Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The Evolution of Models - 16

Fig. 1
I had a bit of a brainstorm, which seemed reasonably useful, so I implemented it into the model.

That brainstorm was to use GISS global mean average TEMPERATURE data from the good folks at GISS (GISS global mean).

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
I did it now because it uses the same classes / objects that are already functioning, so it did not take much effort.
Fig. 4

At least it is not much effort compared to what I think regular readers will consider to be a very valuable tool in the study of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Fig. 5

The trick to this (in terms of making data that have too much distance from other data, in terms of a wide spread in magnitude for graphing them on the same graph) is to develop a ratio relationship (like PSMSL has done with sea level data).

For example, 7 mm of global mean sea level rise (GMSLR) is a long way from .07 degrees C of global mean temperature rise (GMTR) in terms of graphing both of them on the same graph.

But, in the context we are talking about, it is useful to have them on the same graph,
Fig. 6
because the two are related.

One (GMTR) causes the other (GMSLR).

Thus, it seems useful to put them on the same graph along with local tide gauge station records, to show that temperature is related to SLR, thereby producing a more informative graph.

We know that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes warming, but how long between the dumping, the warming, and the SLR?

Fig. 7 GISS / CSIRO (1880-2013)
We also know that the warming shows up not only in the air, but also on land and in the ocean.

We know that it does so in different percentages, and in different time scales.

That is, the air will warm first, then the land and oceans will warm following the air temperature increase.

It is also helpful to reasonably know how long before the warming air, warming land, and warming oceans take place in order to cause ice sheets to begin to melt and otherwise disintegrate.

In other words, how long does it take to eventually cause SLR or sea level fall (SLF)?

As you peruse the graphs, remember that they begin at the year the tide gauge station began to keep local sea level records.

That same beginning place is required to maintain synchronization.

When you look at these graphs from different locations, with different beginning dates, you will see that generally global temperature rise happens first, then SLR follows.

Notice also, that SLR tends to catch up after some period of time.

The older the tide gauge station records are, the more they show that it has taken a relatively long time for the surface temperature to translate into SLR.

But, when that happens, the SLR tends to keep rising without the surface temperature doing so any further (a delay phenomenon).

That tells us, doesn't it, that future SLR is going up, based on what has already happened, and will continue to do so regardless of the current attempts to mitigate it.

The green line and the red line (global mean averages) all come together between circa 1950-1960.

On local tide gauge stations it is more difficult to discern, however, local records have a useful local purpose.

Global mean average records do not inform of local events.

This global mean average surface temperature and SLR convergence indicates to me that it took a long time for the oceans to catch up with surface global warming (air, land).

But, now that the oceans have caught up, they are warming along "with less effort" now.

The current El Niño is looking to break the past record set circa 1997, which logically follows.

The Hansen et al. paper indicating that a 10 ft. SLR is possible in places by 2050 also follows.

SLR is now accelerating faster than surface temperature over the long run.

The ocean can't take much more heat, so surface melting will increase enough to give subsurface melting a run for its money.

Sea ports will become extinct, not just endangered, as they are now.

I have written enough for one blog, so see you tomorrow.

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

"Brainstorm" by the Amygdaloids:


  1. Here's what we're up against, Dredd:

    Big Antarctic ice melt scenarios 'not plausible'

    Scientists say the contribution of a melting Antarctica to sea-level rise this century will be significant and challenging, but that some nightmare scenarios are just not realistic.

    Their new study models how the polar south will react if greenhouse gases rise at a medium to high rate.

    The most likely outcome is an input of about 10cm to global waters by 2100.

    But the prospect of a 30cm-or-more contribution - claimed by some previous research - has just a one-in-20 chance.

    [where have we heard this kind of "scientific doubt" before ?. . ..hmm .. .]


    1. Tom,

      I have the first post in a new series almost finished (Questionable Scientific Papers).

      The paper was written by grad students in an online university of some sort called Open University.

      I have no problem with the concept of an open university, online or whatever,
      but to call the grad students scientists is junk science writing.

      Their model sucks.

      They even had the audacity to quote Dr. Rignot who was in on the Hansen paper in July.

      The paper by real scientists said SLR could reach 10 ft. by 2050.

      Three feet would do us in.

      Anyway, check it out tomorrow if you get a chance.