Saturday, February 13, 2016

The Warming Science Commentariat - 2

Fig. 1 Global Zone Grid
Fig. 2 Sub-Zones (4 ea.) & Sub-sub-Zones (16 ea.)
I. Background

It is difficult to see how much of a cover up of sea level change (SLC) the use of the abstraction "global mean average sea level" (GMSL) is, unless one compares it to some PSMSL tide gauge station records.

Regular readers know that I have made zones, sub-zones, and sub-sub-zones (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2) of the map of the globe so as to more easily focus on the different dynamics of SLC.

That is because SLC is composed of both sea level fall (SLF) and sea level rise (SLR) of highly contrasting degrees.

So, mixing them globally obscures the contrasting ups and downs of SLC reality.

On the other hand, using small zones, instead of the entire globe, limits sea level analysis to a small area where the behavior is generally comparable enough so as not to obscure significant SLC factors.

The zone technique is called zone mean sea level (ZMSL).

II. Use of Satellite & Tide Gauge Station Data Together

After acquiring the NASA satellite database, I added a routine to the Dredd Blog SLC software model to illustrate this GMSL vs. ZMSL contrast.

Fig. 3 GMSL vs. ZMSL
You can see the difference in Fig. 3 where Zone AH, sub-zone SE, sub-sub-zone NE (AH.SE.NE) ZMSL is compared to GMSL made from 1993-2015 satellite data.

The GMSL data is from the satellite database @ NASA, which anyone can read about or download here.

In the new software module, within the Dredd Blog SLC model, I fuse the satellite data with PSMSL RLR tide gauge station data so the GMSL can be compared to the ZMSL.

Fig. 4 SLC Geographical components
In the Fig. 3, Fig. 4 example, the ZMSL begins at 6.8396 RLR meters in 1993 (well below the GMSL), then rises sharply to 7.0634 RLR meters by 1995 (223.8 mm increase) which is then above the GMSL.

From then on the ZMSL snakes along, rising above then falling below the GMSL as time goes on.

Notice how generally straight the GMSL is by comparison to the ZMSL.

III. Geophysical vs. Geographical

The misleading impact caused by the misuse of GMSL is also exposed by comparing the geographical components of SLC (Fig. 4) with the geophysical components (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 SLC Geophysical components
The "Displacement", "Ghost-Water", and "Other" portions of SLC are the geophysical components, while "Antarctica", "Greenland", and "Glaciers" are the geographical components.

The geographical component sectors indicate where the SLC originated geographically, while the geophysical component sectors indicate the physical type of the SLC.

The "displacement" is ice or melt-water, the "ghost-water" is ice-sheet gravity held ocean water that is relocated toward the equator as the ice sheet disintegrates, and the "other" is all other factors (e.g. ocean water expansion due to cooling or heating, land surface fall, or rise).

IV. Thermal Expansion

Regular readers know that I criticize scientific papers for their overuse of "thermal expansion" and for their conclusion that it was a "major factor" in SLC dynamics for the past ~200 years (e.g. Questionable Scientific Papers - 4).
Fig. 6  Physics of water

My main beef with the error is that SLC is a life and death situation for civilization as we know it.

Toying with it gives an impression that can have catastrophic results in ours, the Anthropocene Epoch, the home of the Sixth Mass Extinction (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, The Extinction of Charleston, The Extinction of Philadelphia, The Extinction of Washington, D.C., 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).

We do not have the luxury of status quo "fun science and discovery" that those who came and went before us had.

A mistake with gunpowder in the cowboy days has more leeway than a mistake with a nuclear weapon in our day has.

A mistake with SLC in our day is more critical than a mistake made a couple of hundred years ago.

Fig. 7 Physics of water
Anyway, I have included some graphics in an attempt to make it more clear that the overuse of thermal expansion concepts is not excusable.

Notice Fig. 7, which shows that "water" inhabits the space between "steam" and "ice".

Water is at its lowest volume @ 4 deg. C, and from there any change in temperature, whether toward the icy side of life, or towards the steamy side of life, results in expansion of volume.

The warming of an ocean area during the day can cause it to contract, to expand, or both (same with night time dynamics).

That expansion or contraction depends on the temperature at the beginning of any thermal exchange.

Fig. 8 Physics of water
For example, if the water temperature is 0.5 deg. C (32.9 deg F), the warming of the water by solar rays impacting the ocean surface will cause it to contract, not expand, until it warms up to 4 deg. C (39.2 deg. F), at which point it will reach minimum volume.

As it warms up above 4 deg. C it will then begin to expand until the solar input goes away

Then, as it cools at night, it will shrink until it reaches 4 deg. C (39.2 deg. F) again, at which point it will begin to expand again (if it cools below 4 deg. C (39.2 deg. F)) (see Fig. 6).

If you take notice of Fig. 8, you see that even at full expansion is a small percentage, compared to the displacement of ice sheet melt-water or icebergs that enter the ocean.

That displacement is 100% of the volume of the ice or water entering the ocean that way.

The "Warming Science Commentariat" tends to express only one side of the life of water doesn't it?

They need to get all Halloween on us and check out ghost-water eh?

A. Application to Ocean Water

Comparison of pure water and seawater
The same principles apply to ocean water: "In most of the ocean, the water becomes colder with increasing depth. At 2000 meters, (6,560 feet) the global average temperature is about 2.5°C (36.5° F), and at some locations the ocean bottom temperature is less than 1°C (33.8° F)" (Voyager: How Long until Ocean Temperature Goes up a Few More Degrees?).

Which means most ocean water (which is at that depth and temperature) is warmed, it will shrink not expand, until it reaches then passes the maximum density temperature of x°C (4°C for pure water) as discussed above.

Even though the temperature, etc. at which ocean water shrinks or expands in volume is different from pure water, the principle is the same.

