Where do these lunatics come from? First off, no-one is now predicting an increase of two metres over a century. The most they can find by stretching the calculations is one metre. The planning now being down in Australia is for a maximum rise of 0.8 metres. But there is good reason for thinking it may be less than 0.3 metres. Various pronouncements you may see about accelerations in sea level increases rely on differences between tidal guage and satellite measurements. Satellite measurements show an increase of 3.1 mm a year (0.3 metres over a century) with little change since the mid-70s (google Topex/Poseidon, the site is run by the University of Colorado in the US). Tidal guage data show 0.2 metres for all of the 20th century - ergo there must be some increase. More careful analysis of the tidal data shows that sea level increases comes in cycles - see Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? by Svetlana Jevrejeva and others (Geophysical Research Letters, April 30, 2008. Its available online.) Sorry the watery apocalypse just isn't going to happen..

You wonder why Climate Science has a credibility problem.

We constantly see these idiotic articles and no "Climate Scientists" comment on them or correct the "facts" they contain.

If an article is written by a skeptic, then everyone piles on, climate scientists (and other scientists) then comment and correct constantly. All the AGW believing armchair experts and frothing at the mouth activists all pile on as well, some of them occassionally stop with the insults to meander off onto pet peevs, mining pollution, big oil, whatever, that have nothing to do with climate science.

But if we see utter warmist rubbish, it is let through with no comment.

If you want climate science to have any credibility at all in the community, you have to comment on articles like this and correct them - otherwise it is quite obvious that any crap irrespective of accuracy or spin, is quite OK if it is seen as pro AGW.

That's why climate science has a credibility problem, it is selective in its response, in its analysis and its output.

My computer forecasts that every person who reads this blog will win Tattslotto.
Some notes on sea level change, especially referring to southern Australia
Prof R.M. (Bob) Carter. James Cook University
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
It is observed that Professor Carter et al work conflicts with forecasts provided by the IPCC. The observation has to be made that Prof Carter’s research is based upon actual physical measurements and evidence. Nowhere is a computer forecast offered as evidence of anything..
May we return to reality rather than, as did Alice, wander through Wonderland?

South Pacific Sea Levels.
Dr Vincent Gray. New Zealand.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/spsl3.pdf
There is no discernable rise in sea levels.

Damn now I've got to learn how to sail uphill.

To paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, just where are these sea-level rises?

I'm staggered. Who, really, is this dude? What planet is he living on?

Has he never heard of local subsidence/emergence affecting tide gauge readings? For example, it is well documented that in Adelaide drawing of water from the aquifers is causing local subsidence that appears to show rising sea levels. Not so.

Tectonic factors can also be important. How are these recognised and adjusted for.

I am totally sick of the superficial bs that these clowns direct at us. Always with an intent to scare us. Lets get real. Lets tell the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

And please. Lets take into account local subsidence and emergence factors before we spruik on about 'global rises in sea level'. Come on.

Why are we lumbered with such gullible authors? Given the USA having just experienced one of its coldest winters in the past 100 years, is the author going to retract comments he made about rising USA winter temperatures, in his paper, "Report gives sobering view of warming's impact on US", July 8, 2009?

Now let me get this right.When I jump in the bathtub the water level no longer rises uniformly around the tub.Archimedes got it all wrong.The weight of my body was not equal to the displacement of water.Spirit levels will no longer work,and people will get dizzy because of the imbalances in their eustachion tubes.

I'd suggest that the non uniformity of sea level change is due to land changes due to tectonic plate movements.

Come on Arjay, even I know that during an El Nino warm water 'piles up' in the western Pacific comparative to the east. This was recognised well before debate on AGW. Given the size of your bath relative to the Pacific Ocean, can you prove it isn't a hairsbreadth deeper at one end?

Minor nit-pick:

' ... fresh water from Greenland’s shrinking ice cap dilutes the surrounding waters; since fresh water is less dense than salty water, there’s a further impediment to sinking.' [i.e. of the Gulf Stream waters]

Wouldn't 'fresh water from Greenland' be more or less at freezing point, and therefore lighter in two counts (fresh, and freezing) ? And wouldn't that keep the denser, saltier Gulf Stream waters down, i.e. an impediment to its RISING ?

It's so confusing. I'm sorry Mr Robert: why oh why didn't I pay attention more in Physics class ?

Also being a bit bewildered on the salt water-fresh water density front, I hied me off to Google and found this helpful article on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water - which about 1/3 of the way down explains the connection between salt water, ice formation, global warming and ocean currents. If I read it correctly, its the salt which precipitates out of freezing seawater which sinks and helps drive the current back towards the equator, so higher temperatures mean less freezing, less salt. This explains the concern over the shrinking north pole ice cover. Presumably fresh melt water from glaciers, ice sheets etc further dilutes the mix. Have a look, its very interesting, and more complex than my precis.

Candidate,water does not pile up in a few place on the globe for long.Eventually it finds an equilibrium.The tides vary widely on the planet due to the moons gravitional pull.
The earth is a slightly irregular sphere and gravity will make the water levels around the planet average out.All the noise about sea levels rising in the pacific were about coral atols which move with the tetonic plates.It had very little to do with sea level change due to ice melting.

The alarmists are clinging to dodgy science.

Arjay, you say that 'gravity will make the water levels around the planet average out' - but there are different sorts of gravitational pull on the oceans. For example, the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet exerts a gravitational pull on the nearby ocean - if the ice sheet goes, the ocean will indeed even out a bit, rising in areas nowhere near Antarctica. This is why one predicted outcome of the melting of the Greenland ice is a lowering of sea level close to Greenland, but a rising sea level around England as the water 'pulled in' by Greenland ice flows south. Its not just all moon and spin.

So people who actually study things like sea level rise and try and tease out it's true complexity are dismissed outright as wrong by the armchair experts - after all anyone who says, after actually studying the problem, that it could be worse for much of the world than previously understood must be considered wrong by those with their quaint old fashioned belief that what humans do can't change the climate - or ocean levels. One more out of a continuous string of scientific papers showing good reason for real alarm and for doing something before the problem reaches an unstoppable momentum gets the automatic thumbs down without even looking at tide guage or satellite data let alone such considerations as gravity and geological implications of shifting a couple of major ice sheets of mass around. And most especially not the consequences of increasing emissions.

All the shaking of the climate science "house of cards' just seems to see it settle more firmly on it's solid foundation. Must be frustrating for the true disbelievers that their efforts haven't managed to have a single leading scientific institutions come out in support of their "it's all biased, group-think based incompetence with a socialist civilisation-undermining agenda" accusations or can produce real science that offers a credible alternative explanation for recent warming that actually stands up to close sceptical scientific scrutiny.

The moon gravitational pull already increases the depth of the water it's called tides.Also the earth's rotation etc causes the water to bulge in the centre as it is.To now suggest that there might be variations depending on other forces is hardly unreasonable, in fact is would lake sense.

If any of these doubters had bothered to track the source down I think they might be surprised that is actually backed by real data.
But hey why let the facts get in the way of contrariety. After all being a sceptic means one still looks for the truth, not assume that things can't change well that would be ah um Denial.