Today, I want to focus on a relatively unknown phenomenon called "sea level fall" (SLF), which the melting and calving ice sheets and glaciers are causing (You Are Here - 5).
It is one of those non-intuitive impacts that scientists talk about (Dr. Mitrovica).
The graphs at Fig. 1 through Fig. 4 show sea level fall near the coast lines of land masses where ice sheets or glaciers are melting.
The graphic at Fig. 5 is Dr. Mitrovica's way of showing where SLF occurs (dark blue color).
The top section of that graphic shows the coastline near Antarctica (compare with Fig. 4).
The middle section shows Greenland (I skipped that because of the dearth of tide gauge stations @ Greenland).
The bottom section shows glaciers in Alaska, Svalbard, and Patagonia.
The Alaska SLF is graphed at Fig. 1, the Patagonia SLF is graphed at Fig. 2, the Svalbard SLF is graphed at Fig. 3, and the Antarctica SLF is graphed at Fig. 4.
Fig. 5
Each graph is generated by Dredd Blog software that uses the historical data from the WOD and PSMSL databases.
Currently, the future projections are based on IPCC, NOAA. projection equivalents.
To simulate those values I used a 3 ft. for low end projection and 6 ft. for the high end projection.
But unlike the global mean average approach, the Dredd Blog software uses historical data at each geographical location to determine the future SLC (sea level falls or rises depending on geographical location).
Using "one size fits all" logic (commonly called "global mean average sea level rise") is problematic, so in addition to watching the video below, also check out: A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion, 2, 3.
The graphic at Fig. 6 is the bottom section from Fig. 5, with blue lines added to show generally where the water goes as it is released from the Alaska cryosphere, the Svalbard cryosphere, and the Patagonia cryosphere areas.
I call this ocean water "ghost-water" because it is not generally known that this ocean water increases sea level rise in other parts of the globe equal in volume to the SLF that results as the ice sheet gravity fades away caused by the ice mass fading away.
The first video below goes into more verbal detail about this area of global sea level change, especially in terms of physics as it impacts oceanography.
The second video goes into political detail about how the military will respond to a civilian government that does not know where it is (You Are Here).
"The Military is the lead federal agency on climate change ... and that is ... extremely dangerous ... we may lose the republic ..." - Professor Wilkerson (ret. colonel)
This series deals with the difficult task of agreeing or disagreeing with the overly conservative and well known record of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (The IPCC Record on Global Warming Temperature Projections, 2).
The IPCC is a well known report, but fewer people know about another government climate change report required by federal law (Government Climate Change Report, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Today I want to discuss a common scientific error that has led us astray for a century (Dr. Mitrovica).
That error makes its way into every climate change report which includes sea level change (at least every official report I know of).
For example, the promiscuous use of "global mean average sea level" (GMSL) is the error I am talking about (it's the mother of invention of "the bathtub model").
Niels Bohr, not Yogi Berra, made the statement: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
It is all the more difficult if your purpose is to reveal reality rather than to cover it up with utterly mythical global average mean sea level rise or fall.
It is important to tell bureaucratic agencies how high and for how long they need to add protection for property and lives in their unique jurisdiction, especially if all they know about is the bathtub model.
Should every jurisdiction design and build according to the mythical bathtub model's useless mythical bathtub ring?
No, those who are trying to build sea walls, move, deepen, and otherwise retrofit seaports, and otherwise cope with rising and falling sea levels, need more than a mythical quantity from a vision of a mythical bathtub (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 6).
III. The Graphs
So, today's graphs are chosen to show how the redistribution of water from melting and disintegrating ice sheets to far away places causes anything but a measurable global mean average sea level.
Fig. 3 More Variation
I wrote a software model that calculates future sea level change based on the PSMSL tide gauge stations records going back as far as several hundred years.
It is designed to use one or more WOD Zones, process all PSMSL tide gauge station historical records in those zones, then produce CSV files with which to graph the results.
I used the golden 23 tide gauge station zones as the baseline graph (Fig. 1), then applied the same software model to other tide gauge station historical records in other geographical areas (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
IV. Let's Get Real
If you show the officials, in various bureaucratic jurisdictions along the East Coast, the most sophisticated GMSL satellite data to indicate how they should build their sea walls, they will not get the picture.
They will not understand that this is not a problem to be solved with rubber duckies floating in one bathtub with one uniform level (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 One Size Doesn't Fit All
They need to know what is happening within their sphere of influence and jurisdiction.
