Friday, January 22, 2016

Flailing In a Sea of Panic and Propaganda

Fig. 1  How scientists know
I. Background

A Federal Court of Appeals has made an interim decision in favor of the EPA effort to lower carbon emissions (D.C. Circuit Order, PDF).

The final decision will come later.

In that case, as many as 27 states are trying to stop the EPA.

In that case the EPA effort to bring down the rate of carbon emissions, which are sky-rocketing (Fig. 1), is seen as something bad for business.

One contributor (the bottom green line) is cement production, which, as the graph shows was at one time contributing about 100 million metric tons annually to the deadly problem of carbon pollution.

I mention that because in the year 2000, as shown in Fig. 1, emissions were at about 2.5% of the total, but have increased to about 5% of the total:
"A single industry accounts for around 5% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It produces a material so ubiquitous it is nearly invisible: cement. Cement is the primary ingredient in concrete, which in turn forms the foundations and structures of the buildings we live and work in, and the roads and bridges we drive on. Concrete is the second most consumed substance on Earth after water. On average, each year, three tons of concrete are consumed by every person on the planet."
(Columbia University, emphasis added). This will increase even more during the upcoming knee-jerk reaction: treatment of the effect, rather than a focus on the cause of carbon emissions (fossil fuel burning).

Fossil fuel carbon emission decreases are even strongly resisted by right wing state governments guided by the Oil-Qaeda Plutocrats in the Epigovernment (see the Series Posts Tab at the top of the page, then arrow down or CTRL F to  EPIGOVERNMENT ("The String Pullers")).

II. Those Who Do Not Resist Big Concrete

Yesterday's post concerned the global danger to seaports (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 3), which will eventually cause an unprecedented and panicked increase in construction activity:
"The problem on a global scale, he said, is that ports may start scrambling all at once to adapt their structures to changing environmental conditions. "It could potentially exceed our capacity for construction worldwide," he added."
(Seaports Need a Plan, emphasis added). The general reactions, heretofore, have involved treating the effect of carbon emissions rather that dealing with the cause.

That includes more and more concrete production, propelled onward by a doctrine of more of the same:
"The primary construction materials currently used in coastal defenses are concrete and steel. Thus, it is important to investigate the known supplies and regional accessibility of cement, coarse aggregate, and fine aggregate.Various public repositories contain data for the estimate of global material supply availability for common construction materials (USGS 2010). Preliminary results indicate that the global capacity for producing these materials is insufficient for constructing the protective structures around each of the world’s top economic ports in less than 50-60 years."
(Will Ports Become Forts, PDF, emphasis added). This type of situation is known as a "predicament" when its hypothetical solution is a subset of its problem domain ("damned if you do and damned if you don't").

A predictable predicament when there is only enough concrete to make the problem worse (by building more useless structures anyway - Groundhog Day & The Climate of Fear).

III. The "How Much and When" Part of the Predicament

Those who have studied government contracting law know that one of the main areas of litigation has been "defective plans and/or specifications."

That is because defects in contract plans (drawings) or specifications (detailed requirements) cause delay and additional expense that the contractor had not contracted for.

The extinction of ports scenario is ripe for an epidemic of such litigation:
"We have been developing a simulation of the world’s design and construction requirements for a hypothetical rise in the mean sea level of 2 meters. The choice of 2 meters is an arbitrary one, especially so given the level of uncertainty of climate models. Nonetheless, it does represent a value within the range of current estimates, and also represents a kind of minimum change at which virtually every port of the world will have to design and construct some type of protective structure. One outcome of this simulation will be to identify a rate of sea level change at which the current industrial capacity of the design and construction industry will be exceeded. The scale of such a simulation requires that the level of design specificity for any given location be reduced to the minimum reasonable extent. Typical industry practice would consider this to be an early stage conceptual design. However, considering the potential impact and scope of the effort, the conceptual design should take the concern of many stakeholders into consideration. Consequently, to improve the credibility of the “minimum design specificity” we plan to extend the scope of our project to include expertise in fluid dynamics, wave physics, ecology and economics."
(Seaports 2100, emphasis added). This arbitrary assumption of only 2m of sea level change (SLC) by 2100 is one root cause of the litigation problem.

