Climate For All

An All Around Science Blog

Category Archives: Environment

Fun With Pixels

Chris Turney Cant Pixel Out Of This One

Jan 2nd 2014

2/2/14 Image of the region located around Mertz Glacier, Mawson Hut, and the stranded Akademik Shokalskiy. Image Provided by NASA EOSDIS Worldview

Hopefully, most of you have been following the story at WUWT  about  the Russion research vessel Shokalskiy,   that has been stranded in sea-ice since Christmas Eve. If not, you can read what I wrote about it here and here After the Shokalskiy had been unable to be freed by numerous attempts, an airlift of the passengers was undertaken 8 days after being stuck in sea-ice.

A team of scientists lead by Chris Turney, had been attempting to follow a century old expedition that was led by Sir Douglas Mawson into the Antarctic, south of Australia.  The expedition was known as the Australia Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914.  This expedition bares the same name, but there is hardly any similarity between the two. Armed with a science team of on-board and on-shore scientists, college grads doing post-graduate work, friends, family, journalists and anyone else wanting to cough up the tens of thousands of dollars, set off for Antarctica to:

“…truly meld science and adventure, repeating century old measurements to discover and communicate the changes taking place in this remote and pristine environment.” – AAE Expedition Aim

The story I write tonight is about Chris Turney and how he is attempting to disguise how inept he is, and hopefully I can prove that. Because Turney veers away from the expeditions aim to ‘discover and communicate’, into a more of a ‘ hide and obfuscate’ aim.

I’ll tell you why I think so. Or better yet, I’ll show you.

Read more of this post


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.

What A Difference A Century Makes

What A Difference A Century Makes


In this image provided by Australasian Antarctic Expedition, Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy is trapped in thick Antarctic ice 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, Australia, Friday, Dec. 27, 2013. (AP Photo / Australasian Antarctic Expedition, Chris Turney)

Could a century old expedition to the uncharted lands of the Antarctic participate in the further unraveling of catastrophic man-made global warming?

Some of you may have already picked up on the struggles of a Russian research vessel getting caught up in thick ice-pack in the Antarctic. I had first heard of the story, having been reported from ABC News in Australia here.  Near the end of the article, Russell Goldman wrote,

“Of the 57 souls on board, 22 are crewmen and 35 are passengers. The ship cruised to the site of a 1911-1914 expedition of British explorer Sir Douglas Mawson.”

So, being curious where this ship might have been caught up in the ice-pack, I decided to read a little bit into Sir Douglas Mawson and this site that the current cruise ship was supposedly at. As luck would have it, I stumbled across a Book that Mawson wrote about his expedition to the Antarctic. The book is called, “The Home of the Blizzard- Being the story of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, 1911-1914.” If you have time, I suggest everyone read the book. But for now, I just want to show a portion of the book, regarding Mawsons account of Cape Denison, the location he used to build what is now known as the Mawson huts and what I assume is the location of the stranded cruise ship. Mawson writes,

“The main body of the archipelago was found to be separated by a mile and a half from the mainland. A point which struck us at the time was that the islets situated on the southern side of the group were capped by unique masses of ice; resembling iced cakes. Later we were able to see them in process of formation. In the violent southerly hurricanes prevalent in Adelie Land, the spray breaks right over them. Part of it is deposited and frozen, and by increments the icing of these monstrous “cakes” is built up. The amount contributed in winter makes up for loss by thawing in midsummer. As the islets to windward shelter those in their lee, the latter are destitute of these natural canopies.

Soundings were taken at frequent intervals with a hand lead-line, manipulated by Madigan. The water was on the whole shallow, varying from a few to twenty fathoms. The bottom was clothed by dense, luxuriant seaweed. This rank growth along the littoral was unexpected, for nothing of the kind exists on the Ross Sea coasts within five or six fathoms of the surface.

Advancing towards the mainland, we observed a small islet amongst the rocks, and towards it the boat was directed. We were soon inside a beautiful, miniature harbour completely land-locked. The sun shone gloriously in a blue sky as we stepped ashore on a charming ice-quay — the first to set foot on the Antarctic continent between Cape Adare and Gaussberg, a distance of one thousand eight hundred miles.

