The Uncertainties of Global Warming: Sea Level to Rise in South, Fall in North

[sysop]

Climate change is expected to cause sea levels to rise -- at least in some parts of the world. Elsewhere, the level of the ocean will actually fall. Scientists are trying to get a better picture of the complex phenomenon, which also depends on a host of natural factors.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...732303,00.html

[howard_fein]

"the water in the oceans wobbles all over the place" - Seems the author/researcher has re-discovered "tides".

[ricardo_maxwell]

So the prediction is that the sea level(s) will either go up or down. And I predict that it will get warmer in some parts of the world and colder in others. Also, I predict that it will rain more in some places and less in others. Starting to get the picture now? Why publish such nonsense at this time? Answer: the predicted rise in sea levels is not being realized, just like the overall predicted rise in temperatures is not being realized. That's why the perpetrators of the AGW hoax had to change Global Warming term to Climate Change. Shame on you Der Spiegel for being a pawn of the radical left wing environmental movement.

[ococker]

Those of us who live on the North Carolina Outer Banks are especially tuned in to this issue. We live on a sand bar just several feet above mean high water, and like to think we need not man the boats.
The critical consideration is the water level relative to land surface. The absolute volume of sea water is but one component of this complexity.
As water still tends to flow downhill, as it were, one must marvel at the lack of really serious (and thus self-leveling) bulk flow between regions exhibiting "height" (but not necessarily depth) gradients of dozens of meters. But then, we've enjoyed Cape Horn for centuries.
And what absolute reference point is agreed upon to define this height?

[barrycooper1]

The actual thesis involved is this: excess CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere caused by the burning of carbon based fuel will increase the amount of heat retained by our atmosphere, causing generalized increases in average temperatures. Implicit is invariably that this will be a net negative, and not a net positive, despite the patent facts that more people die from cold than heat, and that life fared quite well when we had no polar ice caps at all.

The politically motivated replacement, then, of the phrase "climate change" for "global warming", shows quite clearly that the science is not only not settled, it isn't even coherent. What we have are computer models, which are not the same as facts. These are experiments that have not been run, and which build on experiments which HAVE been run--such as the prediction of increased hurricane activity just prior to 5 years of record low hurricane activity--and demonstrably failed to demonstrate the validity of the models.

What is being said here? Ocean levels might go up, they might go down, and they might stay the same.

Read that twice please. For those of you with a scientific background, does that rise above the level of the sort of conversation you have around the coffee pot about predictions for next weeks weather?

This whole thing is ludicrous. I made my case several years ago, and the argument was only strengthened by the revolution that Phil Jones and crew were intentionally withholding data. Here is the link: http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/...l-warming.html