Especially when their reality is radically different from the satellite generated global mean average.
Their local sea level change projections need to be calculated with actual, real, and ongoing measurements at their geographical location (in the first video below, Col. Wilkerson points out how jurisdictions near each other in Virginia came up with noticeably different plans).
They will not be amused if they rely on the GMSL to build a 100 mm sea wall that is breached in a year or two (Fig. 4).
V. Conclusion
People in government will do just about anything to avoid being seen as utterly silly and ignorant.
I am reminded of those working on the vast seawall barrier in New Orleans who recently found themselves homeless.
Those workers watched what were, seemingly, innocuous clouds floating over them as they worked on the $14.5 billion (so far) mother of all protective walls (The ‘Great Wall’ of New Orleans).
They were soon to find out that the vast seawall barrier fell short, because "change" does not mean "doing the same thing."
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
"We ordered the Marines out of New Orleans ..." - Professor Wilkerson (paraphrased)
After viewing the videos at the bottom of today's post by Col. L. Wilkerson and R. Admiral Tilley, I chose this series.
II. The Case
Seemingly, in stark contrast to what is generally thought, some kids, some activists, and a scientist ("The American Children"), sued President Obama and Humble Oil-Qaeda ("POHO") in a federal court in Oregon:
"Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen ("youth plaintiffs"); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations. Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies. Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide ("CO2") produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would "significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia." ... Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs assert defendants, "[b]y their exercise of sovereign authority over our country's atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, ... permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, ... deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric CO2 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]" ... Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear "a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country" for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. ... This is no ordinary lawsuit. Plaintiffs challenge the policies, acts, and omissions of the President of the United States, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation ("DOT"), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")."
(JULIANA et al. v U.S.). Right away POHO moved the federal court in Oregon to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The case was, as is typical, referred to a Magistrate Judge who recommended that the court deny the POHO motion and allow The American Children to proceed with the case.
The court held, among other things, that:
"The public trust doctrine defines inherent aspects of sovereignty. The Social Contract theory, which heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, provides that people possess certain inalienable rights and that governments were established by consent of the governed for the purpose of securing those rights. Accordingly, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not create the rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness - the documents are, instead, vehicles for protecting and promoting those already-existing rights. ... Plaintiffs' claims rest "directly on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Davis, 442 U.S. at 243 (1979); see also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980) ("[T]he victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right.") They may, therefore, be asserted in federal court. ... I ADOPT Judge Coffin's Findings & Recommendation (doc. 68), as elaborated in this opinion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 27) and Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 19) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED."
(ibid, JULIANA et al. v U.S.). The case will now proceed to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit if the POHO defendants decide to take an interlocutory appeal at this time, instead of letting it go to trial.
III. The Ramifications
This case is brought at a time when the scenario described by Col. Wilkerson (even before he knew of the election results) is "extremely dangerous" (see first video below !).
Add to that the intention of the Republican Party to load the Supreme Court with climate change deniers, and it adds up to an increased likelihood of a constitutional crisis in our near future.
Unless the W Direction is changed, The American Children will eventually lose this case in the alt-right supreme court, and who knows what else.
IV. Conclusion
I am reminded of a quote in a previous Dredd Blog post:
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."
Updates to the WOD and PSMSL databases typically add more measurements at more depths over more years than the previous databases contained.
Some of the data in these updates can make for significant changes, but other additional or new data not so much (trends are trends).
Fig. 2
I combined all WOD zones involved into one graph (Fig. 4) rather than separate them into 5 individual graphs as I did last time (linked-to above).
The recent updates depicted in today's post leaves us with the conclusion that the bottom line (extinction of robust sea ports) has not changed from what it was in the previous post.
That bottom line is that seaports of our current civilization are an endangered species because of ongoing sea level changes:
Based on these calculations, the report says a three-foot sea level rise would threaten 128 U.S. military bases, valued at roughly $100 billion.
Nine of those bases are major hubs for the Navy: In addition to Norfolk, flooding threatens Naval Station Mayport, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia and the Naval Academy in Maryland, where 2003's Hurricane Isabel flooded classrooms, dormitories and athletic facilities.
It's not just the Navy. Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island is at risk of being completely underwater. All told, three Marine Corps installations, two joint bases, an Air Force base and a Coast Guard Station are also at risk of daily flooding, the report said.
