Global Warming & rising sea level

For us older folk, isn't it nice to have lived when we did. We'll probably get out of this world with a few pennies left in our pockets; and not have to wear survival gear for trips to the store. To our grandkids, great-grandkids and cockroaches (who will probably be ruling the world by then) sorry about that, but we did have fun.

Swing has a good question regarding personal knowledge of anyone's local sea level rising.
In poking around doing some unrelated research, I came across some interesting and perhaps thought-provoking items.
The Alaskan quake of 1964 resulted in upheavals of land due to the plate tectonics at work in that region: a net local drop in sea level.

In recent years, someone determined that the New Orleans area was actually sinking (not being washed away) relative to some datum: a net local rise in sea level. This is occurring in Venice as well?

Is there anything in all the literature that mentions these in the same breath as Glob*l Warm*ng? Is it even a factor?

Local observation from South Florida: we are not part of any active plate movement, as best I know, and the humongous Miami Oolite limestone foundation that this part of the peninsula sits atop, would not have the land going either up or down (relative to sea level). During the last fifty years, from the vantage point--up close & personal--of many small craft, I cannot say that our sea levels have changed (the boat can still get caught under the dock at very low tide).

BTW, is the shrinking of the Martian polar icecap related to Rover emissions?

That could also be regional.

Here in Canada (Quebec specifically) we didn't have any significant snowfall during the 06-07 winter until mid January. This year, we set an all-time record for most recorded snowfall. Parts of western Canada are still getting snow this week. Around Montreal we actually ran out of room to put the snow removed from the city streets... the city had to ship it off-island in trucks.

April has been pretty nice for us this year... as it should be. Over the weekend I was out and about in shorts & a t-shirt. This morning though, it was -1C when I left the house.

Since I posted this prediction which many scientist has had as a timeframe, new research will postpone the global warming up to a decade: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml (With a lot of comments to read as well...)

Today BBC had a similar report, with the usual reservations... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

less of "wikipedia" as a reliable source please!
wikipedia is almost as accurate as a "man in a pub said to me" reference, sounds good when you hear it, but when you delve deeper and check real sources most content has no worth

You mean "Wickipedia"..? http://network.nationalpost.com/np/.../04/25/the-real-climate-martians-solomon.aspx

Global Warming? Myth or Liberal Fantasy

Can anyone explain to me how purchasing carbon credits will help to reduce the recession of the polar ice cap... on MARS?

That's right folks, the polar ice cap on Mars has been in recession for as long as earthings have been viewing same.

Therefore, shouldn't the effect be called Solar System Warming?

Interesting point aeronautic1

Aeronautic1
You almost yanked my leg out of it's socket with that one.

You may call Tim Ball a denier, but it is still interesting to hear his opinion on what is behind the UN statements:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840

And while we are on it, this is what some people think of the latest figures from NASA on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871

Well, smart move to publish what is considered "right wing" propaganda then...

How about the National Geographic then? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080430-global-cooling.html

Or the New York Times? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...10305600&en=3dc4dbd408469e79&ei=5070&emc=eta1

I think that all of the world's leaders should vote on whether to present a resolution that states we should hire a consulting firm to determine if we should ask the world's scientist to write a joint paper in support of forming a committee to figure out who should be consulted for their opinion on convening an international conference to decide if global warming should be studied in a formal setting, the results of said conference to be brought before the united nations to determine the feasibility of asking the world court to intervene with developing international treaties to study.....
Or we could just look at the size of our landfills, taste the air in our cities, try drinking water from half the world's rivers and streams, look at the smoke billowing from exhaust pipes and smokestacks, look at the stockpiles of nuclear and chemical waste, etc., etc. and just admit that maybe we've screwed up and STOP. Oh yeah, where's the money in that? We need more debate. Let's form a committee

The topic is Global Warming and the problem (for some of us) is that our politicians have moved the focus from what you mention and instead are imposing taxes on carbon dioxide, which is not considered a pollutant. This is why at least I am very interested to find out if AGW is a scam or for real.

Taxes on "carbon footprint", "green" cars, products and building programs, eliminate bacteria. It's all just a game of 3 card monte. We stand around debating dueling experts while our pockets get picked. Try just using common (very uncommon) sense and as soon as there is a buck to be made be suspicious.
Do we really need a study to determine that we are destroying our world. Is it global warming? Is it Benzine? Is it mercury or lead? What it is is salesmanship, greed and stupidity. I can buy a respected expert to counter any argument brought by the most respected expert you can buy.
I'd like to hear what can actually be done about it.

This is the language most often found in scientific reports. In the IPCC reports it is all over the pages, like this: "There is medium confidence that other effects of regional climate change on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers."

About the "temporary change" we don´t know much either. On the Jisao website they say: "From a societal impacts perspective, recognition of PDO is important because it shows that "normal" climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human's lifetime."

It's called equivocation and means take what I'm saying with a grain of salt for that's what it's worth.

It rather means, this is what we know today. Like in all science.