Because "arbitrary" is not a standard, uniform, and resilient base upon which to form construction documents:
"If the owner of an engineering and construction project first contracts with an engineering or architectural firm to prepare the specifications, construction drawings, and other contract documents, and then hires a construction contractor to build that project, the owner carries an implied warranty that 1) the specifications, construction drawings, and other contract documents that it furnishes to the construction contractor are accurate, and 2) an acceptable product will result if such specifications and drawings are followed.
...
A defective specification also may breach the implied warranty that the contractor will be able to perform the contract in the specified time. In such cases, the contractor may recover its damages and extended overhead costs due to delays and related impacts. This breach cannot be cured by noncompensable time extensions or by the owner refraining from enforcing liquidated damages. To recover its increased costs as a result of defective and deficient specifications, drawings, and other contract documents supplied by the owner, a contractor may need to demonstrate that specifications, drawings, and other contract documents contain representations which were materially different from those actually encountered, the contractor justifiably relied upon those representations, and the actual conditions increased the cost of performing the work."
(Defective & Deficient Contract Documents, 2013, PDF). The drafting of accurate SLC specifications on a seaport contract boils down to "who ya gonna call" dynamics (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).

The Spearin Doctrine in government contract law involves conditions not unlike what would be encountered in seaport contracts:
"What are the contractor’s remedies when it incurs damages because of problems with the owner’s specifications and drawings? The contractor usually can base its request for an equitable contract adjustment on entitlement supported by the Spearin Doctrine. Spearin contracted with the U.S. government to build a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The government provided plans requiring the relocation of a six-foot storm sewer, including dimensions, materials of construction, and the new location of the rebuilt sewer. Spearin fully complied with the specifications. However, a nearby seven-foot sewer was blocked by a dam that prevented water from backing up into that sewer, which the government then requested that Spearin remove. Before completion of the dry dock, the six-foot sewer installed by Spearin broke and flooded the site due to high tides, heavy rains, and water pressure. A later investigation found that the six- foot sewer broke because the design did not take into account the dam in the seven-foot sewer. The government refused to pay for the damages, and Spearin sued.

The Supreme Court in Spearin said,
But if a contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be held responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications.
In most cases, the courts and boards have relied on the implied warranty established by this benchmark case to find in the contractor’s favor, and does not depend on the owner’s negligence."
(ibid, at p. 3). Not knowing where the sea level will end up is a fundamental problem with government contracting in this SLC scenario.

So, it is likely that contractors will either have to agree to take the risk upon themselves, or to not bid on such contracts.

The alternative of a "cost-plus" contract is one of the most scary economic situations for owners and governments, so it will be resisted.

IV. Conclusion

The reality of the danger that International-Trade-Based Civilization is facing is so far beyond what has ever been faced that it invites various and sundry forms of denial and other dementia.

This is the result of a sea of propaganda and spin to the degree that civilization has become lost in space (You Are Here).

And those seas are rising too.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court, for the first time ever, reversed the DC Circuit prior to a ruling on the merits (The Decision to Halt the Implementation of the Clean Power Plan is Outrageous).

"Mykonos", by Fleet Foxes (lyrics here):



Wednesday, January 20, 2016

The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 3

Fig. 1 Coming To A Port Near Us?
I. Background

Yesterday's post was about the doubling of heat content in the oceans.

It took 132 years to double the last time and this time it doubled in only 18 years.

Today's post comes on the day that NOAA officially released its State of the Climate report, which was not expected to be a surprise, rather, it was expected to be a report that would indicate the year 2015 was a record year for global warming.

That is exactly what they reported:
"2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record;
December 2015 temperature record warm

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2015 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880. During the final month, the December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was the highest on record for any month in the 136-year record."
(NOAA, emphasis added). Another report indicated that by 2050 the oceans would have more plastic in them than fish (World Economic Forum).

II. The International Sea-trade-Civilization's Seaports

Of all the ancient civilizations, perhaps ours is more like the Phoenicians than some of the others:
The Phoenicians were a great maritime people, known for their mighty ships ... The island city of Tyre and the city of Sidon were the most powerful states in Phoenicia ... Phoenicia thrived as a maritime trader and manufacturing center from c.1500-332 BCE and was highly regarded for their skill in ship-building, glass-making, the production of dyes, and an impressive level of skill in the manufacture of luxury and common goods.
(Phoenicia, cf. Carthage). The current version of "International Trade Civilization" is truly global, not regional like Phoenicia was:
Liner shipping could lay claim to being the world's first truly global industry. Likewise it could claim to be the industry which, more than any other makes it possible for a truly global economy to work. It connects countries, markets, businesses and people, allowing them to buy and sell goods on a scale not previously possible.
(World Shipping, emphasis added; cf. Global Container Fleet, Shipping Ports). As go the shipping ports, so goes "International Trade Civilization" (Confusing "Civilization" With "Species").

