Saturday, February 24, 2018

Wooden Ships

Wooden Ships
33 WOD Zones with 231 bottom pressure stations
Fig. 1a
Fig. 1b
Fig. 1c
Fig. 1d
Fig. 1e
Fig. 1f
Fig. 1g
Fig. 1h
Fig. 2a
Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
Fig. 2g
Fig. 2h
Fig. 2i
Fig. 2j
Fig. 2k
Fig. 2l
Fig. 2m
I. Background

In a prior post I mentioned that two scientists indicated that bottom pressure was potentially a more accurate indicator of ocean mass changes (at the cm accuracy-level) than satellite or tide gauge records are:
"Bottom pressure may serve as a better observation of this mass component than sea level. Ocean model results, which represent only dynamic processes, suggest that bottom pressure in the deep ocean exhibits much smaller variability than sea level (Vinogradova et al., 2007). Thus, in principle, it should be easier to detect a 1-cm annual change in ocean level in a measurement of bottom pressure than in a sea level measurement."
(Very Breezy). Those scientists cited to a paper by some other scientists who gave a detailed discussion of that issue (Relation between sea level and bottom pressure).

Another paper I found indicates that only one moored bottom pressure site could accomplish the task if properly located if there was enough data.

The graphs shown today follow that paper's advice:
"If we are to use available data to test whether this concept works in practice, we must therefore focus on the annual cycle."
(Weighing The Oceans). Yes, these are graphs of daily records converted into annual mean averages.

So, as you might guess I felt compelled to acquire bottom pressure records.

I wanted to take a look at them to see if they could be a benefit.

II. The Location of
Bottom Pressure Stations

The graphic at the top of the post, under the sailing ship, has 33 red squares placed on the Zone map.

Those red squares are in Zones where the 231 bottom pressure stations are, or were, located.

Here is the list of those stations in the following order: Dredd Blog station number, the official station code, and the WOD zone number:

stn_num, stn_code, zone
====================
1, 55013_0813, 3416
2, MYb9903_QD109072, 5604
3, MYb9903_DQ43118, 5604
4, MYa9296_DQ43118, 5505
5, 32401_0610, 5207
6, 55015_1114, 3416
7, 51406_1013, 5012
8, 23401_0609, 1008
9, 44401_0710, 7304
10, 52405_1012, 1113
11, 52402_1012, 1115
12, 54401_0912, 5317
13, 46402_0204, 7516
14, 51426_0810, 5216
15, 51425_0810, 5017
16, 32401_1114, 5207
17, 55012_1012, 3115
18, 56001_0911, 3111
19, 43413_0709, 7110
20, 51407_0507, 7115
21, DPS_DEEP_1113_DQ105443, 5605
22, MYc0508_DQ96819, 5605
23, MYc0508_DQ96820, 5605
24, 56003_0911, 3111
25, 32411_0709, 7009
26, 42407_1214, 7106
27, DPS_DEEP_0911_DQ43122, 5605
28, DPS0911_DQ68485, 5605
29, DPN0911_DQ68489, 5505
30, 43413_1012, 7110
31, DPS9496_DQ43513, 5605
32, DPS9496_DQ46251, 5605
33, 43412_0911, 7110
34, DPS0608_DQ68489, 5605
35, 51425_1113, 5017
36, DPN0608_DQ68485, 5505
37, DPN9496_DQ52026, 5505
38, DPN9496_DQ44935, 5505
39, 51407_1113, 7115
40, 42407_0608, 7106
41, 41420_1012, 7206
42, 55015_0911, 3416
43, 51407_0709, 7115
44, DPN0709_DQ68483, 5505
45, 41421_0608, 7206
46, DPS0709_DQ105443, 5605
47, DPS0002_DQ46251, 5605
48, 41420_0608, 7206
49, DPS0204_DQ46251, 5605
50, 32412_0709, 5108
51, 56003_1113, 3111
52, 51406_0810, 5012
53, 46403_0507, 7515
54, 46403_0204, 7515
55, 46402_0709, 7516
56, 52406_1012, 3016
57, 41421_1012, 7206
58, 51406_0608, 5012
59, 55012_1214, 3115
60, 46403_1113, 7515
61, 52403_0809, 1014
62, 32401_0506, 5207
63, 32412_0911, 5108
64, 32412_1112, 5108
65, 32411_1214, 7009
66, 56001_1113, 3111
67, 43413_1214, 7110
68, 43412_1214, 7110
69, 32413_1012, 5009
70, 46403_0709, 7515
71, 44401_1113, 7305
72, 23401_1112, 1008
73, 52402_0809, 1115
74, 51406_0103, 5012
75, 52405_0608, 1113
76, 52403_1011, 1014
77, 46402_0506, 7516
78, 51407_1011, 7115
79, 51406_0304, 5012
80, 52402_0608, 1115
81, 52403_0608, 1014
82, 46403_1314, 7515
83, 46402_1314, 7516
84, 52406_0809, 3016
85, 51406_0405, 5012
86, 23228_1113, 1206
87, 43412_0709, 7110
88, 55042_1314, 3416
89, DPS9697_DQ46267, 5605
90, DPS9697_DQ52026, 5605
91, DPS9697_DQ44935, 5605
92, 42407_0809, 7106
93, DPN0304_DQ68485, 5505
94, 46403_1011, 7515
95, DPN_DEEP_1315_DQ90803, 5505
96, DPN_DEEP_1315_120411, 5505
97, DPN9697_QD49187, 5505
98, 41420_1213, 7206
99, DPS9293_DQ40375, 5605
100, DPS9293_DQ43122, 5605
101, 46402_0102, 7516
102, DPN_DEEP_1213_DQ43122, 5505
103, DPN9293_DQ43126, 5505
104, DPN9293_DQ41086, 5505
105, DPN9293_DQ38173, 5505
106, 52403_1314, 1014
107, DPS0405_DQ93161, 5605
108, DPN0506_DQ68483, 5505
109, 52402_1213, 1115
110, 52403_1213, 1014
111, DPS0506_DQ44935, 5605
112, DPS0506_DQ46267, 5605
113, 32411_1112, 7009
114, DPS9394_DQ40375, 5605
115, DPS9394_DQ41077, 5605
116, 56001_1314, 3111
117, DPN9394_DQ41086, 5505
118, DPN9394_DQ41083, 5505
119, 46402_1112, 7516
120, DPS9900_DQ46251, 5605
121, 41421_0910, 7206
122, 51406_0506, 5012
123, DPN0405_DQ46251, 5505
124, DPN0405_DQ43513, 5505
125, DPN9900_DQ68484, 5505
126, 46402_1011, 7516
127, 46403_0102, 7515
128, DPN0809_DQ44935, 5505
129, DPN0809_DQ46267, 5505
130, 46403_0910, 7515
131, 51425_1314, 5017
132, 55401_0708, 3416
133, DPN9899_DQ43513, 5505
134, DPN9899_DQ46251, 5505
135, DPS9899_DQ46267, 5605
136, DPS9899_DQ52026, 5605
137, DPS9899_DQ44935, 5605
138, DPS9798_DQ46251, 5605
139, DPS9798_QD49187, 5605
140, 46402_1213, 7516
141, 55015_0809, 3416
142, 44401_1011, 7305
143, 42407_1011, 7106
144, 41421_1314, 7206
145, 41420_1314, 7206
146, 46402_9900, 7516
147, 46402_0001, 7516
148, 46403_9899, 7515
149, 46403_9900, 7515
150, 32411_0910, 7009
151, DPN1215_DQ68489, 5505
152, 52406_1213, 3016
153, 23401_1213, 1008
154, 23228_1313, 1206
155, N4_Vg_P2_7980, 7407
156, 52405_0809, 1113
157, 51407_1314, 7115
158, 51425_1011, 5017
159, 32413_1212, 5009
160, 32401_1011, 5207
161, 55042_1111, 3416
162, 32401_1414, 5207
163, 51407_0910, 7115
164, N1_Pc2_P1_7980, 7407
165, N1_Pc2_P2_7980, 7407
166, 32413_1414, 5009
167, N4_Kl2_7980, 7407
168, N5_Kw2_7980, 7407
169, 32411_1011, 7009
170, 52403_1112, 1014
171, NESS_A1_1976b, 7407
172, GOM_PcB_P1_1977, 7407
173, GOM_PcB_P2_1977, 7407
174, N5_Kw1_7980, 7407
175, 42407_0910, 7106
176, N1_Pc1_P2_7980, 7407
177, N1_Pc1_P1_7980, 7407
178, NESS_A2_1976b, 7307
179, 55012_0910, 3115
180, 32411_0909, 7009
181, 23401_0910, 1008
182, 53401_0708, 1009
183, 55012_0809, 3115
184, 52405_1313, 1113
185, NESS_U2_1976b, 7406
186, 51426_1010, 5216
187, N2_USGS3_7980, 7407
188, 52402_1313, 1115
189, 41420_0910, 7206
190, 41421_0809, 7206
191, 54401_0808b, 5317
192, NESS_U1_1976b, 7406
193, 52406_1313b, 3016
194, 54401_0909, 5317
195, GOM_PcA_P2_1977, 7407
196, GOM_PcA_P1_1977, 7407
197, 52406_1313a, 3016
198, N2_USGS1_7980, 7407
199, N2_USGS2_7980, 7407
200, 51426_1111, 5216
201, 54401_0808a, 5317
202, 46402_0606, 7516
203, NESS_KlB_1976a, 7307
204, NESS_B3_1976b, 7406
205, 52405_1212, 1113
206, 43413_0910, 7110
207, 46403_0404, 7515
208, NESS_B1_1976b, 7406
209, NESS_B6_1976b, 7406
210, NESS_A4_1976b, 7407
211, N2_Kl1_7980, 7407
212, 41420_0909, 7206
213, NESS_B23_1976b, 7406
214, NESS_B22A_1976b, 7406
215, NESS_B22B_1976b, 7406
216, NESS_B21_1976b, 7406
217, GOM_MoB_7475, 7406
218, GOM_CPo_7475, 7407
219, GOM_CaL_7475, 7407
220, 56003_1313, 3111
221, NESS_KwA_1976a, 7306
222, 41420_0808, 7206
223, 23228_1111, 1206
224, 52405_0909, 1113
225, NESS_KlA_1976a, 7307
226, NESS_PcA_P2_1976a, 7407
227, NESS_PcA_P1_1976a, 7407
228, NESS_B4_1976b, 7406
229, 55012_0808, 3115
230, NESS_PcB_1976a, 7407
231, NESS_KwB_1976a, 7306

