off down the garden path with your half backed theories whilst I indulge myself reading actual science from actual scientists.

The bulk of the water that falls in the outback of Australia never reaches the sea
it ends up in Lake Eyre, Channel Country, Huge very slow moving low depth water areas along darling, Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Murray, Artesian basins, the water table, dams, etc, etc,
not much at all gets back to the ocean!

Obviously it evaporates that is my whole point!
or goes underground or is used by trees plants crops toen use, etc etc etc!

No, the point you made was that water that falls in the outback of Australia never reaches the sea.

That is not correct. It evaporates and makes it way back into the sea via precipitation.