See Properties of Water & Seawater (PDF), which is the article the comparison graphic comes from.

B. The Same Principles Apply

I have modified Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and Fig. 8 into Fig. 6b, Fig. 7b, and Fig. 8b to reflect the
Fig. 6b
difference in detail, while preserving the principles.

The major contributors are ignored by the Bathtub Model afficianados, and thus they make a mountain out of a molehill.

Fig. 7b
That is, they make the minor contributor, the molehill (thermal expansion) into what it is not, a mountain (ice sheets melting).

They offer nothing to explain why sea level is falling more and more in various areas of the globe as temperatures in the ocean and in the air increase (On The Evolution of Sea Level Change - 2).

Fig. 8b
Thus, they are constrained to continue to artificially increase the amount of mythical thermal expansion in their explanations.

All the while ignoring the 800 lb. gorillas in the room, which are the ice melt water and the ghost-water they refuse to see (The Ghost-Water Constant - 4).

Will the oceans expand 80.32 meters by thermal expansion  (How Fifth Graders Calculate Ice Volume - 5)?

V. Another Example

Fig. 9 Hawaii ZMSL vs. GMSL
Hawaii is far from the shores of the east or west coasts, far out in the Pacific Ocean.

The graph at Fig. 9 shows the ZMSL compared with the GMSL.

Fig. 10 Hawaii Geophysical
The contrast is stark and quite pronounced as the ZMSL there goes both above and below the GMSL at various times.

The graph at Fig. 10 shows the geophysical components that contribute to SLC there.

And finally, Fig. 11   shows the geographical origin of the SLC, that is, the contributions of Antarctica, Greenland, and Glaciers from locations other than those two ice sheets.

Fig. 11 Hawaii Geographical
All in all, those graphs bolster the point that GMSL has limited application and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Local sea level varies as much as culture, weather, politics, economy and environment do.

I mean, combining the various differences of culture, weather, politics, economy, and environment into one blobish mass does a disservice to those who do not like to grossly gloss over SLC and other realities.

The PSMSL tide gauge stations and seaports in Zone AM.NW.SE (Hawaii) are listed at the bottom of this post, following those of Zone AH.SE.NE (E. Coast).

VI. One Final Point

Fig. 12 Full zone record
Remember that the satellite records begin in 1993.

Thus, the graphs are of a very limited amount of time compared to the tide gauge station records that can go back as much as a couple of hundred years.

The short time frame of the satellite records does not give a robust picture of the trend of SLC, as does the ZMSL in any given zone.

I have added graphs at Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 which show the long term trends of the two zones featured in today's post.

The graph at Fig. 12 is Zone AH.SE.NE (E. Coast) which goes back more than a hundred years prior to the time those satellite records began.

Fig. 13 Full zone record
It changes the picture in terms of the trend of SLC.

Likewise, the graph at Fig. 12, which shows the record for Zone AM.NW.SE (Hawaii), goes back over a hundred years.

It too gives a better picture of the trend of SLC in that zone.

They both also emphasize the point of how important it is to know ZMSL compared to GMSL.

VII. Conclusion

In closing, I will now tidy up on some other issues in this post.

The difference in Fig. 3 numbers compared to Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 numbers is that Fig. 3 is PSMSL RLR meters, while Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 are the amounts of change taking place in terms of millimeters.

However, notice that the pattern is identical because the historical data is identical.

The historical tide gauge values in Fig. 3, as well as the changes shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, reveal historical PSMSL ups and downs, all of which are a matter of official record keeping.

The satellite data used to graph the GMSL was set forth here.

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

Tide Gauge Stations and Seaports located in Zone [AH.SE.NE] are:

Station YARMOUTH (#1158)
Station HALIFAX (#96)
Station CAPE MAY (#1153)
Station ATLANTIC CITY (#180)
Station SANDY HOOK (#366)
Station NEW YORK (THE BATTERY) (#12)
Station MONTAUK (#519)
Station BRIDGEPORT (#1068)
Station NEW LONDON (#429)
Station NEWPORT (#351)
Station WOODS HOLE (OCEAN. INST.) (#367)
Station NANTUCKET ISLAND (#1111)
Station BOSTON (#235)
Station PORTLAND (MAINE) (#183)
Station EASTPORT (#332)

