When I write about endangered infrastructure going extinct it rankles those who like to hear about endangered species (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports).
It does not bother them that living things die as much as it bothers them that non-living things they have built are going to be destroyed.
Fig. 2 Endangered Ports - Iceland
Fig. 3 Endangered Ports - Australia
Some of their retorts are of this sort: "no one knows the future so stuff it."
Fig. 4 Endangered Ports - Greenland
Then they turn around and tell me the future by saying "these ports will be fine forever because we can adapt.'
Those tricksters are in effect claiming to be the only ones who know the future.
They intend for us to swallow the notion that their version of the future can be known by them, but no one else can know the future.
So, when you hear "no one knows the future" remember that they are actually saying "no one knows the future except us."
Like all of their other imperialistic cognition, they want to invade and capture all concepts of the future (along with everything else).
The way they do this is by ignoring the abundant evidence suggesting their unavoidable demise.
II. The Basis of Future Projections
The scientific way to project the future is to create evidence by analyzing previous behavioral events along with the results and consequences of that behavior.
Next in the process is to deduce that behavior "x" produced results "y" ... therefore, the future manifestation of behavior "x" will also produce results "y".
As a matter of fact, the inverse of that (doing the same thing expecting different results) is a known pattern of insanity ("Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein).
So, there is the evidence based view of the future, and there is the fictional, wishful thinking view of the future.
The basis I use is: if you do "x" behavior a week from now it will produce "y" results just like it did a week ago.
Their approach is no one knows the future, so you don't really know that doing "x" next week will produce "y" results.
III. Why Robust Seaports Will Become Extinct
Sea level rise is anomalous in this the Anthropocene, as shown in Dr. Mitrovica's presentation, the first video below.
Sea level was stable in the Late Holocene:
We present estimates for late Holocene relative sea level change along the Tyrrhenian coast of Italy based on morphological characteristics of eight submerged Roman fish tanks (piscinae) constructed between the 1st century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. Underwater geomorphological features and archaeological remains related to past sea level have been measured and corrected using recorded tidal values. We conclude that local sea level during the Roman period did not exceed 58 ± 5 cm below the present sea level. These results broadly agree with previous observations in the region but contrast with recent analysis that suggests a significantly larger sea level rise during the last 2000 years. Using a glacial isostatic adjustment model, we explain how regional sea level change departs from the eustatic component. Our calculation of relative sea level during the Roman period provides a reference for isolating the long-wavelength contribution to sea level change from secular sea level rise. Precise determination of sea level rise in the study area improves our understanding of secular, instrumentally observed, variations across the Mediterranean.
In Roman times, the fish were collected by the 1% in structures made of concrete and/or stone so as to keep live fish collected for their meals.
Those structures were constructed exactly at sea level so that at high tide the water would be refreshed, but the fish could not swim out.
These structures are now under water, because sea level has risen.
More importantly in the context of today's post, the sea port infrastructure constructed at those sea levels (e.g. for Roman Galleons), are likewise under water for the same reason.
Those facilities and infrastructure are now extinct, like the Roman Colosseum.
IV. Conclusion
Sea ports today face the same fate as the Roman Infrastructure, because sea level change is accelerating at a rate that is beyond the ability of official public works processes to keep up with (see e.g. Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 44).
It is also now well known that at some sea ports the sea level will fall, while at other sea ports the sea level will rise (see e.g. Peak Sea Level - 2).
Continuing behavior "x" (burning fossil fuels) will continue to cause result "y" (sea level change), and any belief to the contrary is insane (Will This Float Your Boat - 9).
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
Harvard Professor Mitrovica quote @05:50: "Sceptics say 2mm yr sea level rise is not anomalous ... this is by far the easiest to repudiate ... "
Admiral Titley (2010) quote @ ~04:50: "I have had senior level people come up to me and ask 'hey Titley, why does the Navy care about sea level rise?' ... its like, well we're the Navy and we tend to build our bases at sea level ... that's where you put ships.":
The global question is: "what is the difference between climate and weather?"
The answer is: "global climate" is a global climate system, and weather is a local production of that global climate system (The Damaged Global Climate System, 2, 3, 4).
So, when two people declare at the same time: "the weather is hot today in my local area" as the other says "the weather is cold today in my local area" ... who is correct?
Both are correct in the sense that weather is a local thing (All Weather Is Local, 2, 3, 4) while the global climate system is a global thing.
McClimate Change News
On the other hand, if one had said "my global climate is hot" as the other one had said "my global climate is cold," their error would be obvious.
So, one has to wonder sometimes why the news media, some scientists, and even the president, dwell on the senseless question "was this hot/cold weather event today the result of global warming?"
