In two recent Dredd Blog posts Proof of Concept - 9 and Let's Not Be Too Dense - 3, we looked at WOD Zones where the sea level rise or fall did not match the Conservative Temperature rise or fall.
Some might say they were cherry picked, which is true (à la "pick the cherries that are red"), however, cherry picking means selecting the cherries that are ripe for the picking.
For example, when the mission is to bring in only red cherries for examination, one brings in only red cherries or one is in error.
Fig. 1 Depth Layer 1 (0-700 meters)
Likewise, when the mission is to bring in data only from areas where the sea level change trend and the temperature change trend is different, one is in error to bring in anything else.
Cherry picking is not ipso facto a bad thing, because when it is done correctly (don't pick the rotten ones when your mission is to pick edible ripe ones) it is a good thing.
II. Today's Cherry Picking
One mission today is to pick "cherries" (WOD Zones and PSMSL stations) only from the Southern Hemisphere.
Fig. 2 Depth Layer 2 (>700 - 2000 meters)
We are going to take a look at the thermodynamics of that half of the Earth, then compare it with the WOD Zones and PSMSL stations in the previous posts mentioned in Section I (Proof of Concept - 9 and Let's Not Be Too Dense - 3).
What we are looking for is sea level change trend compared to Conservative Temperature change trend at three depth levels (0 to 700m Fig. 1), (greater than 700m to 2000m Fig. 2), and (greater than 2000 m Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Depth Layer 3 (>2000 meters)
However, the scenario at depth level 3 is inapposite, showing that the Conservative Temperature at >2000m slightly increased, as did the thermosteric volume.
Thus, today's graphs agree with the graphs in the two previous posts (Proof of Concept - 9 and Let's Not Be Too Dense - 3) because they show that thermal expansion is not "the" or even "a" major cause of the sea level change shown in today's graphs of the Southern Hemisphere.
III. More Graphs
Fig. 4
The added graphs (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6) show the bottom line values of thermal expansion.
The locations are the N. Hemisphere (Fig. 4), the S. Hemisphere (Fig. 5), plus the combined values of both hemispheres (Fig. 6).
Fig. 5
All 33 depth levels are averaged into one (unlike the 3 depth levels of Fig. 1 - Fig. 3).
The sea level change pane (upper left pane in each graph) begins in 1880 (unlike Fig. 1 - Fig. 3).
I did the change to the tide gauge pane to emphasize the fact that sea level rise caused by ice sheet and glacial melt began long before any thermal expansion took place (Humble Oil-Qaeda, 2).
Fig. 6
That means ice will melt anytime a warmer condition comes near it, whether that warmer condition is in the air or in the sea water, because warm flows to cold (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
In the past few decades there has been measurable thermal expansion and contraction in sea water, however, regular readers know that Dredd Blog does not consider it to be a major factor in overall sea level changes (Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers, 2, 3, 4).
IV. Conclusion
In the surface to 700m depth layer (Fig. 1), and the >700m to 2000m depth layer (Fig. 2), the sea level is rising robustly (tide gauge records) while the Conservative Temperature is falling.
The TEOS-10 computations done in those two graphs therefore show that the thermosteric volume is decreasing (thermal contraction) in those cases.
The same is not true of depth layer 3 (>2000m) shown in the graph at Fig. 3, where there is some sea level change due to thermal expansion (~5 mm).
This series posits the hypothesis that global warming induced climate change will impact both earthquakes and volcanoes.
It is backed by science based on both non-Anthropogenic eras prior to the current Anthropogenic era, as well as the current era.
The embryonic form of the ideas this post illustrates was set forth in an earlier post over eight years ago:
"In August of 2007, over 2.5 years ago, a geologist had studied the historical record for global warming events which were not anthropogenic (not caused by human activity). His conclusions were that global warming has caused volcanic eruptions and earthquakes in the ancient past. He went on to say that the anthropogenic global warming occurring now will do so too."
(Global Warming & Volcanic Eruptions, April 17, 2010). Yes, a little bit over eight years ago the subject of how climate change could impact volcanoes and earthquakes in the future was considered.
Not only that, the scientist quoted in that post had also provided a prediction:
"In places like Iceland, for example, where you have the Eyjafjallajökull ice sheet, which wouldn't survive [global warming], and you've got lots of volcanoes under that, the unloading effect can trigger eruptions," McGuire said.