(Navy Times, cf. Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity - 2). The top ten non-military seaports face the same form of extinction (see the 6 year old video below, where R. Admiral Tilley explained the danger to seaports a long time ago).
Anyway, the graphs at Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3 show that the top ten seaports are in locations that are experiencing a greater sea level rise than the global mean average.
That can be seen on those graphs by comparing the included satellite data with the tide gauge data.
Two of the graphs break out the sea level change into the geophysical (Fig. 3) and geographical (Fig. 2) components of the combined total.
Fig. 4
"Geographical" (Earth geography) indicates what physical location, such as Antarctica, Greenland, etc., the sea level change is coming from.
"Geophysical" (Earth physics) indicates what type of physics is involved in the sea level change factors originating at those geographical locations.
Geophysical factors involve dynamics such as displacement (caused by melt-water or calving), ghost-water (water released to be redistributed elsewhere that was previously held captive by ice sheet or glacier gravity), and thermal expansion and uplifting (caused by warming oceans and land-mass sinking or rising) as ice sheets and glaciers lose mass.
II. The WOD Zones
The unique WOD Zones involved in this post, concerning the top ten container-ship seaports of the world, are: WOD Zones 1010, 1205, 1211, 1212, 1311, and 1312.
The following computations are an analysis of each recorded change in the WOD data used to produce the graph at Fig. 4, which depicts all measurements at all depths in the WOD zones (only 5 are listed because zone 1311 has no WOD data) where the top ten container seaports are located.
The surface and subsurface temperature change analysis is as follows: NOTICE: these values are NOT temperatures,
they are CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE:
WOD Zone: 1010 (values are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 5 upward & 5 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = -5.1528
200-400m = -1.573
400-600m = 0.0436
Net change for 3 levels: -6.6822
Years involved: 1981 -> 2016 (35 yrs)
Average change per year:
(-6.6822 ÷ 35): -0.19092
WOD Zone: 1205 (values are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 68 upward & 53 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 3.6257
200-400m = 3.5985
400-600m = 1.8253
600-800m = 0.9817
800-1000m = 1.08602
1000-3000m = -2.72141
>3000m = -0.00686
Net change for 7 levels: 8.38895
Years involved: 1986 -> 2016 (30 yrs)
Average change per year:
(8.38895 ÷ 30): 0.279632
WOD Zone: 1211 (values are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 96 upward & 78 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = -1.9834
200-400m = 0.286
400-600m = 0.19441
600-800m = 0.25696
800-1000m = 0.1811
1000-3000m = 0.22742
Net change for 6 levels: -0.83751
Years involved: 1985 -> 2016 (31 yrs)
Average change per year:
(-0.83751 ÷ 31): -0.0270165
WOD Zone: 1212 (values are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 132 upward & 150 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = -1.5676
200-400m = 0.0478
400-600m = 0.1361
600-800m = -0.13163
800-1000m = -0.05174
1000-3000m = 0.7026
>3000m = -0.56389
Net change for 7 levels: -1.42836
Years involved: 1976 -> 2016 (40 yrs)
Average change per year:
(-1.42836 ÷ 40): -0.035709
WOD Zone: 1312 (values are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 51 upward & 34 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 5.01439
200-400m = 3.98188
400-600m = 1.46745
600-800m = 0.504285
800-1000m = -4.88616
1000-3000m = -5.2012
Net change for 6 levels: 0.88065
Years involved: 2000 -> 2016 (16 yrs)
Average change per year:
(0.88065 ÷ 16): 0.0550406
Combined averages for 5 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)
Concerning change, the mean average
was 70 upward & 64 downward changes.
Average changes per depth level were:
0-200m = -0.012742
200-400m = 1.26824
400-600m = 0.733372
600-800m = 0.322263
800-1000m = -0.734155
1000-3000m = -1.39852
>3000m = -0.11415
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.064306
Years involved: 1976 -> 2016 (40 yrs)
Average annual combined change:
(0.064306 ÷ 40): 0.00160765 C per year
The data in the section above is provided to support, among other things, my hypothesis that thermal expansion is a minor player as a cause of sea level rise (see Fig. 3).
III. The PSMSL Stations
Some zones have more PSMSL tide gauge stations than others do, and some zones have no tide gauge stations at all.
The following list contains links to each tide gauge station in each of the WOD Zones in which the top ten seaports are located: Zone [1010] had [25] stations:
