Friday, January 1, 2016

Thursday, December 31, 2015

The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 2

Fig. 1 Largest Cargo Ship
I. Background

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.
(Late Holocene Sea Level, Evelpidou, Pirazzoli, Vassilopoulos, Spada, Ruggieri, and Tomasin (2012), emphasis added; cf. Sea Level in Roman Times, PDF).  The second video below (Admiral David Tilley) alludes to the importance of sea level to sea ports (cf. Has The Navy Fallen For The Greatest Hoax?).

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).

To top it off, the rise and fall will subsist and continue unabated for a century or more (Groundhog Day & The Climate of Fear).

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.":



Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The Damaged Global Climate System - 5

Systems Thinking and The book

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".
(Washington Post, cf. Mississippi River Floods, Warm Arctic Storm To Hurl Hurricane Force Winds at UK and Iceland, Push Temps to 36-72+ Degrees (F) Above Normal at North Pole).

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.

So, enough already with the myth that "no one weather event can be attributed to global warming" (False Climate Change Meme Infects The President).

All weather is generated by the system that is now damaged due to over a century of  global warming caused by civilization's misuse of fossil fuels.

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



Tuesday, December 29, 2015

New Type of SLC Detection Model - 14

Fig. 1 SLF Group Mean SLC
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.

The previous post in this series is here.

On The Origin of Tornadoes - 7

Fig. 1 Tornado trend was up
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
Fig.2 Tornado Trend Is Down
historically warm intrusions to penetrate through the vortex (Warm Arctic Storm To Hurl Hurricane Force Winds at UK and Iceland, Push Temps to 36-72+ Degrees (F) Above Normal at North Pole).

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 previous post in this series is here.

Monday, December 28, 2015

New Type of SLC Detection Model - 13

Fig. 1 Mean Avg. SLC of 34 PSMSL Stations
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):

ST. GEORGES / ESSO PIER (BERMUDA) (#368)
CHARLESTON I (#234)
SPRINGMAID PIER (#1444)
WILMINGTON (#396)
DUCK PIER OUTSIDE (#1636)
SEWELLS POINT @ HAMPTON ROADS (#299)
CHESAPEAKE BAY BR. TUN. (#1635)
KIPTOPEKE BEACH (#636)
SOLOMON'S ISLAND (BIOL. LAB.) (#412)
CAMBRIDGE II (#1295)
LEWES (BREAKWATER HARBOR) (#224)
WASHINGTON DC (#360)
CAPE MAY (#1153)
ANNAPOLIS (NAVAL ACADEMY) (#311)
BALTIMORE (#148)
ATLANTIC CITY (#180)
REEDY POINT (#786)
PHILADELPHIA (PIER 9N) (#135)
SANDY HOOK (#366)
NEW YORK (THE BATTERY) (#12)
MONTAUK (#519)
BRIDGEPORT (#1068)
NANTUCKET ISLAND (#1111)
NEW LONDON (#429)
NEWPORT (#351)
WOODS HOLE (OCEAN. INST.) (#367)
PROVIDENCE (STATE PIER) (#430)
BOSTON (#235)
PORTLAND (MAINE) (#183)
YARMOUTH (#1158)
BAR HARBOR @ FRENCHMAN BAY @ ME (#525)
HALIFAX (#96)
EASTPORT (#332)
SAINT JOHN @ N.B. (#195)

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.