Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 51

Bad Science: "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

This post is about being perplexed at what can be missed by science professionals.

Specifically, it is about an erroneous, peer reviewed paper, published this year in the reputable journal Nature.

Regular readers know that I have criticized the statements made in the paper as quoted by some science writers to wit: "An extreme event of sea-level rise along the Northeast coast of North America in 2009–2010" (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion - 2).

One statement made in the abstract of the paper being discussed in today's post is quite a strong and deliberate one:

Within this 2-year period, the coastal sea level north of New York City jumped by 128 mm. This magnitude of interannual SLR is unprecedented (a 1-in-850 year event) during the entire history of the tide gauge records.

(Nature 2015). Wrong, at least to the degree that my research shows otherwise, as clearly revealed by the tide gauge record extracts contained in the table below.

The following table is a list of PSMSL tide gauge stations (highly reputable) compiled from annual data downloaded from that site, and then placed into an SQL database.

I wrote a C++ utility / routine to query that SQL database, extract any one-year fluctuation (in millimeters) that are larger than the two-year fluctuation they got all verklempt about, then create the following HTML table with that data in it:

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

The color red is used on some of the larger fluctuations shown in the "↕mm" (SLF/SlR mm) column.

Note that they (Goddard & Yin) did not even mention sea level fall or ice sheet mass / gravity (see the Mitrovica video below for the concept).

Like way too many others, they exclusively and erroneously attribute the inordinate fluctuation to land rise, land subsidence, thermal expansion, or currents.

However, those are not the main players, as I show above and elsewhere.

The reality in SLC fluctuation, (SLR / SLF), the "coin of the realm" if you will, is  ice sheet mass / gravity loss (e.g. Proof of Concept, 2, 3, 4, 5).

If they would just "take time to think" as Mitrovica, in the video below, counsels, they would realize that the land does not rise and fall four feet in a hundred or less years.

Further, "isostatic rebound" limited to ~10 mm yr. only in the area on land specifically covered with ice.

Land levels outside that perimeter fall / "subside" (Observation of glacial isostatic adjustment in “stable” North America with GPS).

To the contrary, SLC takes place a thousand kilometers, or more, away from the location where the ice sheet was / is located on land.

That SLC hinge point moves a greater distance as ice mass lost in large quantities continues (c.f. The Evolution and Migration of Sea Level Hinge Points).

This shows that the reality of conflicting SLR / SLF is ice sheet induced, via ice sheet melt / calving, and consequent loss of mass / gravity.

This is a reality still not in the thinking of way too many scientists.

Next post of this type is here.

---

"They didn't have a clue." -Mitrovica

---

"Ice streams are not like ice cubes." - Rignot

---

Calling All Cars: The Case of the "Missing Six" - 3

Cities ignore SLC at their peril

The case of the "missing six" is getting closer to being solved, but may not need to be solved completely.

That is because, for one thing, it is likely that some of those stations are no longer functioning anyway.

BTW, the missing 6 were numbers "5,7,10,18,19, and 20" on the list in the first post of this series (Calling All Cars: The Case of the "Missing Six").

Consider these possibilities as further solutions to those "missing" from that list: Tenerife as #5, Genova as #7, Cristobal as #18, and Buenos Aires as #20.

That would leave #10 and #19, neither of which seem to be on the paper by Douglas in 1991.

All of the names of that golden 21 list (not 23), in that paper by Douglas, who Mitrovica says is very careful, are clear:

Newlyn (202)
Brest (1)
Cascais (Z - 52) sub Lisbon (1336) ?
Tenerife (Z - 1803) sub TENERIFE I (303) ?
Genova (Z - 59) sup with Genova II (2090) ?
Marseille (61)
Trieste (154)
Honolulu (155)
San Francisco (10)
Balboa (163)
Cristobal (Z - 169) sub COCO SOLO (1530) ?
Key West (188)
-------
Aberdeen I (361) sup with Aberdeen II (Z - 21) ?
North Shields (95)
Charleston I (234)
Hampton Roads "Sewells Point" (299)
Baltimore (148)
Atlantic City (180)
New York (12)
Portland (1547)
Eastport (332)

("The Golden 21," Douglas 1991, PDF). The first 12 of the Douglas golden 21 are on the Mitrivica golden 23 list, the other 9 are not.

The currently active stations on the list are in bold, with their PSMSL station numbers following (in parentheses).