Port 'BURLINGTON' (#8140), Country: US

Port 'BRISTOL' (#8150), Country: US

Port 'TRENTON' (#8160), Country: US

Port 'BROOKLYN' (#7630), Country: US

Port 'NEW YORK CITY' (#7640), Country: US

Port 'PATCHOGUE' (#7641), Country: US

Port 'YONKERS' (#7650), Country: US

Port 'NEWBURGH' (#7660), Country: US

Port 'POUGHKEEPSIE' (#7670), Country: US

Port 'KINGSTON' (#7680), Country: US

Port 'CATSKILL' (#7690), Country: US

Port 'ALBANY' (#7720), Country: US

Port 'RENSSELAER' (#7730), Country: US

Port 'TROY' (#7740), Country: US

Port 'EDGEWATER' (#7750), Country: US

Port 'WEEHAWKEN' (#7760), Country: US

Port 'HOBOKEN' (#7770), Country: US

Port 'JERSEY CITY' (#7780), Country: US

Port 'BAYONNE' (#7790), Country: US

Port 'NEWARK' (#7810), Country: US

Port 'ELIZABETHPORT' (#7820), Country: US

Port 'STAPLETON SI' (#7830), Country: US

Port 'TOMPKINSVILLE SI' (#7840), Country: US

Port 'PORT RICHMOND SI' (#7850), Country: US

Port 'MARINERS HARBOR SI' (#7860), Country: US

Port 'GULFPORT SI' (#7870), Country: US

Port 'PORT SOCONY' (#7890), Country: US

Port 'BAYWAY' (#7895), Country: US

Port 'GRASSELLI' (#7900), Country: US

Port 'CARTERET' (#7910), Country: US

Port 'CHROME' (#7920), Country: US

Port 'PORT READING' (#7930), Country: US

Port 'SEWAREN' (#7940), Country: US

Port 'MAURER' (#7950), Country: US

Port 'PERTH AMBOY' (#7960), Country: US

Port 'SAYREVILLE' (#7970), Country: US

Port 'SOUTH AMBOY' (#7980), Country: US

Port 'LEONARDO' (#7990), Country: US

Port 'BARNEGAT' (#8000), Country: US

Port 'ATLANTIC CITY' (#8020), Country: US

Port 'CITY ISLAND' (#7625), Country: US

Port 'GLOUCESTER' (#7210), Country: US

Port 'BEVERLY' (#7220), Country: US

Port 'SALEM' (#7225), Country: US

Port 'MARBLEHEAD' (#7230), Country: US

Port 'LYNN' (#7240), Country: US

Port 'BOSTON' (#7250), Country: US

Port 'QUINCY' (#7260), Country: US

Port 'SCITUATE' (#7270), Country: US

Port 'PLYMOUTH' (#7280), Country: US

Port 'PROVINCETOWN' (#7290), Country: US

Port 'HYANNIS' (#7310), Country: US

Port 'HYANNIS PORT' (#7315), Country: US

Port 'FALMOUTH' (#7320), Country: US

Port 'NANTUCKET' (#7330), Country: US

Port 'EDGARTOWN' (#7340), Country: US

Port 'VINEYARD HAVEN' (#7350), Country: US

Port 'WOODS HOLE' (#7360), Country: US

Port 'NEW BEDFORD' (#7370), Country: US

Port 'NEWPORT' (#7380), Country: US

Port 'FALL RIVER' (#7400), Country: US

Port 'TIVERTON' (#7405), Country: US

Port 'BRISTOL' (#7410), Country: US

Port 'PROVIDENCE' (#7420), Country: US

Port 'QUONSET POINT' (#7430), Country: US

Port 'DAVISVILLE DEPOT' (#7440), Country: US

Port 'MONTAUK HARBOR' (#7450), Country: US

Port 'GREENPORT' (#7460), Country: US

Port 'STONINGTON' (#7470), Country: US

Port 'NOANK' (#7480), Country: US

Port 'MYSTIC' (#7490), Country: US

Port 'NEW LONDON' (#7500), Country: US

Port 'NORWICH' (#7510), Country: US

Port 'ESSEX' (#7520), Country: US

Port 'NEW HAVEN' (#7550), Country: US

Port 'PORT JEFFERSON' (#7560), Country: US

Port 'BRIDGEPORT' (#7570), Country: US

Port 'SOUTHPORT' (#7580), Country: US

Port 'NORWALK' (#7590), Country: US

Port 'STAMFORD' (#7600), Country: US

Port 'GREENWICH' (#7610), Country: US

Port 'PORT CHESTER' (#7620), Country: US

Port 'NEWBURYPORT' (#7190), Country: US

Port 'ROCKPORT' (#7200), Country: US

Port 'WINTER HARBOR' (#6680), Country: US

Port 'SORRENTO' (#6690), Country: US

Port 'BAR HARBOR' (#6700), Country: US

Port 'NORTHEAST HARBOR' (#6710), Country: US

Port 'SOUTHWEST HARBOR' (#6720), Country: US

Port 'MOUNT DESERT' (#6730), Country: US

Port 'FRENCHBORO' (#6740), Country: US

Port 'MINTURN' (#6750), Country: US

Port 'SWANS ISLAND' (#6760), Country: US

Port 'BASS HARBOR' (#6770), Country: US

Port 'ELLSWORTH' (#6780), Country: US

Port 'BROOKLIN' (#6790), Country: US

Port 'BUCKS HARBOR' (#6800), Country: US

Port 'STONINGTON' (#6810), Country: US

Port 'CRIEHAVEN' (#6820), Country: US

Port 'MATINICUS' (#6830), Country: US

Port 'VINALHAVEN' (#6840), Country: US

Port 'NORTH HAVEN' (#6850), Country: US

Port 'CASTINE' (#6860), Country: US

Port 'SANDYPOINT' (#6870), Country: US

Port 'BUCKSPORT' (#6880), Country: US

Port 'WINTERPORT' (#6890), Country: US

Port 'BANGOR' (#6900), Country: US

Port 'SEARSPORT' (#6910), Country: US

Port 'BELFAST' (#6920), Country: US

Port 'CAMDEN' (#6940), Country: US

Port 'ROCKPORT' (#6950), Country: US

Port 'ROCKLAND' (#6960), Country: US

Port 'MONHEGAN' (#6970), Country: US

Port 'PORT CLYDE' (#6980), Country: US

Port 'THOMASTON' (#6990), Country: US

Port 'FRIENDSHIP' (#7000), Country: US

Port 'NEW HARBOR' (#7010), Country: US

Port 'PEMAQUID BEACH' (#7020), Country: US

Port 'SOUTH BRISTOL' (#7030), Country: US

Port 'BOOTHBAY HARBOR' (#7040), Country: US

Port 'ROBINHOOD' (#7070), Country: US

Port 'BATH' (#7080), Country: US

Port 'GARDINER' (#7100), Country: US

Port 'AUGUSTA' (#7120), Country: US

Port 'CUNDY HARBOR' (#7130), Country: US

Port 'SOUTH HARPSWELL' (#7140), Country: US

Port 'PORTLAND' (#7150), Country: US

Port 'SACO' (#7160), Country: US

Port 'KENNEBUNKPORT' (#7170), Country: US

Port 'PORTSMOUTH' (#7180), Country: US

Port 'COREA' (#6670), Country: US

Port 'MUSQUODOBOIT HARBOUR' (#6330), Country: CA

Port 'HALIFAX' (#6340), Country: CA

Port 'SAMBRO' (#6350), Country: CA

Port 'LUNENBURG' (#6390), Country: CA

Port 'LOCKEPORT' (#6420), Country: CA

