I finished that work so they are presented in today's graphs.
The graph at Fig. 1 shows the individual sea level change (SLC) that has taken place in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres as recorded by all PSMSL tide gauge stations located in each of those hemispheres (1,226 stations in the N. hemisphere, and 256 stations in the S. Hemisphere).
They show the same trend.
In the graph at Fig. 2 I added the previously used "Golden 23 WOD Zones" (G23) just for comparison with the new hemispheric look.
Those G23 stations track higher than the hemispheric and satellite records do, because they do not use the sea level fall areas (see Proof of Concept, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
(Sea level fall near large ice sheets and glacier fields is a factor that causes the hemispheric and satellite record averages to be low, because as sea level falls there that water flows toward the equator where it causes "ghost sea level rise").
I also added the satellite data to Fig. 2, which has been recorded since 1993 (when that specific technology began to be used).
And finally, the average of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres has also been added to Fig. 2.
In the graph at Fig. 3 the satellite and G23 records are removed, leaving a clearer picture of the PSMSL tide gauge records for each hemisphere as well as those two hemispheres averaged together.
The remaining graphs (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6a - Fig. 6c) continue with patterns that make it easier to see the difference in the hemispheres, G23, and the satellite patterns.
The water released into the oceans is making its way toward the equator, and is deforming the ocean bottom, which is a serious threat (You Are Here - 6).
Yes, a serious threat that is being under-reported in the corporate main stream media and in the scientific journals:
"I suspect the existence of what I call the `John Mercer effect'. Mercer (1978) suggested that global warming from burning of fossil fuels could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with a sea level rise of several meters worldwide. This was during the era when global warming was beginning to get attention from the United States Department of Energy and other science agencies. I noticed that scientists who disputed Mercer, suggesting that his paper was alarmist, were treated as being more authoritative.(On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 8, quoting Dr. J. Hansen). That reticence is more reminiscent of political thinking than it is of scientific thinking.
It was not obvious who was right on the science, but it seemed to me, and I believe to most scientists, that the scientists preaching caution and downplaying the dangers of climate change fared better in receipt of research funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out. I could vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981) that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research, specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication (MacCracken 1983).
I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more readily if they do not push too far and are larded with caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency for `gradualism' as new evidence comes to light may be ill-suited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse is concerned."
The previous post in this series is here.