The 5 stations that are not currently active are indicated with a 'Z'.

The question as to whether or not they could be accurately supplemented or substituted is now being considered.

Anyway, another paper quoting Douglas contains a list of 27 tide gauge stations, ("the golden 27").

As you will see, a number of those stations are repeats from both the golden 21 and the golden 23:

North Sea & Eng. Channel Area
Aberdeen I (361)
Aberdeen II (Z - 21)
Newlyn (202)
Brest (1)

Atlantic Area
Cascais (Z - 52)
Lagos (Z - 162)

Mediterranean Area
Marseille (61)
Genova (Z - 59)

New Zealand Area
Auckland II (150)
Lyttelton II (259)

Pacific Area
Honolulu (155)

SW North America Area
La Jolla (256)
Los Angeles (245)

SE North America Area
Charleston I (234)
Fernandina (112)
Galveston II (161)
Miami Beach (Z - 363)
Key West (188)

NE North America Area
Eastport (332)
Newport (Z - 1832)
Halifax (96)
Annapolis (311)
Solomons Island (412)

Northern Europe Area
Stavanger (47)
Kobenhavn (82)
Nedre Gavle (Z - 99)

NW North America Area
Victoria (166)
Neah Bay (385)
Seattle (127)

("The Golden 27", PDF). Again, the currently active stations on the list are in bold, with their PSMSL station numbers following (in parentheses), and any stations that are not currently active are indicated with a 'Z'.

As I have said, I do not consider "the golden" collections to be exceptional in the sense of being more useful than other tide gauge stations.

All tide gauge stations, like weather and politics are "local" IMO, and are uniquely useful.

So, I shy away from any debilitation of individual tide gauge station characteristics when I include them in groups.

A group purpose (e.g. "global mean average") should not gloss over the reality of local monitoring of the area where a tide gauge station is located.

Historically, it is the tide gauge stations of the world which reveal, among other things, that:

World's Top Climate Scientist:
It's Worse Than We Thought

The world’s most famous climate scientist
just outlined an alarming scenario
for our planet’s future

James Hansen Spells Out
Climate Danger Of The
‘Hyper-Anthropocene’ Age

Earth’s Most Famous
Climate Scientist Issues
Bombshell
Sea Level Warning
If you want to get a hint as to what the U.S. Naval Academy thinks of tidal gauge stations, check out this test that has been given to cadets there (SO503).

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

---

"They didn't have a clue." -Mitrovica

---

"Ice streams are not like ice cubes." - Rignot

---

The Evolution and Migration of Sea Level Hinge Points

Fig. 1 Gravity hinge between SLR and SLF

I. Introduction

This post is about one particular aspect of The Gravity of Sea Level Change.

That particular aspect is, as the title of today's post alludes to, "the hinge point."

The hinge point is a narrow subject within the larger subject matter which we call "sea level change (SLC)."

The hinge point is a gravity induced, moving, non-imaginary line that is generated by ice sheet mass which in turn generates ice sheet gravity.

That gravity has an impact on sea level, especially near the coast of the land upon which that ice sheet rests, an impact that is "on the move."

The hinge line moves away from the ice sheet as that ice sheet melts and its mass fades into non-existence.

Fig. 2 Hinge Lines circle the globe

In the truest sense, it is the line where one side of that line begins and ends sea level fall (SLF), and the other side of that same line begins and ends sea level rise (SLR).

II. Uses For Hinge Line Knowledge

The hinge line is more than just a scientific curiosity.

It has a very practical application for understanding the dynamics of SLC.

For example, public officials planning construction or remodelling of sea ports, commercial buildings, condominiums, or single family homes where sea level is an issue, need to know whether the sea level in the relevant area is experiencing any hinge point issues (Peak Sea Level - 2).

Another use is categorization of zones as either SLF or SLR, so as to inform residents what is going on.

You might be surprised to know that public officials and others are quite often unaware of what is going on with SLC in their area (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 44).

Sometimes, if not all the time, you will not hear about it "on the news" either:

It is uncanny that newspapers in the state of Alaska wonder why the sea level there is falling (Alaska Dispatch News).

(Proof of Concept - 5). Alaska residents are wondering why everyone is talking about SLR when they see SLF at their capital city, and cities near it.

