I've got a better authority:

Faster Rise In Sea Level Predicted From Melting Greenland Ice Sheet, Based On Lessons From Ice Age

ScienceDaily (Sep. 1, 2008) — If the lessons being learned by scientists about the demise of the last great North American ice sheet are correct, estimates of global sea level rise from a melting Greenland ice sheet may be seriously underestimated.

And I believe the article cited was put out to refute the
UW Madison one.

None of the models are keeping up with the melt.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/ice_age_lesson_predicts_a_faster_rise_in_sea...

While not questioning at all the idea that we are in for a noteworthy run of sea level rise, it seems to me that the article implies (but does not overtly state) that Greenland melting will raise sea level at the same rate as did the melting of a *much* larger ice mass -- and that I'm not buying. Working backward the periods of melting and (in a different comment) the start of the glaciation period are nice pieces of work, though.

Flashing back to the big picture though, 2 feet, 4 feet, or 6 in 100 years is a pretty shocking shift. The question is not *if* some ocean front real estate is reclaimed, but how much.

Gee, I wonder how fast sea levels are rising. The US Aqua satellite shows a small decline over the last two years.

I could not find a chart or graph on "US Aqua satellite". Do you have a link? I did find this from NASA, which seems to contradict your data.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-111

The lowest part Washington D.C. is at sea level on the tidewater Potomac. They might be some of the first to notice if the ocean rises four feet.

The most recent ice age covered as far south as Maine with ice 1.5 - 3 miles thick. Greenland is the remnant of that ice sheet. Two miles of ice disappeared from Maine in about 11,000 years. That was a very fast global warming without the use of coal. During this ice age Europe was covred with boreal forests instead of oaks. A simple truth.

http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/news/ClimateExplanation/Cli...

An earlier ice age epoch covered North America as far south as near the Indiana-Kentucky border. Carbon dioxide alone cannot account for interglacial warming or glacial cooling. There are many moving parts in the climate model.

Thanks for the same old generalities and - yes - even a lie/mistake. Two points if you can self-correct.

Congrats.

Can I play your game?

There used to be - gasp! - dinosaurs on the Antarctic continent!

What EVER could that mean??!!

Jeers

The "larger size" version of that graph seems to end, I guess, somewhere around end of 2005, so it can't possibly address anything about the last couple of years. (If NASA publicists troubled themselves to read Tufte on chartjunk, the enlarged graph would have light gridlines instead of useless decoration and it would be easy to tell exactly what period it covers.) We need something more current.

What might be a current version (clearer and enlarged here) gives what one could construe, if one wished, as a leveling-off for the last two years. Given the substantial amount of noise, I think I wouldn't care to construe anything yet, but I suppose other people's mileage might vary.