Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 11

Fig. 1 Indian Ocean Area
I. Background

Scientific papers that rely on the hypothesis that thermal expansion of ocean water is the major cause of sea level rise are per se questionable (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Today, I will question one such paper which was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

That paper was prepared by a team from the University of Hawaii, and was described as follows:
The science team led by Philip Thompson, associate director of the University of Hawaiʻi Sea Level Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), analyzed two and a half decades of ocean surface height measurements taken from satellites. The satellite data showed a substantial and abrupt increase in decade-long sea level trends in the Indian Ocean region, which prompted the oceanographers to investigate the cause of the shift using computer simulations of ocean circulation.

“Wind blowing over the ocean caused changes in the movement of heat across the equator in the Indian Ocean,” said Thompson. “This lead to suppression of sea level rise during the 1990s and early 2000s, but now we are seeing the winds amplify sea level rise by increasing the amount of ocean heat brought into the region.”
(Indian Ocean sea level on the rise, U. of Hawaii, emphasis added). There are several problems with this paper, which covers the geographic area depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7.

II. Sources of My Skepticism

Let me begin by listing reasons for my skepticism.

I am always suspicious when:  1) "computer simulations" are used (why not use the World Ocean Database (WOD) containing billions of observations made by thousands of scientists worldwide?), 2) tide gauge stations are excluded in favor of exclusively using satellite altimetry records, and 3) ice sheet dynamics are ignored.

I think it is instructive that (in the scientific method: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.") observations are more valuable than hypotheses or mere computer simulations (a hypothesis or computer assertion can be considered falsified if it is at odds with observations).

As to satellite records, observations of sea level at tide gauge stations is a robust scientific method for verifying or correcting satellite data:
"In the past two decades, sea level has been routinely measured from space using satellite altimetry techniques. In order to address a number of important scientific questions ... the accuracy of altimetry-based sea level records at global and regional scales needs to be significantly improved. For example, the global mean and regional sea level trend uncertainty should become better than 0.3 and 0.5 mm year−1, respectively (currently 0.6 and 1–2 mm year−1).
...
We ... present preliminary independent validations ... based on tide gauges comparison ..." - (Ocean Science Net, PDF)

"The satellite data record is of insufficient length to distinguish medium-term variability from long-term change, which is why the satellite record in Figure 1 has been supplemented with a longer-term reconstruction based on tide gauge measurements." - (EPA, Sea level, p. 9, PDF)

"The global sea level record from tide gauges is an important indicator of the evolution and impact of global climate change. Tide gauge data also capture a variety of local and regional phenomena related to decadal climate variability, tides, storm surges, tsunamis, swells, and other coastal processes. Tide gauge data are used to validate ocean models and to detect errors and drifts in satellite altimetry." - (UCAR NCAR)
(see Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, PSMSL). And, probably most important, the dynamics of ice sheet changes on sea level must never be left out of any serious scientific discussion of sea level change:
Sea-level change associated with climate change involves various interactions between different components of the Earth system — primarily oceans, ice sheets and the solid Earth. As a consequence, sea-level science is highly multi- and interdisciplinary, requiring collaboration between scientists who measure and model properties of and processes within these various subsystems.
...
A key message of this paper is that, contrary to popular belief, climate-driven sea-level change is not spatially uniform.
...
A common misconception among both the wider scientific community and the general public is that sea-level rise associated with a warming climate would be the same everywhere. For example, concern about the future response of the large ice sheets to projected warming often leads to statements regarding the potential sea-level rise associated with the demise of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets — approximately 7 m and 5 m, respectively. However, if either of these ice sheets were to lose even a fraction of their mass, the resulting sea-level change would not be spatially uniform. Current models of sea-level change associated with changes in continental ice volume demonstrate that there is, in fact, a sea-level fall in the vicinity of a melting ice sheet or glacier.
...
This spatial non-uniformity in the sea-level response to climate change is, of course, a serious issue when considering the sea-level hazard from future global warming. In the coming century, some areas will experience a considerable sea-level rise, whereas others will experience little change or even a considerable fall. It is important for governments and policy makers to be aware of this variability so that appropriate action can be made to plan and implement appropriate mitigatory procedures.
...
Sea-level fingerprinting

Because sea-level change associated with climate variation is not spatially uniform, it is possible to look for patterns in observations of past changes to infer dominant melt sources or constrain the relative importance of steric changes (sea-level changes arising from expansion and contraction of the water as temperature or salinity changes; see box on p2.26) compared to ice melt/growth. A recent application of this type considered a carefully selected subset of tide gauge records to look for a signal related to melting of land ice during the 20th century (Mitrovica 2001). The basis of this study is the pattern of global sea-level change when assuming melt from three distinct sources: Greenland, Antarctica and smaller ice masses such as mountain glaciers and ice caps.

