Aurora Australis fails to rescue the Akademik Shokalskiy

The Greens have lost their minds

view from the stern of the Aurora Australis.

Its been five days since the Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck in heavy ice-pack near Mertz Glacier in the Antarctic.

Since that time, 3 ships have attempted to rescue the Akademik Shokalskiy, and all 3 had to turn back to open waters.

Current conditions at the rescue site has low visibility due to low laying fog.

The Captain of the Australis says:

“The ice became too thick for us to penetrate. Some of the floes are up to two metres of ice with a metre of snow on top and very compact.

“There was just nowhere for us to go.”

“It was pushing those same types of floes in behind us.”

“If we got into that compact stuff it would have sealed us in, we would have lost our manoeuvreability and we wouldn’t have been much use to anybody.

“Having been caught in ice before, I know by experience when to get out. I didn’t want to add to the drama, instead of being part of the solution.”

“We had no visibility so we couldn’t really see if there was a way through.”

So what does Chris Turney, the leader of the expedition, do while the Australis was attempting to free them from the ice-pack.

He tweets,”It’s so warm, it’s actually raining.”

Excuse me? WTF?

Chris can’t tweet about the fog, or the fact the ship there to save them is in retreat, or the 55km winds buffeting the area.

No…. he tweets its raining. I think Turney must be delirious.

Then of course is the little side humor coming from the Australis.

Someone got out onto the deck of the Australis and wrote into the snow on the deck…. now get this.. GREEN…

Someone has a sense of humor. I have got to talk to whoever did that.

Tide Gauges & Mean Sea Level

Will The Real Sea Level Trend Please Stand Up !

In my continuing saga of sea levels, I thought that the work done by David Burton deserved its own post.

If anyone of you have been following my articles on Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL), I hope to bring even more nuggets of information your way.

David Burton has put together, probably the most comprehensive work regarding Mean Sea Levels.

You can view his website here.

Here is an partial image of his MSL Table page:

Pretty damn good work if you ask me.

The only thing I want to add,  is a comment that I used as an update to my GMSL article here and as a comment at WUWT here.

David Burton already beat me to determining MSL, using existing tide gauges.

Thank goodness. It would have taken me months to do the calculations.
0.61 mm/year.

Though before we get our hopes up, RealClimate already ‘debunked‘  him, saying that his calculations are not peer-reviewed and doesn’t take into account GIA.

In regards to tide gauge mean sea level averages, what purpose does it serve to include an adjustment for GIA?(rhetorical)

Tide gauges are one dimensional readings though. Simply height.

GIA is about 3D volumetric displacement of land mass, due to uplift from ice sheet loss, and giving a value to correct a means for that displacement of land mass.

So while we’re at it, lets adjust for subduction, sinkage, sea wave erosion, lava buildup, island construction(my favorite), and any other phenomena that adjusts the height of any given tide gauge.

We can’t though, because each tide gauge is not effected by one or more phenomena that another tide gauge might be effected by.

That is why the GIA correction can only be applied to satellite altimetry data.
This only allows the alarmist community to confuse the issue, using convoluted models to support their propagandization.

The actual, physical observance of existing tide gauges the world over show only a 0.61 mm/year rise in the historical registry.

Which leads me to wonder where all that rise is hiding at.

If we don’t see any physical evidence at known tide gauge sites, then all the rise must be happening wherever man is not present.

Those 50 mile long, remote, uninhabitable beach fronts must be 10 feet under water right now.

Global Mean Sea Level

An Introduction Into Global Mean Sea Level, A Fallacy of  Alarmism, and Beyond

How Reliable Is This Graph ? Courtesy of UC@Boulder

UPDATE:

Here is the latest image from the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado:

GMSL Courtesy of UC@Boulder

This is how the confusion starts in regards to GMSL.

Both graphs show a rate of 3.1 , but use a different order of corrections.

The first graph is from 2010, has no inverse barometer correction  and no GIA application.

The Second graph is from 2011, has the inverse barometer applied and GIA applied.

Meaning, that in order to continue to show the same exact rate of rise, they had to modify the means by adding values to their data.

AGAIN !

The  sea level group from UC @ Boulder  have this to say about the matter:

One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

What the FUCK !?!?!?!

Why include the GIA correction now, if you hadn’t been doing it before.

And then tell us if ya don’t like it, just subtract 0.3 mm/year from the average.

OK FINE ! I WILL !

That means that in one year, the GMSL annual average of satellite altimetry data, has dropped  from 3.1 to 2.8 mm/year.

In order for a 20 year average to decrease by an amount of 0.3 mm/year is……… a 6.0 mm drop in a year.

I don’t know about you, but thats a huge dip.

I guess it’s not ok to have a decline in the average, when you have an army of alarmists screaming,

“IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!”

I will end my rant for now with this….

What goes up….

Reminds me what Timo Niroma said about the length of solar cycles 15-22, “The short cycles of the 20th century has created a debt that must be paid.”
The value added adjustments in GMSL, allowing alarmists to suggest an accelerated rise, will undoubtedly cause nature to slam the whole process.
I know this is bad form on my part, but I kind of hope that those in a position to claim, “Its worse than we thought”, continue to do so.
So when the bottom falls out of CAGW, they fall right along with it.