I have written often that the proper question is: "is all weather, now, the result of the damaged global climate system?"
There is only one answer to that: "yes."
At any given time, now, the damaged Global Climate System produces all weather, whether we think that the weather it produced at any given time is good weather, or whether we think that it is bad weather.
What would those same two people say if stormy weather passed over the west coast, bringing rain to drought stricken areas ("good weather"), contributed to severe flooding along the Mississippi River ("bad weather"), deadly tornadoes in Texas ("bad weather"), then finally caused -20 deg. F to -40 deg. F temperatures to warm up to 32 deg. F above zero at the North Pole ("good weather")?
That happened recently (and is still happening).
That ongoing weather event is still proceeding:
That same storm was creating tornadoes in the tornado alley area: "The vigorous low pressure system that helped spawn devastating tornadoes in the Dallas area on Saturday is forecast to explode into a monstrous storm over Iceland by Wednesday".
That stormy weather came from the Pacific Ocean area, impacted west coast drought areas favorably, then impacted other areas unfavorably with floods and tornadoes, and is still a large threat thousands of miles from where it began.
It was "local weather" at all of those locations but was produced by a global climate system which has been damaged by the heat engine we call civilization.
The Damaged Global Climate System produces all weather, and all of that weather now is all produced by a system damaged by global warming.
Regular readers know that I rant from time to time about the misuse of "global mean average sea level."
I do so because it covers up some important information about the dynamics of sea level change (SLC) which the savvy observer needs to know in order to understand SLC in its non-intuitive aspects ("It does not work like water in a bath tub").
When using a module that does any "mean average" for a group of tide gauge station records, one must take care not to mix sea level fall (SLF) stations with sea level rise (SLR) stations.
Fig. 2 S:F Group Fingerprint
The module I just completed, and wrote about yesterday, can be used as an example of why global mean sea level, or even mean sea level in a smaller area, can be unproductive (New Type of SLC Detection Model - 13).
So, I used the model again today to generate two mean average sea level graphs for two groups that will illustrate the point.
Fig. 3 SLR Group Mean SLC
The graphs at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show the mean RLR and mean Dredd Blog SLC fingerprint module values for tide gauge stations that experience SLF near Glacier Bay: SITKA (#426), JUNEAU (#405), SKAGWAY (#495), YAKUTAT (#445), SEWARD (#266), CORDOVA (#566), and VALDEZ (#1353).
The other group of tide gauge stations from San Diego to Seattle experience SLR (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 S:R Group Fingerprint
They are: SAN DIEGO (QUARANTINE STATION) (#158), LA JOLLA (SCRIPPS PIER) (#256), LOS ANGELES (#245), SANTA MONICA (MUNICIPAL PIER) (#377), SANTA BARBARA @ CALIFORNIA (#2126), PORT SAN LUIS (#508), MONTEREY (#1352), ALAMEDA (NAVAL AIR STATION) (#437), SAN FRANCISCO (#10), POINT REYES (#1394), ARENA COVE @ CALIFORNIA (#2125), N. SPIT @ HUMBOLDT BAY (#1639), CRESCENT CITY (#378), PORT ORFORD (#1640), CHARLESTON II (#1269), SOUTH BEACH (#1196), ASTORIA (TONGUE POINT) (#265), and SEATTLE (#127).
In terms of developing an understanding of the non-intuitive aspects of SLC, mixing the two types of SLC tide gauge station records would do no one any good.
The opposing types of SLC (SLF and SLR) would be neutralized into a practically flat line by doing a global or local area mean average on them.
No one would then know sufficiently what was happening along the West Coast in terms of being aware of both types of SLC.
Which is what "global mean average sea level" does.
Anyway, the module takes latitude and longitude values from a user-made file, then gathers all tide gauge station data for the geographical area described in the file.
The model then aggregates all the data in order to present a year by year PSMSL RLR graph (Fig. 1, Fig. 3), as well as a Dredd Blog SLC fingerprint graph (Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
As with a single tide gauge station record, the model estimates the amount of SLC contributed by Antarctica, Greenland, and the glacial areas that impact the tide gauge or gauges in the geographical area specified by the latitudes and longitudes given it.
Somewhere in the previous posts of this series I indicated that it was likely IMO that the number of tornadoes would go down as the Polar Vortex disintegrated (On The Origin of Tornadoes, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
In the most recent post of this series I noted that 2014 was continuing a downward count trend (compare Fig. 1 with Fig. 2).
The hypothesis I offered was that when the Polar Vortex completely bit the dust then tornado counts would go up again, because the impediment caused by the disintegrating vortex would fade away eventually (On The Origin of Tornadoes - 6).
A post on another blog paints a picture of a Polar Vortex in trouble, to the point of allowing
That same storm was creating tornadoes in the tornado alley area: "The vigorous low pressure system that helped spawn devastating tornadoes in the Dallas area on Saturday is forecast to explode into a monstrous storm over Iceland by Wednesday." (Washington Post)
These types of intrusions, along with the disintegration of the Arctic sea ice, will eventually allow the unique set-up favoring U.S. tornadoes to be restored.
Along with that scenario, it is also likely for more damaging tornadoes to show up as the tornado count goes back up again (On The Origin of Tornadoes - 5).
Change means "not the same" as before, but we only know that the stage is also being set for increasing damage to the already Damaged Global Climate System (The Damaged Global Climate System, 2, 3, 4).
The way things are going in the Arctic, in the next year or so we may see the number of tornadoes going back up.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
A while back I did a post concerning the sea level change (SLC) at various tide gauge stations along the East Coast of the United States.
Those stations are registered at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) which is held in high esteem by scientists doing SLC work (New Type of SLC Detection Model - 5).
Today I want to revisit all or most of them in a combined way, which is to say "a mean
Fig. 2 SLC Fingerprint (34 Stations)
average SLC" of those stations.
But more than that, I want to do so in both the traditional PSMSL way (Fig. 1), and also the new Dredd Blog "SLC fingerprint" way (Fig. 2).
That is, we combine all records from 1856-2014 into a mean average SLC fingerprint composed of the data from the 34 tide gauge stations listed below (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
The stations used in this project today are presented in "Name (#number)" format (by ascending latitude of 23-46 deg. N; and longitude of 66-80 deg. W):
Each site in the list above is linked to its PSMSL site web-page (Use Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level to look up any other tide gauge stations by searching on station name or tide gauge station number).
What we learn from this Dredd Blog software model enhancement is:
1) not only single tide gauge stations can be fingerprinted (additional areas with similar SLC characteristics can be properly fingerprinted together as a group to produce a group fingerprint);
2) Antarctica has the most SLC influence on the 34 stations along the East Coast (U.S. & Canada @ 23-46 deg. N Latitude; @ 66-80 deg. W longitude);
3) Antarctica has been melting longer than previously thought.
(Watch The Ice Shelves - 2). The Dredd Blog software model is turning out to be versatile and useful in several ways.
By using verifiable historical data as a foundation, the model is better prepared to generate future projections.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
I say that, because "Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans ... the smallest fraction of this thermal energy goes into warming the atmosphere" (The Damaged Global Climate System - 4).
Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves, not icebergs calving into the sea, are responsible for most of the continent’s ice loss ... ice dissolving from underneath, accounted for 55 percent of shelf loss from 2003 to 2008 – a rate much higher than previously thought. Ice shelves, floating extensions of glaciers, fringe 75 percent of the vast, frozen continent ... It turns out that the tug of seawaters just above the freezing point matters more than the breaking off of bergs ... “This has profound implications for our understanding of interactions between Antarctica and climate change. It basically puts the Southern Ocean up front as the most significant control on the evolution of the polar ice sheet”... The three giant ice shelves of Ross, Filchner and Ronne, which make up two-thirds of Antarctica’s ice shelves, accounted for only 15 percent of the melting. Meanwhile, less than a dozen small ice shelves floating on relatively warm waters produced half the total meltwater during the same period ... The researchers also compared the rates at which the ice shelves are shedding ice with the speed at which the continent itself is losing mass and found that, on average, the shelves lost mass twice as fast as the Antarctic ice sheet did ... “Ice shelf melt can be compensated by ice flow from the continent,” Rignot said. “But in a number of places around Antarctica, they [shelves] are melting too fast, and as a consequence, glaciers and the entire continent are changing.”
Because, for one thing, the ice sheet streams which end at the ocean, will speed up as much as 8 times as the ice shelves weaken then break up.
Fig. 2 Antarctica overtakes Greenland
This ice shelf melting (Fig. 1) does not add much directly, if any, to sea level rise, however, ice flow into the ocean will be facilitated, so there will be an indirect increase in sea level rise as a result.
That is, the demise of the Antarctic ice shelves will lead to the increase of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss (Fig. 2).
Thus, this ~93% of the global warming going into the oceans (Fig. 3), and this ~7% of the
global warming going into the atmosphere, are once again the canaries in the coal mine.
Canaries that were in reality given only lip service in the recent example (COP21) of the best that current civilization can do (Paris Climate Change Conference Begins).