Port 'DIGBY' (#6470), Country: CA

Port 'ANNAPOLIS ROYAL' (#6480), Country: CA

Port 'EASTPORT' (#6600), Country: US

Port 'LUBEC' (#6610), Country: US

Port 'MACHIASPORT' (#6620), Country: US

Port 'MACHIAS' (#6630), Country: US

Port 'JONESPORT' (#6640), Country: US

Port 'WYMAN' (#6650), Country: US

Port 'MILBRIDGE' (#6660), Country: US

Port 'YARMOUTH' (#6460), Country: CA

Port 'LIVERPOOL (BROOKLYN)' (#6410), Country: CA

Stations and/or Ports in Zone [AM.NW.SE] (Hawaii) are:

Station HONOLULU (#155)
Station MOKUOLOE ISLAND (#823)
Station HILO @ HAWAII ISLAND (#300)

Port 'NONOPAPA' (#56320), Country: US

Port 'HONOKAA' (#56070), Country: US

Port 'HILO' (#56090), Country: US

Port 'HONUAPO' (#56100), Country: US

Port 'MILOLII' (#56110), Country: US

Port 'KAUHAKO BAY' (#56120), Country: US

Port 'NAPOOPOO' (#56130), Country: US

Port 'KAILUA' (#56140), Country: US

Port 'KIHOLO' (#56150), Country: US

Port 'KAWAIHAE' (#56160), Country: US

Port 'MAHUKONA' (#56170), Country: US

Port 'KAHULUI' (#56180), Country: US

Port 'HANA' (#56190), Country: US

Port 'LAHAINA' (#56200), Country: US

Port 'KAUMALAPAU HARBOR' (#56230), Country: US

Port 'PUKOO' (#56240), Country: US

Port 'KAMALO' (#56250), Country: US

Port 'KAUNAKAKAI' (#56260), Country: US

Port 'HONOLULU' (#56280), Country: US

Port 'PORT ALLEN' (#56290), Country: US

Port 'NAWILIWILI BAY' (#56300), Country: US

Port 'AHUKINI LANDING' (#56310), Country: US

Port 'BARBERS POINT TERMINAL' (#56270), Country: US

Port 'BARBER'S POINT' (#56272), Country: US

Friday, February 12, 2016

Proof of Concept - 7

Fig. 1 Satellite Record
Yesterday I criticized a paper published in a scientific journal (Questionable Scientific Papers - 6).

In that post I provided a graph I had made which came from a NASA database which anyone can download (NASA Satellite Data).

Fig. 2 Columns 6, 8, 9, 11, 12

Fig. 3  Columns 6, 8
Today I am adding some additional graphs made from various columns in that data, with the intent to bolster my criticism of the paper.

BTW, I updated yesterday's post by adding a paper from Science (12 Feb 2016: Vol. 351, Issue 6274).
Fig. 4  Columns 9, 11

Fig. 5 Column 12
That paper details a good many of the dynamics causing a lack of scientific understanding in the U.S.A, much of it because of what is taught by an inordinate number of middle and high school teachers.

So, let's get on with today's closer look at that "the rain did it" paper.

The graph at Fig. 1 is the graph that was also presented in yesterday's post.

In that graph, a circle was placed around the area of the sea level fall I will expand upon today.

The other graphs in today's post zoom in on that area, much like a microscope takes a closer look at specimens on a slide.

As you read this post, you might want to remember Dr. Mitrovica's statement made in his recent video.

He said that global mean average sea level usage has led us astray for the past hundred years (The Ghost-Water Constant - 4).

As a quick example, Fig. 1 shows what is claimed to be a radical aberration in the incessant sea level rise trend shown since 1993 in global mean average trend lines.

But notice that Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 pull the covers off of that choreograph song and dance, showing the raw data as well as the effect of the "smoothing" of that data.

The raw data lines in those graphs, made from the same database of the same events, by the same satellites at the same time, show what, in contrast to the smoothing, looks to the untrained eye like radical gyrations.

For instance, at the very beginning of the year 2010, there is a sharp drop in sea level, followed by a sharp rise in sea level, followed by another sharp drop.

The paper, mimicking global mean average smoothing type cover ups, begins the scenario with "But for an 18-month period that began in the middle of 2010, " skipping the rises and falls earlier in the same year.

Classic cherry picking eh?

The article then describes the following rise and fall events as "something surprising ... one-and-a-half-year, 7-mm fall", even though the earlier rise and fall scenario in that same year involves as much as 10mm of sea level change.

There are rises and falls all the time during the "18 month" period (compare column 6 to column 8, Fig. 3, and column 9 to column 11, Fig. 4).

In fact, it looks like typical pattern shown in tide gauge records that have been kept for hundreds of years.

Those records contain sea level changes of hundreds of millimeters (Questionable "Scientific" Papers).

The paper fails to explain why a "7 mm" sea level fall is "something surprising" when in fact it is "something common" and "something to be expected."

Here is the comma delimited data used in Fig. 2 - Fig. 5  which was graciously provided by NASA:


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

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Questionable Scientific Papers - 6

Fig. 1 The ghost of SLF?
This series is about scientific papers that exhibit the widespread ignoring of scientific realities now effectively lost in the old filing systems.

Lost because no retrieval work is done, which elitist scientists relegate to others.

Then, there are the hangovers in their college students, who seek Phd's, cut corners so they can make enough money to pay for booze and their crushing educational debt.

Or something like that.

Thus, they do not dust off some of the classic scientific papers and then digitize them.

One example is the paper Woodward (1888).

One professor does not accept that level of academic performance from his students:
To our knowledge, Woodward (1888) was the first to demonstrate that the rapid melting of an ice sheet would lead to a geographically variable sea level change. Woodward (1888) assumed a rigid, non-rotating Earth, and therefore self-gravitation of the surface load was the only contributor to the predicted departure from a geographically uniform (i.e. eustatic) sea level rise. This departure was large and counter-intuitive. Specifically, sea level was predicted to fall within ∼2000 km of a melting ice sheet, and to rise with progressively higher amplitude at greater distances. The physics governing this redistribution is straightforward.
(On The Origin of the Sea-level Seesaw). The Mitrovica team found a paper as important as some of Einstein's papers, which everyone else seems to have overlooked.

Especially this guy:
For the past couple of decades, the oceans have been steadily rising. Each year, sea-level increases by about 3 millimeters, a constant and ominous creep responding to climate warming.

Scientists have been measuring this rise from satellites since 1993, using instruments called altimeters. But for an 18-month period that began in the middle of 2010, something surprising happened. Instead of rising, sea levels fell.

"Every few months we check in on sea level and try to get some idea as to what's happening and why ..."
Fasullo, who was trying to balance out the Earth's "water budget," sought an explanation for where that water, normally ocean bound, might have ended up.

Now he believes he has one. His paper explaining the sea-level drop was recently accepted into the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Fasullo worked to determine where the water might be, if it wasn't contributing to sea-level rise. In an earlier paper, the researcher and other scientists concluded it had probably gotten stored on the land somewhere. They also thought La Niña might have something to do with this.
(A Scientist Explains the Mystery, emphasis added). The man is clueless about the sea level fall reality as well as what causes it and what doesn't (Proof of Concept , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

This sea level fall and sea level rise dynamic is a reality that has been happening since circa 1775.

Nevertheless, he concludes: "I see lakes in Australia full of water."

Like Professor Mitrovica says, usage of the ill-advised "global mean average" has led us astray for 100 years" (The Ghost-Water Constant - 4).

The paper's author looks at that deceptive global mean average "every few months" and bases everything he thinks he knows on it.

A bad, but common, mistake, which endangers us all:
"Although more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes and most of the general public accepts that climate change is occurring, only about half of U.S. adults believe that human activity is the predominant cause, which is the lowest among 20 nations polled in 2014. We examine how this societal debate affects science classrooms and find that, whereas most U.S. science teachers include climate science in their courses, their insufficient grasp of the science may hinder effective teaching. Mirroring some actors in the societal debate over climate change, many teachers repeat scientifically unsupported claims in class. Greater attention to teachers' knowledge, but also values, is critical."
(Science, 2/12/16, emphasis added). A new post in the Agnotology series is in order (Agnotology: The Surge, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17).

BTW, the graph @ Fig. 1 is from a new database I just acquired from NASA.

More on that later.

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

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Proof of Concept - 6

Fig. 1 Sea level fall near Greenland
When you ask the question "why is sea level falling" you hear crickets from sites that parrot the mistaken notion that "thermal expansion" has been the major cause of sea level rise (SLR) for 200 years.

Even very good sites have been led astray by that false dogma (The Warming Science Commentariat).

Today, I want to mention a scientist who has not been fooled, because he has a concept of sea level change (SLC) that is the antithesis of thermal expansion.

Furthermore, since water expands both when it gets colder, and when it gets warmer, that has been pointed out to high school students since the dark ages:.
Most of us, when we take our first science classes, learn that when things cool down, they shrink. (When they heat up, we learn, they usually expand.) However, water seems to be the exception to the rule. Instead of shrinking as it cools, this common liquid actually expands.
(Why Does Water Expand When it Cools?). The same high school students are taught that water also expands when it is warmed (ibid).

The dogma about thermal expansion of ocean water being a major cause of sea level rise (SLR) for 200 years is in error (Questionable Scientific Papers - 4).

There is no doubt at all that the ocean is warming, and has been for a long time, however, there is insufficient data to conclude that thermal expansion of ocean water is a major cause of SLC.

The major causes are ice sheet and glacier disintegration (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4), and ghost-water (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4).

Anyway, there are scientists who know that the ocean is both rising and falling as a result of global warming, and that it is induced by our burning of fossil fuels.

One such scientist, William Colgan, gives us an inkling of SLF speed in the vicinity of the Greenland ice sheet:
Colgan said this change will have implications for places close to Greenland like Nunavut [a recently created Canadian province].

"Actually close to Greenland, sea level rise is negative, or sea level is dropping, in part because the gravitational field is weakening so quickly that the water in the ocean is migrating to more gravitationally massive places on Earth."

Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around one centimetre per year [10 mm], an effect that can be as damaging as sea level rise.

"Iqaluit will not be flooded out by rising sea level but to have the harbour in Iqaluit, which is already really shallow, get shallower at one centimetre per year going forward, that can also be a very damaging sequence of sea level change," he said.

The melting of Greenland ice also produces more icebergs which are being discharged from the glaciers on land.

"There's actually more icebergs now being spat out into Baffin Bay and floating around as potential navigation hazards than there were 50 or even 10 years ago," said Colgan.
(Melting Greenland Ice, emphasis added). The sea level falling there is exactly what is to be expected (Proof of Concept - 3, Proof of Concept - 5).

Regular readers will remember that I did a post about this, the impact it has, and will continue to have on seaports (Peak Sea Level - 2, The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 2).

If you want more information concerning these issues go to the Series Tab page and scroll down to "SEA LEVEL CHANGE" sections.

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

Monday, February 8, 2016

Watch The Ice Shelves - 3

Fig. 1 Ice Shelf loss
In previous posts of this series I focused on research that implicates Antarctica's ice shelves as harbingers of things to come (Watch The Ice Shelves, 2).

Since they hold back or resist the flow of the ice streams on the land mass, when those ice shelves go, the ice streams go faster.

I mean, more ice from the ice streams on land can flow faster and reach the ocean more easily.

Which will cause sea level change (SLC) in the form of both sea level rise (SLR) and sea level fall (SLF).

So, today let's do three things:
1) review some new research regarding ice shelf integrity,

2) further discuss ice sheet gravity as it relates to ice shelves,

3) engage in a hypothesis concerning ice shelf gravity.
I. New Research

Here is the abstract at the journal Nature concerning new research:
The floating ice shelves along the seaboard of the Antarctic ice sheet restrain the outflow of upstream grounded ice. Removal of these ice shelves, as shown by past ice-shelf recession and break-up, accelerates the outflow, which adds to sea-level rise. A key question in predicting future outflow is to quantify the extent of calving that might precondition other dynamic consequences and lead to loss of ice-shelf restraint. Here we delineate frontal areas that we label as ‘passive shelf ice’ and that can be removed without major dynamic implications, with contrasting results across the continent. The ice shelves in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen seas have limited or almost no ‘passive’ portion, which implies that further retreat of current ice-shelf fronts will yield important dynamic consequences. This region is particularly vulnerable as ice shelves have been thinning at high rates for two decades and as upstream grounded ice rests on a backward sloping bed, a precondition to marine ice-sheet instability. In contrast to these ice shelves, Larsen C Ice Shelf, in the Weddell Sea, exhibits a large ‘passive’ frontal area, suggesting that the imminent calving of a vast tabular iceberg will be unlikely to instantly produce much dynamic change.
(The Safety Band of Antarctic Ice Shelves). This paper attempts to describe some of the characteristics of the shelves and identify weak and strong parts.

A member of the scientific commentariat at ESA explains it this way:
It transpires that about 13% of the total ice-shelf area contains what is called ‘passive shelf ice’. This is the part of the floating ice body that provides no additional buttressing – so if lost there wouldn’t be an instant increase in glacial velocity.

However, behind this – there is an area of ice called the ‘safety band’, which is the most critical portion of the ice shelf restraining the ice flow.

Dr Johannes Fürst, from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg’s Institute of Geography explained, “For some decades now satellite remote-sensing has allowed us to track changes and movement of Antarctic ice fronts. In some regions we have seen continuous ice-shelf recession.

“Once ice loss through the calving of icebergs goes beyond the passive shelf ice and cuts into the safety band, ice flow towards the ocean will accelerate, which might well entail an elevated contribution to sea-level rise for decades and centuries to come.”

However, there are some contrasting results across the continent as not all ice shelves have this passive ice.

Dr Fürst added, “The Amundsen and Bellingshausen seas have limited or almost no passive ice shelf, which implies that further retreat of current ice-shelf fronts will have serious dynamic consequences.
(Antarctic Safety Band At Risk). I guess this is at least a code yellow or perhaps even a code red for some locations there  (Proxymetry3 - 3).

II. Ice Sheet Gravity vs. Ice Shelf Gravity

The ice sheets have gravitational pull that pulls sea water toward the coastline and holds it there (The Ghost-Water Constant - 4).

Additionally, this ice sheet mass created gravitational pull must have an impact on the ice shelf.

It would be in the form of pressure put on the ice as the ocean water is pulled toward the landmass coastline.

Lunar and solar gravity caused tides do the same, except much more intensely I would think (Tidal Impact On Glaciers).

The ice shelves must also have that same effect on the sea water near them, a pull.

When the ice shelf breaks away, sea water is going to have an easier time getting to the shoreline.

III. Ice Shelf Gravity

Some of the ice shelves around Antarctica are massive, larger than some states or countries.

Fig. 2 Ice shelf impediments
They must add resistance to the ice sheet mass gravity pull on sea water (Fig. 2).

That is a pull that would bring sea water up against the coastline like a high tide or a storm surge.

But the ice shelf on top of the water would resist that.

So, when the ice shelf breaks away, a contradictory thing takes place.

Water will flow to the coast, the ice shelf now ice berg will float away and melt, then the resulting melt water will flow towards the bulge at the equator.

Back at the shore, the ice stream will speed up and dump ice into the sea, thereby losing mass and gravity.

Then, finally that will cut loose some ghost-water too.

In other words, ultimately near shore there will be SLF.

The bottom line, then, is an increase in both SLF and SLR, depending on location (latitude, longitude).

IV. Conclusion

While it may be true that SLC is not complicated, it is also true that it has a lot of moving parts.

And it is all happening at once .... I mean Greenland is losing ice at the same time Antarctica and Glacier Bay are.

And doing it on their own schedule.

So, predicting the intensity of catastrophes that SLC is bringing and will continue to bring for a long time, is not an exact science in terms of exactly predicting precise future time frames.

But it can determine what is coming, and give useful warnings.

Then it is up to those who should do something about it to do that something.

The previous post in this series is here.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

The Ghost-Water Constant - 4

Fig. 1 USGS table: sea level rise potential
from ice sheet collapse (no ghost-water)
I. A Short Review

I found a recent video (see below), featuring Dr. Mitrovica, concerning both sea level rise (SLR), fall (SLF) and sea level change (SLC) "fingerprinting."

It is a long video, so I added a few comments just above the video, which begin with a time frame reference so that you can go directly to that location if you want to, so as to listen to that detail, if you would rather.

It is probably better to watch the whole shebang if you have the time (the first 30 min. discusses ice sheet gravity issues, the question / answer session at the end is maybe half of it).

