[cogitator]

Help! I am not smart enough to figure out whether or not the climate is warming, because all the data looks like random noise to me. I have noticed though that the proponents of global warming state that the sea level will rise, possibly several meters in height. My own calculations indicate that the sea level will stay the same or fall if the temperature rises because of the increased water vapor, but I am mathematically challenged in addition to not being very smart or not nearly as smart as the scientists who make the climate models.

You're not telling me something I don't know, LeGrande. In fact, if you want to read a bit more, read this article and thread:

Deciphering Contradictory Antarctic Climate Patterns

particularly: "Counterintuitively, global warming would actually lower sea levels at first. In warmer temperatures, evaporation of ocean water increases and more snow falls, more than offsetting the melting ice at the edges. But over the longer term — perhaps centuries, perhaps thousands of years — prolonged warmth in Antarctica would add to the ocean depths."

which you noted. There are also other factors, such as the thermal expansion of seawater, which could offset a lowering due to increased precipitation, (and impoundment of fresh water in reservoirs). So sea level is not a great proxy measurement by which to confirm or deny global warming.

So my proposal to Cogitator is this. I have a place down in Baja on the ocean where I can measure the surface level very accurately. I have access to all kinds of instruments, I have a GPS laser level and some other nifty stuff (I can accurately measure down to a millimeter). So if you can tell me how to do that I would be very appreciative.

First of all, Baja California and southern California are not great places to do this unless you have a stable offshore platform. Why? Tectonic activity. The Northridge earthquake raised the mountains by Los Angeles 3-4 cm. The San Andreas fault runs through your backyard, doesn't it? When determining sea level rise/fall, you have to remove all the other local phenomena.

I know that what I am asking is not very straight forward when you have to take into consideration the position of the sun and the moon, wind, waves, currents, temperature, barometric pressure, etc. But I do know that compared to predicting the weather, determining the oceans level is child's play. It also seems that some of the predictions of several meters in the next 50 years would be easy to see now, they would be close to a centimeter a month.

Well, if you do it with a method like satellite laser altimetry and take into consideration all of the +/- factors, you get something like this:

I will collect the data over a period of time (I like to go fishing and snorkeling) and then it should be very easy to prove or disprove the validity of global warming and even state how accurate it is. :)

I think that more than one data point is necessary to make a respectable evaluation.

Are you up to the challenge Cogitator?

Usually.

[GOP_1900AD]

What sort of Earth Scientist are you? Weren't you aware that the San Andreas Fault ends north of the Mexican border? That's because there is a triple junction there, with a subduction zone paralleling the Mexican mainland along its west coast, and a weak oceanic ridge / spreading center down the middle of the Sea of Cortez. In fact Baja is quite stable, with little tectonic activity of note with the exception of the extreme northern portion. Most of Baja is eroding into the sea and within a couple of million years will be a flatish area not unlike the east coast of the US (at least geologically speaking). It is becoming a stable margin.