I am not finished with searching and gathering, but I wanted to develop some of the software and establish SQL tables with which to begin to analyze this bottom pressure scenario.

While I continue the search for more bottom pressure records, I will, from time to time, share the progress made or lost.

Today's graphs show results of processing PSMSL bottom pressure records already acquired.

I stored the data in such a manner as to be able to select and process them by WOD zone, ocean area, and WOD latitude layer (a band stretching around the globe at a particular latitude).

The graphs at Fig. 1a - Fig. 1g are the ocean area graphs, while the graphs at Fig. 2aFig. 2m are the layer graphs.

The gyrations in the graphs may seem radical and spasmodic.

That is because of the limited quantity of data (in some cases).

Nevertheless, they do show that the ocean is active in terms of mass change.

Remember that the mass is what causes the major bottom pressure, not the volume changes caused by thermal expansion and contraction.

It is the same with sea level change, mass increase is the main factor, thermal expansion is a minor factor.

That is why watching the bottom pressure change is worthwhile.

III. The Two Graph Lines

In the supporting comments found in the file headers of the datasets I downloaded from PSMSL, these two statements are found: 1) "Residual pressure after removal of tidal prediction, in millibars" and 2) "Residual pressure after removal of tidal prediction and drift, in millibars."

Those two statements describe the two lines on the graphs.

The first is the residual pressure value in millibars with "tidal drift"  while the second is the residual pressure value without tidal drift.

The papers cited earlier in this post explain how the researchers remove "noise" from the data (such as changes in pressure caused by daily high and low tides) which take place as both increases and decreases in bottom pressure.

As time goes on I don't plan to use the lines with the tidal changes because it is a function of solar and lunar gravity, not ocean mass changes.

Another thing that likely will not be a common factor is the layer graphs.

They are included to show that changes take place all over the ocean at every latitude.

But the important factors are associated with ghost water relocation from the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland, as well as large glacier fields around the globe.

The tide gauge stations don't record the highest increase in ocean mass because they are along the coasts of the land masses.

The bottom pressure gauges are out further, and they are in deep waters.

That will help us determine where the melt water is ending up, by giving clues beyond what the satellite altimetry is giving us.

IV. Conclusion

We have come a long way from the time we used wooden ships to measure what we could.

The beat goes on.

That is it for today, except for:



Friday, February 23, 2018

Very Breezy

In Tamisiea & Mitrovica scientists pointed out that bottom pressure gauges, not limited to coastlines, would be a valid source for detecting sea level changes accurately.

I have downloaded the dataset of bottom pressure records from PSMSL.

