As you mention GRACE, I guess it wasn't kano as he seems to think GRACE is used to measure sea height, when when what is does is in it acronym (look it up kano)
Numbers given for sea level rise are an average, they don't claim to be an actual exact number for any given point as at the smaller detail there is variation at the local level by a number of factors seismic, currents and even wind can alter levels at a regional level, our pretend geologists has tried this angle before with claims about small regions having uplift, all such claims usual show is his own weak understanding of the field he claims to be qualified in. That he can quote actual numbers for that up lift seem to escape his attention, although not the attention of the real geologists who place the instruments, so that they would know and make that data available to those working on sea level data as well, but there's the usual problem with denial, they seem to have no understanding of scientific cooperation, deniers tie themselves up in knots of conspiracy and hate and invent theories like "it's all just 3-4 scientists somehow fooling all the other (highly trained) scientists", I sometimes wonder if deniers ever just sit down and say these conspiracies out loud, you would think not as then they might notice how utterly stupid they sound.
Isostatic rebound has been affecting Norther Europe and Russia and North America since glaciers retreated (thousands of years ago) and will continue for thousands more, but this only applies to landmass affected by glaciers so little effect elsewhere. As you say it is a known and factored effect and given ocean depth a quite small effect. I had another denier the other day say mountain glaciers had no effect, they do, admittedly a fairly small one but the effect is their and factored for.
The biggest variable now in future sea level rise is how quickly ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica will melt, at the moment we have current values and a very accurate satellite record, but ice at the moment is only about the same contribution as thermal expansion of water itself. How the ice component will increase is not known the most conservative is a rise of 1m, the IPCC use this figure but scientists in the ice field think this my be a very conservative estimate, given what is being observed in the actual ice fields of Greenland and Antarctica now, with the increase in flow rates and calving of icebergs seen over the last decade or so.
As a theory it's no sillier than others I've seen deniers make, jello once claim the air pressure at the top of Everest was the same as Mars. While watching deniers try to invent their own science can be funny the punch line is going to affect all of us eventually, When it does I think you will have trouble finding anyone who will admit they where a denier.
It isn't glacial rebound. Glaciers melt. The land rebounds. It is called isostatic rebound. I realize that some nonscientists such as yourself and antarcticice have difficulty with basic science and science concepts. I will try to make it easy for someone of your limited understanding. The land is pressed down when continental glaciers migrate and grow over it. This is because the land surface isn't static but the plates are essentially floating on the mantle. When the ice melts, the land "rebounds" (meaning moves upward). This rebounding land surface makes reading the sea level difficult. Since the land is actually moving upwards in these locations, the sea level has a relative downward movement. This happens over time when the actual sea level isn't static either. You have the opposite problem in deposition areas such as deltas where the depositing sediments push the ground surface down. This is a basic geologically principle. I didn't say the sea level rose because the plate moved but I can understand that someone with limited knowledge might interpret that. I will try to make sure that I don't get too technical for you alarmists in the future.
JimZ: glacial rebound, isostatic rebound, post-glacial rebound, continental rebound, and so on are all names for about the same thing. The only reason you have chosen one over the other in this thread, as you have called it by other names in the past, is so you can try and degrade others as is normal for you.
And the answer: No he is not correct.
I don't think so, it is rising in some places and sinking in others, and even if it was uneven it would have a minute effect.
I have my doubts about sea level rise measurements, and I am suspicious of the isostatic rebound calculated to GRACE and am suspicious of some satellites being calibrated against tide gauges.
I know what GRACE is, it measures mass, so how come they give out sea level readings http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/images/c...
Sea floor spreading also needs to be factored in. The NOAA article in the link has spreading rates of between 1cm and 20cm per year.
It also points out that we do not know precisely the shape of the sea floor. If that changes then the available volume for the sea water will be changed.
What are you saying? The Earth is monotone and doesn't do anything so when the sea levels rise it is all our fault? Any change in the climate system other than what you think is normal is disastrous? CO2 levels should be at what level according to you and all of the other AGW scientific elites here?
A change in the atmosphere of less than .015% does not change the entire climate!
You're another friggin idiot!
No he is wrong. The sea plates rising by such a small amount can't make the sea levels rise. Seas are rising due to things being dumped in them like garbage, human waste from ships, and other stuff like plastic bottles. Also sea levels are rising due to melting ice caps not due to plates rising. The reason ice caps are melting is due to too many trees being cut down and not enough being planted. With less trees the winds become weak and less and this warms up the ice caps which turn into water and make the ocean level rise. To stop warming and rising sea levels, governments and people must plant trees on a massive scale.
He might be correct but not everywhere, like this case might occur in coastal areas not in places like valleys and mountainous areas, I myself am a dweller of a mountainous area and I have observed such cases, like thunderstorms, heavy rain fall, glacier bursting and snow melting causing destructive floods and soil erosion which may result in increasing sea level in plain areas, It actually is caused by Global Warming.
That Colorado study was proven to be false. They 'Buffaloed' everybody.
I thought Obama was going to lower the seas. We know he is all powerful and will do it once he gets off vacation. So what are you worrying about?
A climate skeptic here claimed recently that sea level rise could be explained by crustal uplift of the sea floor due to plate tectonics at the rate of 4 mm/yr. Plate tectonic processes operate at rates 1/400 of that, 0.01 mm/yr, so even Judy Curry does not argue tectonics is responsible. However, glacial isostatic rebound can have local rates in that range. Here is a map of post-glacial isostatic rebound as modeled using GRACE data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PGR_Paulson2007_Rate_of_Lithospheric_Uplift_due_to_PGR.png
Furthermore, since the scientists who calculate sea level rise seem to be aware of the problem of glacial rebound:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#n3113
isn't this already accounted for in the data?
Is there any evidence that sea floor is rising at a rate required to explain current sea level rise?
