## Friday, December 11, 2015

### The Evolution of Models - 18

 Fig. 1 Very Simple Algebra
I. Some Background

We generally take 1750 as the beginning year of the Industrial Revolution (Wikipedia, cf. Prezi).

We have sea level records from less than a hundred years into that revolution, but in general they are less trusted in terms of accuracy, than recent ones.

I used a formula in a C++ routine to calculate backwards in time to develop some information (Fig. 1) ... more about that later in this post.

I found one example of very early records that were counter to conventional wisdom, but which hold up in principle (Pure Appl. Geophys., 127, 73-77, 1988). and hold up in terms of numerical patterns that regular readers and I have generated, examined, and pondered in recent times.

II. And Then ...

I downloaded those ancient values at PSMSL which were taken from a paper authored by Martin Ekman (1888), which covers sea level records from 1774-1984 in Sweden.
 Fig. 2 Old Sea Level Change Records

I acquired them so as to compare them with my projection back into history via the formula shown in Fig. 1.

I graphed the 1774-1984 records as they were written, and lo and behold it ends up that they are accurate and modern in terms of pattern.

That becomes clear if you compare Fig. 2 with Proof of Concept - 5, which contains modern graphs based on trusted PSMSL records of that area.

III. Preparing For The Trip Back

 Fig. 3 Circa the year 2000
Anyway, how I used the simple formula in Fig. 1 is as follows.

First, I acquired values on a USGS page, which indicate how much ice sheet volume there was to melt and to then cause sea level change (SLC).

I found data generated by the USGS circa the year 2000 (Fig. 3).

The SLR value is in meters (multiply by 1000 to convert meter values to millimeters).

Next, I wrote a C++ module to calculate from 2015 back to 1750 (a Wayback Machine), which generated a CSV file, from which I generated several graphs.

The program takes the variable "ivm" (ice volume max: 32,328,300 km3) and the variable "slrm" (sea level rise maximum: 80.32m) from Fig. 3.

Then, using conventional annual SLR values for the "slrc" variable in Fig. 1 (3.5mm, 3.2mm, 1.5mm and 0.5mm (Fig. 5) as values for annual SLR increases since 1750), we backtrack.

The software iterates through each year, beginning in the current year, adding or subtracting (3.5, 3.2, 1.5, or 0.5 mm) etc. from the sea level and/or ice volume for each year.

That in turn causes a decrease or increase in the ice sheet mass variable, which is in this context the inverse of the sea level value variable (in general, as ice volume decreases, sea level increases, and vice versa).

We calculate the increase in ice volume for each year going back to 1750, as well as the global mean average sea level fall (ice volume increases as sea level decreases - except near the coasts of the ice sheets).

It is the reverse of what is happening now and into the future.

It is as if we take the melt water from the ocean and put it back onto the ice sheets of Greenland, Antarctica, and glaciers elsewhere, thereby increasing the ice volume back to what it was "way back then".

IV. What I Brought Back To Show You

 Fig. 4
The slope in Fig. 4 shows that there was more ice in the ice sheets in 1750 (compared to now) before the global warning began to set in.
 Fig. 5

 Fig. 6
The identical slope pattern in Fig. 6 shows that sea level rise potential was also more then than it is now, because there was more ice volume in the ice sheets back then.

The inverse slope in Fig. 5 shows that as the ice sheet volume and mass was lost, the global mean sea level rose.

And, as another proof of concept, the old records graphed in Fig. 2 show that ice sheet gravity was as it is today, still mystifying some people.

That is, as Greenland began to melt as a result of global warming caused by the use of fossil fuels (mainly coal), sea level fall (SLF) began in Scandinavia.

SLF still continues unabated today (Proof of Concept - 5).

I see this technique as an opportunity to build a table in the model's database.

The table will harbor this annual ice sheet volume / mass data in it, to used in future analysis.

The more tools the better.

I intend to enhance this tool by modifying it to calculate each ice sheet's percentage of contribution.

I also plan to add the subsequent thermal expansion contribution (ocean warming induced SLR, which takes place after the cold melt-water eventually warms up).

V. So, What Does That Have To Do With Models?

Human fingerprints are indications of history, in the sense that they can show that someone was at a particular location.

Sea level fingerprints can do the same, and in this case we can "book Greenland Danno," because the fingerprints of Greenland ice sheet melt were found (SLF in Scandinavia).

A model that can run backwards and forwards in time, based upon and beginning from various segments of history which we have and know to be valid, is a more robust model (historical reality guides its future projections).