...
"As any ice sheet melts, sea levels along coastlines as much as 1,500 miles
Fig. 2 The Battle of the Bulge
(2,000 kilometers) away will fall as seawater escapes from the reduced gravitational pull and the crust lifts. The escaping seawater flows clear across the equator: the melting of Antarctica affects the U.S. East and West coasts, and Greenland's disappearance impacts the coastline of Brazil. These regional differences are significant -- such as in the case of the East Coast of the United States." [quoting NASA]
(On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 8, emphasis added). The paper being questioned today is fundamentally weak in light of the missing scientific data (Why Our Intuition About Sea-Level Rise Is Wrong).

Remember, their purpose was to find the cause of abrupt sea level change in the Indian Ocean.

III. The WOD & PSMSL Reality Based on Scientific Observation

Fig. 3 WOD data = billions of observations
The graph at Fig. 3 depicts the WOD observed ocean temperatures at all depths of the Indian Ocean discussed in the paper I am questioning.

Fig. 4 From PSMSL tide gauge stations
The "Abstract" section of the paper reporting their conclusions asserts that "sea surface height (SSH) variability across the ... North Indian Ocean ... is ... related to a reversal in ... upper-ocean-temperature trends" (Journal of Geophysical Research).

Fig. 5 From PSMSL tide gauge stations
The quote from the university web page quoted above (in Section I) indicated that abrupt sea level rise "prompted the oceanographers to investigate the cause of the shift."

As you can see from the WOD data @ Fig. 3, the ocean temperatures from all depths, compared with the PSMSL sea level change data @ Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, gives no support their assertion.

The reality is that the abrupt change in sea level took place circa 1934, some six decades prior to their beginning point of reference in the satellite generated records (1993 is when their satellite records begin).

In 1934 a sea level fall trend, which had begun in the late 1800's, abruptly changed into a sea level rise trend which has continued to the present.

From 1993 on, neither the ocean temperatures nor sea levels have any abrupt trend changes whatsoever.

Thus, their conclusion that "the wind did it" is meaningless.

That is what happens when scientists leave out the work of those who have figured it out long before their time (Woodward 1888, Mitrovica et. al 2011).

IV. What Caused It Then?

It is not the purpose of this post to do their work for them, but I will gladly give them a clue or two.
Fig. 6
Mitrovica et. al 2011

The graphic at Fig. 6 is from the Mitrovica et. al paper (linked to in the last sentence of the previous Section III) which gives clues showing that both sea level fall and sea level rise are expected for the area in question.

The gist of it is that as Greenland, Antarctica, and land glaciers disintegrate, as a result of global warming, it will impact the area in question.

And it will do so in ways that (as quoted above in Section II: "A common misconception among both the wider scientific community and the general public ...") are not in the textbooks  (Why Our Intuition About Sea-Level Rise Is Wrong, Humble Oil-Qaeda, The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

Other clues I will offer, before closing, are (Glaciers of India, Glaciers of Pakistan, Glaciers of Bhutan; cf. The Ghost-Water Constant - 5 about strange Black Sea area glaciers' impact on sea level change there).

For another reference to sea level dynamics that are influenced by such land glaciers (even in the US), see (Proof of Concept, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

V. Indian Ocean Dynamic Analysis

Fig. 7 The 27 WOD Zones (red outline)
Regular readers know that I customarily include an analysis of the up and down temperature dynamics of WOD zones in these types of posts.

The WOD Zones analyzed in today's post are shown in Fig. 7 (see also Fig. 1).

The following Section VI is an analysis of the data from the relevant WOD Zones (I am talking about the WOD Zones that were used to generate Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5.

