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

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

Thursday, June 8, 2017

The Trump Papers

"National Security Is A Hoax"

The Herald of the Seven Trumps

The Onion has obtained hundreds of documents from an anonymous source within the White House.

The military considers climate change to be the greatest threat to national security (Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity - 2 ).

The president thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Mistakes Of The Dredd Blog Kind

Fig. 1 USGS: Water on Earth
The tiny blue bubbles shown in Fig. 1 represent the quantity of water on the planet Earth.

The larger one represents ocean water, while the tinier one over Kentucky represents fresh water.

The link under the graphic explains the details.

There are several estimates as to the volume of water in the oceans.

Historically the ocean has been a thing of myth and superstition (falling off the edge, etc.), but even in modern times the estimates have gone from about 1.3 x 109 km3 to about 1.5 x 109 km3 (Physics Factbook).

More recently, scientists at Woods Hole have said:
"A lot of water values are taken for granted," said Matthew Charette, an associate scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Mass., who led the new audit of the oceans. "If you want to know the water volume on the planet, you Google it and you get five different
Fig. 2 Thermal Expansion NE U.S. coast
numbers, most of them 30- or 40-year-old values."
Satellite measurements do have their shortcomings though: "There is a problem of spatial resolution, like an out-of-focus camera," Smith explained. "We're measuring the sea surface that is affected by mountains, but we're seeing only really big mountains, and in a blurry way. The resolution is 15 times worse than our maps of Mars and the moon."
(Live Science, emphasis added). Their (Woods Hole) values of 1.332 x 109 km3 (ocean volume) and 3682.2 m (avg. ocean depth) are the more accurate at this time, so I am using them until further notice (replacing the 1.37 x 109 km3 I have been using).

Regular readers know that in the past I have consistently projected graphs that featured thermal expansion at ~5.1% of sea level change:
At any rate, thermal expansion / contraction is a minor factor in sea level change (~5.1%).

The major factors of sea level change are ice sheet and glacial melt-water, ice sheet and glacial calving of ice into the oceans, and of course ghost water: The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
(On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, July 2015, emphasis added). Today, I want to point out some miscalculations I made in a couple of recent graphs concerning thermal expansion calculations (e.g. see here, here, and here).

Fig. 3 TEOS-10 Variables
Among other things, I tried to do all the ocean volume back to 1880 which I was not yet ready for, because I had not used the TEOS-10 toolbox long enough to grasp its ins and outs sufficiently.

Even using actual measurements from WOD, I did not have it down as shown here.

Not only that, two of my SQL database tables had become damaged.

The good news is that I have fixed the database tables, and also I have a better handle on the TEOS-10 toolbox now (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

The graph at Fig. 2 shows improved calculations of thermal expansion volume change and ocean volume change using in situ WOD measurements with the TEOS-10 toolbox.

Fig. 4 Using all WOD zones containing data
The improved graphs based on actual WOD data does not change the Dredd Blog hypothesis that the main-stream science managers have it wrong.

The story begins in 1969 where I use the Woods Hole figure for ocean volume as 1,332,000,000 cubic kilometers (1.332 x 109 km3).

The story ends in 2016 with a new ocean volume of  1,334,470,000 cubic kilometers (1.33447 x 109 km3), an increase of 2,470,000 cubic kilometers (2.47 x 106 km3) which percentage wise is:
Using 4 zones (Fig. 2):

2,470,000 / 1,332,000,000 = 0.001854354 (.1854%) orig vol 1969
2,470,000 / 1,334,470,000 = 0.001850922 (.1851%) new vol 2016
And using 487 zones containing 232,378 measurements (Fig. 4):
2,517,940 / 1,334,520,000 = 0.001886776 (~0.19%) new vol 2017
2,517,940 / 1,332,000,000 = 0.001890345 (~0.19%) orig vol 1956
So, the Dredd Blog ~5.1% (about 5.1%) is "generous" one might say, however, that percent also contains allowances for land subsidence (dropping in height   above sea level) due to pumping groundwater, and land uplift (due to ice-age rebound).

"Give 'em space" is what I say to the "thermal expansion is the major cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" crowd.

Hey readers, "if you see something say something" is our new mantra.

Now, I have to fix the "let's do it back to 1880" module.

Stay tuned.