Sea level has climbed 8 centimetres since 1992

sweet, I need it to rise another 1000m, and I'll be living on the waterfront.

Damn, only 97 meters to go and I'll be wading in it.....

Well, considering the average sea-level rise over the last 1000 years or so has been about 1ft per century, 8 cm in 23 years is pretty close to the average.

Isn't that just the left wing, Liberal, tree hugger, socialist Obamie-Commie sea that has risen?

Kind of...

Before the measurement manipulators gotta ahold of it sea level was rising at about 8 inches a century by tidal gauge chart. This is at the tail end of thousands of years of sea level rising.

Now the guys who don't seem to know Satellites give the only credible measurement of temperatures have discovered sea level satellite measurements can be adjusted and they tell us the ocean is now rising at about a foot a century.

So the "leftie, liberal, tree hugger, socialist Obamie-commies" have about 4 imaginary inches.

But we already knew that.

That might be a while. I know in BC the sea level is noted as having risen about 100m in the past 10,000 years so give it 100,000 years and your dream might come true!

The thread title is misleading it should read...

Sea levels have climbed a dangerously whopping 8cm in only 23 years and threaten to engulf enormous tracts of fragile shorelines.

Now it sounds more believable.

Betcha Trump knows the answer.

If you complain about surface temperature records undergoing raw data manipulation, you've clearly never seen the algorithms that translate satellite microwave thermal emissions into temperatures. They go through much more intense

Maybe you recall the last time the satellite data drifted significantly from the surface temperature record? Turns out that they were failing to account for orbit decay of the satellites.

The deniers aren't stupid, they are just hoping the mountains of evidence create enough of a shadow to protect us from the harmful rays of the sun.

Yes and you remember, or should, that we've discussed it before. You ignore the explanation even though you've heard it at least three times.

Let's do it one more time then.

Skip the spoiler unless you're a climate wonk:

With the satellites there was a divergence between the data of UAH, and the data of the other satellite service RSS/MSU. That was a problem. Scientific method demanded it be looked into. What they discovered was the orbit of the satellite recording the data was disintegrating and that was causing a problem in computing accurate temperatures. They readjusted the way they were computing the data to allow for the orbit disintegration. Problem fixed.

With Land surface data manipulations, there have been many, but the last one was the jaw dropper. All the others have been more like boiling frogs, if you know what that means. If you don't click the link. Basically they're crooked, but you don't notice.

Divergence of measurements between different temperature services was not the problem with the NOAA adjustment. In fact nobody was even talking about the problem the political arm of NOAA (represented by Tom Karl) all of a sudden decided needed fixing.

There had been a problem in the past involving different methods of taking sea temperatures and how to adjust from one to the other. Scientists had fixed it as best they could. The boiling frog data manipulations of Hansen over at NASA/GISS had created greater divergence between data sets, but even those had yet to reach the unforgivable mark.

Nevertheless Tom Karl suddenly decided to "fix" this non-problem, nobody was really complaining about. And he "fixed" it, not by discovering whatever the problem was that was causing these slight divergences between temperature sets. He created a whole new divergence so radical and in your face that land surface temps could be right, or satellites could be right, but they could not both be right.

He did not solve a problem with his data manipulations. He created a larger, more in your face, glaring cock-up.

The real problem as Karl and those of the political left saw it was the temperatures were no longer supporting their Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. There was a noticeable hiatus of no warming.

The scientific method would tell Karl to readjust his hypothesis if the data did not support it. Tom had a better idea. He just readjusted the data to conform to the hypothesis.

Basically...

UAH fixed the problem of divergence of measurements between services as scientific method required them to do. NOAA created a whole new divergence of measurements problem where UAH had fixed theirs. That's the difference.

BTW the UAH decay of orbits problem has happened twice that I can remember.

The first time was when they were still new at learning how to take temperature measurements with satellites.

The temperature divergence problem was pointed out to Christy and Spencer. They looked into it, discovered it was their mistake, fixed it, and thanked the people who noticed the problem. That was decades ago.

The next time was the one you're talking about that happened recently. But that time they knew what the developing problem was and how to fix it. It's been fixed, and the climate pause of no warming for almost 20 years continues.

Oh and hey, Zip and Doc - damn...

Have you two noticed what's been happening with the Arctic ice lately.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Is this going to be 2012 all over again?

But piss me off much? I thought my side was going to win this year, and so close...so close...

I think it might even be worse than that. I saw something out of the corner of my eye, but was afraid to look further. It looked like the same thing was happening in the Antarctic.

It looks so radical. I wonder why nobody's talking about it.