They are outlined with red lines on Fig. 7 and are analyzed using actual (CTD & PFL) scientific measurements taken by scientists (all the way from the Indian Ocean's surface down to the Indian Ocean's bottom).

VI. Analysis of the WOD Zones Individually and Collectively
WOD Zone: 1004 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 71 upward & 75 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.4143
  • 200-400m = 0.2103
  • 400-600m = -0.0522
  • 600-800m = -0.26403
  • 800-1000m = 0.04286
  • 1000-3000m = -3.92431
  • >3000m = 0.00598
Net change for 7 levels: -2.5671

Years involved: 1975 -> 2016 (41 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-2.5671 ÷ 41): -0.0626122


WOD Zone: 1005 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 108 upward & 87 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.7139
  • 200-400m = 0.0597
  • 400-600m = 0.9765
  • 600-800m = 0.51363
  • 800-1000m = 0.95806
  • 1000-3000m = -2.50437
  • >3000m = -0.3753
Net change for 7 levels: 1.34212

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (1.34212 ÷ 44): 0.0305027


WOD Zone: 1006 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 107 upward & 95 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.6577
  • 200-400m = 1.0392
  • 400-600m = 0.5353
  • 600-800m = 0.21722
  • 800-1000m = -0.06212
  • 1000-3000m = 0.97014
  • >3000m = -0.04166
Net change for 7 levels: 4.31578

Years involved: 1974 -> 2016 (42 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (4.31578 ÷ 42): 0.102757


WOD Zone: 1007 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 79 upward & 89 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 2.223
  • 200-400m = 0.5675
  • 400-600m = -0.6004
  • 600-800m = -0.55882
  • 800-1000m = -3.32722
  • 1000-3000m = -2.5946
  • >3000m = -0.10236
Net change for 7 levels: -4.3929

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-4.3929 ÷ 44): -0.0998386


WOD Zone: 1008 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 103 upward & 101 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.2061
  • 200-400m = 0.1836
  • 400-600m = 0.2283
  • 600-800m = 0.13232
  • 800-1000m = -0.24371
  • 1000-3000m = 0.21135
  • >3000m = 0.00859
Net change for 7 levels: 0.31435

Years involved: 1975 -> 2016 (41 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (0.31435 ÷ 41): 0.00766707


WOD Zone: 1009 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 83 upward & 74 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -9.1207
  • 200-400m = 0.0216
  • 400-600m = -0.11597
  • 600-800m = -0.22991
  • 800-1000m = 0.08181
  • 1000-3000m = 0.22397
Net change for 6 levels: -9.1392

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-9.1392 ÷ 55): -0.166167


WOD Zone: 1104 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 6 upward & 6 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.4094
  • 200-400m = 3.6134
  • 400-600m = 5.1166
  • 600-800m = 3.8486
  • 800-1000m = 0.5389
  • 1000-3000m = -2.14923
Net change for 6 levels: 12.3777

Years involved: 2013 -> 2016 (3 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (12.3777 ÷ 3): 4.12589


WOD Zone: 1105 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 117 upward & 127 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.1271
  • 200-400m = 1.1536
  • 400-600m = 0.9617
  • 600-800m = 0.189
  • 800-1000m = 0.75147
  • 1000-3000m = 5.39344
  • >3000m = 0.89472
Net change for 7 levels: 9.21683

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (9.21683 ÷ 44): 0.209473


WOD Zone: 1106 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 134 upward & 114 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.1435
  • 200-400m = 1.5716
  • 400-600m = 1.0486
  • 600-800m = 0.81146
  • 800-1000m = 1.23384
  • 1000-3000m = 2.66073
  • >3000m = 1.72023
Net change for 7 levels: 9.18996

Years involved: 1974 -> 2016 (42 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (9.18996 ÷ 42): 0.218809


WOD Zone: 1107 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 76 upward & 66 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 5.9785
  • 200-400m = 1.6163
  • 400-600m = 0.8486
  • 600-800m = -0.7746
  • 800-1000m = -0.36187
  • 1000-3000m = 0.77978
Net change for 6 levels: 8.08671

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (8.08671 ÷ 44): 0.183789


WOD Zone: 1108 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 107 upward & 104 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.3476
  • 200-400m = 0.2294
  • 400-600m = 0.30613
  • 600-800m = 0.17035
  • 800-1000m = 0.11455
  • 1000-3000m = -1.6287
Net change for 6 levels: -1.15587

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-1.15587 ÷ 38): -0.0304176


WOD Zone: 1109 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 65 upward & 68 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.2316
  • 200-400m = -0.0393
  • 400-600m = 0.13296
  • 600-800m = 0.11892
  • 800-1000m = 0.16357
  • 1000-3000m = -1.3393
Net change for 6 levels: -0.73155

Years involved: 1991 -> 2016 (25 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-0.73155 ÷ 25): -0.029262


WOD Zone: 1206 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 90 upward & 95 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.3878
  • 200-400m = 0.738
  • 400-600m = 0.5338
  • 600-800m = 0.3478
  • 800-1000m = 0.45545
  • 1000-3000m = -0.65573
  • >3000m = -0.00942
Net change for 7 levels: 2.7977

Years involved: 1974 -> 2016 (42 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (2.7977 ÷ 42): 0.0666119


WOD Zone: 1208 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 8 upward & 24 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -1.7339
  • 200-400m = -1.1718
  • 400-600m = -1.16207
  • 600-800m = -2.76092
  • 800-1000m = -2.62019
  • 1000-3000m = -2.39185
Net change for 6 levels: -11.8407

Years involved: 1995 -> 2013 (18 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-11.8407 ÷ 18): -0.657818


WOD Zone: 1209 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 0 upward & 1 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 2.3856
Net change for 1 levels: 2.3856

Years involved: 2003 -> 2010 (7 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (2.3856 ÷ 7): 0.3408


WOD Zone: 3004 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 76 upward & 72 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.1918
  • 200-400m = -2.3124
  • 400-600m = -1.36642
  • 600-800m = -5.01819
  • 800-1000m = -0.32792
  • 1000-3000m = -1.79758
  • >3000m = -1.13815
Net change for 7 levels: -12.1525

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-12.1525 ÷ 44): -0.276192


WOD Zone: 3005 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 76 upward & 91 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.2046
  • 200-400m = -0.2869
  • 400-600m = -0.69389
  • 600-800m = 0.14023
  • 800-1000m = 0.60843
  • 1000-3000m = -0.50246
  • >3000m = -0.01634
Net change for 7 levels: -0.95553

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-0.95553 ÷ 44): -0.0217166


WOD Zone: 3006 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 83 upward & 78 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 4.156
  • 200-400m = 0.7157
  • 400-600m = 1.27966
  • 600-800m = 1.00288
  • 800-1000m = 0.68948
  • 1000-3000m = -3.17533
Net change for 6 levels: 4.66839

Years involved: 1974 -> 2016 (42 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (4.66839 ÷ 42): 0.111152


WOD Zone: 3007 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 83 upward & 95 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.9084
  • 200-400m = 0.1493
  • 400-600m = -1.02566
  • 600-800m = -1.11289
  • 800-1000m = -1.63294
  • 1000-3000m = -1.56284
  • >3000m = 1.56944
Net change for 7 levels: -2.70719

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-2.70719 ÷ 44): -0.061527


WOD Zone: 3008 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 87 upward & 89 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 2.0468
  • 200-400m = -0.0481
  • 400-600m = -0.52895
  • 600-800m = -0.31272
  • 800-1000m = 0.00715
  • 1000-3000m = -1.17623
  • >3000m = 0.08607
Net change for 7 levels: 0.07402

Years involved: 1972 -> 2016 (44 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (0.07402 ÷ 44): 0.00168227


WOD Zone: 3009 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 68 upward & 67 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.9297
  • 200-400m = 0.1913
  • 400-600m = 0.10839
  • 600-800m = 0.04614
  • 800-1000m = -0.27688
  • 1000-3000m = -2.19327
  • >3000m = -0.00181
Net change for 7 levels: -0.19643

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-0.19643 ÷ 38): -0.00516921


WOD Zone: 3104 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 81 upward & 76 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.9302
  • 200-400m = 0.7069
  • 400-600m = -0.7264
  • 600-800m = -0.57124
  • 800-1000m = 0.86863
  • 1000-3000m = -3.5496
  • >3000m = -0.08765
Net change for 7 levels: -1.42916