They may be further confused when their state has both SLF and SLR, as that post shows, especially when the hinge point is in their state, and is constantly moving, as some of the graphs in that post indicate:

(Proof of Concept - 5, at Fig. 4, 5, 6 in that post). The hinge line is obviously near Ketchikan, where the sea level has a more even mean average (less SLF / SLR), compared to Juneau.

Juneau, the capital city, is clearly in an SLF mode, whereas, Prince Rupert, B.C., a bit further south near the Alaska / Canada border, is in obvious SLR mode.

III. The Hinge Point Is A Moving Target

The graphic at Fig. 3 shows that the hinge point will move further south, then out of Alaska, as the Glacier Bay area continues to lose glaciers to global warming.

Fig. 3  Glacier Bay, S. America, etc. SLF / SLR

Like the melt-water that disappears into the sea, the "evaporating" ice sheet gravity fades away.

It is then relocated to some other location, as is the glacial ice melt water.

At this time not all of the ice mass has melted or disintegrated into the sea as Fig. 3 shows, because the hinge line is still further north.

Thus, the hinge point is further north at a point somewhere between Ketchikan and Prince Rupert, but will continue moving south.

IV. Software Models Need To Include Hinge Point Dynamics

A. Planning

The current version of the Dredd Blog SLC model has logic that tries to categorize

Fig. 4

PSMSL tide gauge stations as being in an SLR or SLF zone.

The prime reason for that is that SLR logic cannot be applied to SLF locations, and vice versa.

But some locations (see Ketchikan Alaska graph above), are near the hinge point and a determination is not easily made, at least compared to the obvious locations such as Juneau or Skagway, Alaska.

Fig. 5 (S. America SLF / SLR a la Fig. 3)

If software engineers and public officials cannot figure out how to develop logic to detect future SLC dynamics, caused by hinge point movement for example, and thereby figure out what their tide gauges are telling them, how can they face and deal with their civic duties and problems?

This "SLF or SLR?" problem is more difficult than one would think at first blush, as depicted in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6 examples.

If planners are not aware that as the ice sheet or glaciers melt, the hinge point moves

Fig. 6

away from the coast of the land upon which the ice rests, thereby causing both SLF and SLR over time, they can become confused.

Planners who are aware will know that SLR will stop as the hinge point passes their sea port or coast, then the SLF phase will unsurprisingly set in over time, and finally the tide gauges will begin to show an SLF trend line.

That in itself will not solve any problems, however, but at least the officials will know what they are facing in terms of SLC type.

For example, depending on the SLC type they can then dredge to increase the depth, or raise the docks to match the SLR.

Their comfort at being able to deal with the problem in the short term will fade as the SLC continues beyond the duration of their career and their ability to cope.

B. An Example Software Problem

The software algorithm I wrote to detect whether SLR or SLF is taking place at a particular tide gauge station was, at first, stumped by some of the very close tide gauge station historical records, such as those depicted in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6.

Thus, it could make a mistake as to whether to calculate future SLF or instead future SLR.

So, it was fine tuned.

Of the 489 PSMSL stations the software selects as suitable for use, out of the 1417 total number of stations,  164 are at first categorized as SLF (the other 325 are SLR).

But then twelve of them (including Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6) are determined to be in hinge line movement scenarios.

The dynamic is that the hinge point is heading their way, but has not passed over them yet.

Thus, even though we can't know exactly when that will happen, because it depends on the ice sheet or glacial rate of melt (which now depends on acceleration by ongoing global warming), we can say that SLF is in that location's future.

The software can therefore calculate future SLF, rather than mistakenly calculating future SLR that will not happen.

V. Conclusion

The more I look into Oil-Qaeda caused global warming induced climate change, (which is creating the SLC armies that are invading sea ports and coasts around the world) the more I am convinced that it is the number one ecological danger to civilization as we know it.

That is because, unlike any human-war invasion, this invader attacks every sea port and shoreline at once (everywhere there is a Pearl Harbor).

Civilization is fighting a battle that it induced, but it is a battle that it cannot win:

• Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States
• Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States - 2
• Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States - 3
• Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States - 4
• The 1% May Face The Wrath of Sea Level Rise First
• Why The Military Can't Defend Against The Invasion

The next post in this series is here.

Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder- 2

Depraved Heart Murder, Inc.

When I started this series I had no idea it would get some traction, or be associated with subject matter that is getting some traction (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder).

