## Friday, August 21, 2015

### Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 49

It is Friday, so let's rebel.

Scientifically.

Against the propaganda of complexity.

Complexity propaganda is often used to hide various degrees of reality.

I had a moment this morning, so I wrote the world's most simple SLR calculation program, inspired in part by scientists Hansen et al. (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion).

It is written in C++ as follows (code is bold, comments are not) :

#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>

using namespace std;

/** URL where "80.32" comes from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ */
const double maxMeanSLR = 80.32;

const char *pColumnNames = "Year\tSLR\tRate\n\n";

/****************************************
This program is based on the recent
paper by Jim Hansen and 12 other
scientists who state that "with a
ten year doubling, a 10 ft [3.048 m]
sea level rise could take place by
the year 2050."
------------------------------------
all sea level values are in meters
*****************************************/
int main()
{
/** current highest sea level since 1750 @ East Coast U.S.A. */
double meanSLR = 0.4572;
/** current SLR per year @ East Coast (0.866141732 inches) */
double incPerYear = 0.022;

cout << pColumnNames; /** write column names at top of page */

for (int year = 0; year < 36; year++) /** 2015 -> 2050 */
{
if (meanSLR < maxMeanSLR)
{
meanSLR += incPerYear;
cout << year + 2015 << "\t"
<< setprecision(5)
<< meanSLR << "\t"
<< incPerYear << endl;

switch (year)

{
case 9:
case 19:
case 29:
case 39:
case 49:
incPerYear += incPerYear; /** doubles every ~ten years */
break;
default:
break;
}
}
else
{
cout << year + 2015 << " - maximum reached" << endl;
}
}

return 0;
}

It prints the following:

Year        SLR      Rate

2015    0.4792    0.022
2016    0.5012    0.022
2017    0.5232    0.022
2018    0.5452    0.022
2019    0.5672    0.022
2020    0.5892    0.022
2021    0.6112    0.022
2022    0.6332    0.022
 The Graph of the printout (click to enlarge)
2023    0.6552    0.022
2024    0.6772    0.022
2025    0.7212    0.044
2026    0.7652    0.044
2027    0.8092    0.044
2028    0.8532    0.044
2029    0.8972    0.044
2030    0.9412    0.044
2031    0.9852    0.044
2032    1.0292    0.044
2033    1.0732    0.044
2034    1.1172    0.044
2035    1.2052    0.088
2036    1.2932    0.088
2037    1.3812    0.088
2038    1.4692    0.088
2039    1.5572    0.088
2040    1.6452    0.088
2041    1.7332    0.088
2042    1.8212    0.088
2043    1.9092    0.088
2044    1.9972    0.088
2045    2.1732    0.176
2046    2.3492    0.176
2047    2.5252    0.176
2048    2.7012    0.176
2049    2.8772    0.176
2050   3.0532  0.176

Note that 3.0532 m equals ~10.01 feet. /** matches Hansen et al. */

Have a simplicity weekend.

1. I noticed that it hit the 3ft disaster mark @2030 (.9412 meters).

2. Anyone can block copy the C++ code (between the first two horizontal lines) then paste it into your C++ compiler.

3. I have the sinking feeing that even your conservative program will underestimate the reality.

Tom

1. Tom,

Remember that the "10 ft. by 2050" is the Hansen et al. figure (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion).

Even when we call that rate "conservative", note that, as Randy points out in his comment above, the software projection also depicts the damage or demise of the use of sea ports @ about 2030 (15 yrs. from now).

That paper (which said "if the rate of doubling is ten years"), would be considered very wild and very radical by cornucopians and conservative scientists:

"The sea level rise scenarios [of the Hansen et al. scientists] certainly go beyond the scientific consensus. The latest IPCC projection of about half a meter to a meter this century (for business-as-usual emissions) increased from the previous report, but it is still widely regarded as conservative. However, a couple of efforts to ask expert researchers for individual estimates put the upper bound of likely sea level rise under two meters this century" (No, scientists aren’t predicting 10ft higher sea level by 2050).

The evidence for SLR is far stronger than the evidence for methane release in the Arctc:

"No one can yet say with certainty how the methane release in the Arctic will develop with global warming, either in the ocean or on the land. This research is still in its in­fancy." (The Methane Hydrate / Clathrate Controversy).

Trolls like Eerie Ass can call people a sissy for not believing in their gassy rap, but can't do jack when it comes to doing something scientific like writing a software projection model of ultimate simplicity.

Even when based on modern computer science, which depicts the potential with mathematical precision fully acceptable to scientists who may not agree with the parameters, but who know the math and coding is absolutely incontrovertible (Mathematical Model).

Yet some doomers also consider the gassy rap that is "in its infancy"  to be the holy grail, and consider SLR projections to be heresy.

Typical case of religiosity posing as science.

They are bitchy little priests and no more until they can write a mathematical program that shows, for example, specific sources of methane, specific quantities from said sources, and how that will do damage to what, as well as the rates of increase with their distribution patterns (see e.g. The Evolution of Models, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

2. oops, the "Mathematical Model" link is missing in my comment above.

3. A European report on the Antarctic ice sheet indicates about a 20 cm (about 8 inches) increase in mean SLR by 2100:

"The WAIS as a whole would contribute some 80,000 cubic kilometres of lost ice to sea-level rise by 2100 and 200,000 cubic kilometres by 2200. This corresponds to a 20 cm increase in global sea level by the end of this century – sufficient to fill the Caspian Sea – and close to 50 cm by 2200. While these amounts would be enough to threaten low-lying cities and countries, the researchers point out this is an extreme scenario."

Compared to Dredd Blog and Hansen's estimates, that is insanely too low.