With the changing dynamics in the crust, faults could also be destabilized, which could bring a whole host of other problems.
"It's not just the volcanoes. Obviously if you load and unload active faults, then you're liable to trigger earthquakes," McGuire told LiveScience, noting that there is ample evidence for this association in past climate change events.
(ibid). Not long after that the ice thickness at that glacial field thinned enough for the volcano to become uncorked.
The consequent eruption, among other things, shut down air travel in Europe.
Specifically, in the most recent post of this series I reiterated:
In the previous post of this series on the Dredd Blog System, I detailed the history of this question going back almost eight years.
In that post I pointed out the gist of this subject:
"The impacts I am now talking about are the changes in pressures upon the Earth's crust which take place in a very wide span of the ocean basins. Those impacts concern both a decrease in pressure in some areas, as well as an increase of pressure in other areas."
A few days ago, a submission at Nature mentioned that a volcano has been discovered to exist somewhere underneath the Pine Island Glacier.
But more than that, it seems to be exuding problematic elements:
“We were looking to better understand the role of the ocean in melting the ice shelf,” Loose said. “I was sampling the water for five different noble gases, including helium and xenon. I use these noble gases to trace ice melt as well as heat transport. Helium-3, the gas that indicates volcanism, is one of the suite of gases that we obtain from this tracing method. “We weren’t looking for volcanism, we were using these gases to trace other actions,” he said. “When we first started seeing high concentrations of helium-3, we thought we had a cluster of bad or suspicious data.” ... “When you find helium-3, it’s like a fingerprint for volcanism. We found that it is relatively abundant in the seawater at the Pine Island shelf. “The volcanic heat sources were found beneath the fastest moving and the fastest melting glacier in Antarctica, the Pine Island Glacier,” Loose said. “It is losing mass the fastest.”
The researchers went on to say "Despite the accumulation of evidence, definitive proof of contemporary subglacial volcanism in West Antarctica is still missing."
Which is another way of saying, "when the glacial ice over this puppy gets too thin, all hell will break loose."
IV. This Phenomenon Is Increasing
During the life of this series, especially recently in the Ring of Fire, Hawaii, Japan, Indonesia, Alaska, and elsewhere, things are heating up and shaking.
This is an unexpected "feedback loop."
V. Conclusion
As the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica (along with the land-based glacial areas of the globe) pour water and icebergs into the oceans, that water and ice is relocated to the oceans in the middle of the Ring of Fire.
That torques the crust as it floods the coasts, raises the sea level far from the coasts, and lowers the sea level near the Cryosphere concentrations (NASA Busts The Ghost).
When is it your fault for what someone else did when they should not have, or did not do something they should have?
Or when is it your fault for what a group you are not a member of did when they should not have, or did not do something they should have?
In the first post of this series I mentioned one of Oil-Qaeda's propaganda streams which blames us for climate change because we bought some of their merchandise:
Oil-Qaeda is also paying media operatives to spread the false notion that all humanity is responsible for addicting civilization to oil, seeking to minimize the greatest crime against humanity in all history (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
The psychology involved in this has been detailed, and the dynamics of imagined or mythical guilt are well understood:
"... collective guilt is a psychological experience, it need not involve actually being guilty in any sense of the word. This is an important distinction. Indeed, one of the most striking features of collective guilt is that it can be experienced by group members who were not in any way involved in the harm doing ... The essential ingredient of personal responsibility for the harm done can be absent when collective guilt is experienced, although this is an important prerequisite for "being guilty" in the legal sense. Feeling guilt for events that an individual is not personally responsible for is possible because people can and do categorize themselves as members of a group ... These theories explain how group membership shapes the cognitions, emotions, and behavior of individuals. From a social identity perspective, the actions taken by the ingroup can elicit an emotional response to the extent that the self is linked with the ingroup. Immoral actions and outcomes caused by other ingroup members link the self to the wrongdoing via shared group identity. People "bask in the reflected glory" of their group when other ingroup members are responsible for successes, and they can attempt to "cut off reflected failure" when other group members' actions harm the ingroup's image ... Because part of people's identity is based on their group membership, the desire to feel positive about their group will frequently result in group-serving explanations for ingroup actions. However, when those justifications fail or become impossible to sustain, people may feel collective guilt to the extent that the ingroup's past actions are perceived as violating the current moral standards of the ingroup."