Years involved: 1975 -> 2016 (41 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-1.42916 ÷ 41): -0.0348576


WOD Zone: 3105 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 96 upward & 97 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.4601
  • 200-400m = 1.7018
  • 400-600m = 0.31875
  • 600-800m = 0.17297
  • 800-1000m = -0.19641
  • 1000-3000m = -0.20958
  • >3000m = -0.07035
Net change for 7 levels: 2.17728

Years involved: 1974 -> 2016 (42 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (2.17728 ÷ 42): 0.05184


WOD Zone: 3106 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 91 upward & 71 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.6936
  • 200-400m = 2.766
  • 400-600m = 1.60388
  • 600-800m = 0.46619
  • 800-1000m = -0.11106
  • 1000-3000m = -0.37121
  • >3000m = 0.04797
Net change for 7 levels: 6.09537

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (6.09537 ÷ 38): 0.160404


WOD Zone: 3107 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 94 upward & 69 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.0442
  • 200-400m = -1.0879
  • 400-600m = 0.01563
  • 600-800m = 0.26903
  • 800-1000m = -0.27865
  • 1000-3000m = 0.23488
  • >3000m = -0.08964
Net change for 7 levels: -0.89245

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-0.89245 ÷ 38): -0.0234855


WOD Zone: 3108 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 76 upward & 84 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -1.5515
  • 200-400m = 3.9729
  • 400-600m = 2.02371
  • 600-800m = 1.11008
  • 800-1000m = 0.48849
  • 1000-3000m = 2.55861
  • >3000m = 1.35542
Net change for 7 levels: 9.95771

Years involved: 1979 -> 2016 (37 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (9.95771 ÷ 37): 0.269127


WOD Zone: 3109 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 64 upward & 71 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.1763
  • 200-400m = -0.2951
  • 400-600m = -0.17892
  • 600-800m = -0.01196
  • 800-1000m = -0.20775
  • 1000-3000m = -1.024
Net change for 6 levels: -1.54143

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-1.54143 ÷ 38): -0.0405639


Combined averages for 27 total WOD Zones
(temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning change changes, the mean average
was 78 upward & 77 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.681752
  • 200-400m = 0.591356
  • 400-600m = 0.355097
  • 600-800m = -0.0762393
  • 800-1000m = -0.097927
  • 1000-3000m = -0.73027
  • >3000m = 0.139101
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.86287

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (0.86287 ÷ 55): 0.0156885 C per year


VII. Conclusion


The previous post in this series is here.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 9

Fig. 1 Official Ocean Layers
I. Background

This series is an argument against the TEH hypothesis: "thermal expansion of the ocean is the major cause of sea level rise" (Thermal Expansion Hypothesis).

As previous posts in this series have shown, merely skimming the sea surface Is insufficient to robustly determine the generally mis-characterized phenomenon of thermal expansion of ocean water:
skim the surface (of something): "To do, engage with, or understand something to only a minimal or superficial degree" (Idioms @ Free Dictionary).

scratch the surface: "to just begin to find out about something; to examine only the superficial aspects of something." (Idioms @ Free Dictionary).
The "surface" is the tiniest zone, the Epipelagic Zone (Fig. 1), and the place to begin the discussion, so let's look at how the supporters of the TEH construct their hypothesis:
As the ocean warms, the ocean expands.

The amount of sea level rise depends on the temperature increase and the amount or percentage of ocean water that is warming.

The ocean is heated from above and is therefore stable.

Therefore it will take a long time for the entire depth of the ocean to warm.

The portion of the ocean that is warmed from above is called the thermocline.

The direct solar heating is much shallower than 500 m but currents and overturning mix the warming through the depth of the thermocline.

We assume the depth that experienced the enhanced warming is the depth of the thermocline
."
(U. of Arizona, by E. Robert Kursinski, emphasis added). The assumption ("We assume") is problematic in several ways.

II. The Laws of Thermodynamics

The first problem involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
"The first statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics - heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body ..." - (Univ. of Winnipeg)

"Conduction occurs when two object at different temperatures are in contact with each other. Heat flows from the warmer to the cooler object until they are both at the same temperature. Conduction is the movement of heat through a substance by the collision of molecules. At the place where the two object touch, the faster-moving molecules of the warmer object collide with the slower moving molecules of the cooler object. As they collide, the faster molecules give up some of their energy to the slower molecules. The slower molecules gain more thermal energy and collide with other molecules in the cooler object. This process continues until heat energy from the warmer object spreads throughout the cooler object." - (California Institute of Technology, emphasis added)
The assumption that warming of the "ocean surface area" is confined to a limited depth, i.e. to an area called the thermocline is arbitrary (see link @ Fig. 1 and Epipelagic Magic).

Further, there is no explanation about what laws of physics causes the Second Law of Thermodynamics to stop existing once a certain depth is reached.

The laws of thermodynamics imply that the only thing stopping the heat flowing from the warmer water to the colder water is temperature equilibrium.

When the water temperature reaches equilibrium, when all of the water is at an equal temperature, the heat transfer ceases.

Which is not a factor of arbitrary depth, it is a factor of the heat becoming evenly distributed due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

III. What Is Not Disputed

When the professor continues to apply some values to some formulas, he acknowledges some problems with the TEH:
Plugging in values, we get that the change in the height of the ocean due to thermal expansion of the top 500 m of the ocean is approximately

5x102 m 2x10-4/K 1.25x10-2 K/year = 1.25 mm/year
...
The measured rise in sea level is about 20 cm = 200 mm in 100 years or about 2 mm/year. If the depth to which the warming extends were greater than 500 m, then our calculated rate of sea level rise would be higher and closer to the observed rate.
(ibid, U. of Arizona). The hypothetical does not match the observed, so change things so they do?

What comes to my mind is "the TEH is art, not science," which gets to the root of the problem (the reality is that thermal expansion should be science, not art).

Let's now take a look at "the moving parts."

IV. The Thermocline

The official depth layers of the ocean are the Epipelagic, Mesopelagic, Bathypelagic, Abyssopelagic, and Hadalpelagic (Fig. 1, NOAA).

The "thermocline" is not listed, because it is a conceptual overlay that is not based on fixed depth levels.

To the contrary, it is characterized by temperature dynamics:
Interaction with the wind keeps this [Epipelagic] layer mixed and thus allows
the heating from the sun to be distributed vertically. At the base of this mixing layer is the beginning of the thermocline. The thermocline is a region where water temperature decreases rapidly with increasing depth and transition layer between the mixed layer at the surface and deeper water.

The depth and strength of the thermocline varies from season to season and year to year. It is strongest in the tropics and decrease to non-existent in the polar winter season.
(ibid, NOAH, emphasis added). This throws a monkey wrench into the discussion.

The thermodynamics of heat flowing from warmer water into colder water is not constrained by static depths drawn on a picture.

That dynamic is only constrained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which has been described as reaching temperature equilibrium.

Thus, the static bathtub model formula discussed in Section I is being applied to a non-static phenomenon.

That is another reason why the TEH is at odds with observations of many sorts that have been demonstrated in previous posts of this series (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

V. Water

Water in the ocean is usually moving, and doing so in terms of both temperature and its depth.

Think currents, waves, wind, upwelling, and sinking (see the video here), but do not forget that water expands or shrinks as its temperature changes.

But it does so differently than other liquids, because it expands or contracts when heated or cooled, depending on its temperature when heat is added or taken away (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 6).

VI. Conclusion

Climate and sea level change is such an important subject that it should be handled with the very best scientific procedures (Millions At Risk in US, Nature).

It is time to stop skimming the surface and it is time to get deep (as the video below, and this one clearly show).

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

Professor Guzman on climate refugees & the displaced:



Sunday, October 16, 2016

It Ain't Me, Man

A lone man refusing to do the Nazi salute, 1936
I.  Modern Nationalism

It is not universally recognized that academically, nationalism is a modern phenomenon:
Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities; but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history.
(Nationalism, Encyclopedia Britannica, emphasis added). This is one reason why some people are blind to the reasons that Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel for Literature, and thereby became the first singer songwriter in history to become a Nobel Laureate (Congratulations To Bob Dylan).

