Saturday, October 17, 2015

New Type of SLC Detection Model - 8

Fig. 1
I. Intro

I made an improvement in the model that I should have caught earlier.

Evidently, I got lazy doing the transition from actual historical data into future projection data.

Wanting to preserve the individual characteristics of each location around the globe, I
Fig. 2
did not do enough to make a meaningful transition from the past into the future.

Thus, if you look at the transition zone in the graphs, where the last historical year transitions into the first future year, it is askew, i.e., either radically high or radically low, in too many instances.

Fig. 3
So, I have altered the code in the C++ class, where the transition logic was located, concerning only sea level rise (SLR) locations.

The sea level fall (SLF) locations are not implicated, since they are in another C++ class and did not exhibit the problem.

II. Software Change Results

Today's graphs illustrate the modification results, which make for a better transition in sea level change (SLC) models.

In all the SLC graphs posted on Dredd Blog recently, I put a red "dot" where the
Fig. 4
change from actual historical sea level data transitions into future projected sea level.

Compare yesterday's graphs of the Philadelphia area (The Extinction of Philadelphia) with today's regenerated graphs that contain the improvements, and you will see what I mean.

Fig. 5
For example, there was an immediate jump in sea level shown at the transition position.

That event actually took place historically when the Philadelphia station was first brought on line, and since I was trying to keep the characteristics of each location going past the historical data and on into the future, it was mistakenly repeated at the front of the projection data.

One problem with that little hill or bump there is that it would cause deniers and detractors to immediately discount the entire projection because "see, that little jump in sea level didn't happen, so how can you trust the rest of it?"

III. Aesthetic Results

Now, the transition between the historical and future data follows the trend line
Fig. 6
instead, and the historical characteristics have been inversed.

Which means that the end of the historical records meets up with the beginning of the future data more smoothly by using the actual historical trend line existing at the time of the transition.

Further, the SLR / SLF characteristics of each station are still preserved and placed in the future projection data.

That is, where a station has a volatile up / down, SLF / SLR historical pattern, that characteristic will still show up in the future projection, preserving some of the nature of that station location.

IV. A Scientific Inquiry Emerges

This SLR / SLF saw-tooth pattern in graphs brings up an interesting question.

In order to understand it completely, we will first need to review some Dr. Mitrovica discussions.

Remember that, as the ice sheets melt or flow into the sea, the gravity of their mass that holds/held sea water close to the shore (a gravity caused very long lasting surge, like what onshore storm winds do when they create a temporary storm surge) will diminish, and so the sea level close to shore falls (SLF).

The freed-up water goes somewhere else to be part of SLR, but not only that, Greenland and Antarctica are both doing this (but not always in sync).

Greenland may cause some SLF at one location, while Antarctica may cause SLR at that same location (but not always in sync).

This would have an ongoing see-saw impact on tide gauge stations, depending on their proximity, or lack thereof, to each of those two ice sheets.

Heavily glaciated areas are also players in the see-saw generating pattern (see e.g. Proof of Concept - 3).

V. Conclusion

SLC is composed of both SLF and SLR at a global level, and at the local station level as well.

The graphs which completely smooth that over by way of using "global mean sea level average" tend to cover that reality up (we can thereby lose sight of the volatility of SLC).

They all do good work though, because the main thing to remember is that SLC, whether SLF or SLR, is a current threat to national security (Has The Navy Fallen For The Greatest Hoax?).

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

Friday, October 16, 2015

The Extinction of Philadelphia

Fig. 1
Regular reader and commenter, Tom, requested a graph or two of Philadelphia related SLC a while back.

He was intrigued that Philly had a sea port, as was I, so today that happens just in case he was feeling left out of the equation (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5).

These "extinction of" type posts focus on records of tide gauges, and therefore sea level change (SLC) that is impacting specific cities.

Cities where sea ports are an endangered species (e.g. The Extinction of Washington, D.C.).

Their sea ports are an endangered species and are going to go extinct (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports).

Regular readers know about the Dredd Blog software model which uses historical data from relevant tide gauge stations around the world, then appends acceleration-logic-data onto that historical data stream, thus creating a continuum of sorts, going on out into the future.

The term "tide gauge" may be a bit misleading, in the sense of tending to undervalue them:
"The term "tide gauge" is really a bit of a misnomer in current usage,
Fig. 2
since the instruments actually measure changes in sea level rather than just tides, which are only one contributor to sea level fluctuation. Because tides are now well understood their contribution can be accounted for, thereby permitting accurate observation of sea level variability and change attributable to other causes."
(NOAA Ocean Climate Observation Program, emphasis added). Add to that the fact Dredd Blog uses PSMSL data, which is well respected.

Like the "Eugenics Bug" that generated madness within the scientific community, the
Fig. 3
tide gauge bug went through a fantasy science phase, where the imagination was driven by an erroneous assumption, and was driven off the road into the jungle of error upon error.

The published works of Newton (B.C.E.) and Woodward (1888) were forgotten, ignored, or unknown to scientists who diagnosed tide gauges as being some kind of mystical mechanical liars.

Having a grasp of the reality of the impact of gravity of various sorts on SLC would have spared them the embarrassment (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

To drive that point home, I will link to a study that was conducted without a mention of the impact of gravity of any kind, especially ice sheet gravity (Study, PDF).

Fig. 4
It is linked to so that you can see how even capable scientists can go off on a tangent, and begin to analyze good data thinking it is defective and in need of "data reconstruction" (ibid).

That study tries to be fair, but fairness does not replace acute awareness.

IMO, it demonstrates how "data reconstruction" is to be avoided because, for one thing it is play pretend.

Fig. 5
We know that the rate of SLC, as well as the type of SLC, whether sea level fall (SLF) or sea level rise (SLR), depends on proximity to ice sheets or glaciers.

Gravitational impact on SLC by large ice masses must be factored in, especially as they melt and disintegrate due to global warming (Proof of Concept - 3).

Tide gauge data, when left alone, is useful for many good reasons, so, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

BTW, I have changed my mind on the 2, 3, and 5 year doubling logic in the model because it produces unrealistic projections (e.g. all ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melting completely before 2100).

So, I have replaced them with a 15 yr acceleration, so, now the acceleration rates projected will be 7, 10, 15, 20, and 25 yr degrees of acceleration as shown by the Philly graphs today.

Have a good weekend.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

The Extinction of Washington, D.C.

Fig. 1 Antarctic Ice Stream
A NASA scientist, Dr. Rignot, (see video below) informs us that when we think of ice sheets we use a visual technique similar to the "bathtub model" we use when thinking of sea level change (SLC).

Both are mistaken oversimplifications that leave out the crucial factors required for a robust understanding of the ongoing dynamics such as the fact that the "ice sheet" is actually hundreds of "ice streams," both small and large, like the sizes of creeks and rivers in water systems, flowing together and merging during a march to the sea.

There are some posts that detail some of the large ice streams in Greenland that are almost a thousand km in length (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR - 5?).

Information in the video below indicates there are even longer ice streams in Antarctica.
Fig. 2 Inverse color view of Fig. 1

Fig. 3  Ice stream flow
The ice stream systems are shown in the colors used in the video at Fig. 1 and Fig. 3.

Inverse colors of the same streams are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4.
Fig. 4  Inverse color view of Fig. 3

Click on the images to enlarge them.

Anyway, you can see that these are more like river systems where small creeks feed large ones, then they flow into small rivers, which then flow into large rivers which empty into the sea.

The take away information is that these systems are not a large ice cube, they are large ice rivers that are constantly moving, constantly losing ice and mass at an accelerating rate.

That acceleration is being forced by the use of fossil fuels, which increases the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Which accelerates global warming.

Since the north and south poles are heating at about 4 times or more higher than the rate of the non-polar regions, this is why Dredd Blog software models project an acceleration of sea level rise (SLR).

Fig. 5  10.726 - 6.757 = 3.969m (20yr dbl)
It is the only realistic view available for serious analysis.

See if you notice when Dr. Rignot explains observations by scientists of an 8-fold acceleration of ice stream flow as the ice shelfs weaken to the point that large sections break off and float away.

Deniers claim that as the area of the ice shelf increases, it ipso facto means that the quantity of ice floating on the ocean surface increases.

That is mathematically false, as demonstrated by fifth grade science (How Fifth Graders Calculate Ice Volume, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Fig. 6  18.694 - 6.757= 11.937m (10yr dbl)
The area of the ocean surface covered by sea ice extent is given in square values (km2, mi2), while the volume (quantity) of sea ice is given in cubic values (km3, mi3).

Big, big difference.

In closing, consider the impact of SLR on Washington, D.C. (where all the women are beautiful, and all the children are above average).

As shown by graphs in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, the sea level has been and will continue to change.

D.C. is Station #360 in the PSMSL system, its tide gauge records began in 1931.

Those two graphs show SLR acceleration based on "10 and 20 year doubling."

The IPCC projected a 1-3m SLR for the same span of time ending in the year 2100.

Enjoy the video.

An up-to-date discussion of ice shelves vs. ice sheets, using the nomenclature of ice stream science:

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

30:30 the condition of the ice shelf controls what happens to the ice sheet

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports

Fig. 1 CMA CGM Jules Verne
I. Intro

The business end of the scientific microscope is made of intense efforts to acquire funding.

Which weakens the scientific end of the scientific microscope into timid revelation.

Regular readers know that I have breached subject matter that "typical" (translation: lightweight, timid, and incomplete) analyses of fossil fuel induced global warming induced climate change induced sea level change (SLC)  does not consider.

That subject matter is the vast array of sea ports that unfortunately find themselves placed at the sea level which existed when they were built back in the dark ages.

A sea level which is now "sooooo yesterday."

II. Retro

In current climate change science, the practice of ignoring or shying away from sea port extinction could be because "sea port science" is outside the purview of their somewhat scripted repertoire required for funding.

Funding that is attached to strings which are attached to "string pullers."

This is not my opinion, it has been studied and written about:
"I suspect the existence of what I call the `John Mercer effect'. Mercer (1978) suggested that global warming from burning of fossil fuels could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with a sea level rise of several meters worldwide. This was during the era when global warming was beginning to get attention from the United States Department of Energy and other science agencies. I noticed that scientists who disputed Mercer, suggesting that his paper was alarmist, were treated as being more authoritative.

It was not obvious who was right on the science, but it seemed to me, and I believe to most scientists, that the scientists preaching caution and downplaying the dangers of climate change fared better in receipt of research funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out. I could vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981) that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research, specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication (MacCracken 1983).

I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more readily if they do not push too far and are larded with caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency for `gradualism' as new evidence comes to light may be ill-suited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse is concerned."
(Scientific reticence and sea level rise, emphasis added). Remember that "the glacier decline bone is connected to the SLC bone."

III. Meanwhile Sea Port Extinction Looms

But, the significance of sea port science is so weighty that it is ignored or denied at the peril of civilization itself, as Dredd Blog points out in a series of posts (Series Posts page, @ EXTINCTION (Sea Ports ... "its the economy sea ports stupid")).

The demise of sea ports is the expressway that leads back to the dark ages (Expect Civilizations' Collapse By 2040, The Hoax of Climate Denial, The Technological Stairway To Heaven?).

And beyond.

IV. New Software SLC Model Updated

Regular readers know that I have been changing the Dredd Blog sea level analysis and projection model.

The basic essence of the change was to remodel it to begin with historical tide gauge records that have been kept for decades and centuries.

That body of historical data is placed in libraries at the Internet site Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL).

That history recorded, and the future projection, is "mean" alright.

Anyway, I have brought the projection model up to the expectations of Hansen et al. 2015 (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion).

V. The History Remains History

This year, regular readers have seen scores of graphs of SLC here on Dredd Blog, in multiple posts.

Those graphs, made from data generated by the new SLC software model
Fig. 1
architecture, first contain the history of each PSMSL tide gauge station, then they also contain a projection into the future, based on expected acceleration of SLC.

The base context which the model uses is competent history recorded by individual tide gauge stations located around the world.

This, IMO, is superior to models that only generate from the fabled global mean average ("no location on earth will observe this average value" - PSMSL FAQ page).

VI. The Future Remains The Future

The projection logic (calculated future SLC) is built upon that historical foundation, enhanced by a knowledge of acceleration merged with the historical pattern.

An acceleration which could be far more intense than the IPCC projection model
Fig. 2
generates (which is ~3ft / ~1m by 2100).

The characteristics of that PSMSL history (e.g. highs and lows) at each tide gauge location, is detected and then collected for use in the projection phase where the historical pattern for each location is used to make a pattern for the future.

It tests future expectations by adding accelerations of various degrees to those historical characteristics, producing a continuum (e.g. 10 yr., 7 yr., 5 yr, 20 yr., etc. "doubling").

The result, as shown in graph after graph, is not only the preservation of the pattern of history, but a remembrance of that pattern within the future projection portion of the graphs.

Nevertheless, the graphs are different in the quantity of sea level rise (SLR) and sea level fall (SLF), because the ice sheets are and have been melting at an accelerating rate.

VII. Conclusion

Check out the graphs I produced with two different "doubling" settings.

Compare them to the IPCC settings, and then you can see why Dredd Blog rings the alarm bells that are meant to inform sea port authorities of the enormous, and perhaps insurmountable, problems they face.

The graph in Fig. 1 shows a 3.1 meter (10.17 ft.) increase in SLR at the New York tidal gauge station #12 by 2100.

The graph in Fig. 2 shows a 9.08 meter (29.79 ft.) increase in SLR at the New York tidal gauge station #12 by 2100.

(The 3.1 m and 9.08 m values are derived by subtracting the beginning sea level from the ending sea level,)

Both of these values show a higher SLR than the IPCC 2015 report shows.

Anyway, the software will have a 2,3,5,7,10, and 20 year doubling acceleration graph for each station.

So, there will be plenty of acceleration projections to choose from.

The next post in this series is here.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

The Evolution of Models - 14

Just another one of the doomed areas.
The conservative viewpoint in the IPCC concerning sea level change (SLC) has always been wrong.

"Too conservative" is an explanation bandied about, but the meaning it conveys to me is criminal denial of reality, or cowardice in the face of the facts we who are conscious find to be out there in reality.

The psychological reality being what it is, I use a more conservative model to project sea level rise (SLR) and sea level fall (SLF) recently.

I do so for clueless readers who drift through, so that no one loses their mind when they find out where they actually are (You Are Here).

Yes, regular readers are some of the most savvy on the planet, but there are those who get here and are shocked even by lightweight posts (let's hope they do not drop by on a heavyweight post day and have a heart attack).

But, these days even lightweight projections and observations tend to be cataclysmic, so you who are clueless, up until now, are going to have to get real.

A recent paper came out with another, IMO, very conservative estimate, which nevertheless, is a description of cataclysmic events here and now in our lives on our planet:
Anthropogenic carbon emissions lock in long-term sea-level rise that greatly exceeds projections for this century, posing profound challenges for coastal development and cultural legacies. Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3 – 9.9 m [14 - 32.5 ft.]. Based on detailed topographic and population data, local high tide lines, and regional long-term sea-level commitment for different carbon emissions and ice sheet stability scenarios, we compute the current population living on endangered land at municipal, state, and national levels within the United States. For unabated climate change, we find that land that is home to more than 20 million people is implicated and is widely distributed among different states and coasts. The total area includes 1,185 – 1,825 municipalities where land that is home to more than half of the current population would be affected, among them at least 21 cities exceeding 100,000 residents.
PNAS, PDF). In other words, SLR will swallow Miami, New Orleans, etc., the study finds (Phys Org).

Meanwhile, global marine analysis suggests a food chain collapse (Phys Org).

Enough said for one lightweight day.

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

Monday, October 12, 2015