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
A discussion about ice shelves vs. ice sheets:
15:29 when the ice shelf "Larsen A" collapsed the entire glacier's flow speed toward the sea increased ... 18:50 "Larsen B" ice shelf collapse caused the same thing ... the entire glacier's flow accelerated toward the sea ... 19:30 when the ice shelf goes away so does the restraint on the glacier, and they then move faster, 8 times faster, toward the sea 27:15 the East Antarctica Totten Glacier basin contains about as much ice as all of Western Antarctica, and it is destabilizing 30:30the condition of the ice shelf controls what happens to the ice sheet
The dramatic calving of icebergs shown in the video below, is not as fast or as big as subsurface melt:
I suggest that when climate events add up to a pattern that is essentially similar, we should categorize them in a manner that adds to comprehension and understanding rather than being distracting.
reverberations through the marine food web. The warm expanse appeared about a year ago [circa September 2013] and the longer it lingers, the greater potential it has to affect ocean life ..." - NOAA Fisheries, (emphasis added) "In one sense, it's [El Niño is] like an iceberg; most of it is submerged, but part of it sticks out above the sea's surface, as the wedge floats in the surrounding ocean. Partly because warm water is less dense than cool water, and also partly because El Niño waters are less salty than normal seawater. (It's always raining over an El Niño, and the rainwater dilutes the sea.) Both of these conditions contribute to buoyancy. A sharp temperature and density change—called the thermocline—floats about 100 meters below the surface, and marks the bottom of this warm "iceberg." The top layer of water may protrude 150 or more centimeters above sea level. This isn't so hard to picture if you think about tides, which also pile water up above sea level." - NOVA PBS, (emphasis added)
"Meanwhile, El Niño began to generate its classic signature of warm water along the equatorial eastern Pacific ..." - Weather Underground, (emphasis added)
The more I read about these two phenomena the more the fundamental similarities stand out.
The Damaged Global Climate System acts out in a damaged manner to generate a freak area of warm ocean water over an increasingly large area.
Eventually that freak phenomenon impacts weather and weather patterns in an expanding geographical area, resulting in discordant weather events.
Essentially, the global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and methane-natural gas) damages the global system, which naturally has global impact.
Very importantly, note that the global warming has been unequally concentrated in the oceans:
"The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955." - World Ocean Heat 1955–2010
"Decades into the industrial revolution, the HMS Challenger Expedition sailed into the sea, looking for answers to questions that still intrigue oceanographers to this day. Little did these pioneers of ocean sciences know that their measurements will be used 140 years later by Scripps Oceanography Researcher Dean Roemmich to measure the human-induced warming of the world's oceans since the mid-1800's. One of the most under-appreciated facts in climate change is the fate of the energy trapped by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Human activities are releasing nearly 10 Gegatons of Carbon (about 36 Billion tons of CO2) into the atmosphere every year, driving atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 400 parts per million (ppm) from their original preindustrial levels of 280 ppm. This increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases concentrations traps additional energy in the earth's climate system. What happens to this "extra" energy (0.5-1 watt/m2) remains a mystery to many outside the field of climate and ocean sciences. ... Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5th Assessment Report). The remainder of this energy goes into melting sea ice, ice caps, and glaciers, and warming the continents's land mass. Only the smallest fraction of this thermal energy goes into warming the atmosphere. Humans thus, living at the interface of the land, ocean and atmosphere, only feel a sliver of the true warming cost of fossil fuel emissions." - Ocean Scientists For Informed Policy (emphasis added)
The take home from this is that the oceans are part of the Global Climate System, which has been damaged.
Thus, the Damaged Oceans, as parts of the Damaged Global Climate System, are performing in a damaged behavioural manner.
The mystery is why this obvious and to-be-expected result is somehow invisible to many who observe and study the global climate.
When they go around singing "la la" this and "la la" that, channelling old scary movies such as the "Blob" and "Godzilla," they are behaving as part of a damaged analytical system.
One symptom of a damaged analytical system is not being able to see the forest for the trees.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
I have been doing some research concerning the "seesaw" or "sawtooth" pattern effect that tide gauge stations around the world tend to show us (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, PSMSL).
In so doing I ran across indications that a lot of myth, ignorance, and plain old "we don't know" are involved in some of the issues concerning both climate change and sea level change.
Fig. 2 Seesaw / Sawtooth pattern of SLC
I will not be at all surprised if the issue of what causes the seesaw / sawtooth pattern at tide gauge stations around the world is likewise a source of conflicting explanations.
I had addressed the issue, yesterday, in this manner:
I have been looking into the historical foundation for notions such as "El Niño," "La Nina," and "The Polar Vortex."
I am doing so because I think many aspects of current civilization's development of explanations is wrong headed.
"The truth is, no one knows what really causes El Niño."
