Ice Sheet Melt According To Tide Gauge Stations

Fig. 1 Tide Gauge Station Locations

In today's post we take a look at ice mass loss according to tide gauge records of measurements taken around the globe.

The graphic at Fig. 1 shows the extent of tide gauge stations.

There is also a link at Fig. 1 to a Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) page which contains extensive tide gauge station information that is good enough to be used to calibrate satellite data collection instruments (NOAA, cf. Synchronizing Satellite Data With Tide Gauge Data).

The alleged problem spoken of in a recent paper (Thwaites) is fanciful for not realizing that tide gauge data covers up to two or three centuries in some cases.

Using a single glacier or a small number of them for reference is also problematic ("This result illustrates the risk of summarizing the ice sheet loss on the basis of the fate of a few glaciers." -Mouginot, Rignot et al., 2009, at 9242).

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

The graphs at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, for example, cover sea level changes with PSMSL records taken and recorded since 1809 (210 years).

The relatively new satellite record is tiny compared to the tide gauge record (Synchronizing Satellite Data With Tide Gauge Data).

With that in mind I thought I would calculate the number of gigatons of  ice melt using the hundreds of years of tide gauge records.

Before I get into how that is done, let's consider the graphs.

The graph at Fig. 2 shows the three types of sea level change (SLC).

Sea level rise (SLR), the black line on Fig. 2, is the most known to the public, sea level fall (SLF), the red line on Fig. 2, is less well known, and ghost water (green line) is virtually unknown to the public.

The graph at Fig. 4 shows the calculated ice melt (mass loss) associated with the SLR with and without including ghost water SLR.

You can see by the difference in the red line and the black line of Fig. 4 that ghost water is a necessary component of any complete SLC computation.

Let's now consider how to use the SLC record to calculate the ice mass loss.

To derive SLR (mm) from ice mass gigatons divide the gigatons value by 361.841, or to derive ice mass gigatons from an SLR value, multiply the SLR (mm) value by 361.841.

The Antarctica and Greenland tables below show the computations in the papers (Antarctic Ice Sheet, Rignot et al. 2019, Greenland Ice Sheet, Mouginot, Rignot, et al. 2019).

The tables also include my tide gauge computations so that comparisons can be made.

Remember that my calculations imply all of the Cryosphere (all locations), not just Antarctica and Greenland, so naturally the Rignot values will not match my values.

Also remember what a difference two centuries of data makes compared to four decades of data.

Here are the net comparisons between PSMSL data and the two papers:

Greenland
Rignot gt 1972 - 2018 = 5,406 (5,447 - 41)
Rignot gmsl mm 1972 - 2018 = 14.940291 (15.0536 − 0.113309)

---

Greenland
PSMSL gt 1972 - 2018 = 28,475.5 (57,274.1 − 28,798.6)
PSMSL gmsl mm 1972 - 2018  = 78.6654 (158.2 − 79.5346)

---

Antarctica
Rignot gt 1979 - 2018 = 4,450 (4,490 − 40)
Rignot gmsl mm 1979 - 2018 = 12.298254 (12.4088 −0.110546)

---

Antarctica
PSMSL gt 1979 - 2018 = 20,002.5 (48,210.7 − 28,208.2)
PSMSL gmsl mm 1979 - 2018 = 55.2665 (133.168 − 77.9015)

---

---

Totals (Greenland + Antarctica)

Rignot Gt: 9,856 (5,406 + 4,450)
Rignot GMSL mm: 27.238545 (14.940291 + 12.298254)

---

PSMSL Gt: 48,478 (28,475.5 + 20,002.5)
PSMSL GMSL mm: 133.9319 (78.6654 + 55.2665)

The countries with tide gauge stations I use (Countries With Sea Level Change - 2)  have to be added together properly, then averaged properly, in order to derive the otherwise generally useless global mean sea level (GMSL).

There are 1,512 stations of which the following 8 were excluded:

Station Number, Name

41, POTI
51, BATUMI
118, KLAIPEDA
1082, STANLEY
1597, RIMOUSKI
1796, STANLEY II
1849, KERGUELEN
2246, SAINT PIERRE ET MIQUELON

Ok, on to how the calculations are done.

It is a common error to include SLF tide gauge station records with SLR tide gauge station records when calculating GMSL.

One reason for the error is memory loss concerning applicable scientific research.

Note that the work of Woodworth 1888 and even Newton have not been used by all scientists when required.

That is, gravity has not been popular enough in sea level papers  (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4, 5) because the bathtub model is an easier sell to the public (The Bathtub Model Doesn't Hold Water, 2, 3, 4, 5).

So, where there is a net SLF I do not subtract that from the net SLR, because SLF is generally caused by the tide gauge station being near or within the hinge point of melting ice sheets (The Evolution and Migration of Sea Level Hinge Points, 2).

SLF is actually the proportional pattern of ice sheet gravity loss like CT is the proportional pattern of potential enthalpy (see e.g. Patterns: Conservative Temperature & Potential Enthalpy - 3).

I don't add the "ghost water" value ((-1.0 x SLF) x 0.27 "about a third" - Mitrovica) to the SLR value either, because it is the quantity of water moving away from the coast of the Cryosphere location to another area far away, where it will then register on tide gauges as SLR (NASA Busts The Ghost).

The next post in this series will explain why.

The Tables:

---

Antarctica Table

---

Year	Rignot Era #	Rignot Era Year	Rignot Era GT	Rignot Total GT	Rignot GMSL (mm)	PSMSL GT Since 1809	PSMSL GMSL Since 1809 (mm)
1979	1	1	40	40	0.110546	28,208.2	77.9015
1980	1	2	80	80	0.221092	26,706.8	73.7508
1981	1	3	120	120	0.331637	29,604.2	81.7621
1982	1	4	160	160	0.442183	30,288.6	83.6517
1983	1	5	200	200	0.552729	36,651.2	101.238
1984	1	6	240	240	0.663275	29,848.8	82.4284
1985	1	7	280	280	0.773821	28,136	77.6984
1986	1	8	320	320	0.884366	27,738.9	76.6076
1987	1	9	360	360	0.994912	29,212.4	80.6751
1988	1	10	400	400	1.10546	28,832.3	79.6298
1989	1	11	440	440	1.216	31,115.3	85.9396
1990	1	12	480	480	1.32655	29,700.2	82.0305
1991	2	1	50	530	1.46473	30,202.8	83.4122
1992	2	2	100	580	1.60291	30,510.3	84.2647
1993	2	3	150	630	1.7411	29,408.5	81.2166
1994	2	4	200	680	1.87928	28,969.3	80.0073
1995	2	5	250	730	2.01746	30,682.7	84.7377
1996	2	6	300	780	2.15564	32,415.4	89.5102
1997	2	7	350	830	2.29383	33,898.4	93.6223
1998	2	8	400	880	2.43201	36,663.1	101.265
1999	2	9	450	930	2.57019	35,412.7	97.8074
2000	2	10	500	980	2.70837	34,671.7	95.7591
2001	3	1	166	1,146	3.16714	34,504.2	95.2933
2002	3	2	332	1,312	3.6259	33,112.6	91.4528
2003	3	3	498	1,478	4.08467	35,809	98.907
2004	3	4	664	1,644	4.54343	34,577.7	95.503
2005	3	5	830	1,810	5.0022	35,964.6	99.3383
2006	3	6	996	1,976	5.46096	35,513.8	98.0888
2007	3	7	1162	2,142	5.91973	36,612.1	101.132
2008	3	8	1328	2,308	6.37849	38,578.3	106.562
2009	3	9	1494	2,474	6.83726	38,721.2	106.941
2010	4	1	252	2,726	7.5337	42,622.8	117.713
2011	4	2	504	2,978	8.23013	40,624.1	112.211
2012	4	3	756	3,230	8.92657	42,320	116.892
2013	4	4	1008	3,482	9.62301	41,995.8	115.981
2014	4	5	1260	3,734	10.3194	42,726.6	118.004
2015	4	6	1512	3,986	11.0159	41,688.7	115.155
2016	4	7	1764	4,238	11.7123	46,967	129.731
2017	4	8	2016	4,490	12.4088	48,210.7	133.168