Introduction to GMSL

“The IPCC considers two simple indices of climate change, global mean temperature and sea level rise. The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change.”

IPCC Technical Paper III1.2.4

The Global Temperature and Sea Level 

Implications of Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases

Having already written several posts on sea levels, I think it has become necessary to investigate the origins of sea level data, how it is interpreted, and what, if any, conclusions can be derived from it.

Tamino

Why Tamino’s ‘Open Mind’ Isn’t

This is what denial looks like.

Tamino is your garden variety environmental alarmist. His blog sites header says OPEN MIND, but beyond that, you will only find closed doors to reality.

A few days ago I had made yet another adventure to the ‘other side’, and decided to test the waters of reason with an alarmist.

Tamino had written a blog called, “Jerk.”

The opening remark went like this:

“In the last post I showed that not only is CO₂ increasing, its growth rate is also increasing. So, the growth rate of CO₂ is faster now than it was just a few decades ago. Significantly so.”

Having just posted my own  article on the deceleration of sea levels, despite rising levels of Co2, I thought I would post a comment about his assumption.

My Comment was this:

 ClimateForAll | April 17, 2011 at 2:55 am |

“I hope you are as ‘open-minded’ as such that your blog suggests, because I would like to challenge that theory with a question.
You stated:

‘I showed that not only is CO2 increasing, its growth rate is also increasing. So, the growth rate of CO2 is faster now than it was just a few decades ago. Significantly so.’

Many of the CAGW predictions from noted scientists and panels around the world, have come under attack from many sectors.
Co2 has been used in climate models to explain, rising temperatures, melting sea ice, more hurricanes, and my personal favorite, rising sea levels.
Many environmental impact studies have predicted that as Co2 increases, many coastal areas will be inundated with erosion and flooding, due to rising sea levels.
And MSM continues to quote scientists and environmental talking heads that suggest, ‘it’s worse than we thought,’ because we should expect anywhere from 2-6 feet of rise by centuries end.
On 2-23-11, In the Journal of Coastal Research, Houston & Dean had this to say in their published paper::

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations.
———————————————————————————————

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

My question to you is this:

If Co2 rise is ‘faster’, ‘larger’, ‘increasing’ or whatever term you wish to use for the acceleration of CAGW, where is the evidence, in regards to sea level rise?”

Here is his response:

More On Sea Levels

Sea Level Predictions Revisited

UPDATE #1: A more succinct paper written by Nils-Axel Morner further supports my claim on sea level deceleration can be found in this PDF :

Here is Morners Bio:

Renowned oceanographic expert Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 45 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.

UPDATE #2: In addition to both Nils-Axel Morner and Houston & Dean, a supporting paper on sea level deceleration comes from Australia:

Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?

by P. J. Watson

Here is excerpt of that abstract:

“These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000.”

So what we have here is 3 papers, all showing a deceleration of sea levels, in 3 different regions around the globe, an no one is talking about it.

Hence, I will talk about it here.

Since my last post, Sea Level Predictions, I felt it was necessary to key in on some new key points.

Reuters released this ‘alarmist’ article by Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, entitled:

Rising seas threaten 180 U.S. cities by 2100: study

WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:51pm EST

“(Reuters) – Rising seas spurred by climate change could threaten 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, a new study says, with Miami, New Orleans and Virginia Beach among those most severely affected.”

Yeah, whatever.

But on the other side of the issue comes a scientific article from the Journal of Coastal Research:

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

ABSTRACT HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 0000. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 00(0), 000–000. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Global climate change, Sea level rise.

The one statement that stands out is, “…. we obtain small average sea-level decelerations.”

And in their concluding statement, this quote is made:

“It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years.”

Sea Level Rise

Sea Level Predictions

Doomsday scenarios, would-be disasters, tipping points, and other prognostications from your average ordinary climate change alarmists are in full bloom this year.  Currently, sea level rise is taking a beating in the media and I thought to soften the blow, I would follow up on a comment I had made on WUWT about a month ago.

In the January, 1953 issue of Popular Science, I found this little nugget of information:

Dr. George F. Carter was quoted as saying, “Sea level the whole world over is five inches higher. Because this is the tail end of a glacial period, polar ice is melting and filling up the oceans. Future harbor works should be planned for an expected sea level rise of 24 inches within the next century.”

Now, this comment, given by Dr. Carter over 50 years ago, was printed in the editors column of Popular Science, and made very little headlines anywhere else. What I do find significant about this prediction is how this quote made in 1953, is in fact a prediction on sea level rise that is higher than the predictions made by the I.P.C.C. in AR4 some 55 years later.

Keep in mind that Dr. Carter was basing his predictions on science and natural occurrences, not global warming or modeling.

To illustrate what I mean, here is a graph represented by Early Warning :

You will notice that the highest marks by the AR4 are lower than the quote made by Dr. Carter 50 some odd years earlier, just under 60 centimeters. Which is just a little under 24 inches. Also in the above graph, the new predictions for sea level rise are nearly double or triple of the previous predictions made by the I.P.C.C., in the AR4.