I am working on a program to use the data to generate graphs reflecting the records of 231 or so stations around the world.

Could be interesting.

Also, in accord with Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 3 there is this: AGU Tide effect on Ice

I'll be back in a breeze ...



Tuesday, February 20, 2018

The Authoritarianism of Climate Change - 3

Putin on the Ritz
I. Background

So far in this series I have not addressed the question of the proper way to respond, in terms of considering multiple ways of responding, to the ramifications of global warming induced climate change (The Authoritarianism of Climate Change, 2).

In other words, what is the proper way to respond, on a local scale, to the global warming induced climate change induced changes in sea level?

Should a local community or a local seaport authority be dictated to ("You shall ignore sea level change because it is a hoax!" ... "You shall adapt to sea level change exactly in the manner we dictate!") or is another way better ("Each local coastal area shall respond to sea level change as their local governments determine based upon the votes of the people in that local area") ?

The stakes are quite high (Hansen et al, 2016).

It would seem, at first blush, that allowing local ways of resolving problems is a better approach:
"With such a serious sea-level rise on the horizon, experts are increasingly looking at its potential impacts on coasts to facilitate local adaptation planning. This is a more complex issue than one might think, because different stretches of coast can be affected in very different ways. First of all, the sea-level response to global warming will not be globally uniform, since factors like changes in ocean currents (Levermann et al 2005) and the changing gravitational pull of continental ice (Mitrovica et al 2001) affect the local rise. Secondly, superimposed on the climatic trend is natural variability in sea level, which regionally can be as large as the climatic signal on multi-decadal timescales. Over the past decades, sea level has dropped in sizable parts of the world ocean, although it has of course risen in global mean (IPCC 2007). Thirdly, local land uplift or subsidence affects the local sea-level change relative to the coast, both for natural reasons (post-glacial isostatic adjustment centred on regions that were covered by ice sheets during the last ice age) and artificial ones (e.g., extraction of water or oil as in the Gulf of Mexico). Finally, local vulnerability to sea-level rise depends on many factors." [cf. Tamisiea & Mitrovica]
(Sea-level Rise: Towards Understanding Local Vulnerability, emphasis added). But what if a local decision will result in negative impacts on an adjacent local area?

Would the proper response be to increase the decision making scope up to the next higher level (e.g. from city authority up to county authority, or from county authority up to state authority, or from state authority up to national authority, or finally, from national authority up to United Nations authority)?

Who would decide when the current authority should be replaced with a higher authority?

II. Back In The USA & "USSR"

The response in the USA, as in the USSR, is to dictate the response from the Administrative Branch of Government (e.g. Putin & Trump).

The U.S. President has ordered the military to stop saying that global warming induced climate change is a national security threat, his cabinet is doing the same, and more, in areas of their jurisdiction (even wiping official documents and websites clear of any mention of things relating to climate change).

At the same time, states are rejecting that federal approach saying they will have a different response.

Some lawsuits at the city level of governance have invoked the judicial branch (courts) of governance (Oilfluenza, Affluenza, and Disgorgement, 2, cf. JULIANA et al. v U.S.).

Russia has the same seemingly contradictory stance on the issue, which like in the USA, will have an impact on how the problem is handled:
"Many influential voices here routinely debunked climate change, and some Russian newspapers in recent years chalked up climate variability to a mythical U.S. weapon aimed at Russia, or as a foreign plot aimed at Russia's energy exports.
...
Earlier this month, Russia's government fired the head of its weather forecasting agency, the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, or Roshydromet. Alexander Frolov, 65, had surpassed the mandatory retirement age for civil servants, but the real reason he was forced out, observers say, was Roshydromet's failure to anticipate the late-May storm's intensity and warn Muscovites accordingly. His ousting also sent a message to the environment ministry, Roshydromet's overseer. The state prosecutor's office, according to the newspaper Kommersant, demanded that the ministry take steps to increase the accuracy of forecasts in light of a changing climate.

The new charge to the environment ministry reflects a sea change in Russia's views about climate change and how the nation must respond. Politicians have acknowledged that extreme weather events have doubled over the past 25 years, to 590 in 2016, and that average temperatures are rising, particularly in the Arctic. Yet until recently, tackling climate change was a low priority for the federal government. One reason is complacence, because Russia's greenhouse gas emissions have already plummeted since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another is political: Russia's economy depends heavily on pumping oil and gas out of the ground."
(Russia wants to protect itself from climate change?). Unfortunately Trump and Putin have yet another thing in common it would seem.

