Questionable Scientific Papers - 5

Fig. 1 "The European Problem"

In the previous post of this series I introduced a new module of the Dredd Blog sea level change (SLC) software (Questionable Scientific Papers - 4).

Fig. 2 Geophysical Fingerprint

That module calculates the fingerprint of SLC left by geophysical dynamics which I call: 1) displacement, 2) ghost-water, and 3) the thermal-factor (Fig. 2).

Fig. 3 Geographical Fingerprint

There is another module in the software model that calculates the fingerprint of SLC left by geographical dynamics which I call "Antarctica Portion," "Greenland Portion," and "Glaciers' Portion" (Fig. 3).

The distinction is that one is a picture of the geographical locations from which the SLC originates, and the other is a picture of the geophysical entities generating the SLC.

The distinction is that one module focuses on geographical origins, while the other focuses on geophysical process origins.

They both have a "Combined" window, but the geographical module then has "Antarctica Portion," "Greenland Portion," and "Glaciers' Portion."

In contrast, the geophysical module has "Displacement Portion," "Ghost-Water Portion," and "Thermal-Factor Portion."

I changed the latter one from "Thermal Expansion Portion" to "Thermal-Factor Portion" because the latter description is more in touch with reality, as was discussed in a couple of earlier posts (Questionable Scientific Papers - 4, The Ghost-Water Constant - 2).

The gist of the nomenclature change is that "thermal expansion" is not a major factor in SLC, even when that SLC is sea level rise (SLR).

Thermal expansion is especially not a major factor when that SLC is sea level fall (SLF).

So, now the description "Thermal-Factor Portion" has to do with thermal characteristics in a more accurate way.

It is especially so, since I realized that thermal expansion is a minor player in SLR scenarios, and is actually a no-show in SLF scenarios.

That having been said, it is still true that thermal expansion is a minor factor in both scenarios of SLC, as I will explain.

First, as Fig. 2 shows, the thermal expansion dynamics are not thrown away by the new fingerprint addition to the model, rather, it is shown for what it is, a vain expansion in the falling sea level scenario that exists near land masses as ice sheets fade away.

It's like, ok we know that thermal expansion has taken place in this sea level that has dropped two feet during the time frame of the graph, however, we do not see two feet of SLF as a case where thermal expansion caused SLR.

Since none of us have seen a negative number increase a positive number by addition [(+5)+(−4) = +1], we also will not see minor thermal expansion of say 2 millimeters change the nature of a 2 foot drop in sea level into SLR.

Basically then, in cases where zones or sub-zones have an SLR characteristic, the "Thermal-Factor Portion" will show a minor addition to the increase in sea level there.

However, in cases where zones or sub-zones have an SLF characteristic, the "Thermal-Factor Portion" will show, in effect, a resistance to the SLF (e.g. "the sea level would have been this much lower without this much 'thermal expansion' influence").

By the way, Zone AD.SW.SE, shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, contains the following PSMSL tide gauge stations:  Stn. #249 (FOGLO / DEGERBY), Stn. #229 (KEMI), Stn. #79 (OULU / ULEABORG), Stn. #240 (RAAHE / BRAHESTAD), Stn. #194 (PIETARSAARI / JAKOBSTAD), Stn. #57 (VAASA / VASA), Stn. #285 (KASKINEN / KASKO), Stn. #172 (MANTYLUOTO), Stn. #376 (RAUMA / RAUMO), Stn. #239 (TURKU / ABO), Stn. #14 (HELSINKI), Stn. #315 (HAMINA), Stn. #2103 (FORSMARK), Stn. #1211 (SPIKARNA), Stn. #88 (RATAN), Stn. #203 (FURUOGRUND), and Stn. #2101 (KALIX).

Regular readers know that zone area as the locus of "The European Problem" we explored in On The Evolution of Sea Level Change.

Have a great weekend everyone.

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

---

Changes by David Bowie (lyrics here):

---

The Ghost-Water Constant - 2

Fig. 1 Sea level downward thermal "expansion?"

I. Start Here

I want to begin today's post with a quote from the IPCC concerning sea level change (SLC).

The quote in question parrots the all too often spoken and written conventional lack of wisdom concerning an evidently little known reality about SLC.

That quote is: "... thermal expansion ... is one of the major contributors to sea level changes during the 20th and 21st centuries." (IPCC, emphasis added).

Fig. 2 Thermal Resistance but not SLR

The definition of "major" which apples here is: "adjective ...greater in size, extent, or importance ... great, as in rank or importance ... of or relating to the majority" (Dictionary).

A majority means, for example, more than anything else, 51%, and the most.

A major contributor is one that contributes enough to be in the top half, but thermal expansion caused SLR is not a major player no matter how you say it.

II. Good and Bad Nomenclature

To my way of thinking, a valid professional nomenclature for SLC issues should not have different words that mean the same thing, or words that have two or more meanings.

For example "expansion" should not mean "contraction" and "up" should not mean "down" (Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death).

It is about time to start using language like "thermal sea level rise is a minor factor" in SLC in place of "thermal expansion is a major cause of sea level change" (ibid).

One reason is that the latter one is a falsehood and is unscientific, because SLC is composed of both rise and fall.

III. Proof of Concept

Fig. 3 Glacier Bay gravity influence

The graphs at Fig. 3 - Fig. 12 present an example of both SLR and sea level fall (SLF) on the West Coast of the U.S.

Proceeding from Skagway in Southeastern Alaska down to San Francisco, California, we can see why the mistaken notion of thermal expansion is not useful.

Fig. 4 More SLF near Glacier Bay

Notice that there is no SLR in Fig. 3 through Fig. 8, rather, there is SLF.

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Does thermal expansion in sea water cause the sea level to drop two or so feet in a relatively small distance?

Fig. 7 A bit north of the hinge point

Fig. 8 South of the hinge point

No.

Additionally, notice that the sea water there is warmed by the Japanese Current, which is comparable to the warm Gulf Stream on the East Coast of the U.S., which is touted for causing thermal expansion there.

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

As you can see by the graphs, this warm water with its expected thermal expansion causes no SLR (nor does it cause SLF).

Fig. 11

Moving down through the graphs we begin to see another story at Fig. 8 through Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

That difference is that SLR begins to take place after a relatively short distance is covered.

Fig. 13

So, both the SLR and the SLF take place in an area impacted by the same warm Japanese Current.

Thermal expansion is obviously not a "major factor," and in fact has little to nothing to do with what is happening.

What is taking place in this relatively short distance happens to be caused by the loss of ice mass and gravity at Glacier Bay.

As ice mass is lost to the sea, the subsequent relocation of both melt water and ghost-water are the major factors in this scenario (The Ghost-Water Constant, The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4).

The same dynamic drives what is happening in Greenland (see Proof of Concept - 3, Proof of Concept - 5, and The Evolution and Migration of Sea Level Hinge Points).

IV. Spread The Word

The concept primarily at play was first written about circa 1888 by a scientist named Woodward (On the West Side of Zero).

There was an example for a proof of concept, which was well established by that time, which I posted about a while back (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 54).

Evidently no one told anyone about Woodward's paper (except the Mitrovica team).

Had it been utilized a lot of this thermal expansion excess would have been avoided.

And perhaps sea level reality would have been grasped long ago.

Perhaps even soon enough to have avoided what is now going to happen (The Extinction of Charleston, The Extinction of Philadelphia, The Extinction of Washington, D.C., The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, 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).

So, tell your science teacher, professor, or science community associates ... spread the word somehow (like regular readers Tom and Mark have).

V. Conclusion

It won't be too long until I have done all I can do to make people aware of these phenomena.

At that time I will focus on another subject, as I have done in the past.

Whether or not my efforts will have been in vain remains to be seen.

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

---

---

Questionable Scientific Papers - 4

Fig. 1 Dredd Blog Model Zones

I. Background

I had a difficult time deciding which series to put this post into.

Should it be in "The Evolution of Models" or in "Questionable 'Scientific' Papers" I wondered.

I finally made the decision to post it in this series, because scientific professionals just keep filing papers based on an old error about thermal expansion that causes sea level rise (SLR).

"The thermal expansion trance has got to go," I thought, so suppressing my intimidation at

Fig. 2  Typical Tide Gauge sea level rise data

having to slap the face or throw cold water on some folks in the scientific community, I worked up some courage, so, here we go.

To get right to it, first notice Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 for the purpose of grasping the gist of the story.

The zone those graphs focus on (AH.SE.NW see Fig. 1) has the following tide gauge

Fig. 3 Proportions of SLC

stations: #1295 (CAMBRIDGE II), #360 (WASHINGTON DC), #412 (SOLOMON'S ISLAND BIOL. LAB.), #311 (ANNAPOLIS NAVAL ACADEMY), #148 (BALTIMORE), #224 (LEWES BREAKWATER HARBOR), #135 (PHILADELPHIA PIER 9N), and #786 (REEDY POINT).

II. The Point

Basically, thermal expansion cannot account for  the PSMSL data we see a lot here on Dredd Blog.

The overuse of thermal expansion is akin to other old "problems" some in the scientific community toiled with for years, such as "the tide gauge station problem" and "the European problem," neither of which were the problem.

Fig. 4

The problem was with the researchers of that time, whom Dr. Mitrovica indicated "didn't have a clue."

The graph in Fig. 3 shows three contributors: "displacement, ghost-water, and thermal expansion."

Their percentage of contribution now in the model, is 80.95% for "displacement," 13.95 percent for "ghost-water," and 5.1% for "thermal expansion."

Displacement is what happens when melt water flows from the land into the ocean, or ice bergs calve off glaciers and then fall into the ocean.

The ghost-water phenomenon was explained recently in the Dredd Blog post The Ghost-Water Constant.

Thermal expansion, the current fettish driving a lot of error, is talked and written about all the time, such as:

"we note that a warming of 1°C over the central 200 m of the Atlantic layer [in the Arctic Ocean] would result in a local rise of steric sea level of 10 to 20 mm

Fig. 5

[1-2 cm]" - IPCC

"For the period 1985–2025 the estimate of greenhouse-gas-induced warming is 0.6–1.0° C. The concomitant oceanic thermal expansion would raise sea level by 4–8 cm [40-80 mm]." - Thermal expansion of sea water associated with global warming

"The amount of sea level rise that comes from the oceans warming and expanding has been underestimated, and could be about twice as much as previously calculated, German researchers have said." - Sea level rise from ocean warming underestimated

These are all competent scientists who are laboring without first considering all of the relevant evidence available, and thus improperly attributing quantities of SLC to thermal expansion.

III. The Reality

The link to the IPCC page, in Section II above, also says "... thermal expansion ... is one of the major contributors to sea level changes during the 20th and 21st centuries" (notice that Fig. 3 lists it as the least of three factors).

Fig. 6

"Water is essentially incompressible, especially under normal conditions" (USGS), and its expansion is not sufficient to account for the degree of SLR being observed (Engineering Toolbox).

There is indisputable sea level fall (SLF) that thermal expansion cannot explain, because that SLF is not thermal, or any other type of compression for that matter.

Fig. 7

The reason for the various areas of SLF, which has been going on for over a century, was discussed at length in Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 3, Proof of Concept - 3, 5, and Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 54.

Those posts show that sea level began to fall in the late 1700's because of the two main factors in SLC: displacement and ghost-water.

That dynamic is still ongoing now.

The zone AH.SE.NE contains large population centers, which the century of tide gauge station records show, is experiencing SLR (Fig. 6, Fig. 7)..

The tide gauge stations there are: #1158 (YARMOUTH), #96 (HALIFAX), #1153 (CAPE

Fig. 8 Sub-zones of Zones @ Fig. 1

MAY), #180 (ATLANTIC CITY), #366 (SANDY HOOK), #12 (NEW YORK (THE BATTERY)), #519 (MONTAUK), #1068 (BRIDGEPORT), #429 (NEW LONDON), #430 (PROVIDENCE (STATE PIER)), #351 (NEWPORT), #367 (WOODS HOLE (OCEAN. INST.)), #1111 (NANTUCKET ISLAND), #235 (BOSTON), #183 (PORTLAND (MAINE)), #525 (BAR HARBOR @ FRENCHMAN BAY @ ME), and #332 (EASTPORT).

IV. Possible Sources of the Thermal Error

The lack of familiarity with the ice sheet gravity dynamics, which Dr. Mitrovica (video below) lectures about, is an obvious source of this ongoing inaccuracy.

Another source is that some scientists ever so often "detect" more SLR than the historical thermal expansion values would account for.

Their recent and naive doubling of those values, without sufficient evidence IMO, is a case in point (Sea level rise from ocean warming underestimated).

That said, I also may have to adjust "the ghost-water constant" (13.95%), if more accurate lengths of the coastlines of Antarctica and/or Greenland are found (The Ghost-Water Constant).

And perhaps the 5.1% for thermal expansion could be adjusted a bit.

Yet, I am fine with the principles involved in this hypothesis.

V. Conclusion

Let me know your opinions on this.

The graphs in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 are from zone AH.SE.SW, which means that today's examples are from the U.S. East Coast and N.W. Florida.

Zone AH.SE.SW contains stations: #1156 (DAUPHIN ISLAND), #246 (PENSACOLA), #1641 (PANAMA CITY @ ST.ANDREWS BAY @ FL), #112 (FERNANDINA BEACH), #395 (FORT PULASKI), #234 (CHARLESTON I), #1444 (SPRINGMAID PIER), #396 (WILMINGTON SC), #1636 (DUCK PIER OUTSIDE), #1635 (CHESAPEAKE BAY BR. TUN.), #299 (SEWELLS POINT @ HAMPTON ROADS), and #636 (KIPTOPEKE BEACH).

Those zones are on the map above (Zone In On Sea Level Change).

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

---

Dr. Mitrovica: A discussion of, among other things, SLC as impacted by ice sheet mass and gravity:

---

Selecting A Leader From The Asylum

Eloise Asylum out on Highway 61

At least we get a choice of which division to choose from ("In 1913 there were three divisions: The Eloise Hospital (Mental Hospital), the Eloise Infirmary (Poorhouse) and the Eloise Sanitarium (T.B. Hospital) which were collectively called Eloise." - Wikipedia).

It used to be that they never allowed candidates to be selected from Desolation Row,, but Things Have Changed.

The indefatigable professor speaks out once again:

Noam Chomsky, the noted radical and MIT professor emeritus, said the Republican Party has become so extreme in its rhetoric and policies that it

The Exploding Candidate and The Star

poses a “serious danger to human survival.”

“Today, the Republican Party has drifted off the rails,” Chomsky, a frequent critic of both parties, said in an interview Monday with The Huffington Post. “It’s become what the respected conservative political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein call ‘a radical insurgency’ that has pretty much abandoned parliamentary politics.”

Chomsky cited a 2013 article [PDF] by Mann and Ornstein published in Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, analyzing the polarization of the parties. The authors write that the GOP has become “ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

(GOP Is 'Literally A Serious Danger To Human Survival’). Their denials of climate change (Scribbler) are psychotic delusions (Doomsday Clock).

So, the selection game now in "primary" season is to diagnose then select the lesser psychotic (The Elections of Pontius Pilots, 2, 3, 4, 5).

It is probably because they all want to be an exploding star, which they know even less about.

The Ghost-Water Constant

Fig. 1 USGS sea level rise potential modified

In a previous post of a Dredd Blog series, I did some calculations concerning the sea level change (SLC) impact of ice sheet gravity (The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4).

The result was an additional 11.2m of sea level rise (SLR) for the two main locations considered (Antarctica & Greenland).

The description of the phenomenon was "ghost-water" because an additional amount of SLR will take place without any additional calving or melting of ice sheets.

It is totally the result of losing something that can't be seen: ghostly gravity.

The ghost-water is water initially pulled up against the land mass (Greenland) all along the coastline, by the power of the Greenland ice sheet's gravity.

That ghost-water is released to flow elsewhere as the "ghost-gravity" is lost incrementally when the ice sheet mass decreases due to either ice melt or glaciers calving (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

The gravity is redistributed along with the melt water, along with the calving ice bergs, and along with the ghost-water. 

II. Let's Revisit the Formula

As it turns out, this ghost-water thingy is a constant which I am naming "gW".

I am going to apply it to all ice (Fig. 1) today, and determine its full value.

The numbers seem scary, so I want to double check the figures that Dr. Mitrovica gave us in the video (see video below).

So, we will start from scratch, initially leaving out Antarctica:

V = (b * h * l) / 2 (the formula)

b = 2000 km
h = 20 m
l = 44,087 km (Greenland coastline length)
...
V = (2,000,000 m * 20 m * 44,087,000 m) / 2
V = (1.76348 × 10¹⁵ m³) / 2 (meters)
V = (1.76348 × 10¹² km³) / 2 (kilometers)
...
(1.76348 × 10¹² km³ × 0.00000000278 mm = 4902.4744 mm) / 2
((4902.4744 mm = 16.08 ft. (divide mm by 304.8 to derive feet)) / 2
8.042 feet (2.451m) of additional SLR (by Greenland ghost-water)

(see formula description @ The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4). Ok, so now let's do Antarctica by itself:

V = (b * h * l) / 2 (the formula)

b = 2000 km
h = 20 m
l = 17,968 km (Antarctica coastline length)
...
V = (2,000,000 m * 20 m * 17,968,000 m) / 2
V = (7.1872 × 10¹⁴ m³) / 2 (meters)
V = (3.5936 × 10¹¹ km³) / 2 (kilometers)
...
(3.5936 × 10¹¹ km³ × 0.00000000278 mm = 999.0208 mm) / 2
((999.0208 mm = 3.278 ft. (divide mm by 304.8 to derive feet)) / 2
1.639 feet (0.5m) of additional SLR (by Antarctica ghost-water)

(see  The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4 ... notice that Greenland and Antarctica were combined in that post). The total is 1.639 ft.+ 8.042 ft. = 9.681 ft. this way, instead of 11.32 the other way.

This, I think, is better than equating Antarctica with Greenland, because they really are not equal (Fig. 2).

Antarctica has less coastline according to the source I used in that previous post.

But Antarctica has more SLC potential, 64.80m + 8.06m + .46m = 73.32m, compared to Greenland's 6.55m (as shown in Fig. 1).

Thus, in the long run, an equal percentage of loss from each ice sheet will result in a larger number for the ghost-water phenomenon.

The lesson is that the circumference, i.e. the length of the coastline (e.g. jagged vs. smooth) has an effect on the outcome of the calculation, as does an ice sheet's total mass.

After Greenland is completely exhausted of its ice mass, Antarctica will still generate regular SLR as well as ghost-water SLR.

Anyway, according to Fig. 1, having done Greenland and Antarctica, that leaves only 0.45m more SLR to consider.

In other words, the non-ice sheet ice reservoirs - e.g. Glacier Bay - have mainly local impact.

III. What is the Constant?

The ghost-water is quite real, and should always be considered in SLC / SLR scenarios, it would seem.

Fig. 2 Comparison: Greenland / Antarctica

To make the ghost-water reality more useful, we must link it to the full potential SLR of 80.32m (Fig. 1).

Nevertheless, there may not be an overarching constant at work here.

I mean a mathematical constant like G, the gravitational constant, and the thingy that the Masons put on their rings and stuff.

The exercise Mitrovica did with Greenland was 20m of sea level fall (SLF) around its coasts generating a global mean average SLR of 3m.

The arithmetic in Fig. 2 shows that using the proper ratio will result in an increase of ghost-water SLR.

If the 13.95% holds up, then 13.95% of 80.32 is 11.2 m of additional SLR should also be considered (80.32m + 11.2m = 91.5m [300 ft.] total potential SLR)?

Doesn't this mean that any ice sheet generated SLR contains a significant amount of ghost-water SLR?

That amount of ghost-water would be 13.95% (other factors, such as thermal expansion are minor by comparison).

IV. Conclusion

I am going to keep thinking about this, because there is at least a ratio of ice mass loss to ghost-water action on SLR in other parts of the globe where ghost-water ends up.

So far, the only place it does not end up is in the declarations of those who talk about "king tide" "storm surge" "unusual wa wa in my yard" and "God-water!! says Inhofe" ... "you can't tell one Atlantis from another by just one weather event."

We shall see the gravity of all of this.

The next post in this series is here.

---

Professor Jerry X. Mitrovica on the gravity / axis bulge SLR / SLF issues we don't hear about often enough:

---