It is difficult to know where to start with this one. Although I haven't looked at the material from the GRACE satellites myself, I don't really dispute what John has written. the real problem is that it is entirely irrelevent. There are already direct satellite measurements of both sea levels and temperatures. One set of satellite temperature data is analysed by the University of Alabama in Hunsville, and is audited. It is at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
This shows that ther was a slight increase in average global temperatures (less than the land station record shows) between 1975 and around the turn of the century, and nothing much happening since. Sea surface temperatures are also well known, and don't show what John wants (if they do, why not refer to them directly). However, cyclic changes in the currents probably do account for some of the artic sea ice melting.
A graph of Changes in sea levels measured directly can be found at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php sorry, again, no great changes.. its running 3 mm a year (0.3 metres over a century) as it has for decades now - actually somewhat less in the past couple of years.
If you take another look at the figures, John has quoted impressive numbers but I suspect they do not add up to much on a world scale.

Curmudgeon,
There's non-so blind as them as does not want to see.
I wonder what you would be saying about global warming as the sea gets up over the coast in about 50 years time and the temperatures are getting up to the high 50s C, making life untenable in most of the earth.
I expect that it will be something like " It's all cyclical and anyway it is not really happening”.
Denialist to the end.

Sarian - its the other way round. How many years of temperatures not doing much and sea levels failing to move much at all - as clearly shown by the measurements - will it take for the global warmers to admit that their alarmist warnings are, at the least, oversold?
Already the debate has cooled noticeably (pun intended) after the climategate emails and the various IPCC scandals. But I suspect a decade from now, when the public has forgotten about global warming, just as they've forgotten about Millenium bug and the long gone scares over AIDS in Australia - which featured experts "certain" that disaster was imminent - hard core activists (including scientists) will insist that really the measurements are wrong and the earth is warming.

Gee, I wonder if this satellite is as reliable as the satellite which found that Lake Michigan was boiling away?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/04/an-over-the-top-view-of-satellite-sensor-failure/

Every device goes wrong occasionally: but if a biased observer is in charge of the results it is all too easy for them to interpret 'going wrong' as 'going right'. We need more than one set of data, and more than one data custodian, to justify extraordinary claims.

"as the sea gets up over the coast in about 50 years time "

I suppose you would classify this one as "not being able to see the coast for the sea"

Fear mongering and exaggeration will only harm you cause, which is.....?

curmugeon,
You obviously do not read posts thoroughly; you do not even get the name right:
It’s sarnian nor sarian.
The point I am trying to make is that if you are not right, it will be too late to attempt to do anything about climate change.
I of course disagree with you about *How many years of temperatures not doing much and sea levels failing to move much at all - as clearly shown by the measurements - will it take for the global warmers to admit that their alarmist warnings are, at the least, oversold?.*
It does not take a sensitive satellite to show how little ice there is in the Arctic during summer and the fact that ships can now make passages through the Northwest Passage with no difficulty.
All around there are obvious signs of warming for anyone with an open mind .
At the rate the Greenland icecap is melting, it is quite possible that one day quite soon there will be catastrophic collapse as has happened to several huge ice shelves and a large chunk will slide into the sea,
Then I wonder if you will say “gee maybe we should have erred on the side of safety?”

Clear evidence that ice sheet loss has been accelerating and the response from Curmudgeon - it's cyclic and irrelevant. From Jon J - the measuments are probably wrong. Give me real science over these biased comments any day. Meanwhile this real data is showing increasing loss of ice and is supported and confirmed by laser telemetry from Icesat as well as freshwater flows. Give me real climate science over these unsupported objections. Glacial retreats, ice sheet loss, ice shelf disintegration, ocean heat content rise, sea level rise, borehole temperature rise, phenological trends, every surface air temperature series shows clear evidence of a continuing warming trend.
Hope they replace those satellites before their use-by date and we continue to monitor climate with as many tools as we can deploy.

Alas, my computer doesn't seem to be able to pick up the 'clear evidence', so I don't have anything in Ken's post to respond to.

But in general, I can only repeat what others have said. Relying on one piece of evidence here is not sound. One of the many troubles with the whole AGW issue is that there are many measurements, the figures are not large, they don't all agree, and causation remains mostly a matter of correlation and reliance on models whose basis in 'real science' is not great (see Table 2-11 of WG1 in the last IPCC report, which shows that the level of scientific understanding of a number of the elements in the models is 'Low').

Now of course you may be right, and Grace rules OK. But sea levels appear not to have risen very much at all in the last fifty years, when all the CO2 has been pumped out — and so on, and so on.

We really need a sober, sceptical and honest assembly of all the data, papers and other evidence for AGW, and analyse it first without reference to policy, in my opinion.