But, now it seems that the subject just might evolve into part of the public conversation.

Considering that Dredd Blog, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, and many others have "let the cat out of the bag" after becoming citizen journalists, group-supported investigative journalists, socially conscious teachers, civic caretakers, or other entities with care and concern for people everywhere.

Now. senators and others are calling for a Civil RICO Investigation of Oil-Qaeda, (and why not a criminal investigation as well?):

Sanders Calls for Investigation of 'Potential Corporate Fraud' by Exxon

Petition: Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial

Democrats Request a DOJ Investigation Into ExxonMobil, Alleging Climate Science Coverup

Big Tobacco Is Guilty of Conspiracy

Prison for Exxon Execs? Lawmakers Seek Probe of Oil Giant for Hiding Knowledge of Climate Change

Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

The Wrong Road Taken

(H/T Desi @ Brad Blog)

Spread the word.

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

---

Senator Whitehouse and Dr. Naomi Oreskes on the history and culpability of psychopaths within Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and the U.S.eh? :

From DC:

---

From UCSD:

---

From Harvard:

---

A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion - 2

Fig. 1

In the first post of this series, that Dredd Blog post linked to the Hansen et al. paper (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion).

The Hansen team's choice of venue in which to air the paper is turning out to be a useful choice, in the sense that the comments and responses are not only helpful and instructive, but they also seem to take place in less time than some peer review processes do.

Today, I want to consider one comment made concerning the paper, as well as the

Fig. 2 Changes only

comprehensive response which the team provided about that comment.

One reason is that it gives us a good framework and opportunity to discuss the hypothesis about why the  jagged edge tide gauge graphs depict considerable fluctuations in sea level (fluctuations which take place as a matter of course in relatively very short time scales).

Fig. 3 Hansen 2015 paper @Fig. 29

Take a look at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, which are graphs of PSMSL historical records only.

That is, there are no future projections included in those two graphs made from actual official records at the New York tide gauge station #12 ("The Battery").

The Fig. 1 graph has two boxes showing the year and the sea level at that year so as to emphasize the degree of fluctuation.

The first box shows one fluctuation that took place 1870-1878 which created a "W" shape.

The 1870 value is 6.769 RLR meters (6769 millimeters), which drops to 6.674m (6674mm) by 1874 (95mm decrease)  only 4 years later, then it jumps back up to 6.792m, 6792mm (118mm increase), 4 years later in 1878.

This is remarkable in the sense that Fig. 3 shows the mean at 3.3 mm yr (4 x 3.3mm = 13.2mm), so a 95mm and 118mm fluctuation are clearly inordinate.

This phenomenon is not something that only happens in the long-ago past, as the second box on Fig. 1 shows (1989 - 1997 jump of 132mm; 1997 @ 7133mm − 1989 @ 7001mm = 132mm).

Recall that NOAA folks were a bit astounded when a similar fluctuation took place north of the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 location, which is PSMSL Station #12:

Coastal sea levels along continental margins often show significant year-to-year upward and downward fluctuations. These fluctuations are superimposed on a longer term upward trend associated with the rise in global mean sea level, with global mean sea level rising at roughly 3 mm per year during the recent 20 years of accurate satellite measures. For society, it is the regional changes along any particular coastal zone that are most important. Our analysis of multi-decadal tide gauge records along the North American east coast identified an extreme sea-level rise event during 2009–2010. Within this relatively brief two-year period, coastal sea level north of New York City jumped by up to 128 mm. This magnitude of inter-annual sea level rise is unprecedented in the tide gauge records, with statistical methods suggesting that it was a 1-in-850 year event.

(Agnotology: The Surge - 16, quoting NOAA). Their exclamation "1-in-850 year event" indicates that they are evidently not watching closely enough, because fluctuations are to be expected as ice sheet disintegration accelerates.

My hypothesis is that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet influence is primarily at play in these fluctuations, but there are some other factors too.

One example:

There are a number of implicit predictions, but most revealing, via contrast with IPCC models, is strong cooling of the Southern Ocean surface and in the North Atlantic (Fig. 1, from our paper). These coolings result mainly from the stratification effect induced by injection of meltwater into upper layers of the ocean. Lesser density of fresh meltwater, compared to salty ocean water, reduces sinking of surface water to the deep ocean. Reduced Antarctic Bottom Water formation reduces the amount of relatively warm deep water rising to the surface, where it increases heat flux to the atmosphere and space. Instead heat is kept at depth, raising deep water temperature and melting ice shelves (see diagram in Fig. 22 of our ACPD paper).

