Saturday, June 24, 2017

Golden 23 Zones Meet TEOS-10

ig
Fig. 1
I. Introduction

The "Golden 23 Zones" are actually fifteen WOD zones (Fig. 2) which contain the PSMSL "23 golden tide gauge station locations" (Fig. 1) which scientists selected years ago as a valid local-group that is representative of global sea level change (SLC).

The Golden 23 Group's "fingerprints" are also representative of which ice sheets are melting during a given span of time.

The analysis of SLC has been problematic because of, among other things,  oversimplification ("Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein). and failure to consider or attribute seminal scientific papers (On the robustness of predictions of sea level fingerprints).
Fig. 2

Regular readers know that I was convinced of the use of the golden 23 and have posted about that subject (Golden 23 Zones Revisited).

II. TEOS-10

Since the current dogma concerning SLC is enamored of the notion that SLC is mostly due to thermal expansion, anyone who is seriously looking into that hypothesis, in addition to studying SLC measurement practices, must also take on some of the precepts of oceanography and thermodynamics.

Since I do a lot of research using software modules I construct with C++, I eventually ran across the TEOS-10 toolkit.

It is a special-case toolkit that has the blessings of scientific communities:
The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), with the
Fig. 3
endorsement of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) and the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO), has adopted the International Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010 (TEOS-10) as the official description of seawater and ice properties in marine science. All oceanographers are now urged to use the new TEOS-10 algorithms and variables to report their work.

Notable differences of TEOS-10 compared with EOS-80 are :
(1) the use of Absolute Salinity [SA] to describe the salinity of
Fig. 4
seawater; Absolute Salinity takes into account the spatially varying composition of seawater. In the open ocean, the use of this new salinity has a non-trivial effect on the horizontal density gradient, and thereby on the ocean velocities calculated via the “thermal wind” relation.

(2) the use of Conservative Temperature [CT] to replace
Fig. 5
potential temperature q. Both of these temperatures are calculated quantities that result from an artificial thought experiment (namely, adiabatic and isohaline change in pressure to the sea surface). Conservative Temperature has the advantage that it better represents the “heat content” of seawater by two orders of magnitude.

(3) the TEOS-10 properties of seawater are all derived from a
Fig. 6
Gibbs function (by mathematical processes such as differentiation) and so are totally consistent with each other (in contrast to the now obsolete EOS-80 approach where separate polynomials were provided for each thermodynamic variable and they were not mutually consistent).
(TEOS-10 Flyer, PDF). That EOS-80 usage had led to many an innocent conflicting result over the past 40 years of use.

This has led to further improvement as an adjunct to my use of WOD and PSMSL data sets in terms of analyzing SLC, especially as that analysis involves the hypothesis of thermal expansion induced SLC.

III. The Procedure

Remembering Einstein's guidance about making things as simple as possible, but no more
Fig. 7
than that (LOL), I will describe the final version of a module that integrates WOD, PSMSL, and THEOS-10 to analyze SLC.

I query the SQL server for all WOD data from that zone, order it by year, and I also query the SQL server for all PSMSL data from that zone, and also order it by year.

I then pass the WOD data through some TEOS-10 functions to derive the absolute salinity and conservative temperature (the relevant TEOS-10 functions begin with "gsw_").Golden 23 Zones

First derive sea pressure from the depth (in meters) the measurement was taken at (now called "height"): p = gsw_p_from_z (depth, latitude); then derive absolute salinity: SA = gsw_sa_from_sp (sp, p, longitude, latitude); and finally derive conservative temperature: ct = gsw_ct_from_t (sa,t,p), where "sp" is the in situ measured salinity that has been recorded in the WOD data, "t" is the in situ measured sea water temperature that has been recorded in the WOD data, and "p" is the sea pressure (dbar) calculated from the measured depth and latitude where the measurements were taken.
Fig. 8

A critical function, in terms of thermal expansion analysis, comes next (the thermal expansion coefficient): tec = gsw_alpha(sa,ct,p), which is required for the final formula, thermal volume change (thermal expansion or contraction).

We start with the existing volume of the WOD zone in question.

A bit more reaching is required to determine the quantity of sea water (volume or mass) for the ultimate function: ΔV = V0 β ΔT or V1 = V0 * β * (T0 - T1), where V = volume, T = temperature (CT), and β = thermal expansion coefficient.

That is because: 1) the zones are not the same size (as the may seem in Fig. 2); 2) they do not have the same depth; 3) they do not have the same amount of land mass (compare zone 7215 with zone 7308 @ Fig. 2); and 4) not to mention temperature and salinity.

I use latitude and longitude calculus to determine the length and width of the four (unequal) sides of each golden 23 zone, then multiple all of them by the same depth value (median depth of the ocean), then subtract from that volume the percentages of the zone that is land, not water.

So, now we can write the TEOS-10 version: zoneV1 = zoneV0 * tec * (CT0 - CT1), where CT0  is last (previous) year and CT1 is this current year, zoneV0 is the zone's beginning volume (prior to the temperature changes in that zone over the year being calculated), and zoneV1 is the new volume after the thermal change calculation.

The resulting zoneV1 volume can be more (expansion), or less (contraction), than the beginning zoneV0 volume.

IV. The Graphs

I use synchronization checks to make sure that the change-patterns match the actual-value-pattern of the entity that is changing in value.

For examples, Fig. 3 checks volume patterns, Fig. 4 checks absolute salinity patterns, Fig. 5 checks conservative temperature patterns, Fig. 6 checks sub-surface water pressure patterns, and Fig. 8 checks SLC patterns.

Those match, so we can now discuss the main feature, the graph at Fig. 7.

V. Calculation

The Fig. 7 ending value for SLC during 1967-2015 is 78.1 mm, and the Fig. 7 ending value for thermosteric change is -284.773.

How much of the 78.1 mm sea level rise in the Golden 23 Zones is to be attributed to thermal expansion?

VI. Thermal Expansion in The Golden 23 Zones
(being updatad)
VII. Conclusion

(being updated)

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Don't Worry, Be Happy - 2

Fig. 1 Salinity & steric volume change
This is a follow up to Don't Worry, Be Happy posted a few days ago on June 17 (sea level rise impact on islands in Chesapeake Bay, U.S. East Coast).

I am posting this follow-up to reiterate how important it is to, among other things, take any mean averages with a grain of salt.

The previous post was a look at one zone in WOD Layer Five, while today's graphs cover all zones in Layer Five.

Fig. 2 Temperature & steric volume change
The comparison of these two posts is also instructive as to how the presentation of thermal expansion and contraction can impact upon one's perception of that dynamic.

And finally, it shows that my "5.1%" graph technique as to steric changes can also overstate thermosteric (thermal expansion) sea level change.
Fig. 3 Four Panel View

For example, notice Fig.4 (was Fig. 2 in the previous post of this series).

It shows thermal expansion in Zone 7307 of Layer Five, while today's graph of the entire layer does not.

Regular readers know that Dredd Blog consistently points out that sea level is different, even from zone to zone, contrary to the problematic bathtub model discourse (The Bathtub Model Doesn't Hold Water, 2, 3, 4).

The better practice is to acknowledge that there are geophysical realities to consider (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

Fig. 4 (was Fig. 2 here)
The compaction or compression of the data view in graphs can also enhance detail that is minimized in another graph.

If one compares Fig. 3 with Fig. 2 that concept becomes more clear.

The gist of my point is that it is fine to use different types of graphs so long as details which enhance and contrast what is being displayed are made as clear as possible to the readership.

The previous post in this series is here.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

The Machine Religion

DNA is not alive, not biotic
Regular readers will remember several Dredd Blog series that pierced the veil of evolutionary ideology, deducing that those who teach evolution need to become more honest and grasp the reality that the theory clearly mandates that machines evolved before carbon based life evolved (The New Paradigm: The Physical Universe Is Mostly Machine).

Here is some further reading on the subject: The Uncertain Gene, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; Putting A Face On Machine Mutation, 2, 3, 4; On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Did Abiotic Intelligence Precede Biotic Intelligence?.

The basic brain shock wave begins to reverberate when we realize that DNA (genes) have the nature of machines, that is, they are not organic life (The Uncertain Gene - 8).

Today's post begins  a new series "The Machine Religion" which has the purpose of explaining why human society is cavalierly in the process of (in terms of biotic life) "self destruction," but in machine language it is "regeneration".

In today's post I want to discuss the metae ("2. pertaining to or noting an abstract, high-level analysis or commentary," - Dictionary) and initial tenets ("1. any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc." - Dictionary) of the machine religion.

The first clue in the study of the machine religion is to comprehend the mysticism of technology, to wit:
Technocracy itself is an immortality ideology that, although it is coupled with materialism, has as part of its makeup an element of the magical and a belief that new tools and innovations provide solutions to both the small day-to-day problems of life and the larger problems of human happiness and mortality. Technology is entrancing, and, functionally, technologists become creators of magic and the wizards of today, claiming the same authority over technology that doctors claim over human health or shamans over the cursed. This has always been so, going back to ancestral peoples who learned to use fire, tools, wind, and wheels. Even in subsistence societies, technology has a greater impact on a variety of sociological variables than do supernatural or religious beliefs (Nolan and Lenski 1996).
...
Even in subsistence societies, technology has a greater impact on a variety of sociological variables than do supernatural or religious beliefs (Nolan and Lenski 1996).
(Dickinson, J. L., 2009, Ecology and Society 14(1): 34, emphasis added). As cyborgs (i.e. abiotic/biotic life on Earth) build societies, the machine religion eventually dominates:
Because there are few cultures remaining that have not been superseded by larger entities, with tribes becoming townships, cities, states, and nations, we no longer have an “integrated world conception into which we fit ourselves with pure belief and trust” (Becker 1975). Although this might open up the possibility of a utopian, egalitarian, and secular society in which the combined gifts of individuals prevail, what we have in the West is a secular inequality devoid of a shared sense of the sacred and a heroism that triumphs over nature, perpetuating itself through new immortality ideologies that value material acquisitions and money. Lacking in heroism, these immortality ideologies come up empty or even inspire guilt. The irony of Western materialism is that wealth beyond the point of basic material comfort does not make people happy (Gilbert 2005).
(ibid). These observations explain why a minority of participants in the (it is said) "greatest, richest, and militarily most powerful nation" of current civilization can take control of power:
Traditionally, technology consolidates power within a society and  exacerbates inequity. What is interesting about the new information  technologies is that they do both: They consolidate power with patents, exclusive intellectual capital, and expensive tools, and they distribute power through open source technologies and open communication networks. As such, they promote material segregation  while at the same time providing a relatively open network within which  ideological communities can function. Photo galleries, forums,  listserves, Google groups, and new social networking tools like MySpace,  Facebook, and Second Life present mechanisms for growing online  communities. In this new virtual world, frequent interaction is easy to  achieve, and the topics around which free choice interaction occurs can  be very focused and specific, suggesting that large social networks function like smaller ideological communities once did in the real  world.
(ibid). It is as if "The Matrix" movie theme (machine-intelligence cultivates and farms biological humanity for producing energy) is the reality (The Matriarch of The Matrix, 2, 3).

"We" are practicing a self-destruct-sequence that comes from deep within us, all the way down to the machines (the atoms and molecules), if our recorded history is considered:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown."
(A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee). This is further supported by the science which informs us that carbon is formed in stars ("When a ... star begins to die out ... and ... begins to manufacture carbon...").

Which means that stars are an essential abiotic womb of carbon based life forms.

The stars self-destruct eventually, destroying the carbon based life forms on planets within the zone near them, where biological life is likely to be established:
Earth's fate is precarious. As a red giant, the Sun will have a maximum radius beyond the Earth's current orbit, 1 AU (1.5×1011 m), 250 times the present radius of the Sun. However, by the time it is an asymptotic giant branch star, the Sun will have lost roughly 30% of its present mass due to a stellar wind, so the orbits of the planets will move outward. If it were only for this, Earth would probably be spared, but new research suggests that Earth will be swallowed by the Sun owing to tidal interactions. Even if Earth would escape incineration in the Sun, still all its water will be boiled away and most of its atmosphere would escape into space.
(Wikipedia, Astronomy Today, PBS, and Space Dot Com). Thus, the machine religion is, on the surface, akin to a death and rebirth cult of biological life that worships the sun god.

I will close this first post of this series with the notion of the sun god episode of the machine religion (Dying-and-rising god) along with its trail of "destruction" (On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses - 6).







Monday, June 19, 2017

The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan - 7

D-Con Gollum
Three Rings for the Elven-kings
under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords
in halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men,
doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord
on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor 
where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, 
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all 
and in the darkness bind them.
In the Land of Mordor 
where the Shadows lie.” - J.R.R. Tolkien

Today's episode is about D-Con Gollum, a baptist deacon who seeks to religiously destroy the life on a planet he has yet to discover (You Are Here).

But way, way, way more than that, it is about the etiology of social dementias (Etiology of Social Dementia, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) that have destroyed every civilization plagued by mental illness posing as wisdom in high places:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." - A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee

To wit:
"Charismatic leaders and deities are common soteriological transference objects, but so are movie stars, political leaders, lovers, and teachers. The exact nature of transference varies, but what is critical is that transference objects appear larger than life and more enduring than the mortal self.
...
Becker connected the denial of death to a broad suite of behaviors enacted in defense of a cultural world view, placing his ideas within the context of Western society’s increasingly distant relationship to nature and rejection of death as an integral part of life (Becker 1975, Lifton 1979).
...
His goal was to revitalize the enlightenment tradition (Anchor 1979) and develop a “science of man” that would discover the psychological reasons why people gravitate toward finding meaning within some context of cosmic significance, why group ideologies so often involve literal or symbolic immortality, why cultural ideologies are so often the grounds upon which battle lines are drawn, and why so much of human motivation is subconscious and thus outside awareness.
...
Given the paradox that most modern immortality-striving hero systems hinder our chances of survival, what might we learn by investigating the psychological mechanisms governing our choices? Understanding proximate behavioral mechanisms, particularly unconscious motivations that govern decision making, may reveal methods for generating a sustained response to global climate change in the short term and provide insights that individuals and institutions can use to foster rational responses to escalating environmental crises over the long term.
...
Terror management theory (TMT) is the formalization of Becker’s ideas within the field of social psychology. Although not universally accepted (Navarrete and Fessler 2005), TMT is supported by evidence from more than 300 empirical studies testing a wide range of predictions with Western and indigenous societies in various parts of the globe (Pyszczynski et al. 2006). For this reason alone, it is worth taking seriously and integrating with environmental thinking, particularly with regard to human responses to climate change.
...
Proximal defenses use rational thinking and deploy immediately after conscious thoughts of death are triggered; they involve both active suppression and cognitive distortions that relegate the problem of death to the distant future (Pyszczynski et al. 1999).
...
Where global climate change is concerned, proximal defenses to thinking about mortality are likely to manifest in three ways: (1) denial of climate change, i.e., climate skeptics; (2) denial that humans are the cause of climate change; and (3) a tendency to minimize or project the impacts of climate change far into the future, where they no longer represent a personal danger (Table 1).
...
Distal defenses are symbolic and occur in the absence of negative affect, physiological arousal, or distress; they are deployed in response to verbal or written death primes and subliminal death stimuli, which strongly supports the idea that they are unconsciously motivated. Experiments indicate that bolstering self-esteem helps to keep death thoughts at bay (Greenberg et al. 1992b). Consequently, threats to self-esteem can elicit terror management defenses, whereas factors such as a history of secure attachment or thinking about one’s own secure relationship have buffering effects (Florian and Mikulincer 1998, Mikulincer and Florian 2000, Mikulincer et al. 2003). Experiments designed to explore distal defenses are intriguing because they tap into unconscious motivation in compelling ways, asking whether interventions (primes) that increase mortality salience also increase the individual’s striving for self-esteem, defense of his or her own world view, antagonism toward outgroups, and idealization of ... leaders.
...
Proximal defenses cause people to minimize the severity of mortal problems. If thinking about climate change triggers proximal defenses, people who say that they believe climate change is occurring will still tend to underestimate the need for an immediate response. As conditions worsen and it becomes increasingly difficult to deny the effects of global climate change, more people will probably switch over to distal defenses.
...
For example, people who find self-esteem via materialism and an ideology of entitlement will probably buy more SUVs and become more antagonistic toward environmental causes and points of view, favoring suppression of the environmental movement and harsher penalties for the more radical protestors. In contrast, people who find self-esteem through humanist ideologies or environmentalism should become increasingly militant and vocal about their causes. This clash between two major Western ideologies is likely to produce even deeper ideological rifts within and outside the United States than we currently see. [this paper was written in 2009, and now we see Gollum as head of the EPA, so the hypothesis made a prediction that panned out]

...
If the perception of risk, including the risks associated with climate change, increases death thought accessibility, and this becomes increasingly likely as the impacts of climate change reveal themselves, then efforts to move people toward environmentally responsible behaviors may have the opposite effect, causing them to purchase large gas-guzzling vehicles, listen to Rush Limbaugh, join fundamentalist cults, or, in the case of university faculty, hunker down and write more scientific papers.
...
We currently lack the basic understanding required to design educational structures to support leadership, resilience, and courageous responses to the problem of global climate change.
...
Because there are few cultures remaining that have not been superseded by larger entities, with tribes becoming townships, cities, states, and nations, we no longer have an “integrated world conception into which we fit ourselves with pure belief and trust” (Becker 1975). Although this might open up the possibility of a utopian, egalitarian, and secular society in which the combined gifts of individuals prevail, what we have in the West is a secular inequality devoid of a shared sense of the sacred and a heroism that triumphs over nature, perpetuating itself through new immortality ideologies that value material acquisitions and money. Lacking in heroism, these immortality ideologies come up empty or even inspire guilt. The irony of Western materialism is that wealth beyond the point of basic material comfort does not make people happy (Gilbert 2005).
...
Technocracy itself is an immortality ideology that, although it is coupled with materialism, has as part of its makeup an element of the magical and a belief that new tools and innovations provide solutions to both the small day-to-day problems of life and the larger problems of human happiness and mortality. Technology is entrancing, and, functionally, technologists become creators of magic and the wizards of today, claiming the same authority over technology that doctors claim over human health or shamans over the cursed. This has always been so, going back to ancestral peoples who learned to use fire, tools, wind, and wheels. Even in subsistence societies, technology has a greater impact on a variety of sociological variables than do supernatural or religious beliefs (Nolan and Lenski 1996).
...
Even in subsistence societies, technology has a greater impact on a variety of sociological variables than do supernatural or religious beliefs (Nolan and Lenski 1996).
...
Traditionally, technology consolidates power within a society and exacerbates inequity. What is interesting about the new information technologies is that they do both: They consolidate power with patents, exclusive intellectual capital, and expensive tools, and they distribute power through open source technologies and open communication networks. As such, they promote material segregation while at the same time providing a relatively open network within which ideological communities can function. Photo galleries, forums, listserves, Google groups, and new social networking tools like MySpace, Facebook, and Second Life present mechanisms for growing online communities. In this new virtual world, frequent interaction is easy to achieve, and the topics around which free choice interaction occurs can be very focused and specific, suggesting that large social networks function like smaller ideological communities once did in the real world.
...
Nontheistic conservation communities often arise around ideological symbols or charismatic archtypes. The practice of bird watching in the United States has grown dramatically, increasing by 155% in the years from 1982 to 1995 (Fitzpatrick and Gill 2002). This rapid exponential growth, similar to the growth that sometimes accompanies new religious movements, suggests that bird conservation communities function as ideological entities.
...
Currently, more than half the world’s population lives in cities, and this constitutes a large segment of humanity that is disconnected from the natural world (Louv 2005).
...
Academic science is both a world view and a context for self-esteem according to Becker (1975). This can lead scientists to imbue the scientific process with a power that it does not actually possess.
...
Although research may provide major insights that help to mitigate change that is inevitable, terror management theory predicts that we will focus our attention and resources on discovery and mitigation for global climate change at the expense of actions that will stop the process from occurring in the first place. The frequency with which scientists currently discuss “adaptation to” and “mitigation for” climate change is disturbing, and may speak of a reluctance to confront the problem with a realistic attitude (Dyson 2006). Awareness of this possibility can help redirect scientists to circumvent distal defenses in this somewhat ironic context."
(The People Paradox: Self-Esteem Striving, Immortality Ideologies, and Human Response to Climate Change; emphasis added; link to PDF version).

Just sayin' ...

The previous post in this series is here.



Saturday, June 17, 2017

Don't Worry, Be Happy

Fig. 1 WOD Zone 7307
The East Coast of the U.S. is a place where sea level rise is noticeable (The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands).

But the inhabitants of one island that has not yet been "deep-sixed" in that area, in the Chesapeake Bay area, have been told that The Donald doesn't believe it.

To the islanders it is also not believable (even though "since 1850, over 66% of Tangier's landmass has disappeared underwater"), at least to the majority there who voted for the current U.S. administration of denial (Trump told the mayor of a disappearing island not to worry about sea-level rise).

Fig. 2 SLR Disected
Even though at least thirteen islands in that area have already been deep-sixed, they still seem to buy into exceptionalism of the mythical kind.

The graph at Fig. 1 shows (outlined in red) the WOD zone where Tangier Island is located.

The graph at Fig. 2 shows the sea level rise that has taken place in that area according to 35 tide gauge stations (including the traditional Dredd Blog 5.1% estimate for steric,thermal expansion).

Instruments have been, in some cases, recording and reporting sea level there for over a hundred years:

Layer 5: latitude 40 -> 30
...
Zone 7307: longitude -70 -> -80

Station #: 234; active: 1922 - 2016 [94 yrs.] Status: SLR (360 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6882.17) end (7242.17) high (7242.17) low (6832.33)
SLC span/range (409.84 mm, 0.40984 m, 1.34462 ft)

Station #: 1721; active: 1988 - 1990 [2 yrs.] Status: SLR (14.58 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7004.17) end (7018.75) high (7018.75) low (7004.17)
SLC span/range (14.58 mm, 0.01458 m, 0.0478346 ft)

Station #: 1651; active: 1986 - 1995 [9 yrs.] Status: SLR (24.66 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7044.04) end (7068.7) high (7068.7) low (6968.04)
SLC span/range (100.66 mm, 0.10066 m, 0.330249 ft)

Station #: 1720; active: 1988 - 1990 [2 yrs.] Status: SLR (120.62 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6998.38) end (7119) high (7171) low (6998.38)
SLC span/range (172.62 mm, 0.17262 m, 0.566339 ft)

Station #: 1444; active: 1978 - 2016 [38 yrs.] Status: SLR (176.16 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6934.17) end (7110.33) high (7145.25) low (6899.88)
SLC span/range (245.37 mm, 0.24537 m, 0.80502 ft)

Station #: 862; active: 1958 - 1977 [19 yrs.] Status: SLR (10.21 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6863.54) end (6873.75) high (6972.83) low (6662)
SLC span/range (310.83 mm, 0.31083 m, 1.01978 ft)

Station #: 1431; active: 1977 - 1988 [11 yrs.] Status: SLF (145.75 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7053.25) end (6907.5) high (7053.25) low (6907.5)
SLC span/range (145.75 mm, 0.14575 m, 0.478182 ft)

Station #: 2294; active: 1979 - 2003 [24 yrs.] Status: SLR (60.45 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6966.17) end (7026.62) high (7095.46) low (6962.71)
SLC span/range (132.75 mm, 0.13275 m, 0.435531 ft)

Station #: 396; active: 1936 - 2016 [80 yrs.] Status: SLR (254.71 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7038.33) end (7293.04) high (7293.04) low (6931.96)
SLC span/range (361.08 mm, 0.36108 m, 1.18465 ft)

Station #: 2295; active: 1974 - 2016 [42 yrs.] Status: SLR (179.88 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7049) end (7228.88) high (7228.88) low (6980.96)
SLC span/range (247.92 mm, 0.24792 m, 0.813386 ft)

Station #: 719; active: 1954 - 1962 [8 yrs.] Status: SLF (75.25 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7008.25) end (6933) high (7056.46) low (6933)
SLC span/range (123.46 mm, 0.12346 m, 0.405052 ft)

Station #: 1636; active: 1986 - 2016 [30 yrs.] Status: SLR (131.3 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7026.7) end (7158) high (7165.92) low (6960.27)
SLC span/range (205.65 mm, 0.20565 m, 0.674705 ft)

Station #: 945; active: 1960 - 1970 [10 yrs.] Status: SLR (27.2 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6947.38) end (6974.58) high (6989.25) low (6849.5)
SLC span/range (139.75 mm, 0.13975 m, 0.458497 ft)

Station #: 399; active: 1936 - 1987 [51 yrs.] Status: SLR (240.83 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6778.17) end (7019) high (7044.5) low (6778.17)
SLC span/range (266.33 mm, 0.26633 m, 0.873786 ft)

Station #: 462; active: 1942 - 1967 [25 yrs.] Status: SLR (51.5 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7070.5) end (7122) high (7286.54) low (6995.79)
SLC span/range (290.75 mm, 0.29075 m, 0.953904 ft)

Station #: 1635; active: 1986 - 2016 [30 yrs.] Status: SLR (186.29 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6977.46) end (7163.75) high (7163.75) low (6940.17)
SLC span/range (223.58 mm, 0.22358 m, 0.73353 ft)

Station #: 299; active: 1928 - 2016 [88 yrs.] Status: SLR (475.38 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6819.79) end (7295.17) high (7295.17) low (6819.79)
SLC span/range (475.38 mm, 0.47538 m, 1.55965 ft)

Station #: 597; active: 1951 - 2003 [52 yrs.] Status: SLR (178.91 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6918.71) end (7097.62) high (7155.25) low (6887)
SLC span/range (268.25 mm, 0.26825 m, 0.880085 ft)

Station #: 1295; active: 1972 - 2016 [44 yrs.] Status: SLR (109.04 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7040.75) end (7149.79) high (7172.83) low (6949.08)
SLC span/range (223.75 mm, 0.22375 m, 0.734088 ft)

Station #: 481; active: 1943 - 1951 [8 yrs.] Status: SLR (78.96 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6939.79) end (7018.75) high (7018.75) low (6939.79)
SLC span/range (78.96 mm, 0.07896 m, 0.259055 ft)

Station #: 360; active: 1932 - 2016 [84 yrs.] Status: SLR (287.33 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6786.12) end (7073.45) high (7120.83) low (6757.5)
SLC span/range (363.33 mm, 0.36333 m, 1.19203 ft)

Station #: 971; active: 1961 - 1973 [12 yrs.] Status: SLR (95.38 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6993.29) end (7088.67) high (7198) low (6909.83)
SLC span/range (288.17 mm, 0.28817 m, 0.94544 ft)

Station #: 412; active: 1938 - 2016 [78 yrs.] Status: SLR (298.3 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6954.62) end (7252.92) high (7308) low (6930.42)
SLC span/range (377.58 mm, 0.37758 m, 1.23878 ft)

Station #: 1203; active: 1968 - 1973 [5 yrs.] Status: SLR (89.66 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6905.17) end (6994.83) high (6996.79) low (6905.17)
SLC span/range (91.62 mm, 0.09162 m, 0.300591 ft)

Station #: 311; active: 1929 - 2016 [87 yrs.] Status: SLR (366.04 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6782.88) end (7148.92) high (7174.46) low (6774.92)
SLC span/range (399.54 mm, 0.39954 m, 1.31083 ft)

Station #: 148; active: 1903 - 2016 [113 yrs.] Status: SLR (315.17 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6867.58) end (7182.75) high (7222.75) low (6807.67)
SLC span/range (415.08 mm, 0.41508 m, 1.36181 ft)

Station #: 1338; active: 1973 - 1983 [10 yrs.] Status: SLR (46.37 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7018.71) end (7065.08) high (7065.08) low (6935.96)
SLC span/range (129.12 mm, 0.12912 m, 0.423622 ft)

Station #: 636; active: 1952 - 2016 [64 yrs.] Status: SLR (237.91 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6880.17) end (7118.08) high (7118.08) low (6852)
SLC span/range (266.08 mm, 0.26608 m, 0.872966 ft)

Station #: 1337; active: 1973 - 1983 [10 yrs.] Status: SLR (59.17 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6963.08) end (7022.25) high (7022.25) low (6860.6)
SLC span/range (161.65 mm, 0.16165 m, 0.530348 ft)

Station #: 224; active: 1920 - 2016 [96 yrs.] Status: SLR (312.93 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6875.86) end (7188.79) high (7200.88) low (6775.75)
SLC span/range (425.13 mm, 0.42513 m, 1.39478 ft)

Station #: 2292; active: 1998 - 2016 [18 yrs.] Status: SLR (50.46 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7031.62) end (7082.08) high (7093.12) low (6870)
SLC span/range (223.12 mm, 0.22312 m, 0.732021 ft)

Station #: 135; active: 1901 - 2016 [115 yrs.] Status: SLR (314.34 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6742.54) end (7056.88) high (7157.46) low (6691)
SLC span/range (466.46 mm, 0.46646 m, 1.53038 ft)

Station #: 786; active: 1986 - 2016 [30 yrs.] Status: SLR (87.9 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7051.18) end (7139.08) high (7177.38) low (6996.17)
SLC span/range (181.21 mm, 0.18121 m, 0.594521 ft)

Station #: 1153; active: 1967 - 2016 [49 yrs.] Status: SLR (180.34 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7068.58) end (7248.92) high (7276.04) low (6994.79)
SLC span/range (281.25 mm, 0.28125 m, 0.922736 ft)

Station #: 180; active: 1912 - 2016 [104 yrs.] Status: SLR (458.16 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6749.88) end (7208.04) high (7245.4) low (6749.88)
SLC span/range (495.52 mm, 0.49552 m, 1.62572 ft)

(Databases Galore - 19) [go to this link if you are not aware of PSMSL].

Let this grandiose denial be a lesson for you, as it has been for me.

I am talking about the psychology of folks who are endangered by sea level changes but who cannot or will not believe it:
"A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult for people to repress thoughts of death, and that they might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. There is already experimental evidence suggesting that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism."
(Convergence - Fear of Death Syndrome). It is a phenomenon that spreads through culture like a disease (Comparing a Group-Mind Trance to a Cultural Amygdala, MOMCOM's Mass Suicide & Murder Pact - 3).

Don't worry be happy?



Friday, June 16, 2017

Peering Into The World of Science

Fig. 1 Only a hypothetical pattern?
I. Peering Into The Depths

The notion of a "peer" has many applications, depending on the discipline of the peer (e.g. What Is a Jury of Peers?).

I once told a friend not to worry because he could never be tried by a jury of his peers, because he didn't have any peers; but seriously, do you ever wonder about the ways of scientific peer review?

The peers of scientists question other scientists (imagine those who peer reviewed some of Einstein's revolutionary papers) !

So, it can't be that bad when Dredd Blog does the same thing, eh?

It is good to sharpen each other's wits, because eventually it improves the science and the scientist.
Fig. 2 Temperature Anomalies

II. Today

Today's graphs are from a module I am working on (I mentioned it in a recent post here).

It follows the GISTEMP record of above-sea-level atmosphere and land temperatures, a record going back to 1880.

The exercise is to try to estimate what percentage of heat has entered the ocean during the recorded period from 1880 to 2016.

By estimate, I mean determining the decreasing amount (proceeding back in time 2016->1880) as well as determining the increasing amount (proceeding forward in time 1880->2016) that has taken place (e.g. Fig. 1).

Fig. 3 Nothin' from somethin' leaves somethin'
III. First Things First

But before I get heavily into that, let's look at some peer reviewed papers.

They show how far and wide apart the concepts passing through peer review have been.

In general terms, those concerned with these types of measurements have common interests at heart:
"We tend to focus on land surface temperatures, because, well, that’s where we live. And human greenhouse gas emissions have ensured their steady rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution, punctuated by 2014 setting the record for hottest year.

But surface heat is but a fraction of the climate change equation. Only 7 percent of the heat being trapped by greenhouse gases is sticking around in the surface and atmosphere of the planet. The other 93 percent? That's ending up in the ocean, though some scientists expect some of that heat will eventually find its way back to the surface and trigger even more warming."
(Climate Central, emphasis added). The researchers often mention the percentage of atmospheric heat entering the ocean as if it always takes place at the same rate, the same percentage:
"For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence."
(Yale Environment, emphasis added). Another peer indicates:
"Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming and can best be assessed across the historical record (that is, since 1960) from ocean heat content (OHC) changes. An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge, mainly because of insufficient and irregular data coverage. We provide updated OHC estimates with the goal of minimizing associated sampling error."
(Science Advances, emphasis added, also see an NCAR piece @ Phys.org). My issue, today, is how to determine the following:
"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat (GeoPhys Letters) trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans ..."
(OSIP, emphasis added). Since the laws of thermodynamics do not mention any clock that times heat transfer, I must ask "what clock does that timing?" (On The Origin of Ghost Heat & Temperature, On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 9).

Thermal dynamics is a very busy section of peer reviewed science research:
"For much of the past decade, a puzzle has been confounding the climate science community. Nearly all of the measurable indicators of global climate change—such as sea level, ice cover on land and sea, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations—show a world changing on short, medium, and long time scales. But for the better part of a decade, global surface temperatures appeared to level off. The overall, long-term trend was upward, but the climb was less steep from 2003–2012. Some scientists, the media, and climate contrarians began referring to it as “the hiatus.”

Fig. 4 PSMSL data
If greenhouse gases are still increasing and all other indicators show warming-related change, why wouldn’t surface temperatures keep climbing steadily, year after year? One of the leading explanations offered by scientists was that extra heat was being stored in the ocean.

Now a new analysis by three ocean scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory not only confirms that the extra heat has been going into the ocean, but it shows where. According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012. But the warming did not occur at the surface; it showed up below 10 meters (32 feet) in depth, and mostly between 100 to 300 meters (300 to 1,000 feet) below the sea surface. They published their results on July 9, 2015, in the journal Science."
(NASA, emphasis added). I immediately wonder, since the average ocean depth is about 3682.2 m, how much did they miss at only about one tenth of the way down, i.e. how much heat was deeper (much deeper)?

IV. Is The Measuring The Problem?

The graph at Fig. 3 shows the pattern of 93% of the atmospheric heat, 10% of that collecting in the upper 10% of the ocean depths, and 90% of that atmospheric heat collecting in the lower 90% of the ocean depths.

The graph at Fig. 2 shows the lack of continuity, because the pattern of heat leaving the atmosphere and entering the ocean does not match the pattern that ocean temperature measurements make.

The graph at Fig. 4 shows sea level change measured at 1,482 tide gauge stations around the world.

These patterns begs the question, "are we not measuring in a proper way?" that would develop a comprehensive and robust representation of what is happening with the heat, i.e., is it naturally that way, are the measurements taken at the right places, at enough places, or what?

V. Conclusion

I think you can see why I keep working this issue.

We need a consistent policy concerning Global Warming's impact on the ocean, in terms of heat distribution, so that we can more accurately project ocean changes.

That would mean understanding all major aspects of sea level changes and what causes those changes (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

In the absence of that there will be a lot of peer flailing-around.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 20

Fig. 1 A fusion of GISTEMP & WOD data
I. Some History

The notion of thermal expansion being the major cause of sea level volume change in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries (over 200 years?) has little substantive support in the scientific literature record.

The records I review indicate a conflicting series of opinions based on a conflicting series of computer software models, even in the official government version of this issue:
A variety of ocean models have been employed for estimates of ocean thermal expansion ... the best estimate of thermal expansion from 1880 to
Fig. 2
1990 was 43 mm (with a range of 31 to 57 mm) (Warrick et al., 1996) ... De Wolde et al. (1995, 1997) developed a two dimensional (latitude-depth, zonally averaged) ocean model, with similar physics to the UD model. Their best estimate of ocean thermal expansion in a model forced by observed sea surface temperatures over the last 100 years was 35 mm (with a range of 22 to 51 mm) ...
(IPCC). The non-government view of the issue is somewhat similar:
The AOGCMs agree that sea-level rise is expected to be geographically
Fig. 3 PSMSL data
non-uniform, with some regions experiencing as much as twice the global average, and others practically zero, but they do not agree about the geographical pattern. The lack of agreement indicates that we cannot currently have con®dence in projections of local sea-level changes, and reveals a need for detailed analysis and intercomparison in order to understand and reduce the disagreements.
(Climate Dynamics, 2001). They seem to be utterly unaware of Woodward 1888, or more recently, Harvard Professor Mitrovica's work (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 47).

Thus, the equation given, is missing something hidden in plain sight:
Because GMSL and estimates of the steric and mass components have different uncertainties and the potential for systematic errors, one often investigates the sea level budget to see how well it closes:
GMSL(t) = GMSLmass(t) + GMSLsteric(t)
At any particular time, t, the residual (GMSL(t) - GMSLmass(t) - GMSLsteric(t)) is unlikely to be exactly zero due to random and short-period errors. However, over the long-term, the residual differences should be small. When they are not, it indicates a problem in one or more of the terms in Eq. (1).
(Evaluation of the Global Mean Sea Level Budget). IMO the complete formula is GMSL(t) = GMSLmass(t) + GMSLsteric(t) + GMSLrelocated mass(t), where "relocated mass" is the ocean portion that is hidden in plain sight and therefore what I call "ghost
Fig. 4
water" (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

II. One Helpful Technique

For that reason, as regular readers know, I have been working on some techniques that allow us to have a better handle on the matter.

Since I like to use in situ measurements whenever possible, I have figured a way to fuse GISTEMP temperature records (1880-2016) with World Ocean Database (WOD) records (1956-2016).

Fig. 5
This allows us to generate a thermal expansion / contraction mapping of those same years (Fig. 1).

The basic concept is that currently some percentage of the heat entering the Earth ecosystem cannot escape back into space because of green house gases.

In terms of temperature, currently 93% of it enters the oceans.

We can follow that 93% because it leaves "fingerprints," in the form of warming ocean temperatures, as it makes its way into the ocean, leaving some 7% in the atmosphere and land above sea level.

Before I discovered this technique (yesterday) I did it this way: The World According To Measurements - 6.

III. How The Fusion Is Done

I combine the GISS temperature data with the WOD ocean temperature data using:
GISS + WOD
-------------------
2
That is, the GISS temperature for a given year (of which 93% is headed to the ocean anyway) is added to the WOD temperature already in the ocean, and then the average of the two is derived by division.

The actual C++ source code line in the module looks like this:
"T = (wodData[ypos+1].avgT + gissData[ypos+1].temperatureAnomaly) / 2 ;"

To see how this is reasonable notice this arithmetic:

(1880) -0.2 (GISS) + -0.136533 (WOD) = −0.336533
−0.336533 ÷ 2 = −0.1682665
(ocean temp increase of: -0.1682665 minus -0.136533 = −0.0317335)

(2016) 0.98 (GISS) + 0.597801 (WOD) = 1.577801
1.577801 ÷ 2 = 0.7889005
(ocean temp increase of: 0.7889005 minus 0.597801 = 0.1910995)

The 93% of recent larger temperatures (year 2016) blends, during the process, with 93% of increasingly smaller temperatures (year 1880).

So the "fusion" balances itself out over time (I will work on perfecting the percentages as time goes on).

The pattern of the GISS temperature anomaly shown in Fig. 1 (top) is reasonably closely aligned with the thermal expansion / contraction pattern also shown in Fig. 1 (bottom), and with the sea level change reported by tide gauge stations around the world (Fig. 3).

The graphs at Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5 show the TEOS-10 components (Absolute Salinity, Conservative Temperature, and Sea Pressure, which are factors that pull the pattern in various conflicting directions).

The thermal coefficient is generated by the TEOS-10 toolbox function gsw_alpha, and the steric volume changes are generated using the formula for volumetric, or cubical, expansion:

V = volume
T = temperature
β = thermal expansion coefficient
ΔV = V0 β ΔT
or
V1 = V0 * β * (T0 - T1)
(Physics Hypertextbook). The good thing to remember is that the numbers used are actual ocean and atmospheric data, not merely numbers generated by models.

IV. Conclusion

The thermosteric volume change percentage that is derived using this technique is smaller than the percentage generated with the technique I was using previously (The World According To Measurements - 6).

The previous post in this series is here.



Friday, June 9, 2017

The World According To Measurements - 6

Fig. 1 Warming trend since 1880 (GISSTEMP).
As you know, the Earth absorbs solar radiation, which we call light, heat, photons, etc.

Since that warming cannot escape back into space in an amount that equates to a balance (because of green house gases), an unhealthy amount of it is trapped within the Earth's realm.

Like a disease, the phenomenon spreads into the ocean, which absorbs about 93% of that trapped excess solar warmth entering the atmosphere of our planet (BCNet).

Fig. 2 Sea level rise since 1880
Which means that as the planet warms it can be measured accurately, and a record of that warming can be generated, as shown in Fig. 1.

The amount of this warming increases with time, meaning that as we go back in time there is less thermal increase, as the graph at Fig. 1 shows.

That 93% of warmth is a smaller and smaller amount of heat as we go back in time, so, thermal expansion of the ocean likewise is naturally smaller and smaller as we go back in time.

Logically then, the percentage of sea level rise attributable to thermal expansion is less and less as we consider these historical measurements.

Fig. 3 Thermal expansion since 1880
For example, the most recent 93% of the values on that Fig. 1 graph is applied to the scale value of '1' (year 2016), while the oldest 93% is applied to the scale value of '-0.2' (year 1880).

Thus, it is simple to see that 1×.93 = 0.93, while, for example, 0.2×.93 = 0.19.

That is why I wonder about some scientists who have indicated that thermal expansion is "the major cause" of sea level rise, going back to 1880.

Fig. 4 Ice melt is not linear
Regular readers know that I have urged them to drop that narrative.

I have also urged them to realize that the vast ice sheets and the land based glaciers have been melting back as far as when the 93% was only 0.19 or less.

Note that it takes less heat to add mass-increase based sea level rise to the oceans via ice melt, than it does to cause thermal expansion of the oceans (see e.g. Antarctica 2.0, Proof of Concept - 5, and of course The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  and The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

My most recent endeavor to convince them is based on implementing the sophisticated TEOS-10 oceanography software toolkit (Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 13, Mistakes Of The Dredd Blog Kind).

I have a module working that calculates thermal expansion back to 1880, but more importantly, it also calculates thermal expansion based on real-world measurements from the World Ocean Database records (Fig. 3).

Fig. 5 Some numerical values
Let me give you some more details about how I made that graph.

The database has actual records, in this case, from 1956 to the current year, and those measurements used to produce that graph contain depth, water temperature at that depth, salinity at that depth, the latitude and longitude location where the measurements were taken, the date and time, the scientist involved, etc.

That is enough data to facilitate the TEOS-10 toolkit which I mentioned above, and enough data to thereby calculate both thermal expansion and contraction.

I applied the values of 1.332 x 109 km3 (ocean volume) and 3682.2 m (average ocean depth) from Woods Hole research (Ocean's Depth and Volume Revealed).

I attached that volume to the year 1956, and began calculations from there to 2016 (2017 data is not complete, so it is not yet used).

Upon completion of that, I had sufficient information, based on real numbers, with which to project (like trying to calculate the future of temperatures) those values into the past, clued in by the GISS surface temperature history shown in Fig. 1.

After generating estimates (for ocean water conservative temperature, sea pressure, absolute salinity, etc.) going back to 1880 (involving decreasing water temperatures a la the decreasing non-water temperatures shown in Fig. 1), I was ready to generate thermal expansion values (i.e. steric, thermal volume change, assuming a constant ocean mass, but with a changing ocean volume based on ocean conservative temperature, absolute salinity, sea pressure, etc. at various depths).

The screen capture at Fig. 5 shows values of ocean volume at 1880, 1956, and 2016, which are the significant years involved (1880 = beginning, 2016=ending, and 1956 is the beginning of actual data via WOD measurements).

The section 1880-1955 is totally estimation, while the 1956-2016 section is not.

The 1956-2016 is based on recorded ocean value changes from which volume changes, due to temperature and other factors caused by warming, can be generated.

The previous post in this series is here.

"Anybody have any questions?" asks the lead singer at the end of the performance.