I am not saying that the human, or any other species, is not threatened, they certainly are, I am saying that in the sequence of events current civilization goes first.

III. Sea Level Change (SLC) Is An Unassailable Threat

It ought not be a mystery why this is so (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5; Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 44).

Fig. 2 The Sea has always risen along with CO2
I have posted, probably ad nauseum to some readers, about the unrealized danger invading every nation within current International Trade Civilization (see the Dredd Blog Series Posts Tab/Page under the heading "SEA LEVEL CHANGE").

It is difficult to fathom why there is not more discussion about this predicament and danger to the international trade connecting, defining, and holding together current civilization.

There is a link in a comment made yesterday by Mark Hanson that brings it up:
If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, sea level would rise by about 11 feet
Fig. 3  A civilization way out of tune
on average across the earth. “There’s no question at all that the number of people and the amount of stuff that we have close to sea level is huge,” glaciologist Richard Alley said. “What happens to the beach, what happens to our shipping, what happens to our naval base?”
(Climate Change, emphasis added). The danger is operational, and well under way, but it is not fully discussed as it should be.

IV. Conclusion

As Fig. 2 shows, sea level today is "behind schedule," because in previous instances it went up along with CO2  in every case.

Note that:  1) the historical mark where it ought to be is way above what it is now, 2) the oceans are heating with a doubling acceleration, and 3) global warming is going stronger than ever before.

It seems like we should keep our eyes on what SLC can do (compare Fig. 2 with Fig. 3).

And be mindful that it can happen much more quickly than we are contemplating ("a rise of 10 feet by 2050" - Hansen 2015).

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

A metaphor or not (Plato's Atlantis):




Tuesday, January 19, 2016

The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR - 9?

Fig. 1 The acceleration fingerprint
The world's oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

So, today let's continue to ask the critical question considered in this series (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

First, some detail from yesterday's paper:
"So since 1997, Earth's oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 straight years."

"But the study's authors and outside experts say it's not the raw numbers that bother them. It's how fast those numbers are increasing.

"After 2000 in particular the rate of change [acceleration] is really starting to ramp up," Durack said.

Fig. 2 Acceleration in the Zone
This means the amount of energy being trapped in Earth's climate system as a whole is accelerating, the study's lead author Peter Gleckler, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore, said."

Fig. 3 Same fingerprint in the Zone

“Given the importance of the ocean warming signal for understanding our changing climate, it is high time to measure the global ocean systematically from the surface to the ocean floor,” said NOAA oceanographer Gregory Johnson.
(emphasis added; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decadesStudy: Man-Made Heat In Oceans Is Surging, Has Doubled Since 1997). This is serious acceleration that makes the above quote "it is high time to measure" a gross understatement.

This answers the question, which some may have had in their mind, as to why the Dredd Blog software model shows acceleration of the danger to the following seaports in the following zones:
Zone: AL.SW.SW, ports: 6,
[Shanghai, CN]
[Busan, KR]
[Qingdao Gang, CN]
[Taicang, CN]
[Gwangyang Hang, KR]
[Incheon, KR]
stations: 47

Zone: AQ.SE.SW, ports: 3,
[Keppel - (East Singapore), SG]
[Port Klang, MY]
[Tanjung Pelepas, MY]
stations: 7

Zone: AQ.NE.NE, ports: 7,
[Shenzhen, CN]
[Guangzhou, CN]
[Xiamen, CN]
[Fuzhou, CN]
[Dongguan, CN]
[Zhongshan, CN]
[Shantou, CN]
stations: 0

Zone: AQ.NE.SE, ports: 1,
[Hong Kong, HK]
stations: 3

Zone: AR.NW.NW, ports: 4,
[Ningbo, CN]
[Kaohsiung, TW]
[Keelung, TW]
[Taichung, TW]
stations: 5

Zone: AP.NE.NE, ports: 4,
[Jebel Ali, AE]
[Khor Fakkan, AE]
[Bandar-E Shahid Reajie, IR]
[Dammam, SA]
stations: 0

Zone: AK.SE.NE, ports: 1,
[Tianjin Xin Gang, CN]
stations: 0

Zone: AJ.NW.SW, ports: 5,
[Rotterdam, NL]
[Antwerpen, BE]
[Felixstowe, GB]
[Port of Le Havre, FR]
[Bruges, BE]
stations: 16

Zone: AL.SW.NW, ports: 4,
[Dalian, CN]
[Yingkou, CN]
[Yantai, CN]
[Dandong, CN]
stations: 3

Zone: AJ.NW.NW, ports: 2,
[Hamburg, DE]
[Bremen, DE]
stations: 37

Zone: AH.SW.SW, ports: 2,
[Los Angeles, US]
[Long Beach, US]
stations: 5

Zone: AW.NE.NE, ports: 2,
[Tanjung Priok, ID]
[Surabaya, ID]
stations: 0

Zone: AQ.SE.NW, ports: 2,
[Laem Chabang, TH]
[Bangkok, TH]
stations: 3

Zone: AQ.SE.NE, ports: 1,
[Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), VN]
stations: 0

Zone: AK.SE.SE, ports: 3,
[Lianyungang, CN]
[Nanjing, CN]
[Rizhao, CN]
stations: 0

Zone: AH.SE.NE, ports: 1,
[New York City, US]
stations: 17

Zone: AL.SW.SE, ports: 5,
[Tokyo Ko, JP]
[Yokohama Ko, JP]
[Nagoya Ko, JP]
[Kobe, JP]
[Osaka, JP]
stations: 33

Zone: AP.NE.SW, ports: 1,
[Jeddah, SA]
stations: 0

Zone: AI.SE.SE, ports: 2,
[Algeciras, ES]
[Tanger, MA]
stations: 5

Zone: AI.SE.NE, ports: 2,
[Valencia, ES]
[Cartagena, ES]
stations: 4

Zone: AQ.SW.SE, ports: 1,
[Colombo, LK]
stations: 0

Zone: AQ.NW.SW, ports: 1,
[Mumbai (Bombay), IN]
stations: 0

Zone: AJ.SE.SW, ports: 3,
[Bur Said (Port Said), EG]
[Mersin, TR]
[Haifa, IL]
stations: 0

Zone: AR.SW.NW, ports: 1,
[Manila, PH]
stations: 2

Zone: AU.SW.SW, ports: 1,
[Santos, BR]
stations: 0

Zone: AJ.SW.NE, ports: 3,
[Ambarli, TR]
[Piraeus, GR]
[Gioia Tauro, IT]
stations: 11

Zone: A0.NW.NW, ports: 2,
[Colón, AR]
[Buenos Aires, AR]
stations: 2

Zone: AP.NE.SE, ports: 1,
[Salalah, OM]
stations: 0

Zone: AN.SE.NW, ports: 1,
[Balboa, PA]
stations: 1

Zone: AH.SE.SW, ports: 2,
[Savannah, US]
[Charleston, US]
stations: 12

Zone: AG.NE.SE, ports: 3,
[Vancouver, CA]
[Tacoma, US]
[Seattle, US]
stations: 17

Zone: AJ.SW.SW, ports: 1,
[Malta Freeport, MT]
stations: 0

Zone: AV.SE.SW, ports: 1,
[Durban, ZA]
stations: 2

Zone: AN.NE.NW, ports: 2,
[St Petersburg, US]
[Freeport, BS]
stations: 7

Zone: A3.NW.SE, ports: 1,
[Melbourne, AU]
stations: 0

Zone: AQ.NW.NW, ports: 2,
[Mundra, IN]
[Karachi, PK]
stations: 1

Zone: AG.SE.NE, ports: 1,
[Oakland, US]
stations: 9

Zone: AK.SW.SE, ports: 1,
[Virginia, US]
stations: 0

Zone: A3.NE.NW, ports: 1,
[Sydney, AU]
stations: 2

Zone: AN.NW.SE, ports: 1,
[Manzanillo, MX]
stations: 1

Zone: AJ.SW.NW, ports: 3,
[Genoa, IT]
[Barcelona, ES]
[La Spezia, IT]
stations: 4

Zone: AN.NW.NE, ports: 1,
[Houston, US]
stations: 3

Zone: AT.NE.SW, ports: 1,
[Puerto del Callao, PE]
stations: 0

Zone: AX.SE.SE, ports: 1,
[Kingston, NF]
stations: 0

Zone: AQ.NE.SW, ports: 1,
[Chittagong, BD]
stations: 0

Zone: AT.NE.NW, ports: 1,
[Guayaquil, EC]
stations: 0

Zone: AH.SE.NW, ports: 1,
[Alexandria, US]
stations: 8

Zone: AI.NE.SE, ports: 1,
[Southampton, GB]
stations: 12

Zone: AQ.SW.NE, ports: 1,
[Chennai (Madras), IN]
stations: 0

Zone: AH.NE.SE, ports: 1,
[Montreal, CA]
stations: 17
The zones listed above contain the top 100 seaports of the world.