III. Conclusion

The issue, then, involves more than agreeing on the science, it also involves agreeing on the governmental dynamics to use while reacting to the problem.

IMO, that makes it a much more dangerous situation.

The previous post in this series is here.




Monday, February 19, 2018

On the West Side of Zero - 2

Fig. 1 On The Record
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Sea level change is a problem for all coastlines, and the seaports on them (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

But the solution to that problem at one port is the problem at another port:
According to the graphics and information provided by Professor Mitrovica of Harvard, all of the sea ports in Iceland, shown in Fig. 1, will go dry (see video below).

The same can be said of all the ports in Greenland (Fig. 2).

Not to mention that all of the sea ports in Australia will experience different levels of rise (N. Australia) or fall (S. Australia), or stay at the same level (Mid Australia), depending on their distance from Antarctica (compare Fig. 4 with Fig. 5).
(Peak Sea Level - 2). As today's graphs show, "change" is not a word that has only one meaning.

Today's graphs show that some ports will experience sea level fall (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

In 1888, a scientist named Robert Woodward published a paper indicating that the beginning of sea level change would be sea level fall near ice sheets (e.g. Greenland, Antarctica) and large glacier fields (e.g. Glacier Bay, Alaska).

His paper has been ignored by most modern scientists, but not by the better ones:
To our knowledge, Woodward (1888) was the first to demonstrate that the rapid melting of an ice sheet would lead to a geographically variable sea level change. Woodward (1888) assumed a rigid, non-rotating Earth, and therefore self-gravitation of the surface load was the only contributor to the predicted departure from a geographically uniform (i.e. eustatic) sea level rise. This departure was large and counter-intuitive. Specifically, sea level was predicted to fall within ∼2000 km of a melting ice sheet, and to rise with progressively higher amplitude at greater distances. The physics governing this redistribution is straightforward.
(On the West Side of Zero, quoting Dr. J. Mitrovica). Not heeding or acknowledging that seminal paper was a huge mistake.

Why?

Because it indicated what would be a sure sign that ice sheets were beginning to melt (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4; NASA Busts The Ghost).

Not only that, since the water that was being released from ice sheet gravity had to go to other places, it would also indicate that sea level rise was taking place in other places at the same time.

Dr. Mitrovica, in the videos below, mentions that scientists were perplexed with tide gauge station readings and called that development "the European problem" because "they didn't have a clue" about what was going on (circa 2000, 2001).

To this day, many if not most, published papers do not mention that sea level is falling or that "the missing water" is going to other locations on Earth to cause sea level rise there (Concern for seaports).

That is a misstep which led to the "thermal expansion must be the cause of most sea level rise" assumption or hypothesis (Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 4).

But the oil industry, Oil-Qaeda, knew very well what they were doing to ice sheets, even bragging about it in a 1962 full page ad in Life Magazine (Humble Oil-Qaeda).

The only thing Oil-Qaeda has changed since then is that they have become criminally insane (The Criminally Insane Epoch Arises, 2, 3, 4), and murderous (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, 2, 3).

As the public wises up, some in government are trying to do something about it (Oil-Qaeda: The Indictment, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

The civil courts are active, but the results remain unknown (Oilfluenza, Affluenza, and Disgorgement, 2).

Especially since Oil-Qaeda impaired the 2016 election so as to place their operatives in the seats of power for all to see (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan - 5, Beware of the Sycophant Epidemic).

The previous post in this series is here.





Saturday, February 17, 2018

The "Genes" of Culture In Civilizations - 2

Is There Higher Ground?
I. Background

This series began in May of 2015 (The "Genes" of Culture In Civilizations).

At that time, among other things, I quoted a notable historian who at one time in modern history was the most quoted historian on some general interest subjects.

Nevertheless, he fell out of favor when he began to criticize current civilization.

After he had studied the rise and fall of twenty-six previous civilizations on Earth, he (the way I describe his criticism) began to indicate that our current civilization still had the "genes" of those civilizations that had gone down in flames ("committed suicide" or were "murdered").

And that is not good, because the picture he painted is looking more and more like an accurate portrayal of what we face now.

Here is a quote from his writings, along with a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica about his work:
"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."
...
"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority. Unlike Spengler in his The Decline of the West, Toynbee did not regard the death of a civilization as inevitable, for it may or may not continue to respond to successive challenges. Unlike Karl Marx, he saw history as shaped by spiritual, not economic forces."
(Stockholm Syndrome: The Declaration of Intellectual Dependence). The three "genes" I am talking about in today's post are: 1) "nationalism", 2) "militarism", and 3) "the tyranny of a despotic minority".