In that video he mentions a factor that helps to calculate ghost-water volume: "if the entire Greenland ice sheet were to melt / disintegrate, sea level would fall 100 meters around the coastline of Greenland" (paraphrased).

"Finally," I thought, "now I can redo the ghost-water formula and have it relate, not to just a one meter portion of ice loss," as was done previously (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3; The Gravity of Sea Level Change - 4).

Instead, we can now calculate the full spectrum of ghost-water, as well as being able to fingerprint it the Dredd Blog way (both geographically and geophysically).

II. The Table Revisited

The argument for ghost-water is based on my interpretation of the USGS calculation as to what happens when ice sheet volume on a land mass is dislocated into the ocean which surrounds that land mass.

The USGS's use of the abstract global mean average concept is based ONLY on ice sheet volume loss.

In other words, if you lose "x" volume of ice, then there will be "y" amount of sea level rise.

Notice carefully the implications of the USGS Table featured at Fig. 1, because it does not contain any notion of what happens to cause sea level change (SLC), in terms of ice sheet gravity dynamics.

It does not contain any notion of ocean water that was once held close to the coast by that ice sheet gravity.

Nor does it contain any notion of what happens to sea level when that ghost-water is relocated to the bulge area of the Earth, the bulge caused by the Earth's rotation.

Nor does it mention thermal expansion, land subsidence, or land rebound from the weight of the ice sheet after the ice sheet goes away.

It only includes the dynamic of the ice sheet becoming sea water when that ice leaves the land mass, by melting or by calving, and then enters the sea.
Fig. 2 USGS table modifications (13.95% version)

Since the USGS Table (Fig. 1) has no detail about all of that, I have created a table which contains the foundational concept for displaying that information (Fig. 2).

We know that ice sheet gravity pulls ocean water up against the coastline like a perpetual lunar or solar caused high tide, or like a wind-driven storm surge caused by onshore winds.

The difference is that this "ghost-water high tide" never goes away unless and until the ice mass gravity goes away.

Remember, the foundational concept of ghost-water is that as the ice sheet loses its mass, it also loses its gravitational power associated with that mass (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

As that gravitational power is distributed elsewhere, along with the mass of the water that was once ice, what happens to the ghost-water?

The answer to that question is: concurrent with the ice melt-water and icebergs, the ghost-water which had been pulled up tight against the shore, is also released.

Both are then free to flow toward the equator (Mitrovica says in the video that it takes about 2 weeks to reach its destination).

As it flows to where ever the geophysical dynamics take it, it has an impact on SLC. along the way, like a tide.

Like all the other ocean water already there at the new location, it too contributes to the Earth's equatorial bulge and global SLC.

III. The Formula Revisited (Greenland)

The wedge formula is a simple, abstract way of finding the volume of the wedge shaped ghost-water area surrounding Greenland and Antarctica (see Fig. 3).

By extrapolation we can use it to roughly estimate the volume of gravity-captured water along Greenland's coast::
Fig. 3 The ghost-water in place (blue wedge)
V = (b * h * l) ÷ 2


b = 2000 km
h = 100 m (full amount)
l = 44,087 km (Greenland coastline length)
Now, let's proceed on to normalizing all of the values into meters:
2,000 km = 2,000,000 m (km * 1000)
44,087 km = 44,087,000 m (km * 1000)


b = 2,000,000 m
h = 100 m
l = 44,087,000 m

V = (2,000,000 * 100 * 44,087,000) ÷ 2
V = (8.8174 × 1015 m3) ÷ 2
V = 4.4087 × 1015 m3

V = 4.4087 × 1012 km3

The next thing to do is figure out how much SLC 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)
(to convert mm << m, ÷ by 1000 = 0.00000000278 mm)
so: 4.4087 × 10¹² km3 × 0.00000000278 mm = 12,256.186 mm
12,256.186 mm (12.26 m) = 40.21 ft. (÷ mm by 304.8 to get ft.)
Thus, there is an additional 12.26 m (40.21 ft) of global mean average SLC caused by the ghost-water, should all of the Greenland ice sheet melt / collapse into the sea.

On to Antarctica.

IV. The Formula Revisited (Antarctica)

The only thing different with applying the concepts and formulas to Antarctica is the fact that the coastline length and the drop in sea level are different quantities compared to Greenland.

Let's calculate Antarctica's contribution while using the same technique I used with the Greenland data.

But first, we must derive the drop in sea level at Antarctica's coastline, because Mitrovica did not mention that value in the video.

We can do that by comparing Antarctica's magnitude to Greenland's magnitude using the figures recorded @ Fig. 1.

I used all of Greenland's ice volume in the calculation above, so I must also use all of Antarctica's ice volume.

Antarctica's total SLC contribution, per Fig. 1, is: 64.80 m + 8.06 m + 0.46 m = 73.32 m, used as follows:

Let's apply a "Greenland = Antarctica" ratio:
Calculation of Antarctica area SLF


b = 2000 km
h = 1119.39 m (total Antarctica SLF)
l = 17,968 km (Antarctica coastline length)

normalize to meters:

V = (2,000,000 * 1119.39 * 17,968,000) ÷ 2
V = (4.022639904 × 1016) ÷ 2
V = 2.01 × 1016 m3

V = 2.01 × 1013 km

The next thing to do is to figure out how much SLC is generated by this quantity of 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)
so: 2.01 × 1013 km3 × 0.00000000278 mm = 55,914.69 mm
55,914.69 mm (55.92 m) = 183.45 ft. (÷ mm by 304.8 to get ft.)
There is an additional 55.92 m (183.45 ft) of global mean average SLR caused by the ghost-water, should all of Antarctica's ice sheet melt / collapse into the sea.

To use this in SLC fingerprinting, the new estimated ghost-water constant must be calculated.