The sea level change (SLC) taking place within them  has been shown by lots of previous Dredd Blog graphs.

SLC is endangering these seaports (The Evolution of Models - 19).

Which in turn endangers current "International Trade Civilization" (which evolved from "Industrial Civilization").

The previous post in this series is here.



Monday, January 18, 2016

The Evolution of Models - 20

Jacobshavin Ice Stream
In the previous post of this series I noted that the Dredd Blog software model is based on acceleration of damage being done to the Global Climate System.

In turn, that damage reality results in another acceleration of events which a Damaged Global Climate System also produces.

Specifically, as the damaged global climate system is poisoned with greenhouse gases, its gasps and its lashing-out will accelerate accordingly:
The seesaw historical patterns at tide gauge stations around the world are the fingerprints of a planet writhing in the torment inflicted upon it by a murder suicide pact (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder).

A planet writhing in the hurt of having to bring into order the changing of the guards, and to order the invasion that will make current civilization extinct (The Extinction of Charleston, The Extinction of Philadelphia, The Extinction of Washington, D.C., The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, The Extinction of Boston, The Extinction of Miami, The Extinction of Manzanillo, The Extinction of Houston, The Extinction of Providence, The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands, Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, 2, 3, 4, The 1% May Face The Wrath of Sea Level Rise First, Why The Military Can't Defend Against The Invasion).
(On The Origin of the Sea-level Seesaw). I have even waxed specific about some other types of expected future damage:
Big winds and waves have hit Greenland recently (Warm Arctic Storm To Hurl Hurricane Force Winds at UK and Iceland, Push Temps to 36-72+ Degrees (F) Above Normal at North Pole).

The high waves and strong winds brought by these anomalous storms can weaken the ice shelves which hold back the ice sheet's hundreds of kilometers long ice streams (Watch The Ice Shelves, 2).

Another storm is slated to impact Greenland again for the second time in a short while (Hurricane Alex).

This increases sea level change (SLC) which endangers the world's seaports.
(The Evolution of Models - 19). Some of the scientists who focus on Greenland were evidently thinking the same way.

Because, they observed exactly that projected event when they took a look at its impact on Greenland ice sheets, and especially damage to Greenland ice shelves:
“But what I am getting at is that in general the temperature anomalies over the region of Jakobshavn have been high in the last few days, and I spotted weird temperatures off the coast ...

It is evident from the PROMICE weather records on the ice sheet just south of the Disko Bay region that temperatures have been exceptionally high since January 5th and atmospheric pressures have been high since January 9th ... changes are in the sea ice fronts and ice in the coastal inlets ... an area of sea ice across the fjord in front of Jakobshavn Glacier on January 9, that disappears by January 13 ... a plume is sweeping ... the sea ice in the fjord disappears by January 13th and the ice front is pushed back in a concave fashion ... a clear push of water driving sea ice offshore ... Ilulissat Fjord mouth lack of ice is also evident ... a significant flushing of icebergs ... icebergs scattered through the plume, indicate more clearly the plume is a water source change event, even if wind driven. The iceberg plume in the fjord has a brighter aspect due to the varied surface aspect-reflectance and has expanded down fjord.  The event must be due to or enhanced by strong offshore winds ... the ice melange in front of Jakobshavn has been largely removed.

In Uummannaq Bay a very similar sequence plays out ... the sea ice connecting islands ... is gone ... we have a clear push of water leading to a concave sea ice front that is pushed well offshore ... there is a plume leading to the concave sea ice front ... Moon et al (2015) indicate the importance of a rigid ice melange at the front of tidewater outlet glaciers in Greenland.  In this case the ice melange in front of Jakobshavn has been removed, and probably from in front of other glaciers ...
(What is Up in Greenland, January 2016). This is further evidence that the ice shelves were in fact damaged by the storms' warm winds and waves.

It is an indication of the emergence of an acceleration factor for accelerating damage to the ice streams (Watch The Ice Shelves, 2).

The next domino that falls, in this cause and effect sequence, is the freeing of gravity-held waters along the coast of Greenland, and the subsequent relocation of that seawater to other parts of the globe (causing both sea level rise and sea level fall).