That is, models based on solid historical records are more desirable than those composed only of pure conjecture.

VI. Conclusion

We press on toward knowing how to analyze what is happening around us, and why.

I must get back to the "lab," as Mark Hanson calls it.

I am anxious to make this Dredd Blog software model very robust in terms of SLC fingerprinting.

Have a robust weekend.

The previous post in this series is here.

## Thursday, December 10, 2015

### New Type of SLC Detection Model - 12

 Fig. 1 Example SQL query
The new table in the database has the distances from each PSMSL station to Greenland, Antarctica, and Glacier Bay (Fig. 1).

Next I plan to implement the Mitrovica formulas (@ Geophys. J. Int. (2011) 187, 729–742) or something that does the same work.

The importance of this has grown on me since the advent of bogus scientific papers have been showing up in the journal Nature (Questionable "Scientific" Papers, 2).

We need multiple ways to calculate ice volume loss from Greenland, Antarctica, and the smaller glacial areas like Glacier Bay.

The two papers I recently criticized attack the settled science concerning CO2 quantity growth in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa), and ice sheet mass loss at Antarctica and Greenland.

The fingerprint technique is another way to realize that ice mass is being lost at Greenland and at Antarctica (e.g. T(θ, ψ, t) = −SL(θ, ψ, t) @Mitrovica).

The sloppy scientists doing those questionable scientific papers are most likely not aware of the fingerprinting technique.

That technique will confirm the continued ice sheet mass loss at those locations combined with using time-warn tide gage records at reliable PSMSL stations (and also bust them, so we will "Book 'em Danno").

The "distances" database, which I have now completed, will help determine where sea level rise (SLR) or sea level fall (SLF) is being caused by loss of ice sheet mass.

We have to keep a step ahead of the growing number of hopium-filled or deceit-filled people who care too little for accuracy.

Anyway, I now have the table built which contains the distance from each PSMSL station to Greenland, Antarctica, and Glacier Bay.

Those distances can be used to help fingerprint where SLR or SLF at each station is coming from:
"Estimating mean global SL alone ignores the information content inherent to geographic variability. As an example, it is now well understood that the rapid melting of any individual grounded ice reservoir gives rise to a distinct and highly nonuniform pattern—or fingerprint—of static equilibrium sea level change. In particular, in the near field of a melting ice sheet (within ∼2,000 km of the margin), SL will fall due to both crustal uplift and the reduction of the gravitational pull on the ocean from the ice sheet. This fall can be an order of magnitude greater than the equivalent rise in mean global SL associated with the meltwater addition to the ocean. In contrast, in the far field of the ice sheet, SL will rise with (generally) greater amplitude as the distance from the ice sheet increases; this rise can exceed the global mean value by ∼30%. These fingerprints provide a framework for moving beyond inferences of globally averaged SL rise to estimate the contributions from individual meltwater sources."
(PNAS, emphasis added). Distance is one important factor, so, the "distances" table now added to the mix may help us all in our calculations from now on.

I am beginning to see more of the value in having one more tool in the toolbox.

The previous post in this series is here.

## Wednesday, December 9, 2015

### The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 2

 Fig. 1  Zones of Influence
Some have criticized The Gravity of Sea Level Change and related Dredd Blog System posts concerning sea level change (SLC).

That criticism has been done out of ignorance.

The series concerning the study of ignorance generators within society has shown that, clearly, ignorance is an epidemic in the U.S.eh? these daze (Agnotology: The Surge, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17).