80.32 m (total SLC due to ice sheet collapsing into ocean per Fig. 1)
68.18 m (total ghost-water: Antarctica (55.92 m) + Greenland (12.26 m))

68.18 ÷ 80.32 = 0.848854582 (* 100 = 84.89)

The new ghost constant for all ice sheet volume is 84.89%.

V. Ramifications

This seems to be an unreal number because it increases the SLC from ice sheet loss by an enormous amount (from 13.95% to 84.89%).

Fig. 4 U.S. East Coast
But, unless the USGS changes its figures or says it included gravity and ghost-water values in its estimations @ Fig. 1, that constant is real in the abstract (they did not know about Woodward / Mitrovica concepts IMO).

The constant will naturally prove to be an imperfect estimate as time goes on, in the sense that the Greenland and Antarctica coastlines are not perfect lines (the figures I used are the currently known values for those coastlines).

For example, those real, geographical coastlines are not that smooth, because they contain zigs and zags, varying depths of water near their shores, and the like.

Fig. 5 Geographical fingerprint
Nevertheless, the basic principle is sound IMO.

Note that one recent figure for thermal expansion was doubled (100% increase compared to my lower 84.89%).

Note also that my lower increase is based on Mitrovica statements made in the video lecture below.

Statements which are more recent, indicating that 100 m of SLF at the Greenland coastline will take place if the Greenland ice sheet completely goes away.

I hope I didn't make any typo and/or math errors.

Check it out to see if I did.

VI. Some New Fingerprints?

So, how does all of this ghost-water stuff change the historical record, made for us by a couple of hundred years of tide gauge station records?

Fig. 6 Geophysical fingerprint
Not a drop higher or lower.

History is history.

The SLC record is a matter of historical reality which the new perspective has nothing to do with.

I mean, in terms of changing the values in historical records, it does nothing.

It will not change the geographical footprints, that is, where the SLC originated (Greenland ice sheet, Antarctica ice sheet, or glaciers).

It will change the geophysical fingerprint, which is the nature of the SLC in terms of
Fig. 7  US West Coast
displacement percentage, ghost-water percentage, and the percentage of other factors, such as thermal expansion, cooling expansion, land-mass subsidence, and land-mass rebound.

But, as you can see in Fig. 4 - Fig. 9, history is neither changed by the error of leaving ghost-water out of the previous understanding, or by the accuracy of including it.

It is a matter of whether or not we grasp the history, or whether we make it up as we go.

Fig. 8 Geographical fingerprint
Scientific discovery takes place as we go, but it does not change history, it merely makes it more understandable.

The largest impact I see from this discovery is its impact on acceleration of SLC in the near future and beyond.

There are countless times when discoveries were rejected then grasped like a cat does when falling through limbs of a tree.

They reject gravity, head downtown, then with eyes very wide open, grasp the gravity of
Fig. 9 Geophysical Fingerprint
their situation.

I expect regular readers to scrutinize this closely.

I have not plugged in the full 84.89% of ghost-water into the module of the Dredd Blog model that does the geophysical fingerprint.

What I did do is double the 13.95% to 27.9%, and I subtracted that 13.95% increase from the displacement percentage (percent calculations have to add up to 100%).

As you can see from Fig. 6, and Fig. 9, it does not change the tide gauge sea level history.

The historical pattern is the same in all cases.

I will await some peer-review comments from regular readers, and will double check the data for awhile.

VII. Conclusion

Fig. 10 USGS table modifications (27.9% version)
Please hurry and make any comments "for" or "against" as soon as possible (if you have any).

But don't go off half cocked, half baked, or any other form of cluelessness.

This is serious business, and as the Dredd Blog "About page" says:
"But for those who submit articles for posting, or who comment, be sure to note that Dredd Blog does not suffer foolishness lightly, so please back up your contrary, or other assertions, with links to evidence which indicates that what you are saying is more than merely unfounded personal opinion (not that it would or would not be accepted for that reason)."
(About Page). Let's not tread too much on logic here, rather, let's use it.

In closing, let me say three things: 1) you can quickly notice the potential changes to SLC by comparing Fig. 2 with Fig. 10; 2) the zone and PSMSL stations featured in the graphs at Fig. 4, 5, and 6 are: Zone AH.SE.NW (East Coast USA: CAMBRIDGE II, Stn. #1295; WASHINGTON DC, Stn. #360; SOLOMON'S ISLAND (BIOL. LAB.), Stn. #412; ANNAPOLIS (NAVAL ACADEMY), Stn. #311; BALTIMORE, Stn. #148; LEWES (BREAKWATER HARBOR), Stn. #224; PHILADELPHIA (PIER 9N), Stn. #135; REEDY POINT, Stn. #786); 3) the zone and PSMSL stations featured in the graphs at Fig. 7, 8, and 9 are: Zone AG.SE.NE (West Coast USA: SOUTH BEACH., Stn. #1196; CHARLESTON II., Stn. #1269; PORT ORFORD., Stn. #1640; CRESCENT CITY., Stn. #378 ; N. SPIT @ HUMBOLDT BAY., Stn. #1639; ARENA COVE @ CALIFORNIA., Stn. #2125; POINT REYES., Stn. #1394; SAN FRANCISCO., Stn. #10; ALAMEDA (NAVAL AIR STATION), Stn. #437).

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

Another Mitrovica video:

08:00 The use of global mean average has led us astray for 100 years.
15:20 Taking the average assumes the imaginary bathtub model.
16:30 It is completely wrong.
21:00 100m of SLF @ Greenland's coast when all ice sheet is gone.
26:40 The Dutch government did not understand the scenario.
28:40 When the ice sheet melts, all the water is distributed in 2 weeks.
29:30 It is error to say that SLF is due only to the land rising.