Wild and I proceeded to make a tour of exploration. The rocky area at Cape Denison, as it was named, was found to be about one mile in length and half a mile in extreme width. Behind it rose the inland ice, ascending in a regular slope and apparently free of crevasses — an outlet for our sledging parties in the event of the sea not firmly freezing over. To right and left of this oasis, as the visitor to Adelie Land must regard the welcome rock, the ice was heavily crevassed and fell sheer to the sea in cliffs, sixty to one hundred and fifty feet in height. Two small dark patches in the distance were the only evidences of rock to relieve the white monotony of the coast.

In landing cargo on Antarctic shores, advantage is generally taken of the floe-ice on to which the materials can be unloaded and at once sledged away to their destination. Here, on the other hand, there was open water, too shallow for the ‘Aurora’ to be moored alongside the ice-foot. The only alternative was to anchor the ship at a distance and discharge the cargo by boats running to the ideal harbour we had discovered. Close to the boat harbour was suitable ground for the erection of a hut, so that the various impedimenta would have to be carried only a short distance. For supplies of fresh meat, in the emergency of being marooned for a number of years, there were many Weddell seals at hand, and on almost all the neighbouring ridges colonies of penguins were busy rearing their young.64

As a station for scientific investigations, it offered a wider field than the casual observer would have imagined. So it came about that the Main Base was finally settled at Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay.

We arrived on board at 8 P.M., taking a seal as food for the dogs. Without delay, the motor-launch was dropped into the water, and both it and the whale-boat loaded with frozen carcasses of mutton, cases of eggs and other perishable goods.

While some of us went ashore in the motor-launch, with the whale-boat in tow, the ‘Aurora’ steamed round the Mackellar Islets seeking for a good anchorage under the icy barrier, immediately to the west of the boat harbour. The day had been perfect, vibrant with summer and life, but towards evening a chill breeze sprang up, and we in the motor-launch had to beat against it. By the time we had reached the head of the harbour, Hoadley had several fingers frost-bitten and all were feeling the cold, for we were wearing light garments in anticipation of fine weather. The wind strengthened every minute, and showers of fine snow were soon whistling down the glacier. No time was lost in landing the cargo, and, with a rising blizzard at our backs, we drove out to meet the ‘Aurora’.”

This is a map of the Antarctic as Mawson knew it (As seen in the book, Home of the Blizzard)

This is a map of the Antarctic as Mawson knew it (As seen in the book, Home of the Blizzard)

There is so much information having been  wrote here, that I force myself to focus on the part I highlighted. Mawson writes that they usually unpack onto the ice-floe and sled it in, but because of the open water, they used a smaller boat to bring their gear to shore.

It was at this juncture I thought I felt I had some evidence to suggest the location of our stranded cruise/research ship. I must now switch gears and discuss what is happening in the here and now, with this stranded ship I was discussing earlier.

The ship in question is the Russian passenger ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy. From Expeditions Online they write, “The Akademik Shokalskiy is a fully ice-strengthened expedition vessel built in 1984 for polar and oceanographic research. This class of vessel is world renowned for polar exploration, because of its strength, maneuverability and small passenger numbers.” On a side note, they also write,”NOTE TO NEWS REPORTERS: Expeditions Online is NOT the operator for this vessel but is an independent polar booking agent for this and many other expedition ships.” That got a giggle out of me. They are already covering their ass!

The only report I could find Christmas night coming from this expedition, was from one of the scientists on board. His name is Chris Turney. Chris Turney wrote on his twitter page,”We’re in the ice like the explorers of old! All are well and spirits are high. Happy Christmas from the AA…”

Now, if some of you haven’t been following the story, well, not a lot had been known. The media either knew little, or those that did know, weren’t writting about it. It hadn’t been until  Friday that several stories were been published. As of this moment, almost every news agency is reporting about it. And they are all nearly writing the same thing. The Russian vessel is stuck and 2 of the 3 Icebreakers can’t reach the stranded vessel. Both the Chinese icebreaker SnowDragon, and the French icebreaker L’Astrolabe, had to break off their rescue mission and are on standy by. The Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis is currently another day away, but speculation is that even it won’t be able to break through either. L’Astrolabe and Aurora Australis are both LR 1A Super Icebreakers. I imagine that if one 1A icebreaker can’t get through, another one can’t either. Also, it was just a little over a month ago that the Aurora Australis itself was caught in heavy ice-pack, 180 miles from shore near Davis Station, Antarctica. It took nearly 3 weeks to get unstuck. That is another story that seemed to have got passed by MSM.

So, to this point, what do we know. The Akademik Shokalskiy is stuck near Cape Denison, and 2 of 3 Icebreakers have been unable to dislodge it from the seas frozen grasp. We also know that the ship is following the Douglas Mawson expedition of 1911-1914. Or did they?

