The Ghost-Water Constant - 2

Fig. 1 Sea level downward thermal "expansion?"

I. Start Here

I want to begin today's post with a quote from the IPCC concerning sea level change (SLC).

The quote in question parrots the all too often spoken and written conventional lack of wisdom concerning an evidently little known reality about SLC.

That quote is: "... thermal expansion ... is one of the major contributors to sea level changes during the 20th and 21st centuries." (IPCC, emphasis added).

Fig. 2 Thermal Resistance but not SLR

The definition of "major" which apples here is: "adjective ...greater in size, extent, or importance ... great, as in rank or importance ... of or relating to the majority" (Dictionary).

A majority means, for example, more than anything else, 51%, and the most.

A major contributor is one that contributes enough to be in the top half, but thermal expansion caused SLR is not a major player no matter how you say it.

II. Good and Bad Nomenclature

To my way of thinking, a valid professional nomenclature for SLC issues should not have different words that mean the same thing, or words that have two or more meanings.

For example "expansion" should not mean "contraction" and "up" should not mean "down" (Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death).

It is about time to start using language like "thermal sea level rise is a minor factor" in SLC in place of "thermal expansion is a major cause of sea level change" (ibid).

One reason is that the latter one is a falsehood and is unscientific, because SLC is composed of both rise and fall.

III. Proof of Concept

Fig. 3 Glacier Bay gravity influence

The graphs at Fig. 3 - Fig. 12 present an example of both SLR and sea level fall (SLF) on the West Coast of the U.S.

Proceeding from Skagway in Southeastern Alaska down to San Francisco, California, we can see why the mistaken notion of thermal expansion is not useful.

Fig. 4 More SLF near Glacier Bay

Notice that there is no SLR in Fig. 3 through Fig. 8, rather, there is SLF.

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Does thermal expansion in sea water cause the sea level to drop two or so feet in a relatively small distance?

Fig. 7 A bit north of the hinge point

Fig. 8 South of the hinge point

No.

Additionally, notice that the sea water there is warmed by the Japanese Current, which is comparable to the warm Gulf Stream on the East Coast of the U.S., which is touted for causing thermal expansion there.

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

As you can see by the graphs, this warm water with its expected thermal expansion causes no SLR (nor does it cause SLF).

Fig. 11

Moving down through the graphs we begin to see another story at Fig. 8 through Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

That difference is that SLR begins to take place after a relatively short distance is covered.

Fig. 13

So, both the SLR and the SLF take place in an area impacted by the same warm Japanese Current.

Thermal expansion is obviously not a "major factor," and in fact has little to nothing to do with what is happening.

What is taking place in this relatively short distance happens to be caused by the loss of ice mass and gravity at Glacier Bay.

As ice mass is lost to the sea, the subsequent relocation of both melt water and ghost-water are the major factors in this scenario (The Ghost-Water Constant, The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4).

The same dynamic drives what is happening in Greenland (see Proof of Concept - 3, Proof of Concept - 5, and The Evolution and Migration of Sea Level Hinge Points).

IV. Spread The Word

The concept primarily at play was first written about circa 1888 by a scientist named Woodward (On the West Side of Zero).

There was an example for a proof of concept, which was well established by that time, which I posted about a while back (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 54).

Evidently no one told anyone about Woodward's paper (except the Mitrovica team).

Had it been utilized a lot of this thermal expansion excess would have been avoided.

And perhaps sea level reality would have been grasped long ago.

Perhaps even soon enough to have avoided what is now going to happen (The Extinction of Charleston, The Extinction of Philadelphia, The Extinction of Washington, D.C., The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, The Extinction of Boston, The Extinction of Miami, The Extinction of Manzanillo, The Extinction of Houston, The Extinction of Providence, The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands).

So, tell your science teacher, professor, or science community associates ... spread the word somehow (like regular readers Tom and Mark have).

V. Conclusion

It won't be too long until I have done all I can do to make people aware of these phenomena.

At that time I will focus on another subject, as I have done in the past.

Whether or not my efforts will have been in vain remains to be seen.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

---