Maybe Not All Scientists Are To Be Trusted

I'll give it a shot. (No, the stuff Gringa posted is still totally wrong: the earth isn't growing, the distortion's just lessening (it's becoming more round/less "squashed") caused at/near the poles by the weight of the ice caps as they melt. Sea level rise is affected by more than just ice melt, and will not be uniform across the planet. As the ice sheets melt, the weight they press down on the continents below is eased, causing the land mass to move upwards. This, in turn, affects the flow of the underlying mantle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.

Studies have shown that the uplift has taken place in two distinct stages. The initial uplift following deglaciation was rapid (called "elastic"), and took place as the ice was being unloaded. After this "elastic" phase, uplift proceeded by "slow viscous flow" so the rate decreased exponentially after that. Today, typical uplift rates are of the order of 1 cm/year or less. In northern Europe, this is clearly shown by the GPS data obtained by the BIFROST GPS network.[1] Studies suggest that rebound will continue for about at least another 10,000 years. The total uplift from the end of deglaciation depends on the local ice load and could be several hundred metres near the centre of rebound.

Recently, the term post-glacial rebound is gradually being replaced by the term glacial isostatic adjustment. This is in recognition that the response of the Earth to glacial loading and unloading is not limited to the upward rebound movement, but also involves downward land movement, horizontal crustal motion,[1][2] changes in global sea levels,[3] the Earth's gravity field,[4] induced earthquakes [5] and changes in the rotational motion.[6]

Effects
Post-glacial rebound (or glacial isostatic adjustment) produces measurable effects on vertical crustal motion, global sea levels, horizontal crustal motion, gravity field, Earth's rotational motion and state of stress and earthquakes. Studies of glacial rebound give us information about the flow law of mantle rocks and also past ice sheet history. The former is important to the study of mantle convection, plate tectonics and the thermal evolution of the Earth. The latter is important to glaciology, paleoclimate and changes in global sea level. Understanding postglacial rebound is also important to our ability to monitor recent global change.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/wh ... correct-it
What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it?
Edited: 2011-06-08

The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle. GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago. Mantle material is still moving from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2002, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent. However, since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts. To understand the relative sea level effects of global oceanic volume changes (as estimated by the GMSL) at a specific location, issues such as GIA, tectonic uplift, and self attraction and loading (SAL, e.g., Tamisiea et al., 2010), must also be considered. For more discussion on the GMSL and how it relates to tide gauges, see the GMSL and tide gauge FAQs.

There are many different scientific questions that are being asked where GMSL measurements can contribute. We are focused on just a few of these:

How is the volume of the ocean changing?
How much of this is due to thermal expansion?
How much of this is due to addition of water that was previously stored as ice on land?

In order to answer these questions, we have to account for the fact that the ocean is actually getting bigger due to GIA at the same time as the water volume is expanding. This means that if we measure a change in GMSL of 3 mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of GIA. Removing known components of sea level change, such as GIA or the solid earth and ocean tides, reveals the remaining signals contained in the altimetry measurement. These can include water volume changes, steric effects, and the interannual variability caused by events such as the ENSO. We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographic datasets.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed)
Edited: 2011-05-17

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.

GMSL Rates
CU: 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.23 ± 0.6 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/wh ... d-its-rate
What is the definition of global mean sea level (GMSL) and its rate?
Edited: 2011-05-19

The term "global mean sea level" (GMSL) in the context of our research is the eustatic sea level. The eustatic sea level represents the level if all of the water in the oceans were contained in a single basin. Changes to this eustatic level are caused by changes in total ocean water mass (e.g., ice sheet runoff), changes in the size of the ocean basin (e.g., GIA), or density changes of the water (e.g., thermal expansion). A single GMSL estimate is made by computing the area-weighted mean of all the satellite SSH measurements every 10 days (time to repeat the satellite track; also known as a "cycle"). The time series of the GMSL estimates over the TOPEX and Jason missions beginning in 1992 to the present indicates a mostly linear trend after correction for inter-mission biases between instruments. The GMSL rate corrected for GIA represents changes in water mass and density in the oceans. These changes are thought to be predominantly driven by thermal expansion of the oceans and land ice melt (Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers).