After some further research, I came upon this website, The Spirit of Mawson. The very first paragraph is quoted as saying,

“The Antarctic remains one of the last great unexplored regions on Earth. In spite of a century of discovery, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean remain a unique place to monitor the health of our planet. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition – the AAE – will truly meld science and adventure, repeating century old measurements to discover and communicate the changes taking place in this remote and pristine environment.”

Then directly underneath this paragraph,  is a graph displaying what they call a Live Expedition Tracker.

AAE 2013

When we zoom into the graph, we can see that in fact, the expedition had already visited the Mawson huts and are now actually

AAE 2013 Cape Denison

Their current location

Current location of stranded ship.

Now, of course, I was intrigued. Had they actually been to the harbour at the Mawson hut, without any obstruction of sea ice, and continued east and got stuck, or is there something else going on here. I had to research a little more.

Chris Turney blogs at SpiritofMawson, “Following our successful visit to Cape Denison, sea ice remained clear, allowing our science expedition to proceed to the Mertz Glacier and open water polynya on the other side of Commonwealth Bay.” He says they had a successful visit, but upon further review, I think he is being a little misleading. While they had a couple teams reach Cape Denison, it was in the manner they reached there.


The vehicle that got the teams to Mawson Hut

Turney is quoted as saying,

“We set off at 0630 on the morning of the 19 December with excitement and some trepidation. Would we make it to Mawson’s Hut? I dared to hope but knew we faced all manner of challenges. We had some 65 kilometres of uncharted sea ice to navigate, with jumbled surfaces and tidal cracks to negotiate. The sky was cloudy and promised no warmth. And yet morale was high. We were giving it a go. With Greg waving us off, we took off with the tracked Argo in the lead, the vehicles packed with the team members and gear.”

No, they had not reached Mawson Hut by ship, but by Argo! Some 40 miles from their destination, they unloaded their ATVs and trekked the last 65 km to reach their destination. If this is what Turney considers a successful visit, I think we can only agree that it was a partial success.

A true success would have been to arrive their in a ship. Just like Mawson did.

Well, I wouldn’t have expected a clear disclosure from this team.

The purpose of the expedition, as Andrew Peacock, doctor/photographer for the expedition put it, “Our expedition will be ‘monitoring the health of the planet’ by trying to gauge the changes since Mawson’s time. We will be repeating the measurements made by Mawson’s team – with observations of the ocean, wildlife, weather, geology and ice cover.”

I can’t help but reflect how this story so closely resembles another bungled expedition. Some of you may remember the PR stunt known as ‘Row To The Pole.’ In their attempt to reach the North Pole, via a rowing boat, they had first said they had reached the north pole. A first of its kind. But later, as investigative journalists discovered, the row boat had for most of the last leg to reach their destination, had been towed by hand, and that they hadn’t traveled to the North Pole, but to a location of magnetic north from 1995. They later corrected their claims, but by then, many media outlets had already hoisted them as heros and claimed the feat as a result of global warming.

Lets see now what comes from this story. I will keep you up to date as the information comes in. Until then, lets pay our respects to Sir Douglas Mawson and his successful  attempt to Cape Denison and the further discovers he made 100 years ago.


Sir Douglas Mawson

Happy Holidays !

Alan Bryant

Polar Bears, Global Warming & B.S.

This is how news should read….

Judge Rejects Placing Polar Bears On Endangered List

On Thursday,June 30th,  U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biodiversity, and upheld a 2008 ruling that placed the polar bear on the threatened list with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In a 116-page opinion, several key comments made by Judge Sullivan stand out that deserve attention.

On page 3, Sullivan states:

In view of these exhaustive administrative proceedings, the Court is keenly aware that this is exactly the kind of decision making process in which its role is strictly circumscribed. Indeed, it is not this Court’s role to determine, based on its independent assessment of the scientific evidence, whether the agency could have reached a different conclusion with regard to the listing of the polar bear. Rather, as mandated by the Supreme Court and by this Circuit, the full extent of the Court’s authority in this case is to determine whether the agency’s decision-making process and its ultimate decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species satisfy certain minimal standards of rationality based upon the evidence before the agency at that time.

Simply stating, it was not the role of the court to determine if the FWS could have reached a different conclusion(citing global warming as a cause), but if the FWS satisfied its final Listing Rule.

