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." [Toynbee]
...
"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." [Encyclopedia Britannica]
(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 next post in this series is here, 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 [OR] (increase) when heat is added [OR] (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]. [PRE-TEOS] 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? ... but what about this:
"Presented here are two approaches to a resolution of these problems. The first is morphological, based on the limiting values of observed trends of twentieth century relative sea-level rise as a function of distance from the centres of the ice loads at last glacial maximum. This observational approach, which does not depend on a geophysical model of GIA, supports values of GSLR near 2 mm yrK1. The second approach involves an analysis of long records of tide-gauge and hydrographic (in situ temperature and salinity) observations in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. It was found that sea-level trends from tide-gauges, which reflect both mass and volume change, are 2–3 times higher than rates based on hydrographic data which reveal only volume change. These results support those studies that put the twentieth century rate near 2 mm yrK1, thereby indicating that mass increase plays a much larger role than ocean warming in twentieth century GSLR."
(On the rate and causes of twentieth century sea-level rise). Who ya gonna call?

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 next post in this series is here, 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.






Sunday, February 11, 2018

Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 3

Fig. 1a
Fig. 1b
Fig. 1c
I. Why?

Why make a big deal out of a chunk of ice that is out of sight and out of mind?

Why make a big deal out of a chunk of ice that only twenty-eight (28) humans have ever set their feet upon?

Because it is a doomsday glacier:
"Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica is so remote that only 28 human beings have ever set foot on it.
...
'If there is going to be a climate catastrophe,' says Ohio State glaciologist Ian Howat, 'it's probably going to start at Thwaites.'
...
With 10 to 13 feet of sea-level rise ..."
(Rolling stone, The Doomsday Glacier). That has been said of several glaciers in the cryosphere (e.g. Totten Glacier).

II. What?

Another thing that is said about them is that they bathe in "warm water" without mentioning the temperature of that water:
"In this part of Antarctica, the warm, salty, deep ocean current that circles the continent comes near land, and warm water can flow onto the continental shelf. This warm seawater now seeps beneath Thwaites Glacier, melting it from below.

The new study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, finds that numerical models used in previous studies have overestimated how rapidly ocean water is able to melt the glacier from below, leading them to overestimate the glacier's total ice loss over the next 50 years by about 7 percent."
(Jet Propulsion Laboratory, emphasis added). OMG !! ... is seven percent variation in models what we should do research on or is the ninety-three percent what we should focus on?

Ninety-three percent is an "A" grade isn't it?

(Majoring in the minors is a fools errand.)

Did the 28 humans walking on the top of the bitter cold ice at Thwaites think of a "warm, salty, deep ocean current" composed of "warm water ... warm seawater" down there at the sometimes coldest place on Earth?

Fig. 2a
Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
I remember Dr. Eric Rignot saying, while giving a presentation on Antarctic glaciers, "don't bathe in this 'warm' water, you will freeze" (paraphrased).

Since I pointed out the reality about the myth of Totten Glacier bathing in "warm water" (Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 2), I am going to point out the same myth about Thwaites Glacier.

III. Cold Water Melts Cold Ice

The graphics at Fig. 1a - Fig. 1c show three different ways to point out where Thwaites Glacier is located.

It is in WOD Zone 5710,  so I present graphs (Fig. 2a - Fig. 2f) of that zone (along with graphs of the two zones that border it) as I recently did with the Totten Glacier .

That area is quite remote so SOCCOM and ARGO use automated drone mini-subs to probe the deeps in order to take measurements of temperature, salinity, and depth (SOCCOM).

Scientists (as well as the warming commentariat: The Warming Science Commentariat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) should use a nomenclature that communicates succinctly with their audiences, especially in life and death matters (Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death).

This morning it is cold outside, so I bring in the water bowls that the cats drink out of as the water in those bowls freezes.

I leave the kitchen sink faucet on slightly while it is a few degrees or so below freezing outside (so the cold water lines don't freeze too).

I put the water bowls under that cold water dripping from the faucet, and in no time at all the ice that was in the water bowl is gone (only cold water remains).

Bathing in the water from that dripping water faucet, at that temperature, would give me hypothermia!

In this series I am pointing out (hopefully not ad nauseam) that a similar thermodynamic phenomena takes place at the face of tidewater glaciers.

Cold seawater melts colder glacier ice because that is the law, Baby, (2nd law of thermodynamics).

Glaciers and seawater are law abiding citizens even if current civilization is not (MOMCOM's Mass Suicide & Murder Pact, 2, 3, 4, 5).

IV. Conclusion

I have been asked betimes "Why do you do this research Dredd, it will not work in terms of causing the powers that be to stop what they are doing to the Global Climate System."

My answer has always been: "I don't do it because it will work. I do it because it is the proper thing to do."

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

Slow, but sure ...