Thank you for your contribution, TIA. How much credence am I to place on the postings of someone who apparently does not know the difference between radius and diameter?

You don't address what Prof Morner says, you merely discount it on the basis that he also thinks that dowsing is a valid technique, and also because he is a "well-known climate change curmudgeon, and a member of the partially Exxon-funded International Climate Science Coalition." On the same basis, I can discount anything you say because you are a warmista. You must address the facts; anything else is ad hominem.

As to the NOAA figures on satellite-measurement of sea-levels: your cite is cluttered with get-outs. First its claim to be "estimates" of sea level; what does that mean? If it's measurements, it's surely not "estimates". Then, "common annual signal"s have been removed; what does that mean? Furthermore, it seems that the figures have been "massaged" by including some and excluding others; why? What happens if the excluded figures are included?

I am open to debate here: I am sceptical of "global warming" because I have, in the past, been a developer of models (but not climate models) on a computer, and recognise that if climate models have programmed into them "increase in carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere leads to temperature increase," then the computer-model will project increased temperatures in 2100AD (or whenever), and also because I see that there is evidence that there has been no warming for a decade or so. But if computers cannot predict the weather in a fortnight's time, what chance of their predicting the climate in 2100? If sea-levels have been rising as your NOAA cite, where are the tide-gauge figures from actual measurements of sea-level (I'm not saying there are none: give me a cite)? Satellite measurements must be calibrated with "on the ground" data.