The environmental group, Center for Biological Diversity, has failed in several attempts to place the polar bear on the endangered list with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, citing global warming as the cause.

Instead, Judge Sullivan writes in his 116-page opinion that:

“The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the agency’s listing determination rises to the level of irrationality. In the Court’s opinion, plaintiffs’ challenges amount to nothing more than competing views about policy and science.”

The plaintiffs, The Center for Biodiversity, and Greenpeace  filed motions to persuade the court to change the Fish & Wildlife Service Listing Rule of 2008.

Instead, Judge Sullivan wrote this, regarding the motions:

In sum, having carefully considered plaintiffs’ motions, the federal defendants’ and defendant-intervenors’ crossmotions, the oppositions and replies thereto, various supplemental briefs, the supplemental explanation prepared by FWS in response to this Court’s November 4, 2010 remand order, arguments of counsel at a motions hearing held on February 23,2011, the relevant law, the full administrative record, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Service’s decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA represents a reasoned exercise of the agency’s discretion based upon the facts and the best available science as of 2008 when the agency made its listing determination. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and GRANTS the federal defendants’ and defendant-intervenors’ motions for summary judgment.




How’s this for a headline from the online MSM….

Read more of this post

The IPCC, Droughts and Floods, Then And Now

How The Media Muddles Thru In The Face Of Denial

On June 8th, a staff writer for the San Fransisco Chronicle, had an article published about the concerns of summer floods:

Record Calif. snowpack raises summer flood fear

Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

“More snow than has ever been recorded this close to summer is blanketing Donner Summit, creating a potentially dangerous situation when the snow begins to melt, hydrology experts said Tuesday.”

The article continued with another snippet worth mentioning:

“In a normal winter, you see the entire snowpack melt in May and there is no snow left on the ground by June 1,” Pechner said. “In this case, we still have well over 6 feet of snow still on the ground.”

But the eye-popper comes near the end of the article when Fimrite writes:

“Most meteorologists are reluctant to ascribe a cause to the unusual weather, but Pechner said there is only one logical explanation for the record number of tornadoes in the South and Northeast, the heat waves across the globe and the mercurial conditions seemingly everywhere.”

To which Pechner, a meteorologist  from the Bay Area, responds saying, “I think it’s climate change.”

Read more of this post

April Records of Coldest, Wettest, Snowiest Months

Something To Think About While MSM Embroils Us

With Global Warming Hysteria

April Records of Coldest, Wettest, Snowiest, Etc.

  • Seattle sets a record for coldest April on record

Read more:

  • Maple crop could be NH record

Read more:

  • Weekend to warm up after coldest April in over half a century

Read more:

  • Coldest April in Shimla in a decade

Read more:

  • April Record for Wettest, Coldest Month Since 1984

Read more:

  • We’re on pace for the coldest April ever. Reports of snow in Maple Ridge and Aldergrove this morning

Read more:–we-re-on-pace-for-the-coldest-april-ever

  • Month into spring, Chicago sets a snow record

Read more:,0,4754585.story

  • April breaks record for local snowfall with more than 4 feet

Read more:

  • Lingering snow delays opening of some Glacier National Park facilities

Read more:

  • La Nina brings flood risks and drought to the West

Read more:

  • Tennessee Gov. has asked President to declare 15 counties as federal disaster areas due to record flooding of the Mississippi.

Read more:

And the hits just keep on coming….

Co2 and the Amazon Rainforest

Co2 and the Amazon Rainforest

I usually don’t follow Lawrence Solomon, but there is a story being circulated around media outlets, that there seems no avoiding it. I’ll get to that in a second.

The WWF  supposedly claimed that over 60% of the Rainforest would be gone by 2030.

Seems that all the efforts of the  WWF,  through its prognostications and efforts to alarm us , was  for naught.


Daniel Nepstad,  was the author of that report by the World Wide Fund For Nature released at the U.N. climate change conference in Bali ’07.

How’s that working out for you Daniel?

You can read Lawrence Solomons article, in its entirety here:

Lawrence Solomon: Are high CO2 levels once again saving the Amazon Forest?

  May 8, 2011 – 1:12 AM ET | Last Updated: May 8, 2011 10:36 AM ET

The Amazon Forest – often called the lungs of the Earth – suffered a large drought in 2005 and an even larger one in 2010, devastating populations of river dolphins and other species and leading many climate scientists to fear the worst.  “Having two events of this magnitude in such close succession is extremely unusual, but is unfortunately consistent with those climate models that project a grim future for Amazonia,” said Simon Lewis, from the University of Leeds, co-author of “The 2010 Amazon Drought,” a paper published in Science in February of this year.