II. The Nationalism Gene

There are several facets, manifestations, and definitions relating to the concept of nationalism.

I want to keep in line with the characteristics of nationalism that Toynbee (and others) saw as self destructive to civilizations down through time (“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson).

So, for now let's start with a description of American Nationalism as manifested in its current 21st Century characteristics:
"When the nation demands the supreme loyalty of its citizens, the freedom of the individual may be sacrificed to the welfare of the state. In this elevation of the state there is the concomitant denigration of the outsider and the temptation to advance the nation at the expense of other nations. As nationalism evolved in the nineteenth century, it assumed the ugly forms of imperialism, racism, and totalitarianism; it helped to stimulate world wars in the twentieth century."
(Defining "American" Nationalism, Encylopedia, emphasis added). Current acid tests which fit that description (to name a few) in US culture are: whether or not you believe that the USA is "exceptional," whether or not you want to keep others out via border walls, whether or not you favor halting immigration; whether or not you want to care for those with health needs,  whether or not you would favor engaging in nuclear war, and whether or not you elevate national economics over the environment necessary for all life to survive,

III. The Militarism Gene

A Canadian professor who passed away last fall wrote:
The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.

Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.

The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities.

In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including the United Kingdom, France and Russia.

I. The Military Bases

Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories :

a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2);

b) Army or Land Bases;

c) Navy Bases and

d) Communication and Spy Bases.
...
The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War'”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).
(Global Research). The US also has more mass killings than the other nations put together, and the most guns to do it with (Why the US has the most mass shootingsHow US gun culture compares with the world in five charts).

See also Will The Military Become The Police?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Technically, this all boils down to neo-feudalism (American Feudalism, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

IV. The Despotic Minority Gene

This suicidal state of affairs is not what the founders envisioned:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.
(Stockholm Syndrome on Steroids? - 2, quoting James Madison). The state of war is what the despotic minority has envisioned  (War is the Highway 61 of the 1%).

V. We Are "Killing It" Is An American Saying
That Means "Doing Exceptionally Well"

Meanwhile, the odds are killing it unexceptional:
"A recent study of World Health Organization data published in the American Journal of Medicine that found that, among high-income nations, 91 percent of children younger than 15 who were killed by bullets lived in the United States.

And the trends are only growing more dire.

On average, two dozen children are shot every day in the United States, and in 2016 more youths were killed by gunfire — 1,637 — than during any previous year this millennium."
(Washington Post, emphasis added). The despotic minority won the last national election with the help of our preznit's favorite leader's operatives.

Our preznit suffers from nationalism, militarism, and a lust for praise from the despotic minority that elected him (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).

Go figure.

VI. Conclusion

As a culture, we have been taught the falsehood that we have, as Americans, exceptional genes above the genes of all others.

That is pure myth (On The Origin of Genieology, 2, 3).

Our culture is infected with the three "genes" discussed in today's post.

Which is how we citizens become infected, if we do not develop antigens (Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala, 2, 3, 4).

The previous post in this series is here.

"The word 'wild' applies to the words 'you' and 'me' ... " - Wild Life



Friday, February 16, 2018

Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 4

ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN
After focusing on one paper from a peer reviewed journal cited in a previous Dredd Blog post (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 33), I read other relevant papers that had also been cited in that peer reviewed paper.

I went through those published papers in other scientific journals (papers that had been cited to support the hypotheses concerning thermal expansion as 'a' or 'the' major factor in sea level rise).

What I found out isn't pretty.

The oldest of that peer reviewed paper trail says:
"We present estimates of the component of this sea level rise caused by thermal expansion of the ocean ... We estimate the component of sea level rise that is caused by thermal expansion ..." - Abstract

"The estimate of sea level rise caused by the melt water from nonpolar glaciers is [negligible] ... it is thought ... that the combined contribution from the melting of ice from Antarctia and Greenland to sea level rise is small; thus a major component of sea level rise must be caused by thermal expansion of the ocean." - Introduction
(Church et al., 1991, emphasis added). Their logic was that it "must be caused by thermal expansion" because Greenland and Antarctica melt is "small."

We know that is not the case, not even close to the case.

They must not have known that Greenland had been melting for at least a century at the time they wrote their paper (Proof of Concept - 5).