(NOVA PBS, emphasis added). So, that puts the inquiry into the "valid questioning of an issue category," the zone where scientists themselves are not completely in agreement.
There is one thing, in that NOVA PBS post, about the physical aspects of an El Niño which intrigued me.
Not only that, the subject fits nicely into today's discussion even if it is a bit abstract:
In one sense, it's [El Niño is] like an iceberg; most of it is submerged, but part of it sticks out above the sea's surface, as the wedge floats in the surrounding ocean. Partly because warm water is less dense than cool water, and also partly because El Niño waters are less salty than normal seawater. (It's always raining over an El Niño, and the rainwater dilutes the sea.) Both of these conditions contribute to buoyancy. A sharp temperature and density change—called the thermocline—floats about 100 meters below the surface, and marks the bottom of this warm "iceberg." The top layer of water may protrude 150 or more centimeters above sea level. This isn't so hard to picture if you think about tides, which also pile water up above sea level.
(ibid, NOVA PBS, emphasis added). There is counter-intuitive material in this issue.
In these cases it is often a good idea to begin a discussion based upon what aspects of the issue has more. or the most, agreement.
There is agreement that when melt water or an iceberg calves into the ocean from an ice sheet, there is immediate displacement of ocean water, there is immediate loss of mass of the ice sheet, and immediate mass increase of the ocean.
There may be some differing viewpoints, however, as to what happens next, and differing viewpoints as to how it happens.
How does the melt water of the ice sheet get relocated or redistributed in the ocean?
The same question goes for the iceberg melt water once it melts.
My hypothesis at this point is that the displacement and the transference of gravitational-energy, from the ice sheet to the ocean, is the ghost factor which behaves more like the tidal waves, the ocean tides.
Which are created by the gravity of the Moon and Sun, in terms of speed and shape.
But in principle, other than the speed involved, they are like a tsunami wave in the sense of being hidden for most of their early existence:
In the deep ocean, a tsunami wave may only be a few inches high. ...
where {b} is the depth of the ocean, and {g \approx 9.8 ms^{-2}} is the force of gravity. As such, tsunamis in deep water move very fast – speeds such as 500 kilometres per hour (300 miles per hour) are quite typical; enough to travel from Japan to the US, for instance, in less than a day. Ultimately, this is due to the incompressibility of water (and conservation of mass); the massive net pressure (or more precisely, spatial variations in this pressure) of a very broad and deep wave of water forces the profile of the wave to move horizontally at vast speeds. (Note though that this is the phase velocity of the tsunami wave, and not the velocity of the water molecules themselves, which are far slower.) ...
at least until the amplitude becomes comparable to the water depth (at which point the assumptions that underlie the above approximate results break down; also, in two (horizontal) spatial dimensions there will be some decay of amplitude as the tsunami spreads outwards). If one starts with a tsunami whose initial amplitude was {A_0} at depth {b_0} and computes the point at which the amplitude {A} and depth {b} become comparable using the proportionality relationship (2), some high school algebra then reveals that at this point, amplitude of a tsunami (and the depth of the water) is about {A_0^{4/5} b_0^{1/5}}. Thus, for instance, a tsunami with initial amplitude of one metre at a depth of 2 kilometres can end up with a final amplitude of about 5 metres near shore, while still traveling at about ten metres per second (35 kilometres per hour, or 22 miles per hour), and we have all now seen the impact that can have when it hits shore.
(What's New). When I finished reading that, I thought "that is wild."
Then I attributed some of the seesaw / sawtooth pattern to the mystery of the tsunami, until I read about the mystery of any wave, ocean type or not.
Once again, this potential solution also tends to be counter intuitive:
Waves are among the most familiar features in the ocean. All waves work similarly, so although we are talking about ocean waves here, the same information would apply to any other waves you might discuss in science classes.
Ocean waves transport energy over vast distances, although the water itself does not move, except up and down.
(Oceans in Motion: Waves and Tides, emphasis added). The writer is talking about the water itself not moving with the movement of wave energy over vast distances (in order to transfer that energy from point "A" to point "B").
In the application of this dynamic to ice sheets, the parts that cannot immediately become waves, the icebergs, are moved about slowly until they melt.
So, the sea level rise and fall caused by ice sheet mass-gravity energy loss, in Greenland and Antarctica, is primarily a function of a transfer of energy to a distant location by waves of various sorts, and far less so a relocation of the molecules of water (when the molecules are moved it is via ocean currents).
Those waves move at different speeds, and in different directions, eventually having an effect at tide gauge stations around the globe.
"The truth is in the trend line." - Dredd
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
The Ocean (lyrics here):
When scientists do not do their "homework," a long-lasting form of secular mythology can ensue.