Well, it is now a matter of law too, rather than it only being a matter of psychology or sociology.
In a federal court ruling yesterday, a federal judge said it is ostensibly your fault and my fault that damage from global warming is taking place (San Francisco Chronicle).
I downloaded a copy of Judge Alsup's decision in PDF format, so I will be quoting from it.
The judge wrote:
"Defendants have allegedly long known the threat fossil fuels pose to the global climate. Nonetheless, they continued to extract and produce them in massive amounts while engaging in widespread advertising and communications campaigns meant to promote the sale of fossil fuels. These campaigns portrayed fossil fuels as environmentally responsible and essential to human well-being and downplayed the risks of global warming by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science or attacking the credibility of climate scientists." - (Order, p. 5) ...
"The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from arise in sea level." - (Order, p. 6) ...
" ... our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted. Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?" - (Order, p. 8)
(Oakland vs. BP, US District Court N. Dist. of CA, Case No. C 17-06011 WHA & No. C 17-06012 WHA, emphasis added). That ruling means that when we are talking about global warming we are talking about a predicament rather than a mere problem.
The judge bought into Oil-Qaeda's public promotion of the notion that "the devil public made Oil-Qaeda do it" because the public needed the gas for their cars, etc. ... (What Next, Mass Depraved-Heart Murder? - 2)
Pointing the finger at those who had no choice is like blaming the children of Immigrants for crossing the border improperly (like President Trump's mother did).
IV. Conclusion
All of our branches of government (Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial) have been protecting Oil-Qaeda for way too long now (A Closer Look At MOMCOM's DNA, 2, 3, 4, 5).
This series focuses on the density of sea water because it is a subject that is important for sea level science.
Density, especially maximum density of sea water, is generally not given the attention it deserves: "the density of seawater is rarely measured" (Let's Not Be Too Dense, quoting the TEOS Manual).
Pure water is a unique liquid that has density-related thermodynamic behaviors which The Warming Science Commentariat (TWSC) is not commonly reporting (The Warming Science Commentariat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; cf. Fig. 1).
The story begins with pure water's maximum density at 4 degrees Celsius, because sea water density dynamics are the same as pure water, (in terms of principle), except that the Conservative Temperature (CT) at which sea water reaches maximum density varies according to, among other things, its Absolute Salinity or SA: "Absolute Salinity (g/kg) is the salinity variable that is needed in order to calculate density and other seawater properties" (TEOS-10 Org, emphasis in original).
II. Comparing Data of WOD Zones
Fig. 2 Locations (red rectangles)
The point of all this is that the common belief among TWSC is that ocean warming (not ice sheet melt) is the main cause of sea level rise.
In Proof of Concept - 9, we noted that WOD Zones with either sea level rise (SLR) or sea level fall (SLF) were not in sync with the TWSC mantra: "when water is warmed it expands."
The graphs in that post were bereft of TEOS-10 computations of thermal expansion and contraction (on purpose).
The reason was so that the reader would focus on the sea water temperature compared to the sea level dynamics in the featured zones (Fig. 2).
Fig. 3a
Fig. 3b
Fig. 3c
Fig. 3d
Fig. 3e
Fig. 3f
Fig. 3g
Fig. 3h
Fig. 3i
Fig. 3j
Fig. 3k
Fig. 3l
Fig. 3m
Fig. 3n
Fig. 3o
Fig. 3p
Fig. 3q
Fig. 3r
The "when water is warmed it expands" TWSC mantra suggests that in zones where the mean average annual water temperature trend is rising / warming, then the sea level in those zones should also be rising.
Conversely, in zones where the mean average annual water temperature trend is falling / cooling, then the sea level in those zones should also be falling.
Today's graphs are made with the same in situ data from the same zones, but are numbered (Fig. 3a - Fig. 3t), while still matching the 'a' - 't' sequence.
That is, Fig. 2a in the previous post is the same WOD zone as Fig. 3a in today's post.
Both computations use the exact same in situ base data and TEOS-10 library functions for calculating Conservative Temperature (CT) Absolute Salinity (SA), and Pressure (P).
However, for additional comparisons, today's graphs DO have the TEOS-10 computations of thermal expansion and contraction (in terms of millimeters of sea level change).