They must not have known that a scientist had published a paper over a hundred years prior to theirs, declaring that sea level would fall near large ice sheets (Greenland & Antarctica) as the ice sheet melted:
To our knowledge, Woodward (1888) was the first to demonstrate that the rapid melting of an ice sheet would lead to a geographically variable sea level change. Woodward (1888) assumed a rigid, non-rotating Earth, and therefore self-gravitation of the surface load was the only contributor to the predicted departure from a geographically uniform (i.e. eustatic) sea level rise. This departure was large and counter-intuitive. Specifically, sea level was predicted to fall within ∼2000 km of a melting ice sheet, and to rise with progressively higher amplitude at greater distances. The physics governing this redistribution is straightforward.
(The World According To Measurements - 5). Thus, they were clueless that Greenland began melting and causing sea level fall near it, while at the same time causing sea level rise at the location where the Greenland seawater was eventually relocated to (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

All of the papers were based on models, all ignoring the Woodward paper:
"Estimates of sea level rise during the period 1856-1991 due to thermal expansion are presented. The estimates are based on an ocean model ... " - Abstract
(De Wolde et al., 1995, emphasis added). There is no valid reason for declaring that thermal expansion is 'a' or 'the' major cause without competent evidence.

Another paper quoted as original source material for the thermal expansion hypotheses was "Warrick, R. A., et al., Changes in sea level, in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, edited by J. T. Houghton et al., pp. 359–405, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1996".

I could not find the paper itself, but I found this comment about it in another paper:
"Observational estimates of interior temperature changes in the ocean reported by Warrick et al. (1996) were limited, and estimates of thermal expansion were made from simple ocean models.
(Changes in Sea Level - IPCC, at 643, emphasis added). The implication is that there was no prior work to give them clues.

That is not true.

There was a scientific paper (Woodward 1888 linked to above) that had been published a century before they estimated with models, explaining that if the sea level is falling near an ice sheet that ice sheet is melting.

They ignored that science.

The final paper cited did not use a model, it used two models coupled together (Stouffer and Manabe, 1999).

And so here we are after an 1888 paper indicated we should look for sea level fall to find evidence for ice sheet melting.

The graphs at Fig. 3 - Fig. 19, here, show that sea level fall was also well known for over a hundred years prior to all of those papers guesstimating thermal expansion.

"None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see." - Matthew Henry

The previous post in this series is here.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 33

W.E.C. Laboratory
I. Background

During this series I have been to several "places" in search of a better way of calculating the impact of global warming induced climate change on the sea level of the oceans (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32).

Along the road some good locales that store data with which to pursue answers have been discovered and used: e.g. Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), World Ocean Database (WOD), Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling project (SOCCOM), and Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010 (TEOS-10).

Finally, I decided to look deep into the scientific literature to see where the foundation of the myth that thermal expansion (thermosteric volume change) has been "the" or "a" major factor in sea level rise.

II. Eureka

I began the latest probe into the search for "the holy grail of thermal expansion theory" with a recent paper "Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era" (being a big fan of "the altimeter era" and all).

I proceeded, following citations in that paper to other citations, until in one of them I found a "eureka!" disclosure:
"To quantify the variability of thermosteric sea level, we present time series and linear trends of globally averaged thermosteric sea level for the 0 – 700 m and 0 – 3000 m layers in Figure 1 (see Antonov et al. [2002] for details of thermosteric sea level computation)."
(Antonov 2005, PDF, emphasis added). Finally, I was about to peruse the basic calculations that were used to determine that thermal expansion has been "the major," or at least "a major," cause of sea level rise since forever.

I parsed out this:
"The thermal expansion theory of the mean sea level rise is based on (1) the fundamental physical property of seawater density to decrease (increase) when heat is added (removed), (2) the ability of the world ocean to store a substantial amount of heat in its deep layers (see Levitus et al. [2000] for recent observational evidence), and (3) observed trends in the surface temperature over the 20th century [e.g., Hansen et al., 1999]. Model computations explain more than two thirds of sea level rise by the thermal expansion of the world ocean [Church et al., 1991; De Wolde et al., 1995; Warrick et al., 1996; Stouffer and Manabe, 1999]."
(Antonov 2002, PDF). The author went on to explain:
"We have used data from the World Ocean Database 1998 (about 5.2 and 1.4 million temperature and salinity profiles, respectively) [Levitus et al., 1998] to prepare objectively analyzed temperature and salinity anomaly fields for 5-year running composites for the 1948 – 1996 period."
(ibid). Oh boy, "Model computations explain" eh?

