"An international team of researchers, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Peter Gleckler, compared climate models with improved observations that show sea levels rose by 1.5 millimeters per year in the period from 1961-2003. That equates to an approximately 2½-inch increase in ocean levels in a 42-year span.
As soon as I saw "climate models" a big red flag went up. These researchers are telling us that sea levels are rising faster than they thought. So what does that have to do with "climate models"? Beats me. I think if you want to know what the sea level is now versus what it was 42 years ago you look at the data for the last 42 years and not your model of the sea level.
Or am I just missing the point?
Yeah, computer climate models are totally worthless, except to keep otherwise unemployable researchers sucking up government grant money.
Computer models can't even predict the past climate events, let alone future climate changes. They are totally flawed, because they don't have enough parameters, such as water vapor (clouds), to make them anything close to reality.
They really should rename this rag Junk-Science Daily.com, so as to comply with truth in advertising laws.