And on top of that, he is "the first American to have won the prize in more than two decades. Not since novelist Toni Morrison won in 1993 has an American claimed the prize" (NPR).

He has been like the person in the photo above who refused a perverted nationalism and wrote "It Ain't Me, Babe" about it (see 1st Video below).

II. Nationalism Is A Strong American Sentiment

As modern as nationalism is internationally, it is really modern in the U.S.eh? now and then.

It produces offspring such as jingoism, and to the contrary, the rejection of jingoism (Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala - 4).

Various authors have discussed the two brands of American nationalism:
In this controversial critique of American political culture and its historical roots, Anatol Lieven contends that U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 has been shaped by the special character of our nationalism.

Within that nationalism, Lieven analyses two very different traditions. One is the "American thesis," a civic nationalism based on the democratic values of what has been called the "American Creed."
Love it or Leave It

These values are held to be universal, and anyone can become an American by adopting them. The other tradition, the "American antithesis" is a populist and often chauvinist nationalism, which tends to see America as a closed national culture and civilization threatened by a hostile and barbarous outside world.

With America Right or Wrong, Lieven examines how these two antithetical impulses have played out in U.S. responses to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and in the nature of U.S. support for Israel.

This hard-hitting critique directs a spotlight on the American political soul and on the curious mixture of chauvinism and idealism that has driven the Bush administration.
(Good Reads). Currently, the understanding of what it is to be "American" is not a unified concept in what the Canadians call "the U.S.eh?"

III. It's The Economy Plutocratic Neofeudalism Stupid

As economics professor Dr. Reich pointed out, some aspects of economy is a point of agreement in the rhetoric of voting republicans and democrats alike (Banker Jekyll Will Hyde Your Money - 12).

After all, both of those groups of voters have substantial numbers in the middle class, which is suffering.

I mean economic suffering caused by the now quite-obvious-and-naked degeneration of a robust economy into a plutonomy (The Homeland: Big Brother Plutonomy, 2, 3, 4, 8) characterized by feudalism (American Feudalism, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

IV. It Is Ok To ReMake America

The conservative Wall Street Journal really does agree with the liberal Dr. Reich about the economic issue of income disparity:
According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, the top 10% of earners captured about half of all income as of 2007.
...
The second reason is that those people in the middle- and lower-income groups are struggling to pay off debt and stay afloat amid rising unemployment, as today’s data remind us. That has crimped their spending.

The data may be a further sign that the U.S. is becoming a Plutonomy–an economy dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthy. And Plutonomies are far less stable than economies built on more evenly distributed income and mass consumption. “I don’t think it’s healthy for the economy to be so dependent on the top 2% of the income distribution,” Mr. Zandi said.
(U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich, WSJ). The agreement that inequality in access to the economic life of the nation has led to a plutocracy is not the end of the matter.

How to fix it is the place of contention.

For one thing, conservatives have been lowering the tax rates of the uber rich but not doing the same for the working classes, while liberals want to tax the uber rich more so than the working classes.

The Speaker of The House of Representatives is an ideological fan of Ayn Rand:
In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group.
(Ayn Rand: Patron Saint of The Plutocracy - 3). Ayn Rand was a died in the wool ideological believer in plutocracy:
Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats ...

It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.
(Ayn Rand: Patron Saint of The Plutocracy). It is a perplexing reality that "prosperity gospel" aficionados, within the religious conservative evangelical voting bloc, are ideologically aligned with her:
Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel or the health and wealth gospel) is a Christian religious doctrine which claims the Bible teaches that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians.

The doctrine teaches that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always increase one's material wealth.

Its proponents teach that the doctrine is an aspect of the path to Christian dominion over society, arguing that God's promise of dominion to Israel applies to Christians today.

The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's will for his people to be happy. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith.
(Ayn Rand: Patron Saint of The Plutocracy). Can you fathom that there is a cold, heartless, and pathological dynamism in the U.S.eh?

See you in the camps (Pentagon Warning).

V. Conclusion


Revolution
by John Lennon

"You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out"
...

Yep ... it ain't me babe ... it ain't me you're looking for ... it ain't me man ...