Those millimeters of thermosteric volume change are caused by changes in CT, SA, and P.
The additional TEOS-10 value used today is the "thermal expansion coefficient" (tec) generated by the formulation tec = gsw_alpha(SA, CT, P), as discussed here.
Only one of today's graphs was made with records from a zone (Zone 7116, Fig. 3o) that had very little data (in terms of calculating thermal expansion / contraction).
There was enough data to generate the standard CT, SA, and tide gauge recorded sea level graph lines (see Fig. 2o here).
So, due to the sparse data from that zone I made a "line format" graph with the sea level change and temperature change (Fig. 4) in addition to the Fig. 3o graph.
Thermal expansion graphs take at least one more record than the others do because the format requires that the application begin on the second year of the data stream.
The only data used from the first year's record in such a scenario is the Conservative Temperature, (because the sea water volume change calculation depends on the temperature change from one year to the next).
Some zones just don't have as much data as we would like.
IV. Same Results
Any way we look at the data, the hypothesis that "thermal expansion of the ocean is the main cause of sea level rise" is falsified.
The design of today's graphs put both the tide gauge station records of sea level (for a particular zone) and calculated thermal volume change for that zone on the same graph.
Today's graphs (Fig. 3a - Fig. 3t) are in "line format" as opposed to separate-panes format in the former graphs (Fig. 2a - Fig. 2t).
Hopefully, this gives the reader maximum comparison visibility so as to see the stark differences between what the TWSC mantra supposes and what the reality is.
V. Your Lying Eyes?
What we should be seeing, if the ("thermal expansion of the ocean is the main cause of sea level rise") mantra was a valid hypothesis, is that thermosteric volume change would determine the pattern of the sea level change recorded in each zone.
Obviously, something besides thermodynamics is causing the major recorded patterns of the sea level change.
VI. The Cause Is Known
The reason for the disagreement between the mantra and the real world is basic Newtonian mechanics.
Gravity and the rotation of the Earth in space generate forces that cannot be ignored (assuming of course, that the real dynamics are the objects of one's research and computations).
We know that "ghost water" (substantial amounts of sea water held close to coasts of ice sheet-bearing land masses) is a major cause of sea level change (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Ghost water is released from the gravitational hold of ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica) and large glacial fields (e.g. Glacier Bay, Patagonia, and Svalbard) when those ice sheets / glaciers lose mass due to melting or calving (NASA Busts The Ghost).
Ghost water, ice bergs, and melt water are relocated to other parts of the globe when released from the gravitational power of the ice sheet or glacial field that holds them.
That relocation can't happen without the initial ice melt / calving, which is the other major cause of sea level change.
Sounding the CLIMATE ALARM is morally required of any scientist who cares about a mass die-off of flora and fauna.
That includes care about humanity.
But alas, some countries do not have that cultural understanding.
It is the worst of citizenship to not care about what happens to a civilization or even to an individual who needs help.
Florida is in one of the epicenters of the growing acceleration of sea level rise.
So, is there a legal requirement for all citizens to SOUND THE ALARM in that area because of what is happening there?
Notice our culture's laissez-faire camouflaged attitude about duty-to-warn laws concerning that kind of social awareness:
"A recent viral video shows a group of strangers forming a human chain on a Florida beach to save a family that had been caught in a riptide and pulled away from the shore. Another video from Florida—taken just one day after the above rescue—sadly provides a stark contrast. A group of five teenagers saw Jamel Dunn, a 32-year-old disabled man, drowning in a pond and screaming for help. Rather than trying to save him or calling 911, they videotaped his struggles while mocking and laughing at him. When Dunn went under the water one last time, one youth can be heard saying, “Oh, he just died.” The teens laughed and then just left. They never reported the incident to the authorities, opting to post their grim video on social media instead. Dunn’s badly decomposed body wasn’t discovered until three days later. While the general public widely applauded the actions of the bystanders who saved the family off the Panama City Beach, condemnation of the teenagers was just as widespread. The condemnation included calls for their arrests. But did the teens commit a crime? Because there’s no general duty to rescue someone enshrined in Florida’s statutes, there isn’t any crime ..."
The fossil fuel addiction has been fostered by an unaware civilization that has a Stockholm Syndrome approach to the perpetrator Oil-Qaeda (Oil-Qaeda: The Indictment, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