The same applies to science writers and to journalists who could care less.
The serious scientist's homework can be defined as "being or becoming aware of what fellow scientists have published" on the subject at hand.
In the case of sea level change (SLC), regular readers know that Dredd Blog has talked about some of the homework assignments that should have been done, but never-the-less were never done.
II. Historical Records
In the case of a scientist publishing a scientific paper on sea level, there are many historical records of various forms, the ultimate being the published science paper in a relevant scientific journal.
For example, a scientist who definitely does his homework, pointed out that Woodward published a paper in 1888 about seesaw dynamics:
To our knowledge, Woodward (1888) was the first to demonstrate that the rapid melting of an ice sheet would lead to a geographically variable sea level change. Woodward (1888) assumed a rigid, non-rotating Earth, and therefore self-gravitation of the surface load was the only contributor to the predicted departure from a geographically uniform (i.e. eustatic) sea level rise. This departure was large and counter-intuitive. Specifically, sea level was predicted to fall within ∼2000 km of a melting ice sheet, and to rise with progressively higher amplitude at greater distances.The physics governing this redistribution is straightforward.
A premier source for the raw data, which should be combined with scientific inquiry and comment in journals, would be the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL).
III. Taking Time To Just Think About It
The venerable Dr. Mitrovica mentions in his video presentation in Washington, D.C., that he was given good advice a couple of decades ago when he asked a senior scientist for some advice.
The senior scientist replied and told him to always take time to think about an issue without any other influence or disturbance (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, video).
That would be good advice for us to take into consideration when considering the large and small of the sea level seesaw dynamics that are the norm in tide gauge records around the world.
Today, as pointed out by the Union of Concerned Scientists, we still think of thermal expansion as the "big dog" in the SLC of the early days:
"Rising temperatures are warming ocean waters, which expand as the temperature increases. This thermal expansion was the main driver of global sea level rise for 75 - 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution, though its relative contribution has declined as the shrinking of land ice has accelerated."
IV. Sea Level Rise Is Expansion
But
Sea Level Fall Is Contraction
If you will notice Fig. 2 and Fig.3, then think about it, thermal has to do with temperature.
Temperature has to do with both low and high temperatures (4 below zero is a temperature, as is 20 above zero).
Any temperature below or above the optimum thermal point for maximum water density, 4oC, will cause thermal expansion of water.
When the ocean water is at 4oC, the water will thermally expand whether the temperature goes up or it goes down.
V. Enter Woodward and His Scientific Progeny
Thus, as Dredd Blog has been wont to do for way too long, according to some disgruntled readers, we must turn to the geophysical realm to discern a good part of the saga and the science of SLC.
Dr. Mitrivica, a learned scientist and one who respects the work of those scientists whose shoulders we now stand upon, knocked the socks off of those of us who are now expanding upon his concepts that were an expansion upon the work of Woodward (1888).
