However recent work has shown that the failure of the Antartic to warm as Climate Models predicted, combined with increased amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere due to slightly higher global temperatures, is leading to increased snowfall on the Antartic landmass. The hypothesis is that this may lock up more water, and it is suggested that a reduction in sea levels would not be unexpected.

I guess the commentary made a difference.

I guess the commentary made a difference.

And please don’t use how they “match” history as evidence their future predictions are accurate. Any complex system with multiple variables and transient fudge factors can be made to match any trend line. I could make multiple climate models that match history but which don’t project the same future (they can’t all be right).

no, CO2 alarmism is not a useful contribution. Starting it with about 10 years of data was pointless except for nut jobs like Hansen, Gore, and YOU.

Making claims that the earth has totally changed the way the climate works because of .035 % of the atmosphere changing a tiny bit is even more ridiculous.

Claiming that the questionable trend in the last 30 years was outside of the norms for our climate system (whatever they really are) is even more ignorant.

To the current point. The sea level rise for 1993 to current of about 3mm per year is even more questionable removing any usefulness of debating this paper.

Finally, the apparent DECREASE in sea level in the last 3 years shows that the oceans are NOT retaining excess heat and the boondoggle should be forgotten. We should return to trying to researching and understanding our environment without the perversions of BIASED research and reporting getting in the way.

PS: try hunting down the tide gauge records for ALL the Hong Kong units for the period of 1970 to current and see which ones best match the 3mm scenario. THEN check and see which ones are KNOWN to be on subsiding land!!!!

My point about the planetary effect is that when you are dealing with projecting a change in rate that is measured in microns, you need to make sure that you eliminate any other possible source of change. If you dismiss an effect because it is only one ten thousandth of the total effect, you don’t need to be citing changes that occur on or near that ten thousandth level. The study that Scientist’s cites does approach those levels, so can he prove that they remembered to take that effect into account for the times when their data was collected? The tidal effect of Venus spikes to its maximum value approximately every 15 months. If you are study annual tidal levels, as Church & White say they did, then this effect will be apparent based upon the scale they are using in approximately 80% of their data points.

don’t let scientroll snow you or bog you down in silly arguments (both of which are his trademarks).

greenland may well be gaining ice mass. and it is certainly not unusually warm there at the moment compared to the last century or to warmer periods like the MWP.

this is an interesting read on the topic:

Zwally, H. Jay; Giovinetto, Mario B.; Li, Jun; Cornejo, Helen G.; Beckley, Matthew A.; Brenner, Anita C.; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui (2005), Journal of Glaciology, Volume 51, Number 175, December, pp. 509-527(19)

and recent studies using the ARGOS system show no recent gains in ocean heat (though granted over a very short period as it is a very new system)

sceintroll knows this and has lost arguments about it on this site already.

he’s just being deliberately difficult and trying to waste your time.

You shout 13 to 20 YEARS as if you are telling us something new. What’s your point? And why do you think that sea levels might stop rising? How do you heat up water without making it expand? Where else is the 100 billion tonnes of Greenlandic ice going each year?

The difference between tides and mean sea level apparently eludes you. From the paper you quoted, the error on satellite sea level measurements is of the order of ±2cm. Tidal range is irrelevant.

Planets are also irrelevant. I’m sure if you really think about it you can work out why.