---

Greenland Table

---

Year	Rignot Era #	Rignot Era Year	Rignot Era GT	Rignot Total GT	Rignot GMSL (mm)	PSMSL GT Since 1809	PSMSL GMSL Since 1809 (mm)
1972	1	1	41	41	0.113309	28,798.6	79.5346
1973	1	2	82	82	0.226619	28,627.5	79.0667
1974	1	3	123	123	0.339928	28,286.5	78.1179
1975	1	4	164	164	0.453238	29,374.6	81.1319
1976	1	5	205	205	0.566547	25,351.3	70.0063
1977	1	6	246	246	0.679857	25,819.5	71.3001
1978	1	7	287	287	0.793166	27,579.1	76.1601
1979	1	8	328	328	0.906475	28,208.2	77.9015
1980	1	9	369	369	1.01978	26,706.8	73.7508
1981	2	1	51	420	1.16073	29,604.2	81.7621
1982	2	2	102	471	1.30168	30,288.6	83.6517
1983	2	3	153	522	1.44262	36,651.2	101.238
1984	2	4	204	573	1.58357	29,848.8	82.4284
1985	2	5	255	624	1.72451	28,136	77.6984
1986	2	6	306	675	1.86546	27,738.9	76.6076
1987	2	7	357	726	2.00641	29,212.4	80.6751
1988	2	8	408	777	2.14735	28,832.3	79.6298
1989	2	9	459	828	2.2883	31,115.3	85.9396
1990	2	10	510	879	2.42924	29,700.2	82.0305
1991	3	1	41	920	2.54255	30,202.8	83.4122
1992	3	2	82	961	2.65586	30,510.3	84.2647
1993	3	3	123	1,002	2.76917	29,408.5	81.2166
1994	3	4	164	1,043	2.88248	28,969.3	80.0073
1995	3	5	205	1,084	2.99579	30,682.7	84.7377
1996	3	6	246	1,125	3.1091	32,415.4	89.5102
1997	3	7	287	1,166	3.22241	33,898.4	93.6223
1998	3	8	328	1,207	3.33572	36,663.1	101.265
1999	3	9	369	1,248	3.44903	35,412.7	97.8074
2000	3	10	410	1,289	3.56234	34,671.7	95.7591
2001	4	1	187	1,476	4.07914	34,504.2	95.2933
2002	4	2	374	1,663	4.59594	33,112.6	91.4528
2003	4	3	561	1,850	5.11274	35,809	98.907
2004	4	4	748	2,037	5.62954	34,577.7	95.503
2005	4	5	935	2,224	6.14635	35,964.6	99.3383
2006	4	6	1122	2,411	6.66315	35,513.8	98.0888
2007	4	7	1309	2,598	7.17995	36,612.1	101.132
2008	4	8	1496	2,785	7.69675	38,578.3	106.562
2009	4	9	1683	2,972	8.21355	38,721.2	106.941
2010	4	10	1870	3,159	8.73035	42,622.8	117.713
2011	5	1	286	3,445	9.52076	40,624.1	112.211
2012	5	2	572	3,731	10.3112	42,320	116.892
2013	5	3	858	4,017	11.1016	41,995.8	115.981
2014	5	4	1144	4,303	11.892	42,726.6	118.004
2015	5	5	1430	4,589	12.6824	41,688.7	115.155
2016	5	6	1716	4,875	13.4728	46,967	129.731
2017	5	7	2002	5,161	14.2632	48,210.7	133.168
2018	5	8	2288	5,447	15.0536	57,274.1	158.2

---

---

That is all for today folks.

In the next post I will furnish the 1809 - 2018 Table used to produce Fig. 2 - Fig. 4 because this post is big enough already.

Review the excellent presentation in the video below, by Dr. Mitrovica, if you like.

The next post in this series is here.

---

---