In two recent posts from a Dredd Blog series I have calculated the major impact which that damaging sequence can have (see e.g. The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4).

We are seeing more and more evidence that the Hansen (2015) inspired model of future SLR is looking more accurate than the IPCC model (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion, 2, 3).

The previous post in this series is here.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4

Fig. 1 Basic formula @ Math Teacher adapted
In the previous post of this series estimates were made based upon formulas tied to the prism shape (The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 3).

Using the prism shape, I calculated the cubic kilometers of sea water held by ice sheet gravity around Greenland and Antarctica.

The volume values were not taken further to determine how much sea level rise (SLR) would take place.

So, in today's post I will do that calculation while using a simpler, more direct formula by replacing the conceptual shape from a prism to a wedge (Fig. 1).

The simple formula then becomes V = bhl / 2,  where "b" is the distance from the coastline to the "hinge point" (The Evolution and Migration of Sea Level Hinge Points); "h" is the depth of the sea level fall (SLF) to be released by ice mass / gravity loss, and "l" is the length of the coastline.

Using the figures from the previous post, first we begin with the 1m global mean average SLR problem:
the unequal raw numbers are:

b = 2000 km
h = 20 m
l = 44,087 km (Greenland coastline length)
l = 17,968 km (Antarctica coastline length)

(see Wikipedia for those coastline lengths)

converting all figures to meters, the preliminary figures are:

b = 2000 km * 1000 = 2,000,000 m
l = 44,087 km * 1000 = 44,087,000 m (Greenland)
l = 17,968 km * 1000 = 17,968,000 m (Antarctica)
l = 62,055,000 m (sum of lengths of both coastlines)

Those figures fit the formula as follows:

V = (b * h * l) / 2
V = (2,000,000 m * 20 m * 62,055,000 m) / 2
V = (2.4822 × 10¹⁵ m3) / 2 (meters)
V = (2.4822 × 10¹² km3) / 2 (kilometers)
V = 1.2411 × 10¹² km3

The next thing to do is figure out how much SLR is generated by this seawater once it is relocated:
2.78 x 10-6 m = 0.00000278 m (1 km3 = 2.78 x 10-6 m of SLR)
(for mm << m we divide by 1000, to derive 0.00000000278 mm)
thus: 1.2411 × 10¹² km3 × 0.00000000278 mm = 3,450.258 mm
3,450.258 mm = 11.32 ft. (divide mm by 304.8 to get ft.)
(Climate Sanity). This is 11.32 feet of gravity induced SLR added onto the 1 meter of global mean average SLR generated from the ice sheet melt water of Greenland, and the additional 1 meter of global mean average SLR (2 m of global mean average SLR total) from Antarctica/Greenland melt water / calving.

Let's recap: Professor Mitrovica calculated that a 20 meter drop in sea level (SLF) around Greenland, extending out 2,000 km to the "hinge line," would take place if enough Greenland ice sheet melted to raise the global mean average sea level by 1 meter (I added another meter --from Antarctica -- so 2 m total).
Fig. 2  Blue area relocated to Orange area

Thus, in addition to the 2 m (6.56 ft.) from the ice melt, there is an additional 11.32 feet of SLR (6.56 + 11.32 = 17.88 feet).

And don't forget the 20 m of SLF @ Greenland and Antarctica is also SLC.

The additional seawater distribution is not exclusively associated with direct ice melt in the sense that it is already seawater, because that additional distribution is due to gravitational power lost when the ice sheet on land melts.

The ice sheet incrementally loses gravity in proportion to mass loss (Newton).

That 1.2411×10¹² km3 of gravity-held water is released from the coastal areas, and is then relocated to various spots around the global ocean (Fig. 2).

This happens according to the Earth's rotational, gravitational, etc., forces acting upon that released seawater (adding an additional 11.32 ft of SLR in places).

Can you see that I had a valid reason for hypothesizing that this "ghost water" is probably missing from consideration in the traditional SLC software models (The Evolution of Models - 19) which have repeatedly underestimated SLR?

I have mentioned that I also think it is a reason that words like "El Nino, King 'Tides', coastal 'flooding', etc." are conjured up by some influential meteorologists (they are missing some obvious factors).

Maybe next time we will take a look at the impact a 100 m SLF (a la Professor Mitrovica) around Greenland and Antarctica would have.

The previous post in this series is here.