|Pat of SNL|
I. Some Background
What word do we use, when discussing climate change, to indicate we don't have a handle on it, don't have a clue, that a particular event is going to happen?
The word is "abrupt," which is usually attached to "climate change" in order to construct the phrase "abrupt climate change."
As an example: "Wow, that was abrupt climate change."
As I wrote in the first post of this series: "The word "abrupt" means 'sudden or unexpected' in any discipline of science" (Don't Believe In Abrupt Sea Level Change - Know About It).
II. Use "That Was Educational" - Not "That Was Abrupt"
I think "that was educational" would be better than "that was abrupt," because climate change theory has been around for a long time, and it declares clearly what is coming.
But, more than that, incredulously, Oil-Qaeda was the originator of the current meaning of the phrase "abrupt climate change," which means "who knows what will happen when" (The Exceptional American Denial).
Let's consider that a bit more closely, for a moment:
"As Croasdale’s team was closely studying the impact of climate change on the company’s operations, Exxon and its worldwide affiliates were crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming.The use of the term "abrupt climate change" furthers the propaganda of uncertainty, when actually, in reality, the climate change future is quite clear.
The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times." - (What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic)
"Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation — a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.
For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.
Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.
Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry." - (The Private Empire's Social Media Hit Squads, quoting the Union of Concerned Scientists)
III. The Fundamental Double-Down Posing As Strength
Regular readers know that I have been chronicling the dearth of understanding which the scientific community at large has had on certain sea level subjects.
Recently, that has been focused on sea level fall (SLF), and I have listed posts that deal with the subject time and again (e.g. The Gravity of Sea Level Change; Proof of Concept , 2, 3, 4, 5; New Type of SLC Detection Model, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Calling All Cars: The Case of the "Missing Six", 2).
Even yesterday, when a Boston Globe article began to let the cat out of the bag, I protested their implication that the ignorance had subsided (Blind Willie McTell News - 6).
IV. Another Case In Point
While perusing articles about "sea level fall" (sometimes called "sea level drop"), I have found many cases where the propaganda has shut down the guard house of the mind of inquiring people, and has thereby caused them to swallow various cultural trances whole hog (Choose Your Trances Carefully).
|Fig. 1 NOAA SLR/SLR map|
On the Earth Science blog, the question Why is relative sea-level falling in Hudson Bay? was asked.
They linked to Fig. 2 adding that "this map is wonderful," without asking any questions to try to falsify their hypothesis.
For example, they say "when the ice sheet melts" without asking why does sea level fall only in places where large ice sheets on land are melting and calving into the sea?
In other words, those land masses of Greenland and Antarctica are not uplifting, not rising.
|Dark Blue is SLF (see video)|
The uplift takes place after the ice is gone, yet Greenland and Antarctica are still covered deep with ice.
And what about those places out in the middle of the ocean, what is causing higher SLR there than in other places, Atlantis?
Why is SLR taking place all around Australia (Proof of Concept - 4)?
Which was not covered with ice sheets.
The answer on another blog had the same rap, although it was a more humorous application of myth:
Rocks seem so very solid from our puny human perspective. Things are rock hard, rock solid, and are reliable as the rock itself. But from a geological perspective, rock is an elastic sheet that encompasses our planet in a thin, flexible membrane that responds to every disturbance.(Why Are Sea Levels Dropping In Places Closest To The Melting Glaciers?). Yep, rocks are not as hard as you thought folks. /snark
In the video below, Dr. Mitrovica discusses an Oil-Qaeda created denier myth that the ocean has been rising or falling for thousands of years.
He shows how pathetically false that "easy to debunk" myth is.
By the same token, if land in the Hudson Bay area had been uplifiting since the glaciers melted 10,000 years ago, the relative SLF would have been 30,000 mm at what they say is today's rate of 3 mm yr (10,000 * 3mm = 30,000 ÷ 304.8mm (1 ft.) = 98.43 ft).
Their hypothesis does not fit all of the facts, thus it is falsified, and they should get up to speed on the main causes of SLF.
By the same token, SLR is not caused by land sinking, because SLR and SLF are both taking place in areas where the land is not moving up or down.
V. That Was Educational
|Fig. 2 Hudson Bay SLF|
Both up (SLR) and down (SLF), as would be expected when ice sheet melt and calving at different locations is taking place independently, but at the same time, and in oscillating degrees, changing quantities of melt and calving.
The graph at Fig. 2 shows that SLC takes place in an up and down, jagged edge process, not in a slow geological time scale like when "rocks like granite and flint bend and stretch after being squeezed for so long."
The same is true for both SLR and SLF because they both come from the same source, which is not land going up one year, then going down the next year.
The graph at Fig. 3 shows the SLF process over a longer period of time than Fig. 2 because it has a projection of future events.
It is time for the scientists like Dr. Mitrovica to make sure the message gets out to scientists, universities, and the news media.
His wishful thinking about it (thinking that all of the professionals know about and talk about gravitational, rotational, and axial forces working together to redistribute melt water and ice bergs from the great ice sheets) is anathema to actually spreading the news via the news media folk who contact him.
VI. Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
Regular readers know that Dredd Blog uses data from PSMSL, a reliable and reputable source.
On their FAQ page the following statements are made:
"While global average sea level change gives a good measure of the total variation of heat and mass in the ocean, no location on earth will observe this average value." (FAQ #7, emphasis added)(PSMSL FAQ). The big players, the major league, in SLC (SLF & SLR) are the ice sheets, which could raise ocean levels 65 m (213.25 ft) at full melt.
"There are two different types of ice to consider: sea ice and ice grounded on land. First, if all the floating sea ice in the world melted, there would be nearly no change in sea level, because floating ice displaces its own weight of water. However, if land ice melts, the melt water will raise sea level. All the world's glaciers and small ice caps, outside of Greenland and Antarctica, contain approximately 0.4 m of sea level equivalent. The large Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contain approximately 7 and 57 m respectively. Consequently, if all of the world’s ice melted in a very much warmer world, sea level would be approximately 65 m higher.
Note, though, that when land ice melts the resulting sea level rise will not be uniform. As the ice melts, the land beneath the ice sheet rebounds and the gravitation pull associated with the ice sheet decreases. These both contribute to a sea level fall near the ice sheets. Conversely, far from the ice sheet, the sea level rise would be greater than the global average. There are also dynamic oceanographic effects associated with the cold, fresh melt water entering the oceans. These dynamic sea level changes are more difficult to model, but are also important to understand future sea level change." (FAQ #11, emphasis added)
Since nothing else even comes close to that, it is utterly irrelevant to mention them for most comprehensive SLC purposes ("majoring in the minor league").
IMO, their use is fundamentally suspect as being part of the propaganda of uncertainty.
Who else but Oil-Qaeda would want SLF and SLR to be considered utterly natural rather than being fundamentally caused by the use of their commercial products?
Dr. Mitrovica has been very helpful and enlightening by resurrecting the work of Woodward, who did a paper about it in 1888 (On the West Side of Zero).
But, by the same token he should know that discoveries can be buried deep by Oil-Qaeda operatives and their big-money propaganda budgets.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
Professor Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University, comes to D.C. to 'splain stuff: