Monday, August 10, 2015

Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States - 4

Fig. 1 @16:26 of Mitrovica video
I. Background

The subtitle for today's post could be:  "With friends like Oil-Qaeda, who needs enemies?"

I say that in the context of someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome who might say: "without Oil-Qaeda we would not be using millions of barrels of oil each day, nor would oil be the lifeblood of our civilization, and I could not be proudly driving my Humvee around."

Never do they seem to grasp the fact that Oil-Qaeda is channelling Charles Manson, and being cheered for it even though Manson, like Stalin, has been condemned by freedom loving people.

Or have they?

This is another case that gives credence to the observational ability of the dark hearted one, who said:
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
(Joseph Stalin). That statement is beyond the grasp of many because there is a dearth of understanding about our animal / mammalian subconscious dynamics:
That's what Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin allegedly once said to U.S. ambassador Averill Harriman. And Stalin was an expert on the topic since his regime killed as many 43 million people. It turns out that the mustachioed murderer may have been expressing an acute insight into human psychology. Earlier this week, the Washington Post's always interesting Department of Human Behavior columnist Shankar Vedantam reported on the research of University of Oregon professor Paul Slovic who looked at how people respond to humanitarian tragedies. As Vedantam explains:
In a rational world, we should care twice as much about a tragedy affecting 100 people as about one affecting 50. We ought to care 80,000 times as much when a tragedy involves 4 million lives rather than 50. But Slovic has proved in experiments that this is not how the mind works.

When a tragedy claims many lives, we often care less than if a tragedy claims only a few lives. When there are many victims, we find it easier to look the other way.
Slovic has also shown that the amount of compassion humans feel can diminish as the number of victims increases: In an experiment in Israel, Slovic asked volunteers whether they would help raise $300,000 to save eight children who were dying of cancer. Those in another group were told only about one child with cancer and asked how much they were willing to donate to save the life of that child. Slovic found that people were willing to give more money to save one life than to save eight.

"When we trust our feelings in these cases, we are led down the path of turning our backs on the suffering of many people," Slovic said. "Even though we don't think of ourselves as uncaring, if we trust our moral intuition, it is not designed by evolution to respond accurately to these types of situations of mass tragedy."
(Reason, emphasis added). Another application of the concept is the reaction to the death of one lion, Cecil, compared with the relative indifference to the extinction of all lions currently being brought on by the use of fossil fuels.

We are currently living and dying within the boundaries of the Sixth Mass Extinction.

A mass extinction event brought on by human activity (Center for Biological Diversity).

An extinction event that is, culturally, a statistical trance seeming unattached to our subconscious emotional circuitry (Choose Your Trances Carefully, 2, 3).

Thus, I use the metaphor, epitome, or analogy of a real invasion of the U.S., which after a century of fear inducing propaganda by the powers that be,  should inure to the beneficial side of our ability to focus.

II. What Has Been Missing In This Series

In the first three posts of this series, I covered the notion of sea level rise (SLR), significantly directed toward its impact on the U.S. east coast sea ports (Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, 2, 3).

That presentation is true, as applied to the U.S., yet that presentation is incomplete in a sense, because it is based on too much current "conventional bathtub science" (the establishment-science perspective).

Thus, in those three posts I did not present the full gravity of the situation (it is actually worse than I wrote, because of gravity, of all things).

That lack of completeness has been shored up in some subsequent posts (e.g. The Gravity of Sea Level Change, Peak Sea Level - 2).

The bottom line is that the situation for the U.S. is worse than I estimated, perhaps by about 15 percent.

The graphic, Fig. 1, depicts what would happen if Greenland lost enough ice sheet mass to cause an imaginary "conventional bathtub science" event of "1m global mean SLR."

The gist of it is that there is no real scenario that matches a global mean SLR of any level, because it is imaginary, unreal, and will never happen.

What is real, what will happen, is that sea level change (SLC) will take place any time the ice sheets of Greenland and/or Antarctica melt and/or calve ice into the sea.

That SLC will not be like what happens in a bathtub ("conventional bathtub science"), but rather will be dependent on the dynamics discussed in the video presented in The Gravity of Sea Level Change and Peak Sea Level - 2 (and the 2nd video below).

III. So What Does That Have To Do With An Invasion?

Basically, the invasion is coming sooner and more intensely to the U.S., because the gravitational factors increase the SLR specifically in the continental U.S. and a few other areas.

Those same gravitational factors will lower sea level in some places, while leaving SLR as it is now in yet other places around the globe (e.g. The Gravity of Sea Level Change, Peak Sea Level - 2).

IV. I Don't Like It - I Have To Change My SLR Model

Regular readers know that I developed an SLR projecting software model (The Evolution of Models, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

It was based on the "conventional bathtub science" method of fantasizing about the physically non-existent "global mean SLR," an imaginary concept.

My SLR model, in its current state, is still useful for some areas, such as the U.S., but it is not useful for areas that will be impacted by sea level fall (SLF), or areas that will have no SLC.

And it has a basic underestimate in it, because gravity will cause more rise than previously contemplated (about 15% more).

V. Conclusion

If you think I have work to do, think about the software models built long ago before the better software languages and compilers came around (see videos @ The Evolution of Models, 10).

And all of those models were developed before the notion of SLC came around a few years ago.

Hi ho hi ho its off to work I go.

BTW, the two videos below contrast the conventional bathtub science with the gravitational inclusion science.

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

Conventional "global mean SLR" version (for the most part) that we all labored under:

All things considered SLC version:


  1. Nice! In the dynamic/chaotic system we live in, everything affects everything to some degree, but many times it's hard (if not impossible) to tease out how much and of which piece. Needless to say, the warmer it gets where the ice is, the less time we have remaining as a viable planet.


  2. Why is up and down so hard?

    If SLC can't be known, the methane hydrate release can't be known.

    Sounds like FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

    Where does that come from?

    Dredd reveals Oil-Qaeda conceals.