Now, as to the original post:

sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

and

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

First, the manufactured outrage with the words "exaggerate the effects." The effects of GIA have been known for long-before now, but all of sudden climatologists are trying to "manufacture a fictitious sea level rise?" The first publication cited at CU Sea Level Research Group by Peltier was in 2002 - why is it such a controversy now? (Hint, they're running out of stuff to argue against)

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.

Yes, a lawyer for a well-known climate contrarian think-tank institute http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _Institute knows that it's tomfoolery...uh huh.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."

Of course the amount of water in the ocean and the sea level rise are two different things - one is total volume, the other is volume within a defined vessel/space - shrink the vessel (in this case, water is constrained by land masses) and the level rises. And sea level rise measured against the coast is the old way of doing the measurements (land movement isn't taken into account that way so it can create false positives or negatives of water changes, and Christy damn well knows this - he's a trained climatologist; I'm not and even I know that that's not the way to measure sea level change, but he's so good at subtly twisting the message); it's now done with satellites. But in terms of us caring about the impacts, yes, we care about how it affects the coast. The GIA incorporation is done in order to more accurately reflect those changes - they should be applauding the increased precision. (But then, Christy is known for talking out of both sides of his mouth. He used to claim that there was no such thing as AGW, then he accepted that it was real, and human-caused, but wouldn't be as bad as claimed. His most famous paper was riddled with errors and required a published correction that only strengthened the case for stratospheric temp changes in direct response to AGW, but he never talks about that).

"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume."

In terms of sea level rise, and global volume, this adjustment is less than 1% of what is predicted - it is a minor adjustment, but they are making a huge deal out of it to try and make it look like climatologists don't know what they're talking about when in fact, this adjustment has been studied for the last decade in order to refine its precision.

In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered "sea level rise" to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Bad wording. Never say that it's not worth public attention because it absolutely is. But it's worthy of realistic, taken in context, attention. The effect is small and the correction is a non-issue to climatologists, but not when twisted and used by contrarians - then it becomes newsworthy.

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.

"We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That's not insignificant," he told FoxNews.com.

'Seemed bigger" when compared with actual increases - no, not really. He's comparing the adjustment to past sea level rise, not to projected future sea level rise (which is what the adjustment applies to) - apples and oranges, it's nowhere close to 20% (more like 1%), but nice try. And as this century is only 11 years in, his claim that it's not speeding up is disingenuous:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html

Is the rate of sea level rise accelerating?

The IPCC expresses high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century. During the 20th century, sea level rose at an average rate of 4.8 to 8.8 inches per century (1.2-2.2 mm/year). (IPCC, 2007)
Tide gauges show little or no acceleration during the 20th century.
Satellite measurements estimate that sea level has been rising at a rate of 9 to 15 inches per century (2.4-3.8 mm/yr) since 1993, more than 50% faster than the rate that tide gauges estimate over the last century. (IPCC, 2007)

Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.

"When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California."

Nice. Al Gore didn't mention the time frame on the 20ft of sea level rise, but the contrarians are gonna create their own time frame (that he's talking about this century) to make him look dumb and climatologists like idiots. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9025302 In actuality, the IPCC upper limits projected are around 2-2.5 meters by 2100. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -gate/here but Hansen has predicted even higher if we continue business-as-usual http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/2 ... evel-rise/

BTW, NYC is preparing for the effects of climate change:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/44992.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45202.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals ... 07daa5dfcc
http://epa.blhtech.com/resilientwaterwo ... /janus.pdf

And, Al Gore bought a house in CA that won't flood in his lifetime, so he could give a rat's @$$ less about sea level rise in regards to that (assuming that he doesn't lose it in the divorce) http://www.pinecam.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... california


Do you see how the contrarians work now? They make issues out of non-issues, manufacture outrage, and practice outright deceit. It takes time and effort to search for all of this info to clear out the cobwebs around their claims, and they bet on most people not doing it.

major bean wrote: Naw, tell me it isn't so. Scientists do not falsify data. They do not bend to politics. They do not establish "facts" by consensus. I am told by members of this forum that science is pure and scientists are god-like.

I'd like to see where this has ever been stated.