The series begun today will, in future posts, take a very close look at the causes of the seesaw pattern of SLC, a pattern as I have said, that is composed of both SLR and SLF, as was pointed out in the first post:
Station Name
Number
Latitude
Longitude
↕mm
Year
FOGLO-DEGERBY
249
60.0318832
20.3848171
212
1996
PAGO-PAGO
539
-14.2799997
-170.6900024
242
1999
WEIPA
1157
-12.6666670
141.8666687
180
1972
VICTOR-HARBOUR
1069
-35.5624809
138.6354065
139
1997
PORT-ADELAIDE-OUTER-HARBOR
448
-34.7797623
138.4807281
137
1972
BUNBURY
834
-33.3234444
115.6599731
130
2011
FREMANTLE
111
-32.0655556
115.7481384
139
1940
ST-GEORGES-ESSO-PIER-BERMUDA
368
32.3733330
-64.7033310
152
1974
ILHA-FISCAL
1032
-22.8966675
-43.1666679
169
1971
NEW-WESTMINSTER
1245
49.2000008
-122.9166641
221
1977
SAINT-JOHN-NB
195
45.2666664
-66.0666656
129
2014
QUEBEC-LAUZON
173
46.8333321
-71.1666641
165
1948
DESCHAILLONS
201
46.5666656
-72.0999985
346
2012
PORT-SAINT-FRANCOIS
137
46.2666664
-72.6166687
530
2012
TROIS-RIVIERES
126
46.3333321
-72.5500031
784
1944
BATISCAN
144
46.5000000
-72.2500000
392
2008
PORTNEUF
951
46.6833344
-71.8833313
226
1999
NEUVILLE
192
46.7000008
-71.5666656
190
1999
ST-JOSEPH-DE-LA-RIVE
1244
47.4500008
-70.3666687
155
1980
TUKTOYAKTUK
1000
69.4166641
-132.9666595
152
1967
ANTOFAGASTA-2
510
-23.6530552
-70.4044418
132
1973
VALPARAISO
499
-33.0272217
-71.6258316
141
1997
PENRHYN
1450
-9.0166674
-158.0666656
182
1983
BAKAR
353
45.2999992
14.5333328
133
1951
SPLIT-RT-MARJANA
685
43.5083313
16.3916664
158
2011
GEDSER
120
54.5727768
11.9255562
191
2007
RODBYHAVN
762
54.6558342
11.3486109
287
1980
KOBENHAVN
82
55.7050018
12.6000004
131
1961
HORNBAEK
119
56.0911102
12.4583330
142
1961
HIRTSHALS
89
57.5955544
9.9638891
138
1961
HANSTHOLM
703
57.1188889
8.5955563
140
1984
ESBJERG
80
55.4608345
8.4411106
168
1996
SANTA-CRUZ
1472
-0.7500000
-90.3166656
235
1997
KEMI
229
65.6733704
24.5152493
248
1939
OULU-ULEABORG
79
65.0403137
25.4182339
243
1961
RAAHE-BRAHESTAD
240
64.6663361
24.4070492
246
1961
PIETARSAARI-JAKOBSTAD
194
63.7085686
22.6895828
233
1961
VAASA-VASA
57
63.0815315
21.5711823
217
1939
KASKINEN-KASKO
285
62.3439484
21.2148323
220
1996
MANTYLUOTO
172
61.5943832
21.4634323
217
1996
RAUMA-RAUMO
376
61.1335335
21.4258175
212
1961
TURKU-ABO
239
60.4282837
22.1005325
220
1961
HANKO-HANGO
71
59.8228683
22.9765835
203
1996
HELSINKI
14
60.1536331
24.9562168
244
1996
HAMINA
315
60.5627670
27.1791992
248
1961
MARSEILLE
61
43.2788010
5.3538599
150
1951
POTI
41
42.1666679
41.6833344
183
1970
BATUMI
51
41.6333313
41.7000008
168
1949
SASSNITZ
397
54.5108337
13.6430559
148
1996
WISMAR-2
8
53.8988876
11.4580564
138
1952
PREVEZA
410
38.9590797
20.7566280
129
1991
PIRAIEVS
374
37.9373283
23.6267147
132
1992
ALEXANDROUPOLIS
1238
40.8441391
25.8782711
140
2011
APRA-HARBOUR-GUAM
540
13.4383326
144.6533356
231
1972
TAI-PO-KAU-TOLO-HARBOUR
1034
22.4424992
114.1838913
173
1970
HANASAKI-II
1442
43.2780571
145.5677795
136
1995
KAMINATO-II-HATIZYO-SIMA
1440
33.1302795
139.8047180
618
2002
MIYAKE-SIMA
1060
34.0672226
139.4808350
295
2001
KOZU-SIMA
1061
34.2091675
139.1316681
1143
2007
KURE-I
1320
33.3336105
133.2433319
139
2005
KANTON-ISLAND-B
1329
-2.8166671
-171.7166595
154
1998
KLAIPEDA
118
55.7000008
21.1333332
216
1996
KWAJALEIN
513
8.7316666
167.7350006
135
1997
ACAPULCO
686
16.8333321
-99.9166641
132
1982
YAP-B
1251
9.5166674
138.1333313
205
1997
DELFZIJL
24
53.3263893
6.9330559
147
1877
HARLINGEN
25
53.1755562
5.4094439
148
1996
DEN-HELDER
23
52.9644432
4.7449999
134
1866
MAASSLUIS
9
51.9174995
4.2497220
131
1866
VLISSINGEN
20
51.4422226
3.5961111
145
1903
WHANGAREI-HARBOUR-MARSDEN-POINT
1065
-35.7574310
174.3500366
130
1992
HONNINGSVAG
1267
70.9803162
25.9726963
145
1975
ANDENES
425
69.3260651
16.1348476
138
1952
NARVIK
312
68.4282837
17.4257584
154
1984
KABELVAG
45
68.2126389
14.4821491
158
1961
BODO
562
67.2882919
14.3908129
164
1984
ALESUND
509
62.4694138
6.1519461
169
1961
BERGEN
58
60.3980446
5.3204870
166
1920
OSLO
62
59.9085579
10.7345104
166
1984
OSCARSBORG
33
59.6780739
10.6048613
155
2011
KARACHI
204
24.8116665
66.9749985
130
1979
MALAKAL-B
1252
7.3333330
134.4666595
249
1998
BALBOA
163
8.9666672
-79.5666656
132
1989
MANILA-S-HARBOR
145
14.5833330
120.9666672
148
2008
MURMANSK
684
68.9666672
33.0499992
134
1989
UST-KARA
600
69.2500000
64.5166702
171
2013
VISE-VISE-OSTROV
704
79.5000000
76.9833298
175
1991
DIKSON
611
73.5000000
80.4000015
273
1990
SOPOCHNAIA-KARGA
917
71.8666687
82.6999969
191
1967
IZVESTIA-TSIK-IZVESTIA-TSIK-OSTROVA
728
75.9499969
82.9499969
203
1975
STERLEGOVA-STERLEGOVA-MYS
612
75.4166641
88.9000015
225
1967
KOTELNYI-KOTELNYI-OSTROV
641
76.0000000
137.8666687
398
1995
SANNIKOVA-SANNIKOVA-PROLIV
602
74.6666641
138.8999939
186
1997
KIGILIAH
642
73.3333359
139.8666687
164
1967
PEVEK
606
69.6999969
170.2500000
188
1967
TUAPSE
215
44.0999985
39.0666656
222
1922
NAGAEVO
827
59.5499992
150.7166595
188
2005
SANTANDER-I
485
43.4612999
-3.7908001
149
1947
LA-CORUNA-I
484
43.3685989
-8.3977499
138
1956
KUNGSVIK
2113
58.9966660
11.1272221
132
2011
SMOGEN
179
58.3536110
11.2177782
173
1992
STENUNGSUND
2112
58.0933342
11.8325005
130
1996
KLAGSHAMN
330
55.5222206
12.8936110
274
1991
SIMRISHAMN
2107
55.5574989
14.3577776
150
1996
KUNGSHOLMSFORT
70
56.1052780
15.5894442
173
1952
OSKARSHAMN
2106
57.2750015
16.4780560
186
1996
OLANDS-NORRA-UDDE
69
57.3661118
17.0972214
165
1900
VISBY
2105
57.6391678
18.2844448
191
1996
MARVIKEN
2104
58.5536118
16.8372211
200
1996
STOCKHOLM
78
59.3241653
18.0816669
201
1996
FORSMARK
2103
60.4086113
18.2108326
210
1996
SPIKARNA
1211
62.3633347
17.5311108
216
1996
RATAN
88
63.9861107
20.8950005
231
1961
FURUOGRUND
203
64.9158325
21.2305565
233
1939
KALIX
2101
65.6969452
23.0961113
195
2011
KO-TAPHAO-NOI
446
7.8333330
98.4333344
294
1981
FORT-PHRACHULA-CHOMKLAO-POM-PHRACHUN
444
13.5500002
100.5833359
143
1967
HOLYHEAD
5
53.3139458
-4.6204438
158
1960
SAND-POINT-POPOF-IS-AK
1634
55.3366661
-160.5016632
129
1989
ANCHORAGE
1067
61.2383347
-149.8899994
131
1968
SELDOVIA
1070
59.4399986
-151.7200012
142
1989
SEWARD
266
60.1199989
-149.4266663
130
1989
SKAGWAY
495
59.4500008
-135.3266602
130
1989
ASTORIA-TONGUE-POINT
265
46.2066689
-123.7683334
143
1948
CRESCENT-CITY
378
41.7449989
-124.1816635
135
1984
SAN-FRANCISCO
10
37.8066673
-122.4649963
146
1984
ALAMEDA-NAVAL-AIR-STATION
437
37.7716675
-122.2983322
149
1984
GALVESTON-II-PIER-21-TX
161
29.3099995
-94.7933350
148
1976
WASHINGTON-DC
360
38.8733330
-77.0216675
153
1996
(Questionable "Scientific" Papers). Those seesaw changes are both up and down, and therefore cannot be caused solely by expansion because some are contractions at the exact same spot where an expansion took place just the year before.
It is time to realize that gravity, rotation, axial relocation, and relocation of ice sheets by geophysical dynamics are the main players (ice sheets are shape-shifters which melt to become oceans, and they take the ice-mass-gravity with them).
VI. Question Propagandized Climate Narratives
I have been looking into the historical foundation for notions such as "El Niño," "La Nina," and "The Polar Vortex."
I am doing so because I think many aspects of current civilization's development of explanations is wrong headed.
Oil-Qaeda has been working on our minds for a long time, so we should revisit all of the "did climate change cause this one catastrophe" tricks (e.g. "No Single Weather Event Can Be Linked Directly To Global Warming", "Why Hurricane Patricia Can't Be Blamed On Climate Change", "Any Global Warming Over The Past Few Decades Can Be Explained by El Niño Activity").