Regular readers know what was going through my mind, but I will write some of it down for the sake of irregular readers.

III. The Solution to Eradicating the Myth
(Listen Up, Stop Trusting, and Start Verifying)

It was good that they (Antonov, 2002) used WOD data, but the use of "about 5.2 and 1.4 million temperature and salinity profiles respectively" is problematic when it comes to calculating seawater thermodynamics (not because of quantity, but because they have to be pairs ... 1 temperature, 1 salinity, and 1 depth measurement, taken at the same time and location).

That would be, at most, "1.4 million temperature and salinity profiles" taken at the same depth and at the same time (if valid TEOS-10 results are sought).

Secondly, since their calculations were done prior to 2010, they were using (at best)  EOS-80 formulas which are now obsolete, having been replaced by official scientific institutions ("IOC","IAPSO", "IUGG", and "SCOR") with the TEOS-10 formulas:
What do you do?  (when you have been using a toolkit forever, then log on to the site one day to find the following):
"The SeaWater library of EOS-80 seawater properties is obsolete; it has been superseded by the Gibbs SeaWater (GSW) Oceanographic Toolbox of the International Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010, (TEOS-10)"
(EOS-80, emphasis added). My solution was to change to using TEOS-10 for my thermal expansion and related oceanography oriented calculations (The World According To Measurements - 7).
(The World According To Measurements - 10). Which brings us to the law of the instrument ("I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail").

Trust and Faith are not valid replacements for verifications (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).

IV. Conclusion

None of the paper trails that can be taken from within that paper (Antonov, 2002) or the latest one ("Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era") mention the new way to calculate the thermodynamics of seawater (called the Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater).

The sooner they get in touch with those equations the better, because it takes a while to get used to it, and then begin to master it.

Regular readers know that is so, after watching me discover, struggle with, and hopefully someday master these tools and data.

The previous post in this series is here.



Monday, February 12, 2018

The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 10

Current Civilization's Endangered Lifeline
The general subject matter of this series took embryonic form in the Dredd Blog series Will This Float Your Boat? in May of 2011.

Eventually some research I did during that series led to the more specific subject matter focus of this series.

That is because, for one thing, I ran across the following statement on a government site:
"By volume, more than 95 percent of U.S. international trade moves through the nation's ports and harbors, with about 50 percent of these goods being hazardous materials." [quoting NOAA 'Ports']
(Will This Float Your Boat - 10; cf Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization). The specific subject matter of this series began several months after I read and posted that quote (about two and a half years ago).

At that time I am sure that the subject matter sounded like science fiction to those who satiate themselves with daily doses of main-stream pabulum.

Those who are even more out of touch with reality, those who would call this subject matter "climate porn," are also incensed by exacting Dredd Blog lab work (Pole Dancing In The Lab).

That could be because this series started with these words:
The business end of the scientific microscope is made of intense efforts to acquire funding.

Which weakens the scientific end of the scientific microscope into timid revelation.

Regular readers know that I have breached subject matter that "typical" (translation: lightweight, timid, and incomplete) analyses of fossil fuel induced global warming induced climate change induced sea level change (SLC)  does not consider.

That subject matter is the vast array of sea ports that unfortunately find themselves placed at the sea level which existed when they were built back in the dark ages.

A sea level which is now "sooooo yesterday."
(The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports). This series never did get any less favorable to those whose minds have been corrupted by fear and its subsequent denial (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

So, they will have to be happy with their own version of Stormy Waters' (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) version of sea level rise because she loves the preznit bigly like they do (sorta).

Meanwhile, back in the old timer world of science, the big boys are coming around to the subject matter reality:
"There is a general consensus among Earth scientists that melting of land ice greatly contributes to sea-level rise (SLR) and that future warming will exacerbate the risks posed to human civilization." (Abstract)
...
"Our goal is ... to improve our understanding of the connection between global cryospheric changes and [local sea level] at major port cities around the globe." (p.1)
(Should coastal planners have concern...?, emphasis added). That article in Science Advances focuses on the varying degrees of sea level rise at various seaports around the globe, with some ideas, formulas, and tools for calibration and calculation.

Isn't that the nastiest porn ever?

The previous post in this series is here.

I hereby name the Climate Porn trance "Dido" ... which was the name of the Queen of the sea trade civilization: Phoenicia. She left over internal disagreements to form another sea trade civilization: Carthage. She "went down with the ship" just like those in the climate porn trance will.