(Hansen Team Response). The Hansen team sees ocean surface cooling north of the PSMSL Station #12, which is closer to Greenland than NYC is.

That will cause some thermal sea level fall (SLF), as will Greenland ice sheet mass loss (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

Then, the counter influence of Antarctica ice sheet mass loss will cause sea level rise (SLR) on the east coast (thus, both rise and fall of varying amounts at varying times), as fully explained in the video at the bottom of today's post.

There will be more on the saw-tooth fingerprints at PSMSL tide gauge stations in future posts of this series.

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:

---

New Type of SLC Detection Model - 9

Fig. 1 Comparison: Hansen 2015 / IPCC 5th

I have fused the IPCC and Hanson model graphs into one graph and added a change calculation generator in the Dredd blog SLC software model (Fig. 1, F.g. 2).

The Hansen 2015 paper hypothesized that a 10 ft global mean sea level rise (SLR) could (not would) take place within 35 years, i.e. by the year 2050 (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion).

That hypothesis depends on what they call a "10 year doubling" phenomenon in ice

Fig. 2 Model uses same history

sheet and glacial melt and/or flow into the sea, meaning that the amount of ice sheet loss doubles each 10 years.

I have abandoned the "doubling" logic in favor of the acceleration intensity concept, which uses the tide gauge history as a foundation, then apply both low intensity IPCC acceleration as well as high intensity Hansen 2015 acceleration to the characteristics of the historical record.

Fig. 3

The results are virtually identical to the doubling calculations, however, the application of the acceleration to historical reality rather than the less real global mean average works better IMO.

There are four reasons for so doing: 1) the Dredd Blog model is based on individual SLR at individual Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) tide gauge stations around the world, 2) the low and high hypotheses are combined, 3) only two graphs are needed to show PSMSL sea level change (SLC) in RLR meters (Fig. 1), and actual change in millimeters (Fig. 2), and 4) the global mean average is not used any more (except for reference when that would help).

Fig. 4

Prior to these changes, the reader had to figure out the quantity of change by bothersome calculations that are now done by the software.

From now on these two graphs will be used for each PSMSL tide gauge station when those sites are discussed (the history portion is exactly the same for high and low, then they split into two streams, two lines, red is Hansen 2015, black is IPCC 5th Assessment).

Fig. 5

There are some things to remember to avoid confusion about tide gauge records.

The year that the tide gauge came on line will tend to have a different sea level than one which came on line in a different year.

PSMSL techniques are designed to have a relative dynamic which normalizes the values (compare the beginning point of the sea level RLR meters with the change

Fig. 6

millimeters).

Note that the change calculation graphs ("IPCC change", "Hansen change") begin at zero, but the PSMSL sea level value graphs do not.

Sea level can be different even if two or more tide gauge stations came on line at the exact same time depending on where those tide gauge stations are located, but that is not likely.

Fig. 7

Sea level is changing everywhere all the time as the ice sheets disintegrate at accelerating rates (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

Another thing to remember is that what matters is the ramifications of SLC on civilization, especially the impact on sea ports (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5).

For example, the strongest hurricane ever recorded did not harm the busiest sea port in Mexico, but SLR eventually will (The Extinction of Manzanillo).

Fig. 8

Had that hurricane debilitated the sea port at Manzanillo the other 40 some odd other sea ports in Mexico could have taken up some or all of the slack.

The same cannot be said about SLC, because it is attacking all the sea ports at the same time so debilitation will be universal at some point in time (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 44, Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, The 1% May Face The Wrath of Sea Level Rise First, Why The Military Can't Defend Against The Invasion).

Fig. 9

That is why I have spent so much time exploring the SLC issues, and the impact civilization is not paying sufficient attention to.

If SLC was a conscious national enemy, rather that a product of burning fossil fuels fostered on civilization by Oil-Qaeda, that conscious enemy would be delighted because a surprise attack is an advantage in such situations.

Concerning the Hansen model mentioned in this post, one of the several co-authors of their paper linked to above is featured in the video below.

These are serious scientists whom we have been ignoring at our peril for far too long (The Extinction of Washington, D.C.).

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

---

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

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

---