I can already hear the response of minions who have been educated by the Koch oil brothers ripping on the brilliant NASA scientist warning. But will they name any of the pitiful 3% of climate scientist that don't believe we are changing the planets weather? We have the solar and wind technology to get off of oil. Koch brothers are the dead weight holding us back.

Fort Denison in Sydney has one of the longest running continuous records measuring the seal level, starting in 1886, and finally local councils are realizing that they need to use the local data to plan ahead, not the IPCC’s or also the green lobby at NASA one-size global fear index. For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years and that is the reality. Because of the Fort Denison sea level records we can ruled out “satellite or model-generated sea-level ESTIMTES until their accuracy is guaranteed”.
And then there is Global Warming, what global warming The video below is a very good explanation why non of the computer climate modeling is or can work. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY

Relative to what?
Every bit of land on earth is either rising or falling - yeah, we can stand on it, but it in turn is itself floating (on the molten inner earth). Unfortunately, these satellites are calibrated to a fixed point based on land, which is floating.
Regardless of the answer, it's a pointless question: humans build wherever the heck they want - they put houses below sea level, cities on faultlines, towns in storm-prone regions, nuclear reactors beside active volcanoes, nothing you do or say will stop that, whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's 3ft or 3cm of change that takes place.

So Roland, you extrapolate the entire global sea level change from a single point, entirely ignoring what the article says. EVERYTHING is an estimate until it happens and can be measured, however, estimates are all we have, though you apparently you prefer to wait until something catastrophic happens rather than actually trying to think about it. The thing about facts is that you don't have to believe in them for them to remain true.
That video (incidentally, created by an organisation that (unlike an actual scientific venture) has an explicit anti-GW (note not just AGW) agenda) is certainly interesting, but concentrates on the fact that accurate prediction is hard - which nobody is disputing. However, regardless of what predictions we may make, straightforward measurement of what has happened to date are not really up for debate. The overall argument that because something is hard, we shouldn't even try is a defeatist, head-in-sand approach, and will not get us anywhere. There's nothing we would like better than to have accurate predictions that everything will be just fine whatever we do, however, our best efforts so far show convincingly that this is not the case.

Dear Synchro, you totally miss the point.
Nobody tells you, that global climate prediction is hard.
They tell you, that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." (IPCC:"Advancing our Understanding", page 771.)
Let me help you: in the mathematical language the "nonlinear chaotic system" means, that we have no clue, what happens next :-)
So, even the biggest liar of MMGW admits, that we can only guess, but never predict the future states of global climate.
And true: IPCC couldn't accurately predict even the next year's global average temperature.
And the reason is simple: the global climate is basically determined by solar radiation, wind sytems and cloud formation.
And we cannot predict them.
The CO2 hystery is really stupid. There is ZERO correlation between our yearly CO2 emission and the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 level.
And if the human CO2 emission cannot even affect atmospheric CO2 level, then how could you say, that human CO2 emission can affect global climate?
The greenhouse effect is based on the assumption, that there is no heat covection between lower and higher layers of the atmosphere.
But in reality, there are large continuous vertical streams in the atmosphere (without them, there were no clouds!), carrying enormous heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
Hence, greenhouse effect cannot heat up the surface.
The temperature of the upper atmosphere is stabilized by the solar radiation.
The temperature of the lower atmosphere is stabilized by the adiabatic temperature rise of downstream winds.
And the local surface climate is determind basically by wind sytem and cloud formation.
That's all we know.

I'm hoping within the next 85 years, renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion may only be 30 years away (no, really, they mean it this time). I live a mile from the sea and the predicted rise of 0.9m in that period won't even bring the tide up to the top of the beach. Yes, we still have to worry about increased storm damage and localised, occasional flooding. Yes, increased erosion will cause severe problems in a few locations. And yes, there's even a risk that tipping points / positive feedback systems will mean the picture might be worse than this. I'm just bringing some perspective to a story which seems to imply that most coastal regions will soon be permanently inundated by the ocean.

DaniTuri, it's good to see you wave your denialist numpty flag so vigorously. Like the video says - we can't know precisely what's going to happen, but we can certainly get a general idea with some degree of certainty based on how things have acted in the past, especially since they have some obvious trends.
"The CO2 hystery is really stupid. There is ZERO correlation between our yearly CO2 emission and the yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 level."
Apart from all that pesky data that says it does. For example nearly all fossil fuel emissions have a different mix of isotopes to atmospheric CO2 (no C14) and guess what - the observed change correlates with that mix of isotopes too, i.e. much of the change is from fossil fuels. If you add up all the natural emissions, you get a gap that happens to match our fossil fuel emissions too. If you correlate that with the timings of these changes, you also get a profile that matches our changing use of fossil fuels, ie. a rapid increase.
In short, the level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build-up is accelerating.
So now that straw man lies in ashes (hey, it's carbon-neutral!), your next assertion has nothing to support it.
As for your greenhouse effect assertions - you're just making things up there too, at the same time as implying that you're the only one bright enough to think about these things. Try a better source (to pick one out of thousands): http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
If there was a real debate about AGW it would be between scientists, just like it is in every other field; but it's not; it's between science and the clueless. There is essentially no dispute between those that are actually working on it.
Though I'm sure your own credentials are first rate, bear in mind that there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Really. Not a single one.

This article is exactly right. We need to act now. After all, just look at how many hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by rising oceans. Why we have lost over 10,000 square miles of coastland just in the U.S. alone.
What? We haven't? What do you mean no one has been displaced and low-lying cities haven't been lost to rising ocean currents?
But the global warming advocates...uh, I mean scientists...have told us that the polar ice is virtually gone and that manmade global warming has been occurring for decades and is irreversible. Why would they make this stuff up...other than the fact they were ordered by the Obama administration to make manmade global warming their top priority and also their future funding and jobs all depend on following this directive...
Hey, wait a minute...

The climate change deniers are everywhere! steve jones above offered a link to a denier that takes compensation from the heartland institute which is largely funded by fossil fuel interests like the koch brothers. (not capitalizing some names is intentional)
For some HONEST information about climate change here's where you can find it. Google search... NASA Climate Change Consensus Google search... AAAS Climate Change What We Know

I've lived in proximity of the Pacific Ocean for almost 60 years and the Sea level changes every 12 hours. It's called TIDES. The mean Sea Level hasn't changed at all in my life time. So I'm going to call BS on this ENTIRE story and premise of the NASA "Scientists".