Today, just three months after that dire outlook, the doom and gloom is lifting. The Amazon and its species have made a dramatic comeback, so much so that the river populations of dolphins now exceed pre-dought levels, even in one of the hardest hit drought areas.

Read more of this post

Tide Gauges & Mean Sea Level

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


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.


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.


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,


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.

Read more of this post

Climate Waffles

Just gotta get me some of that

Climate Waffle

With all the current media hype over how climate change is responsible over every catastrophe that is happening, I thought it would be a good idea and go back to see exactly what the IPCC had said about ‘Climate Change’.

Here is a portion of the UNIPCC report on climate change and sea levels. If your eyes are already glazing over, just attempt to notice the words I’ve highlighted and we can move on:


IPCC Technical Paper III

1.2.4 The Global Temperature and Sea Level

Implications of Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases

This report 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. It is important to realize, however, that climate change will not occur uniformly over the globe; the changes in temperature and in other climate variables such as precipitation, cloudiness, and the frequency of extreme events, will vary greatly among regions. In order to evaluate the consequences of climate change, one must consider the spatial variability of all factors: climate forcing, climate response, and the vulnerability of regional human and natural resource systems. However, consideration of regional details is outside the scope of this paper.

The spatial patterns of some radiative forcing agents, especially aerosols, are very heterogeneous and so add further to the spatial variability of climate change. In this paper, aerosol forcing is presented in terms of global averages so that an impression can be gained of its likely overall magnitude, its effect on global average temperature, and its effect on sea level rise. The effect of aerosol forcing on the detail of climate change, however, is likely to be quite different from the effect of a forcing of similar magnitude, in terms of global average, due to greenhouse gases. In terms of regional climate change and impacts, therefore, the negative forcing or cooling from aerosol forcing must not be considered as a simple offset to that from greenhouse gases.

Temperature and sea level projections depend on the “assumed” climate sensitivity, the target and pathway chosen for CO2 concentration stabilization, and the assumed scenarios for other greenhouse gases and aerosol forcing. The relative importance of these factors depends on the time interval over which they are compared. Out to the year 2050, CO2 concentration pathway differences for any single stabilization target are as important as the choice of target; but on longer time-scales the choice of target is (necessarily) more important. Outweighing all of these factors, however, is the climate sensitivity uncertainties in which dominate the uncertainties in all projections.

as·sume/əˈ uh-so͞om/

1. Suppose to be the case, without proof
2. Adopted in order to deceive; fictitious; pretended; feigned
3. To take for granted or without proof; suppose
4. An expression what the assumer postulates, that is often a confessed hypothesis or theory.
The author(s) of this paper really liked the word, assume(d). There are 39 references to the word, assume(d), 39 times.
For this being a scientific paper to prove climate change is man-made, there seems to be alot of assumptions.
Forget the scientific method and base facts on assumptions is what this technical paper offers. Assumptions.


1. Not able to be relied on; not known or definite: “an uncertain future”.
2. (of a person) Not completely confident or sure of something:
There is another word these author(s) used with even greater use;  uncertainty(ies). The word uncertainty(ies) is used 91 times.
So what we have here is a authored technical paper in the UNIPCC manuscript that uses assumptions and uncertainties to turn theories into facts. Go figure.
Then we have millions of people make reference to these papers in the UNIPCC reports as their basis for their belief on CAGW( Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
But lets move to the subject matter of this technical paper, before we ‘assume’ too much.
They write,” 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.”
So, based on assumptions and uncertainties, the scientists that wrote this technical paper believe that all we need to know is global temperatures will rise, which will cause sea levels to rise, assuming man-made Co2 rise causes climate to change.

So we are not confused what the IPCC considers climate change, lets use the definition thats provided in the glossary of this technical paper.

Climate Change is: Climate change as referred to in the observational record of climate occurs because of internal changes within the climate system or in the interaction between its components, or because of changes in external forcing either for natural reasons or because of human activities. It is generally not possible clearly to make attribution between these causes. Projections of future climate change reported by IPCC generally consider only the influence on climate of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases and other human-related factors.

So, climate change is natural reasons or because of human activities, but it is uncertain to conclude the causes, and for future predictions, the IPCC only considers man-made increases for their predictions.

Read more of this post