Anyway, the science of the gravity of SLC is well established and non-controversial to non-ignorant scientists and laypeople alike:
Modern melting of land ice affects sea level along the west coast of the United States in two ways. First, the large mass of glaciers and ice sheets generates an additional gravitational pull that draws ocean water closer, raising relative sea level near the ice masses. As the ice melts, the amount of ice mass on land declines, decreasing its gravitational pull on the ocean water. The loss of
 Fig. 2  Gravity is a weighty matter
mass also results in uplift of the land mass under the ice. The combination of these effects causes relative sea level to fall in the vicinity of the ice mass. The fall extends, at decreasing rates, in the region within a few thousand km of the melting ice. Second, ice melt enters the ocean, raising global mean sea level. Because of gravitational and deformational effects, however, the distribution of new ice melt is nonuniform over the globe. Relative sea level falls near the shrinking ice mass and rises everywhere else. This effect is shown schematically in Figure 4.8. The combined effect of new water mass entering the ocean and altered gravitational attraction results in a spatial pattern of sea-level rise that is unique for each ice sheet or glacier (Mitrovica et al., 2001; Tamisiea et al., 2003). As a consequence, these sea-surface geometries have come to be known as sea-level fingerprints. Only a few studies have attempted to map the sea- level fingerprints of melting land ice along the west coast of the United States (e.g., Tamisiea et al., 2003, 2005).
(Sea-level Rise @ West Coast, book page 65, PDF page 66). The focus on the gravity of sea level change phenomenon has even led to a "fingerprinting" technique:
To estimate the effect of fingerprinting from these three ice masses on relative
 Fig. 3 "Book 'em Danno"
sea level, it is necessary only to multiply the global sea-level equivalent of the mass loss from each source by the appropriate scale factor (colored contours) indicated in the figure and then add the contributions from all three sources. Scale factors greater than 0 indicate that the sea-level fingerprint increases relative sea-level rise at that location, and scale factors greater than 1 indicate that the rise is higher than the global sea-level equivalent value. Scale factors less than 0 mean that the effect of mass loss from a source causes the relative sea level to fall.
(ibid, cf. Tamisiea 2003, PDF). There are already many articles on Dredd Blog which demonstrate various aspects of the not-well-known phenomenon (see here under the heading "SEA LEVEL CHANGE").

In today's post I am announcing an enhancement to the Dredd Blog SLC software model.

That enhancement is to implement the fingerprinting dynamic, and apply it to each PSMSL tide gauge station.

What it will do, if all goes well, will be to calculate the percentages of influence on sea level rise (SLR) and sea level fall (SLF) that each ice sheet (or other ice mass location around the globe) will have on each SLC zone.

The graphic at Fig. 1 shows a modified version of the global zones Dredd Blog uses for reference (Databases Galore - 11).

That zone grid graphic has been modified by placing dark blue squares at the center of Zones "ak" (Gulf of Alaska) and "ab" (Scandinavia), and red squares at several ice mass locations (Svalbard, Glacier Bay Alaska, Greenland, and Antarctica).

Then, purple lines are drawn from the ice mass locations (i.e. from Antarctica, Greenland, and Glacier Bay) to the centers of Zones "ak" and "ab" to indicate influence on SLC in those zones.

In other words, those zones are going to have varying degrees of SLR and SLF at various and sundry times, of varying degrees.

That is the dynamic "fingerprint" being talked about by scientists in the know on this important subject.

When the software enhancement is completed, the model can show not only the historical fingerprint down through time, but will be able to also project the future fingerprint expected, for example, by the IPCC and by Hansen.

The benefit to those with boots on the streets of endangered areas (coastal zones) is that they can ascertain what is happening in their particular area.

That is better than relying on the mystical global mean average, a number that is not going to happen to any area in particular.

It is merely a figure of scientific speech that does not really tell you anything specific, like the mean average number of deaths is "xxxx" compared to the exact number of deaths in your town: yyyy (local values matter).

Anyway, first I will build a database table containing calculations to the center of each zone, then extrapolate from that to each tide gauge station in that zone.

Thanks to latitude and longitude figures already provided for each tide gauge station (by PSMSL), and thanks to latitude and longitude distances contained within the actual latitude and longitude values (leaving us to merely do some simple mathematical calculations).

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

## Tuesday, December 8, 2015

### Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 2

 Fig. 1 The science is obvious
A paper posing as a scientific effort, rather than a paid political ad, was discussed at Central Hopium recently (Hopium Study Sees Possible Stuff).

The sarcastic title I gave the piece came after reading the author's fumbling explanation of the basis of the data upon which the pseudo "scientific" paper rests.

In the olde pre-hopium days, actual measurements were the source of robust scientific reporting, but, if the paper I am criticizing is any indication, real science is "so yesterday" to the hopioids.

Evidently the stuff some people call science, in this new age of messy-guessy, is understanding that the most important part of it all is the check from Oil-Qaeda.

Check out the language used by the science challenged crew I am criticizing:
... we estimate that the growth in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production will be near or slightly below ... 2015 ...
 Fig. 2  Anti-hopium Bummer Stuff
our method contains several assumptions and large uncertainties that could influence results beyond the given range ... Our 2015 estimate for China uses ... apparent consumption ... estimated using production data from the National Bureau of Statistics, imports and exports of coal from China Customs Statistics ... and from partial data on coal stock changes from industry sources ... apparent consumption ... from the National Energy Administration ... and production of cement reported ... We then assume that the changes during the first 6-8 months will persist through the end of the year ... The main sources of uncertainty are from the incomplete data on stock changes, the carbon content of coal, and of assumptions of persistent behaviour for the rest of 2015.
(Nature Addendum, emphasis added). This reminds me of the effort by the Alchemists to turn lead into gold.