Correct Don.There are too many interest groups in AGW theory all pushing their personal agendas.Truth has become a casuality of environmental zealotry.

If you think GRACE is great, check out its successor, GOCE. Hot off the press today: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/467648a.html

It seems the jury is still out on Global Warming.

Why should mankind assume that the weather patterns, oceans, ice masses and land masses on this planet are set forever. The planet may go through it’s own patterns of cleansing and renewing.

When the water clears away again after many centuries or even thousands of years, life may begin anew sort of like the Garden of Eden scenario. Man may have little or no control over it. He likes to think he does though.

Who knows by what exact rules the universe operates. Tear down and rebuild, destroy and regenerate would seem to be one of the obvious rules by which it operates

Don Aitkin,
You say*But sea levels appear not to have risen very much at all in the last fifty years*
I know it is unscientific but…. I live on the sea, I have been here for 14 years now, I can clearly see where the sea has risen (in a normal storm) enough to undercut concrete steps that the sea has never reached before. This has happened in the last 2 to 3 years. One of the bits of information that I have picked up is that; Rise in sea level is not uniform around the world, it varies from place to place. Why that is I have no idea.
CHERFUL
You say *It seems the jury is still out on Global Warming*. It would depend which Court you are in.
Another sliver of evidence in the Court that counts. What is happening before your very eyes.
Montana’s melting glaciers
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/06/montana.glaciers.climate/

Still at it I see ?

Has my own life and business activities taught you nothing ? :)

http://www.generationim.com/about/

You 'could' have seen that the above company is the 6th largest shareholder in 'Climate Exchange' LLc (Europe) but they were just bought out by ICE "International Climate EXchange" which wonder of wonders is headed by a bunch of OIL/Energy industry related directors....*hmmmmm*

Chairman and Chief Executive Jeffrey Sprecher:

Mr. Sprecher's leadership has been characterized by a focus on innovation, transparency and capital efficiency in the global derivatives markets. He has led numerous strategic initiatives that have enabled ICE to expand from a single asset class — energy — into five asset classes today. These initiatives have included numerous acquisitions, including the International Petroleum Exchange of London (2001), the New York Board of Trade (2007), Creditex (2008), The Clearing Corporation (2009) and the Climate Exchange (2010).

Me smelleth a rat of humungous proportions scurrying around the stock exchanges......

This article contains at least one BIG FAT LIE.

Note first its conclusion:
“Data provided by GRACE and other satellites … warns us of the consequences of continuing activity causing or contributing to global warming”

“GRACE also provides empirical evidence which refutes arguments put forward by those who contend that global warming is not occurring and claim there is no evidence that it is.”

Now, note, the evidence:
-- The Greenland Ice Cap
--Arctic Sea ice cover
-- The East Antarctic Ice Sheet
--And mischievously slotted with the above, Aquifers in Northern India and adjacent Pakistan.

The lie is, aquifer depletion in northern India and adjacent Pakistan has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with over exploitation due to over population. Now true, in passing the author does mention “No government program exists to limit population growth”
but its positioning, and both the fore and aft text which refers to the water being used to “ supplement rivers and rainfall” and “and reduced river flows due to glacier retreat in the Himalaya and Hindu-Kush mountains, yielding less water” creates the illusion (and I believe quite deliberately) that the root cause of aquifer depletion is climate change.

However, no where does the NASA link claim climate change as the case. And just the other day we were being told –AS YET MORE “EVIDENCE” OF AGW --the rate of river flow worldwide had INCREASED.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/worlds-fresh-water-flow-rises-rapidly-20101008-16c0k.html

Aquifer depletion on the subcontinent --and most other places in Asia for that matter –is a function of over population , NOT climate change.

Why would India or Pakistan or Bangladesh seek to tackle the difficult issue of reducing population growth/numbers when they are being continually told by people like John Le Mesurier that any resulting problems are caused by climate change --- and the West is dutybound to pick up the tab.

The article is almost as mischievous as ALP speakers in the senate, the other week, telling us that the Pakistan floods were without a doubt the result of climate change –despite there being much doubt in scientific circles about such.

HI Sarnian.

You said:

//There's non-so blind as them as does not want to see.//

I agree with this..... and your insights might be valuable on this thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4024

Here's a thought to extend, or complement yours about blindness (which also fits into the other thread I mentioned)

Imagine... a husband says to his wife...."Honey..I don't have enough room in the garage to re-assemble the engine of our car, do you mind if I do it in the lounge room?"

Of course she will go apoplectic.

So...after about a week, he brings in 4 sparkplugs and places them neatly in a corner. "Hmmmm"... irritating, but not the end of the world she thinks.

A week later, he brings in the distributor..... same reaction.

A week later he places the crankshaft in another corner....

etc.

Regarding GRACE.. well the importance is not so much on 'what' it reports, but 'how' its data is reported methinks.

My 2c. I work with climate scientists so I have the "bias" of deductions drawn from evidence:
The evidence for global warming comes from different sources:
1) Theory says it *should* happen.
2) Homogenised (standardised) data from ground stations world-wide say it is happening.
3) Homogenised sea surface station data says it is happening.
4) Correlated satellite data (calibration is tricky) says it is happening.
5) Bird, insect and flowering plant movements say it is happening.
6) Oil exploration and shipping says Arctic ice is decreasing, consistent with theory and other observations.
7) The scientific consensus amongst qualified climate scientists is about 97% for, 2% unconvinced and less then 1% against.
The jury is *not* still out...it has decided and has moved on to more detailed issues.
On the against side there is a massive anti-science movement paid for by energy companies. Like Big Tobacco they are forming "institutes" and hiring "sceptical scientists" (who are not climate experts!). These groups are leveraging the distrust engendered by Left-Right politics and the recent success with other anti-science such as anti-evolution ("teach the controversy!") and pro-war campaigns.
*All* scientists are professional sceptics. Transparency means they have to be to survive professionally. Forget conspiracy theories and "they do it for the money". This is so ironic as to be hilarious...or it would be if the anti-science weren't so well funded as compared to science itself.
Have a look at NewScientist's wrap up of the IPCC "controversy" and you will find it was a over-hyped storm in a teacup. Why aren't bankers and economists given 1/10th of this scrutiny?
The biggest risk from GW science is group-think. I believe the international scrutiny will prevent this from getting out of hand.
It's time the blatant lies and misinformation stopped. By all means be sceptical, but don't let yourself become a Right wing anti-science, pro-oil-profits tool.

Ozandy,
You have said it all, hit the nail on the head, right on the money,
I cannot fine more ways to agree with what you written.
If only this was taught in schools.
Well done.

Ozandy
A bit of a mishmash!

In the first part of your post,you talked about GW, the important "A" part was noticeable missing : according to you, AGW is true because things are changing! Well, few if any are saying the world is not changing.The issue of dispute is whether it's Anthropogenic driven.

Then you had this analysis of what made-up and drove the sceptic side:
i)“Like Big Tobacco they are forming "institutes" and hiring "sceptical scientists" (who are not climate experts!). These groups are leveraging the distrust engendered by Left-Right politics and the recent success with other anti-science such as anti-evolution ("teach the controversy!") and pro-war campaigns”.
ii)“ don't let yourself become a Right wing anti-science, pro-oil-profits tool.”

But Then -- after telling us all that -- you say:
“ Forget conspiracy theories and 'they do it for the money’”
It really had me puzzled --took me a while to figure out your meaning .Then, I had a Eureka! moment, what you were telling us was "it’s Ok to talk of your opponents as part of giant , evil conspiracy, but not Ok to talk about your side like that!

Then in closing you say: “ By all means be sceptical” ---after reading all that ---do we dare?

PS sarnian, re,"If only [Ozandy's view point/stance] was taught in schools".It is,dear Sarnian,it is!

OZANDY- Gives a proof list of 7 that the earth is warming

O.K. but is there any way of determining scientifically if the sun may have moved closer to the earth and may move away again at some point. Or is it impossible to determine this.

It must be understood also that Global Warming is hugely political in motivation. I don’t thing it’s a coincidence that as soon as the Hick’s issue was no longer a political weapon political forces started to immediately wield the Global Warming stick.

On a very recent TV program, David Attenborough said that the ever-increasing world population is the biggest threat to our survival and that of other species on the planet at this time and that the threat of it is becoming increasingly urgent . It is also the biggest driver for the ever increasing demands for the goods and services provided by using carbon fuels.

Now I know someone will write in about how someone in the West consumes much more than people in developing countries. The fact is the West is only increasing it’s consumer population in such numbers by the ever-increasing amount of people immigrating or fleeing from overpopulated countries. Like the millions of Mexicans flooding over the border into America, the millions of Muslims swelling the populations in Europe. Hence an even bigger carbon footprint in Western Countries. Without immigration the homegrown population figures in the West are down to Zero population level. In other words when the old ones die out there would be less people than there were before to consume and create carbon footprints.

Zero population growth is what is needed for quite a long time the world over to dramatically bring down the consumption rate that results in carbon emissions, destruction of other species, less water and human genecide. The Global Warming lot though. only ever talks about making the West pay which makes me suspect that their motives are political