The authors of the subject paper are conflating an imagined decrease in growth rate with an actual case of a total decrease in annual quantity of CO2 being deposited into the atmosphere, then concluding erroneously that "slowdown in growth = (no more growth) decrease".

Or perhaps that is what they want us to do, bolstered by hopium.

I wonder how they would do their kid's growth rate charts over the years (assuming they ever discover sex) ... "honey I shrunk the kids" ... merely because the kid's growth rate decreased for a spell?

The stock market and industry assertions do not trump (even if they do donald trump), the actual readings at Mauna Loa and elsewhere (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).

"Hard cases make bad law," and desperation mixed with hopium makes bad "scientific" papers.

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

## Monday, December 7, 2015

### Waiting For The World To Climate Change - 2

 Victim City on Highway 61
The Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney presidential debates did not include a debate about climate change (Climate Change Not Mentioned In Presidential Debates For First Time In A Generation).

Not that it would do any more good than the 21 "Conference of the Parties" (COP) conventions have done.

Or that it would do any more good than the repetitive "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC) conventions have done.

These types of conferences have devolved into lip circuses that keep taking place as the pollution by CO2 incessantly increases, global temperatures increase in like proportion, and the invasion of the world's sea ports continues unabated (Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, 2, 3, 4, 5; The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 44).

This presidential election cycle (PEC45) offers change too:
"The scientists are virtually unanimous that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world. And, they tell us, if we do not act boldly the situation will only become much worse in years to come in terms of drought, floods, extreme storms and acidification of the oceans. Sadly, we now have a Republican Party that is more concerned about protecting the profits of Exxon, BP and Shell and the coal industry than protecting the planet. While fossil fuel companies are raking in record profits, climate change ravages our planet and our people – all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into ignoring science."
(Bernie Sanders' Climate Plan). That is the oft-uttered truth of the matter, but truth is just another dying species.

Even liberals are repeating an oft-uttered falsehood promoted by Oil-Qaeda:
"In the last imperial age, the two superpowers made “end times” a human possession for the first time in history. The U.S. and then the USSR took the super power of the atom and built nuclear arsenals capable of destroying the planet several times over. (These days, even a relatively modest exchange of such weapons between India and Pakistan might plunge the world into a version of nuclear winter in which a billion people might die of hunger.) And yet while an instant apocalypse loomed, a slow-motion version of the same, also human-made, was approaching, unrecognized by anyone."
(Tom Dispatch, emphasis added). The reality is that the approaching ecocide / omnicide has been recognized and talked about by scientists for a century and a half (The Exceptional American Denial).

There has also been, concurrent with that century and a half of warnings, a century and a half of ignoring the warnings (e.g. Mitrovica writes about an 1888 prediction by Woodward, of both sea level fall and rise, as a result of ice sheet melt: On the West Side of Zero).

The psychopaths of power don't want to be caught and brought to justice (Oil-Qaeda: The Indictment, When You Are Governed By Psychopaths, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Add to that a long history of deliberate cover-up of the approaching results (The Private Empire's Social Media Hit Squads, 2).

And now, deceiving the public is a billion dollar democratic, capitalist, communist, socialist, and whatever other business, that the psychopathic powers consider to be their paramours (The Deceit Business, 2, 3).

Thus, the lying enterprise is a constitutionally protected cultural dementia (Blind Willie McTell News, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

It is especially vehement when the mythological vomit being spewed is about war (The War Whores Ride The War Horse, 2; In the Fog of The Presstitutes, 2, 3, 4).

This reality has been the pattern ever since the private empire discovered "our" oil under the lands of "thiefdoms" in foreign places:
The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.
(Myth Addiction Is Establishment's LSD - 3, cf. The Universal Smedley - 2). That self deception has now grown up into a trance that has worldwide impact (Choose Your Trances Carefully).

As COP1 - COP21 have shown, the lipstick on the pig is unavailing (Paris Climate Change Conference Begins, Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 29, Comparing a Group-Mind Trance to a Cultural Amygdala).

That is what happens when madness is "treated" with economic concepts rather than with psychotherapy concepts "we" were warned not to fail to develop (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch).

The previous post in this series is here.

A song by the victims, for the victims, and about the victims ...